[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Three Glaring Examples Proving Snopes and the AP Have No Business Being Official 'Fact Checkers'

Has FreeRepublic been shut down

Philippine president slammed for calling God 'stupid'

Why We Canít Drive Faster

In Afghanistan, We Persist in Futility The simple fact is that the U.S. is not winning the war.

Harley-Davidson Will Shift Manufacturing Overseas To Avoid Tariffs

Red Hen's LGBT employees should have made sure Sarah Huckabee Sanders got served

'Old Man' from 'Pawn Stars' dead at 77

Trump: 'Dirty' restaurant that refused to serve Sanders 'needs a paint job'

Fake News With George Stephanopoulos ó The Detention Issue

RuPaul's Drag Race: Who should win season 10?

The Army Took Over the Spigots, Forcing Thirst y Venezuelans to Pay (Showing Marxism's Finest Hour)

Maxine Waters orders MORE public harassment of Trump aides: ĎGod is on OUR side!í

I'm back

Woman dubbed '#PermitPatty' appears to call cops on 8-year-old girl selling water in viral video

Freedomís Essential Hierarchy

DOJ gives Congress new classified documents on Russia probe

What Purpose Do Mosquitoes Serve?

Restaurant That Booted Sanders Closes the Next Night

The FR Griftathon Continues

Henry Kissingerís Kind Words About President Trump: Tactical Strategy Or Hope?

Citizenship Checkpoints Start to Spread Across The Constitution-Free Zone

Poof. There Goes the Mueller Investigation

Lawsuit Argues Honking Your Car Horn Is Protected By The First Amendment

Cops Break Into Innocent Manís Yard, Kill His Dog, Steal His Body, Then Urinate On His Fence

'I always do my best to treat people respectfully, including those I disagree with': Sarah Sanders slams owner of restaurant who kicked out her and seven members of her family because she 'works for the president'

Three FBI Cadets

Retrospective: UNBELIEVABLE OBAMA GAFFES, Mistakes, Lies, and Confusion (as worshipful MSM still drooled over their idiotic "genius" & "cool" Prez anyway)

Trump Valiantly Tried to Save America

John McAfee says he has been poisoned, and tells culprits: 'You will soon understand the true meaning of wrath'

The Prisoner (All 17 Episodes)

Huge Win for Everyone With a Cellphone (and for the Fourth Amendment) at the Supreme Court

The Best Places To Live In All 50 U.S. States

Mad Dog Mattis, the destroyer of Raqqa, frets about losing moral authority

What Kind of Country Are We?

Will Our Lack of Humanity Be the END of Humanity?

Hypocrisy

Evangelical Nevada Voters Back Trump-Praising Brothel Owner; 'I Want to Hurl,' CWA President Penny Nance Says

Time Magazine Corrects Cover Story on Crying Migrant Girl, Admits Family Was Never Separated

A mystery: Italy seizing migrant rescue ships, but who owns them? [Soros]

Tom Arnold says he's teaming up with Michael Cohen and 'taking Trump down'

Hoops legend Kevin McHale slammed for apparently attending Trump rally: ĎHe should never work in the NBA againí

David Hogg Reappears to Take Another Stab at Destroying Laura Ingrahamís Career

Justice Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch levy internet taxes

Bombs Away! US Airstrikes Every 12 Minutes?

VULGAR OPEN-BORDERS MEDIA-HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS-DEMOCRATS DECLARE TOTAL WAR ON AMERICA & TRUMP (**MSM DIVERSIONS CREATED TO STOP SCRUTINY OF 0BAMA COUP INVOLVEMENT**)

Anti-Trump media moves goal posts after executive order in 'shameful' display of bias

Bypassing Facebook on the dark web

Bannon, Salvini, And A Powerful Catholic Cardinal Are Gunning For Pope Francis

DOJ requests military lawyers to help prosecute immigration crimes: report


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Establishments war on Donald Trump
See other The Establishments war on Donald Trump Articles

Title: Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG s
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 24, 2018
Author: óDavid Brooks
Post Date: 2018-04-24 10:15:06 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 445
Comments: 48

Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG

“Epic and debate-shifting.” —David Brooks

With his trademark blend of political history, social science, economics, and pop culture, two-time NYT bestselling author, syndicated columnist, National Review senior editor, and American Enterprise Institute fellow Jonah Goldberg makes the timely case that America and other democracies are in peril as they lose the will to defend the values and institutions that sustain freedom and prosperity. Instead we are surrendering to populism, nationalism and other forms of tribalism.

Only once in the last 250,000 years have humans stumbled upon a way to lift ourselves out of the endless cycle of poverty, hunger, and war that defines most of history—in 18th century England when we accidentally discovered the miracle of liberal democratic capitalism.

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society: · Our rights come from God not from the government. · The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government. · The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls. · The fruits of our labors belong to us.

In the last few decades, these political virtues have been turned into vices. As we are increasingly taught to view our traditions as a system of oppression, exploitation and “white privilege,” the principles of liberty and the rule of law are under attack from left and right.

At a moment when authoritarianism, tribalism, identity politics, nationalism, and cults of personality are rotting our democracy from within, Goldberg exposes the West’s suicidal tendencies on both sides of the ideological aisle. For the West to survive, we must renew our sense of gratitude for what our civilization has given us and rediscover the ideals that led us out of the bloody muck of the past – or back to the muck we will go.

Suicide is painless, liberty takes work.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 36.

#9. To: tpaine (#0)

“Epic and debate-shifting.” —David Brooks

That alone should tell us this book is utterly worthless. One NeverTrumper sellout at the Slimes, praising another NeverTrumper sellout and his new Lefty-approved book.

Goldberg went to a lot of work to state the obvious and well-known in this tired screed. What isn't clear is that he has mustered any new arguments or facts into the national political conversation. And that conversation is largely mythical to begin with, given that the Left has no intention of ever debating issues on the merits. They can't afford to.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   8:30:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)

---- this book is utterly worthless.

Goldberg writes:----

"· Our rights come from God not from the government.

- The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.

· The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.

· The fruits of our labors belong to us. "

"As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society".

--- You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"...

Goldberg isn't criticizing Trump, he's attacking the progressive left. --- He's not a problem, but thinking like yours sure qualifies..

--- Please, get some help...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   10:32:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

--- You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"...

He's merely plagiarizing Edmund Burke, John Locke, and other classical Brit liberals.

That you seem to be so unaware of this indicates you aren't as well-read as you'd like for us to believe.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   11:18:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Tooconservative (#11)

He's merely plagiarizing Edmund Burke, John Locke, and other classical Brit liberals.

You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist????

Goldberg isn't criticizing Trump, he's attacking the progressive left, as his quoted words above prove, the words you ignore in your effort to do what???

What's your point? Why do you imagine Goldberg is an enemy of our Republic?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   11:41:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: tpaine (#12)

What's your point? Why do you imagine Goldberg is an enemy of our Republic?

Drama queen much?

I said no such thing. He wishes he was that important.

I think he wrote this book as his resume to try to get some gig with the Slimes or the Atlantic or some other lib outlet where he can be a well-paid, often-televised house conservative (i.e. porch monkey). A lot of the NeverTrumpers are trying to get such gigs now. Kevin Williamson, a similar writer at NRO and other venues, got hired and fired almost that fast at the Atlantic recently.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   12:15:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Tooconservative (#13)

You disagree, call his words worthless, -- and somehow in your mind Goldberg becomes "another NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist????

Drama queen much?

I said no such thing. He wishes he was that important.

I think he wrote this book as his resume to try to get some gig with the Slimes or the Atlantic or some other lib outlet where he can be a well-paid, often-televised house conservative (i.e. porch monkey). A lot of the NeverTrumpers are trying to get such gigs now.

Calling him a "NeverTrumper sellout"... --- And now a plagiarist, --- makes you the " Drama queen".

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

In fact, your whole 'conservative' stance since Trumps election has become very "NeverTrumper" weird. --- What's going on with you?

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   12:48:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: tpaine (#14)

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

His appearances on FNC are less than 10% of what they once were. Steven Hayes of Weekly Standard, another NeverTrumper, went from being a daily news panelist for well over a decade to making 1 or 2 shows per month and Bill Kristol is now never seen on FNC.

So the NeverTrumpers of NRO and Weekly Standard are rare on FNC because no one wants to hear from them. So now they are flacking themselves to any lib outlet that might put them on the payroll or help them get paid appearances on the libmedia news shows.

In fact, your whole 'conservative' stance since Trumps election has become very "NeverTrumper" weird. --- What's going on with you?

You get more querulous by the day. Nothing is going on with me. I just don't think much of Goldberg's latest book, no matter how hard you try to flack it for him.

These NeverTrumpers are all worried that they're gonna end up like Kevin Williamson. He sold out his editor/columnist gig at National Review and quit so he could work as the house Negro conservative at The Atlantic. He lasted there about 1 month when they railroaded him over tweets about abortion years back. Now KDW is the theater critic for The New Criterion. Like anyone has ever even heard of it. Good riddance to KDW, the man who described Trump's entry in the 2016 race as "Witless Ape Rides Escalator". And that was considered the height of wit and aplomb by the rest of the cocky NRO crew, now down on their luck as much as the benighted Weekly Standard. They all want out and none of them can get a cushy sinecure elsewhere.

So you can shove Jonah's little book right up your ass. Then you can enjoy it twice as much.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-04-26   13:26:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative (#15)

Goldberg has had a 'gig' on Fox for quite a while. -- Your imaginings that he needs others is just weird..

You get more querulous by the day. Nothing is going on with me. I just don't think much of Goldberg's latest book, no matter how hard you try to flack it for him. His appearances on FNC are less than 10% of what they once were. So you can shove Jonah's little book right up your ass. Then you can enjoy it twice as much.

I'm the querulous one? Gotta love your 'sticking it up the ass' bit.

I'm advocating his book because I think it's a true assessment of what's happening to America, --- due to progressive socialism.

Your effort to call that flacking is just one more example of YOUR own Trump hatred. -- Get out of the closet, and admit it...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-26   15:08:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#17)

We have principles, written in the Declaration, and in the Constitution, which guide our people on what our proper role should be in political life.

Do you have any idea why you're so against our having constitutional principles?

We were discussing the contention of specific content having been written into the Constitution.

The Constitution is law. The Declaration is merely a political statement, not law, and binding on nobody.

You demand specifics of the document, (which we probably agree on, given the style of the writing) --- while I want to discuss the principles behind our Constitution.

You asked me on another thread,

https://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=55578&Disp=17#C17

And, if you have time, I'd appreciate any comment on the thread:--- Suicide of the West HOW THE REBIRTH OF TRIBALISM, POPULISM, NATIONALISM, AND IDENTITY POLITICS IS DESTROYING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY By JONAH GOLDBERG ....

The Amazon article was for a book that had not yet been published, but which was available for pre-ordering. You attributed the "article" as "Author: —David Brooks." It was written by Amazon, for the product they were selling.

The Amazon review contains:

As Americans we are doubly blessed that those radical ideas were written into the Constitution, laying the groundwork for our uniquely prosperous society:

  • Our rights come from God not from the government.
  • The government belongs to us; we do not belong to the government.
  • The individual is sovereign. We are all captains of our own souls.
  • The fruits of our labors belong to us.

You pointed me to this fictional drivel for some unstated purpose. I asked where the cited radical ideas were written into the Constitution as claimed.

I understand why you want to change the topic of discussion to radical 18th century political philosphy that is not written into the Constitution, but I am not interested. I have addressed the actual review and its claims.

It's obvious to me, --- you don't agree with or want to discuss our Constitutional Principles regarding slavery and the rights of persons..

Why is that?

The only explanation is that you are delusional.

The Constitution on slavery is that it was lawful, and the Fugitive Slave Clause, U.S. Const., Art IV. Sec. 2, held that "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   0:45:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: nolu chan (#25)

It's obvious to me, --- you don't agree with or want to discuss our Constitutional Principles regarding slavery and the rights of persons.. Why is that?

The only explanation is that you are delusional. -- The Constitution on slavery is that it was lawful,

The Constitution doesn't even contain the word slavery. Persons held to 'service or labor' is the term used..

'Persons' is operative, seeing that person's are people, and people have rights acknowledged by our Constitution..

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Why you are so dogmatic in you defense of slavery remains a mystery..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-28   15:04:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine (#26)

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Oh, horseshit.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   16:33:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: nolu chan (#27)

Agreed, Persons being held to 'service or labor' was legal (before the 13th) but being held as slaves? ---- Unconstitutional, by the very principles within the Constitution..

Oh, horseshit. --- nolu chan

Gotta love your erudite opinion, oh great chan...

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-28   16:54:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: tpaine (#28)

Jefferson wrote the Declaration while tended to by his slave, Jupiter. At other times he was tended to by his slave Mary Hemings.

George Washington was a slave owner when inaugurated President of eleven states of America, and was a slave owner on the day he died.

Gotta love your fantasy-land bullshit.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-04-28   17:52:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan (#29)

Jefferson wrote the Declaration while tended to by his slave, Jupiter. At other times he was tended to by his slave Mary Hemings.

George Washington was a slave owner when inaugurated President of eleven states of America, and was a slave owner on the day he died.

Agreed, some of the founding fathers were conflicted about the practicalities of slavery. -- This does not change the facts:----

---- Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution..

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   10:08:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: tpaine (#30)

So when you define the constitution you use words and concepts that aren't in the Constitution such as human rights. While I agree you are morally right you're just constitutionally wrong.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-29   10:14:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#31) (Edited)

Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution..

The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

So when you define the constitution you use words and concepts that aren't in the Constitution such as human rights.

While I agree you are morally right you're just constitutionally wrong.

The words and concepts of human rights are in the Constitutions bill of rights.. Try understanding the concept embodied in the 9th amendment..

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   10:32:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: tpaine (#32)

Slavery was constitutional.

Human rights is not found in the constitution.

The Constitution isn't just your moral point of view.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-04-29   10:36:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: A K A Stone, tpaine, nolu chan (#33)

Slavery was constitutional.

Of course. Please tell mr. Chan that he is an outright liar about slavery or the preponderance of "indentured servants" that were imported to America during the 18th century.

buckeroo  posted on  2018-04-29   14:10:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: buckeroo (#34)

Persons being held to 'service or labor' was 'legal' (before the 13th). -- -- But persons being held as slaves? ---- This was unconstitutional, a violation of human rights, --- by the very principles within the Constitution.. ---- The founders were well aware of this dichotomy and wrote in provisions to end the 'peculiar institution' at a later date..

Of course. Please tell mr. Chan that he is an outright liar about slavery or the preponderance of "indentured servants" that were imported to America during the 18th century. --- Buck

Buck, why don't you try yourself? --- Maybe you can get thru Chan's denial..

tpaine  posted on  2018-04-29   15:49:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine (#35) (Edited)

I read the preface and the portion of the first chapter available on-line.

I see Goldberg's argument and I understand it.

I see that he sincerely believes what he has written to be true.

I see the key pivot points on which his argument depends, and it is at those joints that he and I are at greatest variance, not over philosophy at all, but over facts.

He rejects the Rousseauian "bon savage" - the "noble savage", and embraces a Hobbesian humanity.

I reject both Rousseau's and Hobbes' views of humanity as being factually wrong starting points. It isn't that things are much more "complex" or "nuanced". It is that they are simply different. Human nature and our past are neither that as postulated by Rousseau or as postulated by Hobbes.

He is a true believer in a certain secular theology, but he doesn't recognize it as such. He thinks he is just speaking the truth.

I'm not going to criticize him too harshly. What's the point in that? What I read was interesting and thought-provoking, but also frustrating. These seams and joints in his argument would need to be correctly set for his argument to be useful. They aren't, and they won't be.

If there is something you would like to discuss from just the preface and first chapter, available on line, we could do that. There's enough in there to have months of discussion.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-07   13:50:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 36.

#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36) (Edited)

I see the key pivot points on which his argument depends, and it is at those joints that he and I are at greatest variance, not over philosophy at all, but over facts.

He rejects the Rousseauian "bon savage" - the "noble savage", and embraces a Hobbesian humanity.

I reject both Rousseau's and Hobbes' views of humanity as being factually wrong starting points. It isn't that things are much more "complex" or "nuanced". It is that they are simply different. Human nature and our past are neither that as postulated by Rousseau or as postulated by Hobbes.

He is a true believer in a certain secular theology, but he doesn't recognize it as such. He thinks he is just speaking the truth.

This is from the Goldberg interview I posted above at #8 : ---

"--- our brains haven't changed very much in the last 10-, 11,000 years since the agricultural revolution. And so, this entire extended order of liberty and contracts and the monopoly on violence of the state--all of these things are really new.

They don't come to us naturally. We have to be taught them. We have to be civilized-- as a verb--into believing in these things. And this Economic Miracle--and so the Miracle is--and I was heavily influenced by Deirdre McCloskey; and I think she gets a lot right. We can talk about one of the things she might get wrong, later. But, you know, for, what is it, 7500 generations? For 200-, 300,000 years, the average human being everywhere in the world lived on average on about $3 a day. I think it's Todd Buchholz who says that man lived no better for most of man's existence he lived no better on two legs than he had on four. And, it is only when you get this radical change in ideas that comes from the bottom up- -what I call the Lockean Revolution, but I don't think Locke gets credit for it. He just simply sort of represents it.

For the first in all of human history basically in one place, this little corner of Europe, human prosperity, human wealth starts to explode. And that explosion radiates out around the world and is still doing so today. And that is a miracle. " ------

I see no reference to Hobbes in this, or in the first parts of his book. Why do you characterize him as Hobbesian? And what is this secular theology he supposedly holds?

tpaine  posted on  2018-05-07 16:46:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 36.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com