Is Contemporary Liberalism Creating a Soulless Monoculture?

I was once called a “cracker” by a member of the Nation of Islam. It was in the mid-1980s and I was driving through Washington, D.C., in the kind of neighborhood that conservatives call dangerous and liberals call “transitioning.” I saw a member of the Nation of Islam, bow tie and all, on the corner hawking copies of The Final Call, the NOI’s newspaper. I rolled down the window and asked for a copy.

That’s when he hit me with it: “F*ck off, cracker.”

I thought of this gentleman fondly when I was reading the new book, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies by Polish scholar Ryszard Legutko. The book is an intense read that argues that liberal democracies are succumbing to a utopian ideal where individuality and eccentricity might eventually be banned. As liberals push us towards a monoculture where there is no dissent, no gender, and no conflict, the unique and the great will eventually cease to exist. No more offbeat weirdoes, eccentric crazies, or cults. No more Nation of Islam there to call me a cracker. No more of the self-made and inspired figures of the past: Duke Ellington, Hunter Thompson, Annie Leibowitz.

Legutko’s thesis is that liberal democracies have something in common with communism: the sense that time is inexorably moving towards a kind of human utopia, and that progressive bureaucrats must make sure it succeeds. Legutko first observed this after the fall of communism. Thinking that communist bureaucrats would have difficulty adjusting to Western democracy, he was surprised when the former Marxists smoothly adapted—indeed, thrived—in a system of liberal democracy. It was the hard-core anti-communists who couldn’t quite fit into the new system. They were unable to untether themselves from their faith, culture, and traditions.

Both communism and liberal democracy call for people to become New Men by jettisoning their old faith, customs, arts, literature, and traditions. Thus a Polish anti-communist goes from being told by communists that he has to abandon his old concepts of faith and family to become a member of the larger State, only to come to America after the fall of the Berlin Wall and be told he has to forego those same beliefs for the sake of the sexual revolution and the bureaucratic welfare state. Both systems believe that societies are moving towards a certain ideal state, and to stand against that is to violate not just the law but human happiness itself. Legutko compares the two:

“Societies—as the supporters of the two regimes are never tired of repeating—are not only changing and developing according to a linear pattern but also improving, and the most convincing evidence of the improvement, they add, is the rise of communism and liberal democracy. And even if a society does not become better at each stage and in each place, it should continue improving given the inherent human desire to which both regimes claim those found the most satisfactory response.”

Legutko argues that, of course, there are huge differences between communism and liberal democracy—liberal democracy is obviously a system that allows for greater freedom. He appreciates that in a free society people are able to enjoy the arts, books, and pop culture that they want. Our medical system is superior. We don’t suffer from famines. Yet Legutko argues that with so much freedom has come a kind of flattening of taste and the hard work of creating original art.

We’ve witnessed the a slow and steady debasement of our politics and popular culture—see, for example, those “man on the street” interviews where Americans can’t name who won the Revolutionary War. Enter the unelected bureaucrats who appoint themselves to steer the ship; in other words, we’re liberals and we’re here to help. Inspired by the idea that to be against them is to be “on the wrong wide of history,” both communism and contemporary liberalism demand absolute submission to the progressive plan. All resistance, no matter how grounded in genuine belief or natural law, must be quashed.

Thus in America came the monochromatic washing of a country that once could boast not only crazies like Scientologists and Louis Farrakhan, but creative and unusual icons like Norman Mailer, Georgia O’Keefe, Baptists, Hindus, dry counties, John Courtney Murray, Christian bakers, orthodox Jews, accents, and punk rockers. The eccentric and the oddball, as well as the truly great, are increasingly less able to thrive. As Legutko observes, we have a monoculture filled with people whose “loutish manners and coarse language did not have their origin in communism, but, as many found astonishing, in the patterns, or rather anti-patterns that developed in Western liberal democracies.” The revolution didn’t devour its children; progressive-minded bureaucrats did.

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

newsletter-signup
  • PeterAS

    You have made a very valid point about the kind of deadening effect of a culture based on a presumption of the knowledge of the direction of history and of the expertise required to bring us there. I want to read Legutko’s book. However, I think this thesis could be applied to any totalizing system that strives to create an interlocking political/economic/cultural system all pointed towards the same aspiration. Could it just be a question of who grabs the reins of power and runs the show? Could it be a question of the degree of certainty in the ultimate ends of history? If the U.S. used to be better at accommodating oddballs and troublemakers could it just be that we used to have places like California to run to?
    I refer to our dominant system as the great neo-liberal consensus, perhaps closer to classic liberalism. Its bible is The Economist and its high holy place Davos, Switzerland. I know people who like The Economist. I find it to be a grey blob of utilitarian mush – a good place to look for a job running a global banking consortium. This is the world of diversity as a Benneton ad – different ethnicities, genders and, of course, sexual orientations – all with the same smile, spouting the same slogans, each one having polished their individuality down to a shiny personal “brand.”

  • gbear

    Harrison Bergeron.

  • COLRET

    Come to Oklahoma–we’ll be “Okies” forever!

  • equsnarnd

    As I have maintained for years: “The heart of a Progressive beats to the tune of authoritarianism.”

  • Bandit

    Look at Reddit for 2 minutes and ask if this is even a question. All in to the hive

  • Andrew X

    I have said for ages – I genuinely want to find a real, true-blue, to the core communist, and ask them one question: “If you are truly correct and we reach the end you seek, don’t you think it would unfathomably, stultifyingly, insufferably, and suicide-inducingly BORING BORING BORING existence imaginable?”

  • Carl Eric Scott

    More on Legutko’s book and perspective at NRO’s Postmodern Conservative: http://www.nationalreview.com/postmodern-conservative/438746/what-dissident-notices-quarter-century-after-communism#comments I’d also recommend an older book, Equality by Default: An Essay on Modernity as Confinement, by Phillppe Beneton. And if you don’t need more books, there’s always the songs of Blur, such as “The Universal.”

  • Dave M.

    Don’t worry, the Nation of Islam will still exist in the monoculture.

  • David

    Diversity, but only the approved version of diversity. Freedom to do all the things approved by the bureaucracy. Reactionaries need not apply.
    It is already enforced by that guy from the local, state and federal government, who shows up at your business in a polo shirt, khaki trousers and wants to know all about your storm water plan, your EEO plan (if you sell to the government), and on and on. If you have more that 50 employees, all sorts of friendly government interventions take place.
    They’re here to help, and you will like it.

  • amoose1959

    Yes we here are all aware of the fallacies of egalitarianism, but are we able to handle having poor people, are we able to handle having dumb people, are we able to handle having evil people, are we able to handle failure and most of all are we able to handle war?

  • a6z

    What makes you think, Mr. Judge, that the Nation of Islam won’t be part of the governing coalition, grinding other people and groups into dust and blood?

  • Greg

    It is the emphasis on individuality that set the stage for the dire situation we’re in now. A lot of good observations are made in the article but I think I somewhat disagree about the role that individuality is playing. “[The Demon in Democracy] is an intense read that argues that liberal democracies are succumbing to a utopian ideal where individuality and eccentricity might eventually be banned.” I think this is only partly true. Clearly we have an issue of excessive morality and opinion policing in our society and this creates a situation where whichever people are still allowed to be widely visible and listened to start to seem like copies of each other. But social cohesion (as long as it is a type that differs from the aforementioned type) is something that also terrifies liberals. And some of the people you mentioned (i.e. Hindus) are able to preserve their beautiful culture because of social cohesion, not hyper-individualism. A small amount of individualism may be healthy, but not the amount that has been continuously supported by so-called conservatives in America (which are really conservative liberals) for decades now. Right-liberalism is still liberalism. Its purveyors are usually not nearly as annoying on a personal level as the purveyors of the in-your-face progressive liberalism we’re dealing with in the West today, but its policies are ones that allow this progressive liberalism to take hold. The chaos that’s taking place in our society right now is the Enlightenment chickens coming home to roost.

    French philosopher Alain de Benoist wrote, “Just as there is no spirit that is not incarnated, there is no individual that is not situated in a determined socio-historical context. Membership in humanity is thus never immediate, but mediated: one belongs to it only through the intermediary of a particular collectivity or a given culture. It is impossible for man to define himself simply as an individual because he necessarily lives in a community, where he is connected to values, norms, shared meanings, and because the totality of these relations, these practices — in a word, everything that constitutes his living environment and surrounds his being, is not superimposed but, on the contrary, constitutive of his self.”

    • equsnarnd

      Spoken like an academic enamored with words to the point of giving them magical status while being disdainful of experience.

      • Greg

        It is my experience that brought me to this point. We can talk all we want about how amazing our liberal values are here in the West but they matter less and less in reality as our lands fill up with people who don’t believe in these values and in many cases have disdain for them. American conservatism hasn’t been conserving anything of value for a while. When people say Trump is betraying [American] conservatism it is almost always a compliment to Trump even though the speaker usually doesn’t mean it as one.

        • equsnarnd

          Well, I certainly agree with you about that. But I think you need to be careful in your use of the term ‘liberal.’ Classical Liberalism is worth fighting for. Today’s ‘liberalism’ is worth fighting against as it is better termed Progressivism and that is a term invented in the early part of the 20th century to hide and obfuscate the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson both were authoritarian collectivists. Of course, given a 100 years to metastasize and you have today in Obama and the Left, as bad as you had in FDR. These are crypto-fascists who are desperate to control language use, hence PC, in order to cover up and hide what they are doing, which is an assault on Liberty itself, a la George Soros, a true out and out Fascist who turned in his own people to the Nazi’s and asked, ‘What difference does it make?’

          • Greg

            George Soros is a globalist liberal, thus his extreme hatred towards the alternative being presented by Putin and the Russian role on the world stage. So many visible modern leftists in the West have social positions and behaviors that are utterly insufferable but that doesn’t mean there aren’t also still people with economic outlooks that would be considered leftist but with social mores that would put them on the right.

            Classical liberalism itself has downsides. There is this blind faith in the free market among its adherents that I don’t share and don’t quite understand. I’d like to see a conservatism that is based more in humanity than in insuring the the total freedom and expansion of markets at all costs, including the destruction of local economies and labor forces.

          • equsnarnd

            “There is this blind faith in the free market among its adherents that I don’t share and don’t quite understand. I’d like to see a conservatism that is based more in humanity than in insuring the the total freedom and expansion of markets at all costs, including the destruction of local economies and labor forces.”

            This is really a poor analysis and takes you down all sorts of dead ends. There is no such thing as ‘blind faith’ by economists who understand the necessity and value of freedom applied to economic matters.

            There is reasoned confidence and arguments made against the people who think that every problem deserves an authoritarian solution.

            Freedom is the sort of thing that comes without guarantees and for those that want a guarantee it just won’t do but asking for a guarantee is off on the wrong foot to begin with.

            The analysis should never be based on guaranteed outcomes.

            Not possible under any circumstance and authoritarian government simply gives an illusion of control but it can guarantee nothing.

            We have ‘faith’ if you like that word, or confidence, which I prefer, that on the whole, freedom is a better solution to the fundamentals of society. That goes with rule of law and the understanding that freedom is constrained by every other individuals same freedom.

            There is no guarantee that people won’t die of stupidity or accidents or misfortune and there shouldn’t be. The stupid attempt to guarantee 100% of anything results in amazing mischief.

            There is a recognition that some humans will fail under freedom and will present tragic cases and what is needed is the moral stamina that allows for that in recognition of the utter damage caused by the use of coercion in the attempt to guarantee 100% success of all humans. Utterly and profoundly a stupid enterprise which, more often than not, leads to what Mencken said about such things: “The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.”

            Attempting to understand globalism and all its flaws by a simple analysis of lost jobs is a doomed enterprise. We want globalism in the sense that we want markets outside of the US for US companies. We want trade with all and don’t want the government attempting to pick winners and losers or forcing anyone to march to the tune of some self-professed moral expert who thinks he knows the form that society should take. That is a recipe for disaster.

            Freedom allows for one of the most important aspects of life: Dynamism. It creates an anti-fragile system, a system capable of responding to externalizes which allows for fluidity and flexibility. Laws cast things in concrete and prevent movement. There are some areas where this is fine. But not in economic matters. The solution to the problem of lost wages and lost jobs is more freedom, not less. We need to make America a business friendly place and not one of multitudes of asinine regulation in the idiotic notion that every problem requires a law. We need a tax and regulatory regime that is friendly to prosperity, not one that sucks the life out of trade.

            You just have no idea how bad the regulatory regime is to the formation of capital and small businesses and how that impacts everyone’s life. Most people don’t. We need an absolute moratorium on all laws and a review of every law in the Federal Register and a thinning of regulations to wipe out duplication and laws that are inimical to enterprise and serve little to no purpose and a reexamination of all the laws in terms of a ‘cost benefit analysis.’ Laws are passed by Congress like money spent by drunken sailors on shore leave for the first time in six months. Laws are passed without regard to how the impact the business climate, to how they impact all the laws already in existence, with no cost benefit analysis as though a law passed was taken as an automatic ‘good.’ Utterly stupid and naive.

            And we are suffering for it.

          • Greg

            There’s no denying that liberalism benefits a certain segment of society. And I’m not arguing that every single person deserves success. Some people – like violent criminals or people in debt who buy sports cars – have earned their spot on the bottom rung. But the amount of people suffering in this country right now has a high percentage of people that do not fall into those groups. We have people losing their jobs (which in many cases they trained for) to people living in a borderline third world location. The long term effects of these trends will be terrible. It already is terrible for many people. It will be terrible our country’s ability to compete on the world stage, not just for the aforementioned people who are already directly affected. It annihilates our organic communities and it pollutes and colonizes foreign nations with the worst aspects of corporate America. And if the liberals’ answer to the problems of those already directly affected is always some Kevin Williamson-esque remark about packing up their lives and leaving their homes behind then than they should just come right out and say that they do not care whatsoever about any sense of community or culture that might still have a chance of surviving in this country.

            “You just have no idea how bad the regulatory regime is to the formation of capital and small businesses and how that impacts everyone’s life.”

            A ton of learned people, including many pro-Trump folks like Viktor Orbán, would disagree with that stance in the strongest possible terms. See his speech from July 2014:

            http://budapestbeacon.com/public-policy/full-text-of-viktor-orbans-speech-at-baile-tusnad-tusnadfurdo-of-26-july-2014/10592

          • equsnarnd

            I have listened to many of Viktor Orban’s speeches and must confess I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that they would disagree that a ‘particular’ regulatory scheme is damaging. Are you and they saying the laws surrounding business have no impact on the ability to conduct business? Really?
            And I would argue that everyone deserves to succeed and that deserving to succeed is based on simply being a human being but that that fact obligates no one to guarantee another’s success. To argue that it does is to argue for slavery.

            “But the amount of people suffering in this country right now has a high percentage of people that do not fall into those groups. ”
            Yes, and that is basically due to interference from government doing what it shouldn’t and malfeasance from government not doing what it should.

            One of the things about business that is critical is that businesses fail and that failure is a ‘good.’ An individuals need to accept that they will, if they are active and trying, fail at some ventures. They need to accept that that failure is part of life and not someone’s fault and that they need to prepare for it, they need to budget for it, they need to expend their own energy to see that when they fail they don’t collapse. The idea that someone should get a job at company “A” and have that guaranteed is both absurd and immoral as for that to happen requires someone be coerced by government force. That is thoroughly immoral. People have come to believe that the government is an agency to ward off the exigencies of life because politicians have preached that bullshit as a way to gain power but they are wrong. And the argument is immoral.

            And empirical examples of that abound all over the planet and throughout time. Only the very ignorant think there is some magic by which they can off load the responsibility for their own life on to others without negative consequences.

          • Greg

            “I have listened to many of Viktor Orban’s speeches and must confess I have no idea what you’re talking about when you say that they would disagree that a ‘particular’ regulatory scheme is damaging. Are you and they saying the laws surrounding business have no impact on the ability to conduct business? Really?”

            No that is not what I’m saying. And of course I know not all of our government’s regulations have been positive. I’m just tired of so-called conservative circles not opening up to the idea that pro-TPP, pro-mass immigration, pro-US Imperialism “conservatives” might actually be the root of many of our problems. Excerpt from the Orbán speech:

            “…the defining aspect of today’s world can be articulated as a race to figure out a way of organizing communities, a state that is most capable of making a nation competitive. This is why, Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, a trending topic in thinking is understanding systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, maybe not even democracies, and yet making nations successful. Today, the stars of international analyses are Singapore, China, India, Turkey, Russia. And I believe that our political community rightly anticipated this challenge. And if we think back on what we did in the last four years, and what we are going to do in the following four years, then it really can be interpreted from this angle. We are searching for (and we are doing our best to find, ways of parting with Western European dogmas, making ourselves independent from them) the form of organizing a community, that is capable of making us competitive in this great world-race.

            “Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen
            In order to be able to do this in 2010, and especially these days, we needed to courageously state a sentence, a sentence that, similar to the ones enumerated here, was considered to be a sacrilege in the liberal world order. We needed to state that a democracy is not necessarily liberal. Just because something is not liberal, it still can be a democracy. Moreover, it could be and needed to be expressed, that probably societies founded upon the principle of the liberal way to organize a state will not be able to sustain their world-competitiveness in the following years, and more likely they will suffer a setback, unless they will be able to substantially reform themselves.

            “Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen
            As the matter stands, if we look at the surrounding events from here, we can consider three ways to organize a state that we so far knew, as a starting point: the nation state, the liberal state and then the welfare state, and the question is, what is coming up next? The Hungarian answer is that the era of a workfare state could be next, we want to organize a workfare state, that – as I previously mentioned – will undertake the odium of expressing that in character it is not of a liberal nature. What all this exactly means, Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we have to abandon liberal methods and principles of organizing a society, as well as the liberal way to look at the world. I will only mention two dimensions of this — I do not want to get into a longer lecture here — and I only want to touch on them, so that the importance of the matter could be sensed. When it comes to a relationship between two human beings, the fundamental view of the liberal way of organizing a society holds that we are free to do anything that does not violate another person’s freedom. The twenty years of Hungarian environment preceding 2010 was founded on this theoretical, conceptual starting point. It accepted a principle that is otherwise a general principle in Western Europe. In Hungary however, it took us twenty years to be able to articulate the problem, that this idea, besides being very attractive on an intellectual level, yet it is not clear, who is going to say at what point my freedom is violated. And as this does not come without understanding, then it has to be fixed and determined by someone. And as nobody was appointed to decide this, therefore everyday life experience suggested to us that it was the stronger party who decided this. We constantly felt that the weaker were stepped upon. It was not some kind of an abstract principle of fairness that decided upon conflicts originating from a recognition of mutual freedoms, but what happened is that the stronger party was always right: the stronger neighbor told you where your car entrance is. It was always the stronger party, the bank, that dictated how much interest you pay on your mortgage, changing it as they liked over time. I could enumerate the examples that was the continuous life experience of vulnerable, weak families that had smaller economic protection than others during the last twenty years. Our suggestion for that, and we will try to build the Hungarian state on this, is that it should not be the organizing principle of Hungarian society. We can’t pass a law for this. These are principles that you are free to do anything that does not violate another’s freedom. Instead the principle should be do not do to others what you would not do to yourself. And we will attempt to found the world we can call the Hungarian society on this theoretical principle, in political thinking, education, in the way we ourselves behave, in our own examples.

            “If we put this idea in the dimension of the relationship of the individual and the community, so far we were talking about the relationship between two individuals, then we will see that in the past twenty years the established Hungarian liberal democracy could not achieve a number of objectives. I made a short list of what it was not capable of. Liberal democracy was not capable of openly declaring, or even obliging, governments with constitutional power to declare that they should serve national interests. Moreover, it even questioned the existence of national interests. I did not oblige subsequent governments to recognize that Hungarian diaspora around the world belongs to our nation and to try and make this sense of belonging stronger with their work. Liberal democracy, the liberal Hungarian state did not protect public wealth. Although now we are hearing about the opposite, as if some acquisitions – I will get back to that, as the Hungarian state recently even bought a bank – and the interpretation of such acquisitions is that the Hungarian state could acquire such pieces of wealth, that surpasses behavior accepted in Europe, whereas if we look at – for example the recent Financial Times list of how big the proportion of public property in individual countries is, then we can see that Hungary could be found at the very-very-very end of the list. Every other country – no counting maybe two – has higher proportion of public property than Hungary has. So we can safely state that in Hungary liberal democracy was incapable of protecting public property that is essential in sustaining a nation, even compared to other countries. Then, the liberal Hungarian state did not protect the country from indebtedness. And – and here I mostly mean the system of foreign exchange loans – it failed to protect families from bonded labor. Consequently, the interpretation of 2010 election results, especially in the light of 2014 election success, can acceptably be that in the great world race that is a race to come up with the most competitive way of organizing state and society, Hungarian voters expect from their leaders to figure out, forge and work out a new form of state-organization that will make the community of Hungarians competitive once again after the era of liberal state and liberal democracy, one that will of course still respect values of Christianity, freedom and human rights. Those duties and values that I enumerated should be fulfilled and be respected.

            “Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen,
            Consequently, what is happening today in Hungary can be interpreted as an attempt of the respective political leadership to harmonize relationship between the interests and achievement of individuals – that needs to be acknowledged – with interests and achievements of the community, and the nation. Meaning, that Hungarian nation is not a simple sum of individuals, but a community that needs to be organized, strengthened and developed, and in this sense, the new state that we are building is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not deny foundational values of liberalism, as freedom, etc.. But it does not make this ideology a central element of state organization, but applies a specific, national, particular approach in its stead.”

          • equsnarnd

            Ok, someone here is very confused. I like Orban and I read the speech you referred to. I fail to see how it applies to this statement which is what you were directing the speech to. You quoted me and then remarked on what I had said. To wit:

            My statement:

            “You just have no idea how bad the regulatory regime is to the
            formation of capital and small businesses and how that impacts
            everyone’s life.”

            And your response:

            “A ton of learned people, including many pro-Trump folks like Viktor Orbán, would disagree with that stance in the strongest possible terms.”

            Now that I’ve read Orban’s speech I fail to see the connection between it and your notion that it indicates Orban and others would disagree with what I said. I directed my comment to the regulatory regime in DC, which is hideously bad. I didn’t indicate that all regulation was bad, as regulation is another word for law and not all law is bad but some laws are terrible and much, for example, of the regulations emanating from the EPA are asinine and damaging. I saw nothing in the Orban speech to contradict that.

            What am I missing?

          • Greg

            I admit I didn’t treat your comment about “the regulatory regime” in a sense that was specific to the US government and I can’t get into Orbán’s head to know exactly how he feels about every regulation put forth by the US government. But if you really read that speech (especially the excerpts in my previous post) and actually think he’s on the same page as you on liberalism and individualism you’re just making things up. Also from that speech:

            “The US president says that if a hardworking American constantly has to choose between career and family, that America will lose its place in the world economy. Or the President openly speaks about economic patriotism. He says such sentences that would still earn beating and stoning in today’s provincial Hungarian public life. For example, he openly speaks about how companies employing foreigners should pay their fair share in taxes. Or he openly speaks about how companies employing Americans should be supported before anyone else. These are all voices,
            ideas and sentences that would have been unimaginable six or eight years earlier.”

            I’m no fan of Obama for many reasons, I imagine Orbán feels similarly overall, and again I don’t know how Orbán feels about every regulation put forth by the current US administration but the rest of the speech (esp. the aforementioned excerpt from my previous post) doesn’t seem to suggest he wants to preserve an atmosphere in Hungary that gets figurative stoning of people for uttering ideas on economic patriotism that is rooted in the concerns and interests of the country’s workers. He says,

            “As the matter stands, if we look at the surrounding events from here, we can consider three ways to organize a state that we so far knew, as a starting point: the nation state, the liberal state and then the welfare state, and the question is, what is coming up next? The Hungarian answer is that the era of a workfare state could be next, we want to organize a workfare state, that – as I previously mentioned – will undertake the odium of expressing that in character it is not of a liberal nature. What all this exactly means, Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen, is that we have to abandon liberal methods and principles of organizing a society, as well as the liberal way to look at the world.”

  • Wood_DK

    What is similar in both communism and liberalism is that they are based on the idea of deconstructivism. Seven days week were changed in the name of communism in Sovjet – and seven days week are changed (or sundays off work are changed) in liberalism. The deconstruction changes all values – all basic ideas – and there the similarities go ckise in the two views of the world.

    • What you say is totally anachronistic. Deconstruction gets its cues from liberalism and communism.

  • Oh, and there’s so much more to this book’s argument. You can glean some of it here:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/cosmostheinlost/2016/07/28/demons-of-liberal-democracy-haunt-poland-after-the-hell-of-communism/

  • Ace

    What’s creative about Hindus, dry counties, accents, orthodox Jews, and punk rockers?

    • random_observer_2011

      Fair point. Arguably nothing. Although it’s not my taste, perhaps punk rockers deserve the label.

      Better than ‘creativity’ would be, dread term, ‘diversity’. Normally I’m not a fan of making either the guiding principle of society. Few people are really creative, and i wouldn’t want one of those sci-fi societies in which everything is engineered so everybody has to spend their lives making art or music or some such. Similarly, diversity as a goal is generally more destructive than not.

      Bit if diversity is an organic thing that society has to manage, it can have many virtues. Even if not creative. John Derbyshire [I don’t know if he’s a welcome citation here- I’m new to this site following a link from him though] long ago praised something he called the “old weird America”. He was citing someone else who used the phrase.

      I guess there are plenty of ways the old America was less Diverse than now. But it was plenty diverse in ways that had not been legislated in advance. And it was probably more diverse in social and political opinion and cultural taste.

      Perhaps Mr. Judge’s comments allude to that kind of America as well.

      • Ace

        I think the old America was plenty diverse. Religious heterogeneity was and is through the roof. I like original and honest thinkers and that has nothing to do with ethnic background outside of Western nations.

        Enforced submission to the importation of any wildly inappropriate race and culture is what is sold as “diversity.” It really means suicide and has nothing to do with salutary differences of experience and viewpoint within the Western context. Diversity and multiculturalism is nothing more than a war on whites and the civilization we built. Period. End of story.