Australian front groups have been working to promote the idea that the Greens make many cultural identities less safe. Zionists are incorporating Hindu and Iranian figures, depicting a fake “threat.”
Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon are tracking the Zionist disinformation strategies that have been at work in the Australian local, state and federal political information space recently.
In this information project, any speech act or protest supporting peace and rights for Palestinians is depicted as an “antisemitic” threat that frightens Jewish people. The Greens are being tarred with the accusation that they pose a threat to many multicultural identities, not just Jewish. This of course distorts the fact that the Greens are the strongest party voice against prejudice in Australian politics – which includes opposing Zionist prejudice against Palestinians as well as antisemitism.
Protest is a speech act and must be protected – particularly when it is directed against matters as urgent as the climate catastrophe and genocide.
The project being carried out by the front groups investigated by Bacon and Aharon functions to foster anti Muslim sentiment. That work is inherent to the current shape of the transnational Right. Demonising Muslims is not new: in 2010, then Liberal Party MP Scott Morrison proposed targeting Muslims for political gain. His colleagues attempted to shame him for the divisive suggestion, but in the years since, that tactic has become mainstream for the political and media Right in Australia as well as abroad.
Morrison’s role flags the importance of Christian Zionists to this mission.(1) It is difficult to tease out the primary motivation. One role is to help Australia’s “conservative” politicians win elections. It is also potentially to keep out the Greens (and independents known as “teals”) to prevent genuine climate action, since the Labor Party appears to be constrained by state capture. The focus on Israel might be for Jewish Zionist interests or as part of the Christian Nationalist project aiming to control Australian politics. The Never Again is Now body speaks to that last motivation.
Advance – which was so active against the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament and then committed over the last few months to destroying the Greens and “teal” independents – has been shown to have personnel links with Atlas Network partners in Australia. Advance has also received funding from the Liberal Party through the party’s Cormack Foundation.
Maurice Newman, who has a long track record of action around Atlas Network partners in Australia, was a Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) member from 1976. (The MPS is described as the functional steering committee of the Atlas Network and one of its major roles in recent years has been promoting climate denial.) Newman was also listed in 2014 as one of Australia’s 12 “most influential” climate deniers who used his time as ABC chairman to skew the coverage of the science. Newman was an “early driver” of Advance. In March this year, Newman described pro-Palestinian encampments on university campuses as one sign that “ideology” (rather than a moral compass) is taking over and stated, “We might as well be in communist China.”
Some Atlas Network partners have a history of promoting intervention in the Middle East, with the American Enterprise Institute’s neocons probably being the most influential in promoting “regime change” from within the White House. The Heritage Foundation claims to be no longer affiliated with the Atlas Network after decades of acting as one of its major partners. It too is engaging strongly in culture wars over purported antisemitism with Project Esther. As Axios observed, the project was as much about crushing Americans’ ability to protest. Jewish commentators also fear that the mechanism will cause blowback against Jewish Americans. As a part of the Christian Nationalist project, Esther’s strategy has been summarised as “a sweeping program of surveillance, propaganda, deportation, and criminalization.”
David Adler was a “founding board member and advisor” of Advance. He is best known as having founded the extreme Australian Jewish Association, a “private advocacy group” mimicking a peak body. Adler has spoken on rightwing media against doctors being vocal on the substantial threat that the climate crisis poses to health as leftist posturing. He disdainsclimate science as comparable to “gender issues.” Adler has recently stepped down as AJA “president.”
The degree to which Adler is a fringe figure in Jewish Australian opinion is conveyed by rejections such as:
“Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council national chairman Mark Leibler, a prominent Indigenous rights activist who co-chaired the Referendum Council, said that due to the AJA’s “misleading name”, it is very important for people within the Jewish community, but also people outside the Jewish community, to “understand that this organisation and this person, they do not speak for us”.
“They do not communicate what, in any sense of the term, can be regarded as Jewish values,” Leibler said.
“Some of the things that Adler has said are frankly nothing short of horrific.”
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Peter Wertheim said Adler’s comments “are wrong, offensive and bigoted, and indicate that he lacks the same sensitivity to other forms of racism that he has for antisemitism”.
“These comments do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the mainstream Jewish community in Australia. They are contrary to Jewish values, and the teaching ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to others’,” Wertheim said.
“Despite its misleadingly generic name, the Australian Jewish Association is a private group led by a small number of unelected people promoting marginal, ideologically-blinkered views. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has been the peak, representative body of the Australian Jewish community since 1944.”
Given that none of the older peak bodies have been what might be described as particularly supportive of justice for Palestinians (leading to the formation of the progressive Jewish Council of Australia to fight for both Jewish and Palestinian safety), this condemnation speaks to the fringe nature of the AJA’s politics.
Bacon and Aharon have been tracking down several Zionist front groups. Better Australia began as Better Councils where the “Israel lobby,” as Bacon termed it, appeared to be attempting to disrupt and influence Sydney council elections. The pair have found connections with Liberal Party affiliates such as Alex Polson who owns Better’s ABN. He is a Liberal Party member and previously worked for Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham. Bacon and Aharon have also investigated the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC) which appeared to be a reasonably significant player in the 2024 Queensland state election.
The Minority Impact Coalition (MIC) is a creation of the QJC. Alex McKinnon has reported some of the extremity of that body’s social media posts. The Australian depicted the group as a grassroots immigrant movement against Labor and the Greens.
Bacon and Aharon have tracked down loose connections of various kinds between Advance with the Zionist-affiliated groups. QJC accepted help from Advance. QJC’s MIC has claimed very limited connection with Advance. Better may have had early plans to work in cooperation with Advance. Bacon and Aharon have noted that Advance or AJA boost the social media posts of these micro bodies, creating the only occasions when their posts achieve traction. This suggests some degree of cooperation.
In her reporting on the Queensland election campaign, Bacon illustrates a graphic from the AJA that was used to advertise a webinar to introduce its members to Advance. That same image was later used on QJC billboards as well as on the MIC’s website.
The image features three individuals targeting the Greens as a “divisive hate group” for the represented ethnicities or cultural identities. One of the three is posed as representing a “Jewish Queenslander” who doesn’t feel safe in her own cities because of Greens repeating “slogans of the terrorists that wish [her] dead.”
The other two represent an identity coalition that the QJC (alone?) was forging in a “multicultural impact network meeting.”
The second individual is a “Hindu Queenslander” who is quoted on the graphic as asserting “The Greens glorify those that terrorise us. They make me scared for the future.”
This is not an outlier. The shared work of linking Muslims with terrorism is central to the Hindutva nationalist project, just as it is to Israel. Prime Minister Modi, for example, declared that both Israel and India face a shared threat from “radical Islam.”
The recent attack in Kashmir has led to calls to use the “Israel model” in Kashmir with suggestions that both Kashmir and Pakistan should be “flattened” like Gaza.
There is no inference made that the woman pictured supports Hindutva ideology.
It appears the Hindu Council of Australia (HCA) had a speaker at the QJC event in June 2024. The HCA may have no interest in the religio-ethnonationalist Hindutva ideology. It is noteworthy, however, that the HCA site hosts a post suggesting that an attempt to tackle Hindutva extremism is actually about “dismantling Hinduism” and an attempt to spread fear mongering against Hindus.
The MIC site claims to have the group Hindus of Australia as an endorsing body. That link is backed up by an Indian-Australian news site, which depicts MIC as protecting Australia from “imported hate.” In the aftermath of the election, the Hindus of Australia X account reposted a QJC post, with additional comment that the Greens had brought “degeneracy” to “Australian political and social lives.” It also made the strange claim that the Greens had “put targets on the backs of Australian Jewish and Hindu communities so that the terror and criminal elements now consider our communities soft targets.”
Modi and his party have a long history of targeting Muslims, including Modi campaigning on the fear of being outbred by Muslims at the last election.
Israel and India are bonded over these parallels.
The third individual on the AJA graphic represents Iranians. A speaker at the event is reported to have represented the Iranian Novin Party (INP). Hesam Orujee, a member of the INP, is featured on the AJA Facebook page as a member of the QJC.
The Iran Novin Party is “Pahlavist.” That is, they support the Pahlavi family to replace the Iranian Islamist regime. The QJC site claims that the Greens “support the Iranian regime’s terror proxies.” This is, of course, nonsense. (The MIC site also targets Labor for not attacking these groups’ issues aggressively enough.)
The Iranian monarchist community is connected to the NatCon religio-ethnonationalist project. The last conference in Washington (where JD Vance was soft launched at the final dinner just before being announced as Trump’s running partner) featured Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Iranian monarchists are reportedly working with Israel in their efforts to overthrow the regime and reinstall their Shah.
It is also reported that the Iranian MEK has funnelled Saudi money into the creation of the Spanish Far Right Vox party that is militantly Islamophobic as well as socially ultra-conservative.
The J-United group from Melbourne is on record as being backed by Advance in its targeting of Greens candidates. Australian Jewish News described J-United’s political campaign as having “received support from diverse community groups including Iranian, Hindu and Christian organisations.”
Letters were circulated in the electorate of Goldstein shortly before the election last weekend falsely accusing climate independent (“teal”) Zoe Daniel of being antisemitic in conspiracist terms. It is not known which individual or group circulated the anonymous letters.
Daniel’s Liberal Party rival was affiliated with the Atlas Network partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society the last time the list was leaked. Tim Wilson’s most significant moment with the international Atlas Network-connected activity was breaking Australia’s carbon price mechanism. In recognition of this, his IPA team was shortlisted for the Atlas Network’s most prestigious global prize.
Advance and the AJA have several reasons for welcoming losses of Greens seats in parliament. For the former, this signals fewer politicians to defend climate action and social justice. The AJA rejects politicians supporting a peaceful resolution for Palestine. The work of the front groups suggests both groups to be loosely part of the NatCon project that aims to unite Christian Nationalists, Israeli Jewish Nationalists and Hindu Nationalists against Muslims, against modernity and against climate action. The Iranian monarchists’ role in that coalition is noteworthy.
The Australian Right is more strongly represented in the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’s (ARC) version of NatCon messaging.
Tony Abbott was an advisor to Advance. Abbott is a Distinguished Fellow at the IPA and is also on the ARC Advisory Board alongside several other past and serving Australian politicians.(2) ARC co-founder John Anderson AO has posted this disturbing interview about Israel and Islam with Douglas Murray, another board member, on his YouTube channel.(3) ARC is a strongly climate denial project, loosely promoting NatCon ideology. NatCon ideology is backed by the Edmund Burke Foundation which has important Zionist connections.
The fact that Advance is so closely connected with a Zionist group such as the AJA, which real Jewish peak bodies depict as “marginal” and “ideologically blinkered,” not to mention expressing “horrific” views, is an important feature.
It is natural that immigrant and other minority groups will hold opinions on ways nations they are affiliated with could be better. It is also to be expected that some fringe elements will hold views that incorporate prejudice.
Australia’s multicultural project is, however, a precious and vulnerable experiment. It is reckless to allow strategists to undermine it for political goals. The Australian majority was revealed in this election to reject divisive culture war games: we cannot ignore the inherent Islamophobia that is core to the religio-ethnonationalist NatCon ideology. It is even more dangerous when bodies founded to foster dis- and misinformation bring together those fringe elements of our multicultural communities, promoting the demonisation of one category of Australian citizen.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Please let me know if you think I’ve phrased anything in an insensitive way. That was not my intent.
Thanks Lucy
I see that Mark Dreyfus (Jewish) and Ed Husic (Muslim) have been dropped from the Albanese Front Bench which, whilst it is being reported as a factional issue I would like to think that these two personable and effective former ministers (Attorney General and Industry Minister respectively) could be brought together in a new ministry – perhaps Social Equity or some such and devote their talents to bringing together Australia’s religious factions……………..Just a thought !
Thanks, Lucy, for another timely and pertinent essay regarding the existence and activities of the fringe extremists and zealots whose destined missions, it seems, are to advance their causes whatever the cost to the homogeneity of the Australian cultural landscape.
re. Morrison, let it not be forgotten that he entered politics by virtue of demonising a Lebanese Australian, Michael Towke, who had won preselection for the seat of Cook. He (Morrison) insinuated Muslim ties and thus suspicious aspects of murkiness and evil, successfully implanting these insidious falsehoods at the outset of his political career; the rest is history, as it’s said… the worst prime minister since Federation, a rotten individual, flawed to the deepest levels of his being.
Lucy has referred here to NatCon, as she has in several earlier articles, and warned of their activities, for good reason.
But not everything that comes out of NatCon is to be feared.
The NatCon get together in 2023 gave a platform for the economist Philip Pilkington, that he used to present an astonishing critique of the contradictions and fatal flaws of capitalism.
He got a round of applause from the true conservatives in the audience when he explained that capitalism will die if substantial incentives are not provided by governments for couples to raise children, but I doubt that he will get a repeat invitation.
And Lucy, I noted with some pleasure that he used the term “liberalism” as I use it.
That is, correctly. 🙂
“The Cultural Impact of Liberal Capitalism”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99-PqYWP79c
Thanks Lucy. Another enlightenment to add to my list of cautions.
Bravo Lucy Hamilton, as always! But why isn’t this on Australia’s mainstream media?
Good as always though one is very wary of the generic Zionist* labels when we are surrounded by white Christian nationalist agitprop in media and politics, that cynically uses Orwellian double speak or double talk (*plus a Kremlin cold war conspiracy & dog whistle towards Israel).
That Tanton Network has one of its most cynical and nasty types in the Trump regime, MAGA far right and of Jewish heritage** Stephen ‘Goebbels’ Miller who is an ally of Israel and Russia, while his Tanton mob dog whistles Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Catholics etc.
Along with the aforementioned confusion, one does not preclude Mossad or similar running (amateur) astroturf grass roots campaigns, with indirect help of NewsCorp to keep it runing in desperation to spring Muslim perps to denigrate centre and left as complicit?
Many of Jewish heritage, especially those in Israel, are Zionist, but many are not and/or despise the regime, while having empathy for Palestinians. 80k Israelis emigrated from Israel in 2024, and many prospective immigrants in the diaspora, have issues with the Israeli regime.
Outcome, who prevailed after October 7, neither Gazan nor Israeli citizens, but corrupt authoritarians including Netanyahu, Putin and Trump?
On Husic and Dreyfus, grubbybNSW ALP right, reminiscent of Bob ‘Malthus’ Carr being parachuted into the role of Foreign Minister at the expense of the more capable Stephen Smith; while Dreyfus lost his wife and was attacked by both ‘Zionists’, anti-semites and RW MSM. Husic should be able to slot into eg. Committee roles, then be ‘repaid’, while Dreyfus could follow Smith as UK HC or similar like Cormann at OECD; Dreyfus presumably has a grounding in a couple of European languages.
**Around WWI while in Berlin, Magda later Goebbels, befriended Lisa Arlosoroff and later became intimate with her brother Haim, an ardent Zionist. During her relationship with Haim, she briefly wore a Star of David he had given her and accompanied him to Jewish youth club meetings.
I’m interested that Steve Davis has accepted NatCon’s spin. It is pro worker in the same way that Scott Morrison wearing hi vis is pro worker. Hint: it’s not. It is an aspect of their anti-immigrant rhetoric. The same neofeudal destruction of the citizenry’s living standards continues within the project.
Also, Steve. There are other ways to use liberal as I keep saying: https://www.routledge.com/The-Political-Theory-of-Liberal-Socialism/McManus/p/book/9781032647234?srsltid=AfmBOoo3kGVR8ou6yhH2vEMMi31oQBqjmkhk-UdiH12EZYvMKREyv_oJ
Noel – I read your piece. That is a fascinating integration of the nuclear weapon aspect into the discussion.
Thanks – Andrew. I’d just been adding Tanton to a longer version of this essay on Substack. I’ll look back through your points for bits I’ve missed.
I’ve accepted NatCon’s spin?
Lucy, please.
Pilkington states that capitalism is the best of all possible systems.
Does this sound like someone I would agree with unconditionally?
Whose spin I’ve accepted?
Come on now.
What I said was that not everything that comes out of NatCon is to be feared.
It appears that many in the audience on this occasion were old-style conservatives, as shown by the applause for Pilkington’s call for State intervention. This supports the point I’ve made several times that the Right is not a monolith.
The old-style conservatives are not to be feared.
It’s the ultra-liberals that are a danger, and the extreme right-wing that their policies have given birth to.
Before he began his critique of capitalism, Pilkington praised it by using statistics on calorie consumption under capitalism compared to that under feudalism. But as an apologist for capitalism he overlooked a far more important statistic — the zero daily consumption of calories by those who died at the capitalist hand.
You said “The same neofeudal destruction of the citizenry’s living standards continues within the (NatCon) project”
But the destruction of living standards has been going on for decades.
It is an outcome of ultra-liberalism. It is not an outcome of right-wing extremism as you suggest.
You stated in the comments to your previous article that you are still working out your position on the political spectrum.
I supported that as being a sign of strength, not weakness. But it’s strength has an end point.
With your significant output you are trying to make a difference, so you cannot dilly-dally forever.
If you want to make a real difference, nail your colours to the mast.
While we are speaking of your political position, if you watched the video, Pilkington’s quote from Marx should have struck a chord.
“Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life”
But Marx also noted earlier in the Manifesto, that liberalism “wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”.
Did that resonate with you?
It should have.
Because you have on several occasions in the past been strongly dismissive of tradition.
In other words, you have supported the destruction of traditional values and structures that we have seen take place under liberalism.
This is a distinguishing feature of liberalism.
Perhaps you don’t have to look further to determine your political position.
And I would not opt for the “liberal socialism” described in the link you gave.
That label only has credibility if the word “liberal” is used in the sense of “progressive” or something similar.
In economic/political thought socialism cannot be liberal, because liberalism is all about the right, protected by law, to unlimited property accumulation.
These people wonder why they can’t get traction!
They will never get traction when they use the language of the oppressing class.
The author is from the US so we should not be surprised by the confusion.
Steve:
Please define and specify the “traditional values” you think are so important.
leefe, how about the right to protest, for starters.
The UK anti-terrorism Act is in effect an anti-protest act that looks like something from a dystopia novel.
The UN has presented a devastating critique of the UK’s terrorism laws and their inappropriate use to stifle dissent and freedom of expression.
And you would never see a more liberal institution than Harvard University, yet students and faculty members there have been penalised for protesting the Gaza genocide.
And this all comes about because liberalism has only one ultimate aim, the aim that pushes all other claimed aspirations and virtues to the margins — the protection of the right to unlimited, unfettered, accumulation of property.
So continue clinging to a sentimental and supportive view of liberalism if you wish, but keep in mind that when push comes to shove the liberal order will not support you.
Steve:
No more vague obfuscations or deflections. All the specific “traditional values” you think society needs.
ps: What’s “traditional” about the right to protest, given how protests against authority have been dealt with throughout history? Which specific time in our past does a “value” have to come from for you to deem it “traditional”?
pps: See, part of my problem with your position is that I don’t know what it specifically is, or exactly how your ideal society would be organised and administered, what it would look like, what freedoms individuals would have and which they would not. I’d like a clear explanation of that – and in your own words, not repeated references to read this, that or t’other writer.
ppps: Correlation does not equal causation. No institution is purely any one thing, and not everything a broadly liberal institution is or does will align with liberal values (regardless of which interpretation of the word you use and no, don’t bother leading off into another redundant lecture on semantics). Not that I would call Harvard liberal, but that’s a completely different discussion.
Aah leefe, we’ve been through this a dozen times before, but despite being unable to refute my positions (yes, plural, because it’s a complex matter) you insist on revisiting this over and over.
If you want to refresh your memory you could go to
https://theaimn.com/illiberalism-the-dunkley-by-election-and-the-cost-of-doing-business/
As for my ideal society that you ask about for the umpteenth time, my answer yet again, is that an ideal society should be anything its members want it to be.
Rigidity or conformity or homogeneity should not be a consideration.
Why do you keep asking that question?
Accept my answer or refute it.
anything its members want it to be
Which part of that society decides, and how? How do they enforce their decisions? What happens to dissenters? Have you considered that maybe our society is the way it is because that’s what its members want it to be?
This is why I’m asking for specifics. Too many things you’ve said seem contradictory to me.
Rigidity or conformity or homogeneity should not be a consideration.
Yet you’ve been waffling on about ‘traditional values”, but don’t say what those values are. Emphasising “tradition” tends to enforce conformity and, thus, rigidity and homogeneity.
And this is particularly obvious in a post from the thread you linked to, where you’re defending elements of Orban’s christonationalism.
This is what I mean by “vague obfuscations”. There’s no detail on how all this is supposed to ooperate, or the widescale impact.
ps: Another thing I have problems with is your insistence that being liberal on personal matters must disconnect the individual from society and must inevitably lead to economic neoliberalism. And I simply don’t agree. People are capable of separating the two … at least, I am and that means it’s well within the grasp of our species; the existence of (usually flawed) social democracies also shows that. The problem is when capitalism and the lust for gain are allowed to override other considerations.
leefe — “Have you considered that maybe our society is the way it is because that’s what its members want it to be?”
Have you ever been asked if you want to be part of a society that condemns millions to lifelong hardship by providing development loans that are conditional on the debtor country being opened for exploitation by foreign corporations, and conditional on eliminating social service programs?
I didn’t think so.
Have you ever been asked if you want to be part of a society that willingly and at great expense becomes an integral part of an insane battle for nuclear armaments supremacy at a time when homelessness is rife and a thousand social programs are in need of funding?
I didn’t think so.
The fact that you even posed such a question shows the extent to which you are conditioned by liberal propaganda.
It shows that you are contented.
It shows that even though you might express concern, or even outrage over a tragedy such as Gaza, deep down you want no significant disturbance to a lifestyle that is dependent on such tragedies.
Just as you benefit from development loans that condemn millions to poverty, so also you benefit from the Gaza genocide.
Come to grips with that.
When you see what a system does; that is its purpose.
The system is evil because that is its purpose.
And you want to argue over trivial details.
Your final sentence was The problem is when capitalism and the lust for gain are allowed to override other considerations.
So you do understand after all.
The first questions you asked are not relevant.
The question that must be addressed is What is the source of the evil that dominates global events?
I’ve argued elsewhere that the evil is to be found in our system of trade and finance.
We allowed the development of a system that encourages predators, and wonder why we have problems.
Therein lies the answer to all your concerns.
And there we go – you don’t have answers you’re prepared to give, so you say my questions are not relevant. What. A. Surprise.
Consider the possibility that I’d find your argument more convincing if you answered the questions I ask rather than brushing them off so cavalierly.
The fact that you even posed such a question shows the extent to which you are conditioned by liberal propaganda.
No, it shows that I find gaps and inconsistencies in your argument and I’m trying to sort them out. I didn’t say that this is the society that I want, I asked whether you had considered that maybe it is what a lot of people – perhaps even most people – want. Or, at least, the nearest approximation to it they think is achievable.
And that comments thread you linked to is fascinating. You still assert that far-right extremism is not a danger? You really think that the current situation in USAnia is not dangerous for the whole world?
I’ve argued elsewhere that the evil is to be found in our system of trade and finance.
We allowed the development of a system that encourages predators, and wonder why we have problems.
Yes. The problem is capitalism, particularly when unchecked by appropriate regulation. Oligarchs. What’s happening in USAnia, in other words. The rise of christonationalism and its morphing in to outright fascism. We agree on that.
The main disagreement is the extent to which personal freedoms in personal matters has contributed to that, and whether that evoilution is inevitable. Oh, and the whole thing about the definition of “liberal”, but I’ve run out of spoons so can’t deal with the semantics today.
The rise of christonationalism and its morphing in to outright fascism. We agree on that.
The main disagreement is the extent to which personal freedoms in personal matters has contributed to that, and whether that evoilution is inevitable.
Where did I say that?
For those who are understandably confused about the discussion of the term “liberal”, the following might help.
From Wikipedia — “Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.”
That explains why liberal economics is, as described by economist Michael Roberts, the “economics of free trade and free markets”.
And from wiki — “Economic liberalism is a political ideology based on strong support for a market economy, private property in the means of production and opposition to government intervention in the economy, e.g. opposition to public ownership and opposing the regulation of industries.”
Pretty clear so far, but then it gets messy.
From Stanford Encyc. Of Philosophy — “Liberalism is more than one thing. On any close examination, it seems to fracture into a range of related but sometimes competing visions…
Liberal political theory, then, fractures over the conception of liberty. In practice, another crucial fault line concerns the moral status of private property and the market order.
For classical liberals — ‘old’ liberals — liberty and private property are intimately related. From the eighteenth century right up to today, classical liberals have insisted that an economic system based on private property is uniquely consistent with individual liberty, allowing each to live her life —including employing her labor and her capital — as she sees fit. Indeed, classical liberals and libertarians have often asserted that in some way liberty and property are really the same thing; it has been argued, for example, that all rights, including liberty rights, are forms of property; others have maintained that property is itself a form of freedom. A market order based on private property is thus seen as an embodiment of freedom.
What has come to be known as ‘new’, ‘revisionist’, ‘welfare state’, or perhaps best, ‘social justice’ liberalism, challenges this intimate connection between personal liberty and a private property based market order.
Three factors help explain the rise of this revisionist theory. First, the new liberalism arose in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the ability of a free market to sustain what Lord Beveridge called a ‘prosperous equilibrium’ was being questioned. Believing that a private property based market tended to be unstable, or could, as Keynes argued, get stuck in an equilibrium with high unemployment, new liberals came to doubt, initially in empirical grounds, that classical liberalism was an adequate foundation for a stable, free society. Here the second factor comes into play: just as the new liberals were losing faith in the market, their faith in government as a means of supervising economic life was increasing…
The third factor underlying the currency of the new liberalism was probably the most fundamental: a growing conviction that, so far from being ‘the guardian of every other right’, property rights foster an unjust inequality of power. They entrench a merely formal equality that in actual practice systematically fails to secure the kind of equal positive liberty that matters on the ground for the working class.”
Can you see from this, the mess that is liberalism?
We have “old liberals” and “new liberals”, and they are almost poles apart. Both politically and philosophically.
The “new liberals” (that Lucy seems to align with) are actually social democrats. Social democracy and the welfare state are bitterly opposed by the old liberals and are constantly attacked by them.
How could this have come about?
Why do a significant number of social democrats see themselves as liberals?
It’s the power of that word “liberal”.
It has hypnotic power.
An enslaving power.
Because every decent person on earth wants to be thought of as liberal.
But in the end, the old liberals are the true liberals.
They are true to the origins and history of liberalism.
They defend, they consolidate, they pursue and, importantly, they enforce the original aims of liberalism — property rights and the use of property to project power.
And their pursuit of those aims is utterly ruthless.
As we see in Gaza.
Steve, reference our discussion on the American Constitution &c, a quick note to advise that I wait upon receiving (from the US) a book on Thomas Paine.
I’m told that his ideas had a particular influence on pre-Constitutional America.
In due course I shall post on the other thread.
Cheers.
Julian, thanks for that.
From the little I know of Paine he articulated some great principles, but just a few days ago I read of some disturbing beliefs or attitudes that he had.
And of course I can’t remember where I stored it, or even if I did store it.
Time for a rummage.
Looking forward to your take on him.
Without wishing to spoil the party, but https://www.pdfdrive.to/top-thomas-paine-books furnishes many e-books on Thomas Paine at zero cost and immediate delivery.
Thanks C, excellent suggestion.
My book is apparently being sent by a distant relative so I am in a sense bound to patiently wait upon its arrival and then proceed with dutiful acknowledgments.
I’m tending to limit my exchanges with SD , because (as several have noted) the vociferous, non specific replies go no where .
But I’ve had a read of the exchanges here, and I note that Steve has again posted his non reply when dealing with the reasonable question- what does your alternate proposal/system look like?
In the absence of proposing an alternative, Steve’s analysis of the current system represents only vacuous, wordy whinging.
The “it will be whatever people want it to be” line, ignores the fact that the majority of people show support for a system that looks pretty much like the status quo, supported by a process of continuous (economic, political and policy) change/improvement.
AC has expressed concern that I have not been explicit in describing what I see as a reasonable alternative to the current global system of governance and trade.
This is wonderful to see, heartwarming in fact, because I’m flattered beyond words that AC is hungry for pearls of wisdom to fall from my lips. Or flow from my pen. Or cascade from my keyboard.
But I have to admit to a certain sense of failure.
Failure in that one who has followed my musings so closely has missed the main message.
A main message, in that this is a huge topic that I have attempted to address by coming at it from a number of angles.
There is no point in tackling a huge topic, (in this case a propaganda and global governance system that developed over centuries) by focusing on details.
After outlining the negative features of the global system, effective analysis has to go to the heart of the problem.
As I said above, The question that must be addressed is “What is the source of the evil that dominates global events?”
I’ve argued elsewhere that the evil is to be found in our system of trade and finance.
So it’s not difficult to see that if we reform our system of trade and finance to eliminate those features of it that encourage the evil of entrenched poverty and misery that so many others are forced to endure, then the details of the society of the future that have leefe and AC so concerned, become an irrelevant consideration.
The details will sort themselves out.
Societies and systems of governance will be whatever their people want them to be because there will be no hegemon imposing its will.
So yes, I admit to a certain failure in this, but as AC has rather grandly informed us in the past that “The sign of intelligence is being able to read widely and distilling this into an opinion that you’re capable of expressing in your own words”, I’m surprised that he was unable to see this through to its logical conclusion.
But then, perhaps I should not be surprised.
His comment above that “the majority of people show support for a system that looks pretty much like the status quo…” tells me that he too, has been thoroughly conditioned by liberal propaganda to ignore the evils of the system.
It’s such a vacuous cop out to-
° endlessly criticise our system of government, society and economics, without being able to clearly articulate/detail the alternative
°blame conditioning for the fact that the overwhelming majority of people seek iterative change, rather than accepting Steve’s assurance that something vague/ill defined (floating around in his mind) is a far better option
Steve always takes the view that he is better informed about the interests of the public, than are the members of the public
AC says “the overwhelming majority of people seek iterative change,…”
Cambridge Dictionary — iterative — adjective — doing something again and again, usually to improve it
Isn’t that the definition of insanity?
In an interview in China a few days ago, the economist Michael Hudson made this point about the evils of the system.
There is only one way for the United States to overcome this obstacle. (allowing oligarchs to manage the economy.) That is to change its economic system. But economic systems don’t change unless the population is able to empower a government that is strong enough to keep the financial sector from becoming a predatory exploiter of the economy at large. That would require either a new political party, or a revolution.
That is a reasonable reflection of the situation in the US.
With a Labor govt here, things are not quite so extreme, but still difficult.
We do not need a new political party, we do not need a revolution, but we do need a revolution in awareness.
Excellent research-based and enlightening article IMO.
It’s dedicated scholars like yourself who join the dots with sufficient supportive evidence to aid the rest of us in holding the line against the insidious forces of authoritarianism.
If democracy is a great work in progress, then you are one of the artisans committed to ensuring the foundations – like those of a great cathedral – remain rock solid.
Thank you again Lucy.
I stated in an earlier comment that the old liberals are the true liberals.
It deserves further explanation.
The statement should have been — the old liberals are the true political liberals.
It comes back to the hypnotic power of the word “liberal”, leading to widespread delusion. It can be be seen in this, from the Stanford article Liberalism, 3.2 Liberal Ethics. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/
That the good life is necessarily a freely chosen one in which a person develops his unique capacities as part of a plan of life, is probably the dominant liberal ethic of the past century.
We see in that quote the tacit assumption that such an aspiration can only be realised within a liberal order. That is not correct. Philosophers of socialism, communism, anarchism, and possibly every other “ism” have made the same claim for their causes, and quite possibly made the same assumption of exceptionalism for their particular cause.
I made the point here months ago that Nussbaum, a liberal, and Marx, described their view of the ideal aspirations for humanity in almost identical language to each other.
This is because once we move into higher levels of philosophical thought, political creeds are left behind.
The aspirations simply become human aspirations that are above politics.
Herein lies the error made by what Stanford describes as the “new liberals”.
The new liberals are liberal in the accepted sense of the word.
But the old liberals have deliberately and successfully hijacked the term, taken possession of it, distorted it for their own advantage, and by doing so, pulled off the greatest con trick in human history.
It has been so successful, so mind-numbing, that many of those who oppose the worst aspects of liberalism see no need to disentangle themselves from the snare.
Harold Pinter’s comment about the refusal of many to confront the awful reality of US foreign policy, is applicable to those liberals who have a heart, refusing to confront the awful reality of the ideology with which they are loosely aligned.
US policy, Pinter said, “is a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
As is the adoption and distortion of the liberal label by the predator class.
The “new liberals” have to accept what has happened, abandon the damaged brand, and start the process of creating their own narrative.
Because that’s all that economic/political liberalism is — a narrative.
A narrative that justifies plunder and brutality.
SD, stating the bleeding obvious here, but politicians, political scientists, hard-core capitalists and others wedded to the system aren’t scientists in the sense that they don’t abandon their positions and start anew when it becomes apparent that their policies and actions/behaviours aren’t actually working for a majority benefit. Fundamentally, they’re in it for themselves and their own personal gain.
Rhetorical question. Do they give a rat’s arse about the consequences of their behaviour? Do the so-called movers & shakers of the world care that the house is burning down around them?
As far as abandoning the damaged brand and creating a new narrative, wadr, good luck with that! Other social and political models exist and have been determinedly resisted by the champions of capitalistic free enterprise…net result… the planet’s going to hell in a handbasket, at an accelerating rate.
A clip of headlines from local online press websites
Koalas face death, attacks and starvation as blue gums chopped down in Victoria.
‘A horror movie’: sharks and octopuses among 200 species killed by toxic algae off South Australia.
Leaked document shows two threatened species could be wiped out at Middle Arm development site.
Inside Australia’s climate emergency: the dead sea.
Parched waterways, dead fish and trees ready to give up: historic big dry grips South Australia.
Toxic wildfire pollution infiltrates homes of 1bn people a year, study finds.
Exceptionally low river flows forecast across UK as drought threat grows.
Motorists abandon cars as ‘worst wildfire in decades’ rages near Jerusalem.
How ‘forever chemicals’ have seeped into almost everything.
And a shocking and tragic story from the so-called ‘pristine’ Norfolk Island On Norfolk Island, seabirds have become so full of plastic they crackle and crunch.
But hey… look over here… it’s a fashion show, it’s a new movie, it’s Trump’s latest outrage, it’s the reelection of the ALP, it’s Timmy Wilson having a meltdown, etc, etc., ad nauseum.
Hard to disagree with your final comment: … “economic/political liberalism is a narrative that justifies plunder and brutality.”
Kanga, many thanks for running fresh eyes over this.
You said “politicians, political scientists, hard-core capitalists and others wedded to the system aren’t scientists in the sense that they don’t abandon their positions and start anew when it becomes apparent that their policies and actions/behaviours aren’t actually working for a majority benefit. Fundamentally, they’re in it for themselves and their own personal gain.”
Absolutely, which is why I have great sympathy for the Chinese system, where the majority benefit is the minimum standard for all activity. Even if that standard is not adhered to in all cases, the fact that it exists makes a huge difference.
Your “others wedded to the system” includes economists, who have been equally at fault in this regard, but there are signs that this is slowly changing.
For example Philp Pilkington who I mentioned above, has a very realistic view of the failings of economics as taught and implemented, is very active, and is preaching not to the left-wing converted, but to the conservatives. His understanding of Marxian analysis is limited, and Roman Catholicism flavours his work occasionally, yet somehow his conclusions/criticisms are valid.
I think we can put that down to honesty and courage.
Honesty and courage are the missing elements in global discourse.
So the problem is not insurmountable.
Awareness is the key to change. If we can wake the sleeping giant that is the general population, change is possible.
You said “As far as abandoning the damaged brand and creating a new narrative, good luck with that! Other social and political models exist and have been determinedly resisted by the champions of capitalistic free enterprise…net result… the planet’s going to hell in a handbasket, at an accelerating rate.”
Again, you are absolutely spot on, but this is why I get frustrated with “new liberals”.
No matter how active they are, by not walking away from the damaged brand they are working for the damaged brand.
They are diverting attention away from the heart of the problem.
Yeah, go for it SD. I am inclined to agree.
The law of the land is utterly attached to sovereignty, and to that end it is stacked mostly upon the predilections of the state, top down, and as determined by the crawl of its history, and convenient to its perception of the frameworks needed for its endurance. But it invariably cannot keep apace in times of rapid rapid overarching change (like in globalization), and the views of all the folk.
If we stand back and view the laws and frameworks as if an alien, it may look at times as if it’s a teetering inverted pyramid, foundations not holding up … Could it be that the laws and conventions are an ass?. As it seems in America right now, with the opportunistic sovereign headed puppet T-Rump working for his string-pullers with an explosion of Executive Orders to nudge that inverted pyramid to their advantage – regardless, attacking the enforcers of law, and ignoring the judiciary. So much for the efficacy of the US Constitution (ridden with loopholes)- noblesse oblige.
Could it be mens rea or actus reus? Or maybe, short of anarchy, we all have little choice in moral complicity or immoral complicity, so in the main we abdicate responsibility in the hope that we might benefit from a supremo less than a despot.
I very much enjoyed reading the following extract from back in 1896 The Conception of Morality in Jurisprudence. Much to wrangle with.
Clakka, thanks for the link.
More reading to do!
I’ve been doing some digging into the New Right conservatives in the US (as they seem to be referred to now) and came across another political theorist with his heart and brain in the right place.
In about 2016 Patrick Deneen wrote Why Liberalism Failed, and since then has been active in trying to dismantle the liberal structure.
It turns out he comes from the same Roman Catholic background as Philip Pilkington, which puts some distance between them and the “prosperity Christians” who are so active. And so utterly devious.
Deneen is anti-free trade (as practised), pro-union, and advocates communitarianism, albeit with a religious flavour.
He’s very conservative on social issues, but I can live with that if he can help tear down the liberal framework.
I can live with it because I believe that many social issues will disappear with the end of liberalism. Yes, I have a rose-tinted-glasses view of the end of liberalism! 🙂
On Deneen, a case in point is an article he wrote in 2015 from a very socially conservative viewpoint, in which however, he said this — “To see the glee with which liberals joined forces with corporations revealed the deepest fact about the American ruling class: politicians and corporations will join forces to effect the change preferred by corporations, change that too often damages the working class and benefits society’s elites.”
This is encouraging stuff, but it could mean that he’s just a conservative with a heart. I’ll be more convinced of their value when I see Deneen and Pilkington calling for an end to the liberal financial system.
The Catholic link reminded me of Bob Santamaria, who was virulently anti-communist until the 1997 financial crisis, when he realised that the enemy of humanity was capitalism. But his damage had already been done.
I’m only going on memory here, but I’m sure Phil P can fill in the blanks.
The other link to Santamaria was that he also was a communitarian — his ideal social arrangement was a simple, semi-rural, mutual aid society. When you think about it, he had a lot in common with Marx. Or perhaps, Proudhon.
It’s just as you say Clakka — much to wrangle with.
For anyone to suggest that the ‘much to wrangle with’ is far too difficult, is a myth and propaganda generated by typical sovereignties and corporations under them (or more lately, jurisdiction-jumping mega-corporations) that have adopted cruel and exploitative imperialist models, from which there is no manumission. Across the globe, these models are failing, leading to economic and social collapse. So rather than sensibly repeal the model, the olde worlde exploiters (now neoliberals) are pressing harder against democracy and equity for all, via the fossil-fueler/christo-facist-backed networks such as Heritage, Atlas and Advance et al.
I have long been an admirer of the now globally reaching Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, originally out of Spain. This 2022 article in The New Yorker magazine ‘How Mondragon Became the World’s Largest Co-op’ sums them up pretty well. Albeit, more needed to have been said about their environmental ethos.
I note that since the article, the pay ratio for highest paid to lowest paid has gone from 6:1 to 9:1, but it was voted on by all and approved by the majority of worker-members, no doubt in recognition of the skills, experience and competence needed by those uppermost to wrangle the world’s complexities (not insignificant especially since the advent of T-Rump and also the grasping hold of the BigTechbros and the cross-owned networked jurisdiction-jumping mega-corps).
In my never-ending quest to help Lucy find a comfortable point on the political spectrum in which she can put down roots, I’ve just finished reading Unsustainable Liberalism by Patrick Deneen. 🙂
(That’s a joke Lucy!)
I’m just a little startled to find that his conservative analysis of the history and contradictions of liberalism is almost identical to that which I’ve outlined here over the last year or two. Startled, because the thought struck me — am I a closet conservative? (Another joke!)
I don’t agree with every thought, and a religious flavour is evident in a couple of passages, but justified in the context.
It’s well worth a read.
Here’s some interesting pieces.
Liberalism was a wager of titanic proportions, a wager that ancient norms of behavior could be abolished in the name of a new form of liberation and that the conquest of nature would supply the fuel that would permit near-infinite choices. The twin outcomes of this effort, the depletion of moral self-command and the depletion of material resources, make inevitable an inquiry into what comes after liberalism.
The creation of a world after liberalism would not require, as some might fear, the dismantling of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, nor the cessation of free markets. Instead, what would be required is a fundamental rethinking of how law and economics are understood and employed to undergird the liberal vision of society. Such a rethinking is by necessity taking place, in many ways.
Interesting that he distinguishes himself from “contemporary conservativism” with this;
Contemporary “conservatism” does not offer an answer to liberalism, because it is itself a species of liberalism. While the elders on the political right continue to rail against “environmentalists,” they fail to detect how deeply conservative (conservationist) is the impulse among the young who see clearly the limits of the consumptive economy and the ravages it bequeaths to their generation. What these elders have generally lacked is a recognition that one cannot revise one of liberalism’s main commitments, today characterized as “progressivism,” while ignoring the other, particularly economic liberalism. A different paradigm is needed, one that intimately connects the cultivation of self-limitation and self-governance among constitutive associations and communities with a general ethic of thrift, frugality, saving, hard work, stewardship, and care. So long as the dominant narrative of individual choice aimed at the satisfaction of appetite and consumption dominates in the personal or economic realms, the ethic of liberalism will continue to dominate our society. Interesting also, in that there he makes the point that I have tried to hammer home, that economic liberalism is a part of the liberal package — it cannot be ignored or separated out. If you run under the liberal banner, you run with liberal economics.
In reference to the future development of local mutual aid and interest groups, which I also support, he tends towards philosophical anarchism with the following.
A wide variety of local norms and beliefs should be permitted, within limits that would exclude egregious limits upon human liberty. These authoritative norm-shaping institutions and behaviors are the only credible mechanisms for advancing the substantial withering away of the state. These local norms and beliefs would afford a different experience of liberty, one about which liberalism has been silent, one that stresses self-governance and self-limitation achieved primarily through the cultivation of practices and virtues. Such a cultivation of ordered liberty would restrain the pursuit of libertine liberty, and restrain the tendency toward the expansion of state and market, which together increasingly undermine constitutive social institutions, thereby leaving the individual “free” to be shaped by popular culture and advertising, mostly aimed to encourage the appetites fed by the enticements of a globalized market.
All in all, a very worthwhile read.
https://firstthings.com/unsustainable-liberalism/
Wow, what a lot of comments.
Interesting comments from and around Steve Davis.
ABC news had a report on the 77th commenoration of Nakba (15/05/25). The newsreader gave a reasonably accurate description of how Gaza and Palestine have been ‘descended’ into a genocide and had their homeland stolen.
I couldn’t find the segment online but this by Al Jazeera is very similar:
‘What is Nakba Day and what does it commemorate? | Explainer’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0b-juU9t-w
What was interesting was that the ABC presenter was literally wringing his hands while reading the autocue. He looked like his world had just been upturned. Either he was discovering the truth of what the Zionists are up to, or he already knew but was required by management to make the facts public.
My question is: Is the official narrative about to change?
S. Davis mention the “notorious” Bartholomew Aloysius Santamaria, known as “Bob” to aussie him up a little, a mediaeval bonebrain, (but clever) who added some Italianish catholicism to older Irishisms which navigated some of ALP drives and policies. Once local communism enlarged by strengthened W W 2 success, by the USSR, clashes arose here. The DLP arose as a movement first, believing that our way of life was developed from business and “enterprise”, from “whiteness” basically, and Christian traditions, a vague but deep area of contention. Red menaces joined with emerging yellow ones. We would stand with our “great friend”, the USA. Great Australian hating fantasy… We would fight shoulder to shoulder. Eminent historian Russel Ward wrote that, long term, we earned the enmity of Asia and undermined long term security by opposing much of Asian renewed emerging nationalism. Bob Santamaria’s Movement has atrophied while live catholic activism has reduced. Much sillier and more worthless “christian right wing” types emerged.
Paul, thanks for your interest.
And Phil, I knew you’d come good on Aussie Bob Santamaria!
Talented in many ways, but he kept Labor out of power for decades, and all based on a misperception!
Thanks for reminding me of Russel Ward.
Now there was an historian worthy of the name.
His The Australian Legend is a classic.
S D., I was recalling Ward’s “Australia since the coming of man.” My luck was to complete a course under Ward, using his fine book you mentioned , (I can still picture him), gain a distinction (only one) and later go on to M A., at Syd Uni. under Prof. K Cable. I can also picture Santamaria on T V., a “Savonarola,” or more Groucho) Poor Doc. Evatt, and later, A. Calwell…
Phil, you studied under the great man?!
Crikey, it’s a small world.
I too remember Bob on TV, he had a little slot called Point of View that he apparently got free, from Frank Packer.
S D., there was a good team of keen experts, for an introductory course. Santamaria’s “show” was contrived as a prop for the D L P and to be anti-ALP. Mannix was still around, but quiet. On channel 7 we had “Talking Point”, probably the best panel discussion of its type ever here. The DLP eventually went quickly and quietly.
Santamaria is significant as godfather to the ALP right-faction; heavy on social conservatism and blame the victim. The more overt form, the DLP emerged from the McCarthyite Red smear waffle to cripple labor for a generation and more.
he is an exmaple of why people should not underestimate the destructiveness of people like Jacinta Price.
The Middle Ages- becoming a popular theme at this thread.
If Patrick Deneen and Philip Pilkington are typical of the “New Right” conservatives in the US, then a stand-out feature of the movement is their willingness to read widely, consider carefully, and not let their religious/conservative upbringing intrude into their analysis.
A great example of this can be found in an article Deneen wrote for the American Conservative in 2014.
His concluding passage was this —
Conservatives would do well to read some Christopher Lasch, who in the 1980s wrote a series of devastating critiques of the elite as those least likely to advance the cause of the working classes. An atheist Marxist early in his career, Lasch’s late work—especially his books The True and Only Heaven and The Revolt of the Elites—exposed the intellectual and financial elites for their irresponsibility and deep hostility toward the working classes. His fears that the society they envisioned—globalized libertinism—has come to pass, with these elites now reaping the advantages while the (unemployed) working poor “enjoy” the fruits of sexual liberation: the de-linking of individuals from robust and settled communities, the destruction of networks, cultures, and traditions that supported families and neighborhoods. He identified liberals especially for special and searing scorn, exposing their sentimental pity as a veneer that covered their main aim of outsourcing actual responsibility toward the less fortunate to a faceless, uncaring, distant and irresponsible government while they enjoyed the fruits of their outsized gains and organized license.
This is the kind of Marxism we need today. People who really want to work, make things, build families and communities and dig deep roots—Unite!
There’s hope for the world yet!
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/how-red-state-is-marx/
According to Yanis Varoufakis, the political structure in Europe, with its layers of authorities and bureaucracies, has become fascist in all but name.
He says we did not have to wait for fascism to arrive for the banning of the 2015 Greek referendum because Europe did not like the outcome.
For civil servants in Germany to be fired for failing to support genocide.
For Yanis himself to be banned from entering Germany, even via Zoom.
For the Romanian presidential elections to be cancelled because Europe’s “radicalised totalitarian centrists” (Brussels) did not like the outcome.
He says further, military keynesianism is now the policy of the “radicalised totalitarian centre”.
Yes, the same military keynesianism that established the industrial base of the Third Reich.
“We are at the end of a 40 year cycle of vicious class war against working people, and a new cycle of military keynesianism, weaponised uniphobia, totalitarianism within, and with techno-feudalism all around us.”
And we are worried about the Right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXJKE45eeNM
When we consider that very short list of crushed freedoms under liberal democracy, it seems clear that we have arrived at liberalism’s end point as described by Frank Zappa.
The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it’s profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.
The UK’s anti-terror legislation.
The brick wall at the back of the liberal theatre.
A koala stamp for Steve Davis, for being the first to quote Frank Zappa in these pages.
Here’s Zappa’s take on the USA at 6:14 minutes into the video.
I like koala stamps!
🙂 🙂
Elephant stamps are better- no Koala-bums.
We used to get honor-cards and merit cards also.
No doubt Zappa was right, the american brain worked better back then. I think he was channeling some Marcuse, who saw through the Vietnam nonsenses also.
It’s one thing to be worried about the rise of the extreme Right, but it’s important to be aware of the hyper-liberalism (neo-liberalism) that gave birth to it.
Back in 2013 Naked Capitalism published a series of three articles by Philip Pilkington titled The Rise of Neo-liberalism.
Pilkington focuses on Hayek as the main organiser, and presents a devastating critique of his work. Keep in mind as you read the following extract, that Hayek is still highly regarded in liberal circles . And influential.
Hayek became concerned with watery terms like “freedom” and “liberty”, which he then set out to impregnate with a meaning that would support his dreams. The most famous result of this period of conversion, which resembled less St. Paul on the road to Damascus and more so an alcoholic who had hit rock bottom, was Hayek’s 1944 work The Road to Serfdom. In a very real way it was this book that marked the close of Hayek’s career as a serious economic thinker and set him on the path of the political propagandist, agitator and organiser.
The over-arching argument of the book is well-known and need not be repeated too extensively here. Hayek thought that all totalitarianisms had their origins in forms of economic planning. Economic planning was the cause of totalitarianism for Hayek, rather than the being just a feature of it. Underneath it all this was a rather crude argument. One may as well make the observation that totalitarianism was often accompanied by arms build-up, therefore arms build-ups “cause” totalitarianism.
Just as liberalism produced a fragmented Hobbesian world, so also, if Pilkington is correct, Hayek’s fear of totalitarianism has produced what Varoufakis refers to as a “radicalised totalitarian centre”.
I’ve only just started reading Part 1, but I love this stuff.
I’m addicted.
Check it out here:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/philip-pilkington-the-origins-of-neoliberalism-part-i-hayeks-delusion.html