Is “Bad Faith”‘s Council for National Policy the Atlas Network’s half-brother?

41 Comments

1. Yes, Steve, I know.

2. The seed time of fascism goes way back, perhaps to the 1880’s in Europe, and personality disorders have much to do with the drives shown by some mentionmed here and many others in history. Perhaps there ave always been some with strong resentments about threats to their core pustular oersonalities. Old classmate Jack Howard seemed to develop a “fuhrer “personality” and magnified himself gloriously to avoid being, really, an insignicant limited wart. What made Ronald the eventual Reagan? Godlike assured success through scripts? We must read on, research, keep this, comprehend. Some of the warty willywobbling selfconstructed wonderboys here (boys!) are frightful.

3. Lucy, you almost seem to be jumping in in advance of comments from a certain person. 🙂

4. Lucy, Lucy, Lucy, I don’t like it when you read my mind!
   There’s no telling what you’ll find there! 🙂

   But I have only one small comment.

   Their secrecy might not be a strength.
   It shows that they have something to hide.
   And eventually, the light shines through.

5. as usual, Lucy, you are too smart for me.
   Atheists love watching xstians cowed into hypocrisy by their faith and are saddened that a nazi cannot exist without christ and the 3 fs faith fellowship and fear(4 when you add effing jews).
   Americophobes love the thoughts of havoc to be wreaked by trump and his cronies.
   As a possesor of both I can but sit back and enjoy the show, especially if they discover jew haters are not all muslim

6. Christian Nationalism!? Was that a typo? Shouldn’t it be Christian Narcissism?

7. Weyrich appointed Hungarian immigrant & Nazi Laszlo Pasztor as the RNC Republican National Committee’s ethnic outreach officer; according to Lee in ‘The Beast Reawakens’ 1997 (related includes how KGB then FSB didn’t just target the left or assist fellow travellers in Europe and the US, but also the far right).

   The tentacles of Koch and Tanton Network’s now cross over on US donors (see link to network map below from UniCorn Riot), social-Darwinism, Project2025 and Danube Inst. (partnered with Heritage Foundation behind Project2025) where Fox Board’s Abbott works.

   On the latter, not only are some of the Heritage Foundation senior people Opus Dei* (allegations in Oz of admiration by Abbott & Pell too), but Abbott has been around the ADF too; *see SCOTUS conservatives.

   https://unicornriot.ninja/2022/eugenics-border-wars-population-control-the-tanton-network/

8. From Andrew Smith’s linked article it’s clear that John Tanton’s promotion of eugenics is motivated by a desire for population control.
   An interest in population control is understandable given that we live in a world of finite resources. At some point, soon, or way off in the future, population control will become THE standout issue.
   But we have to ask why Tanton opted for eugenics.
   The answer is simple.

   He’s a liberal.
   And authoritarianism, knowing what’s best for others without consultation, is a feature of liberalism.

   Why go the way of eugenics when there’s a painless path to population control that has the added benefit of promoting general well-being and prosperity?

   It’s an accepted feature of demography that when social groups become more wealthy and secure, the birth rate of the group decreases. It was that process occurring within the British upper class that caused alarm and kick-started the study of eugenics in the first place.

   So, raise the living standards of the global population and birth rates will decrease. That is an absolutely achievable aim within the global resources presently available.
   So why is Tanton not pushing for that?

   The answer is simple.
   Because he’s a liberal.

9. S Davis is fundamentally wrong and misleading. Classic British Liberalism, our type and study, considers the Mills, Gladstone, Asquith, Grey, Morley, Russell, and USA divergence is irrelevant. Authoritarian? Not so, ever. (read work by J Salwyn Shapiro.)

10. Phil, brevity can be a virtue.
    But in your comment, brevity means almost unintelligible.
    I cannot reply to your criticism as I have no idea as to what you are getting at.

    I’ve treated readers with respect by going to quite some length and detail, over a period of many months, to explain my objections to liberalism.
    Please show me the same consideration.

11. That Christo-Fascist poison is suppurating right here in Australia. With Deadeyes Dutton’s hot and eager assistance.

12. Phil, you’ve been railing against Trump since forever, for good reason, but now come out in support of classical liberalism. Can you not see the problem here?
    For starters, it’s not classical liberalism that we’re dealing with.
    Classical liberalism has the same influence on current events as the CWA’s Complete Book of Scone Recipes — none at all.
    It’s liberal democracy that holds the whip at the moment, an entirely different beast altogether.

    You also overlook that Trump is a product of the liberal system. In fact, you could say that he is an inevitable outcome of liberal democracy.
    Do you wish to discuss this further?
    I do. Because it goes to a place that’s dark and murky.

    From The Guardian today — “An unelected billionaire (Musk) is running the US state through a shadow government without formal checks – the constitutional order, now, is largely window dressing.”
    Mussolini — “Fascism is more appropriately named corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
    As fascism is, in its clearest form, an alliance between government and business, the US is a fascist state.
    Does that seem extreme?

    Let’s go back in history a couple of years. Or three or four.
    When Liz the first was looking to extend English influence in Europe she considered an alliance with Ivan, the Russian tsar. His correspondence with Liz hinted that the two powers could divide continental power between them. She was attracted to the idea, but she was opposed by the English merchants who wanted trade with Russia, but also with Russia’s enemies. Ivan wrote an angry letter to Liz in 1570 saying that he thought she ruled her realm, but “now we perceive that there be other men that doe rule, and not men, but bowers (knaves?) and merchants , which seek not the wealth and honour of our majesties, but they seeke their own profitt of merchandize…”

    The alliance never went ahead.
    The merchants won.
    And so we see that the seeds of fascism were present in Britain in Elizabethan times, and perhaps earlier.

    That virus was present as liberal democracy slowly developed in Britain and spread its influence throughout the world due to Britain becoming the pre-eminent colonial and global power.
    It could also be argued that wherever the business sector becomes significantly influential, we see proto-fascism. (The label “fascist” does not imply militarism or brutality or ethnic discrimination. These are merely means to an end once the corporate sector achieves real power.)

    It’s not difficult to argue such a case.
    The interests of the business sector are not those of the state, or the people, although they may overlap on occasion.
    The interest of the business sector is business. Profit.
    As was approvingly said years ago, (Coolidge) “the chief business of the US is business.”
    Or to put it more crudely, “Stuff the people.”

    The US is a fascist state.
    Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
    He did not come from nowhere. He is an inevitability.

    As for your classical liberals, they were a bunch of nobodies who knew the potential for evil in the system they promoted, and did nothing substantial to offset that.

13. If Tanton is a liberal then I’m Bill Clinton.

    Steve Davis you are obsessed about ‘liberals’, but apply a RW Orwellian double speak or think prism, misrepresenting an article, while you never clearly define ‘liberal’?

    I’ll explain, Tanton and Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich at ZPG Zero Population Growth astroturfed and masqueraded as liberal and centrist environmentalists, while ZPG was Rockefeller Bros. (Exxon) acting as a foil to fossil fuel global warming and carbon emissions by blaming humanity.

    The dec. Tanton was a bona fide white Christian nationalist and follower of eugenics who was anti-semitic, Islamophobic, anti-Catholic, pro-abortion (guess for other types), muse of Bannon, Miller, Farage, alt right, Anglo migration policies and admired the white Australia policy, visited and hosted by SusPopAus.

    Media Matters US in ’22 found that via a friend, he influenced FoxNews editorial; & has his paw prints all over Anglosphere RW MSM talking points & policy on imigration; years ago he warned his people to keep away from KKK, neo-Nazis etc. (when Buckley of National Review was trying to expunge anti-semitism & bigotry from the GOP)

    Of course on the latter, his correspondence revealed that he requested and received a tour of deep south lynching sites….. very ‘liberal’?

    ProPublica has a recent article ‘The Ghosts of John Tanton’

    https://www.propublica.org/article/john-tanton-far-right-extremism-environmentalism-climate-change

14. Phil Pryor, “The seed time of fascism goes way back, perhaps to the 1880’s in Europe”

    I’ve mentioned this before, but the Fasces from which the term fascism is derived was Ancient Rome’s most sacred symbol. A bundle of slender rods tied around an axe, it was ceremonially carried by the Lictors, sacred officials of Rome, and signifies strength through unity. Each individual rod is easily snapped but when bound tightly together, the whole is unbreakable. It was famously captured by Spartacus during the Slave Revolt.

    Thousands of years later Mussolini wanted to emulate the ‘glories’ of Ancient Rome. He appropriated the term fascism and so gave fascism its bad reputation. Were it not for Mussolini and by association Hitler and his Nazis, the term fascism might today be proudly proclaimed by Trade Unions to promote solidarity. The fasces is after all the perfect symbol to represent the idea that the workers united will never be defeated. Now it is a victim of the corruption of language. A symbol of unity has now become a symbol of vile oppression.

    A variation of the fasces is a bundle of arrows. If Steve Davis would look carefully at the Eagle symbol of the Great Seal of the United States he might notice that there is a bundle of arrows clutched in the eagle’s talon. This was the Founding Fathers’ nod to Ancient Rome that is also reflected in the neoclassical architecture of official buildings in Washington DC, because yes, the US is indeed a fascist binding of states whose strength comes from unity. They even fought a bitter civil war, not over slavery as is commonly but mistakenly believed, but in order to preserve the Union, i.e. to preserve fascism.

15. Andrew Smith has claimed “you never clearly define liberal.”
    The reason for that has been explained several times. Such a definition is impossible, as shown by the Stanford entry on liberalism from which it is clear that liberalism is so slippery that it can be anything any liberal wants it to be at any point in time.

    Andrew has, as expected, pushed back against my assertion that John Tanton was a liberal. Let’s see.

    From the linked article — “This network is named after its creator, John Tanton, a retired Michigan ophthalmologist and birdwatcher by the time he discovered the spectre of overpopulation, courtesy of entomologist Paul R. Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb”

    So, no radical background, no activism, just a run-of-the-mill middle class retired professional. About as liberal as it gets. But that’s not the full story of course.
    “Tanton’s obsession was initially with overpopulation as a whole – he felt that there needed to simply be fewer people on the planet. He preached for efforts such as contraception and abortion (he and his wife Mary Lou were frequent donors to groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club) in order to bring progressives around to what he perceived as an overwhelming need for population control. As so often happens, however, Tanton quickly decided that only some populations might need controlling … ”

    And so we see the inevitable progression from a liberal view to an authoritarian view.
    Wikipedia explains — “Tanton’s anti-immigration rhetoric combined concerns about ecology and promotion of eugenics; he couched his promotion of these ideas in liberal concerns over sustainability. His views on immigration were influenced by climate and environmental concerns, arguing in the 1980s that climate change would have a major impact on America’s borders and lead to conflict.”

    Those are reasonable concerns, but, being a liberal, Tanton took the typical liberal path to looking for solutions. Instead of seeing the people of the world as having a shared future, instead of resolving potential conflicts, liberals, from Hobbes on, see others as threats and so engender the very outcomes they fear.

    Of course, as soon as Tanton began searching for allies in his quest for population control, he attracted support from extremists of all shades. And he got support from wealthy backers with an agenda. As Keating said, never stand between a liberal and a bucket of money. He became an extremist.

    The story of John Tanton is not just a story of an individual. It is a story of liberalism itself.
    It captures all the anxiety, all the irrational fear of other people bequeathed to liberals by Thomas Hobbes.
    It displays the smug complacency of those born with a head-start in life refusing to share their luck.
    It exemplifies the fear of the democratic hordes that was openly expressed by the property-owning founders of the US Constitution, as they limited the capacity of those who have nothing to engage effectively in the running of the country.
    It highlights liberalism’s lack of a philosophical foundation that is so necessary for the resolution of conflict, but more importantly, for the avoidance of conflict. Just look around at the world today, a world dominated by liberal democracies.
    And most important of all, the story of John Tanton is the story of the inevitable slide of liberalism into authoritarianism, and the merger of state and corporate power that follows.

    There are many good people who think of themselves as liberals because it has such a feel-good vibe to it, but who do not share these negative traits.
    They are mistaken.
    They are not liberals.
    They are humanitarians.
    Humanitarians and liberals are worlds apart.

16. Thanks to all for developing argument, definition, attitude, as we all learn.., and an older orthodox historian must keep up with change, continuity, subtleties. Best wishes as we open topics and “challenge”, but usually positively and with some yield.

17. Cheers Phil, much appreciated.

18. Andrew Smith has declined to challenge my explanation as to why John Tanton was a liberal.
    But interestingly, although I did not give him a definition of liberalism as requested, I gave a pretty detailed summary of the attitudes and operations of liberals that has also gone unchallenged.
    Does this mean that Andrew now accepts my position on this? That he has changed his view of liberalism but cannot quite bring himself to admit that publicly?
    It would be nice if that was so, but I’ll bet London to a brick that from Andrew and others we’ll see more sentimental nonsense about the virtues of liberalism and its distance from neoliberalism.

    Yet the link between the two is there for all to see. The link is even in the name, but the hypnotic pull of that “liberal” word is so powerful that the link is rarely acknowledged.
    But there’s another link to neoliberalism that has been unnoticed, and might never be acknowledged.

    Back at Lucy’s article “Corporatocracy”, Lucy in the comment section stated that neoliberalism “was about co-opting government for those who wanted to create monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies. So yes, I think that corporatocracy is what neoliberalism was established to create. The Chicago School and ultimately the Atlas Network were shaped to change the hegemonic beliefs away from Keynesian economics and liberalism towards an authoritarian/anti-democratic corporate-run world. The scope of the project over decades is mind-bogglingly determined and consistent.”

    That’s a fair enough summary, but it escaped my notice at the time, even though fascism was discussed at length, that this summary was not just a useful description of neoliberalism. It was a description of fascism. Because fascism is simply a merger between state and corporate power.

    I argued there that liberalism leads to fascism, but I missed the full picture. I think that it’s also reasonable to say that neoliberalism is a form of fascism.
    The implications of that are pretty horrific.

    If true, we are living in a fascist state operating in a fascist system.
    That sounds extreme, but if we accept that neoliberalism has taken charge, (and a series of articles here take that as a given) then anyone disputing the link to fascism has to show that neoliberalism is not fascism.

    Let’s take a look at what fascism and neoliberalism have in common.
    Both involve a merger between state and corporate power.
    Both involve diminishing the influence of the union movement.
    Both make use of nationalism as a tool to ensure social unity and compliance.
    Both mistrust and undermine international institutions.
    Both opt for militaristic solutions to foreign policy problems.
    Both limit dissent by way of jail terms, and worse.
    Need I go on?

    Of course it’s not quite that simple.
    As neoliberalism began primarily as an economic program, it naturally had to find allies at the political level. The US is the driver of political movements at the moment, and some of those listed common features can also be seen in US neo-conservatism, and no doubt other movements.
    It’s all very messy.
    For example, is the off-shoring of industrial production neoliberal, or neo-conservative?

    And as well as common features there are differences as well.

    This is not the 1930s.
    Global conditions, political, social, and economic/financial, have changed considerably. So when the fascist outlook became ascendant again it was never going to be a copy of Mussolini’s Italy or Hitler’s Germany.
    Sinclair Lewis –“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.”
    George Carlin– “When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be in Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts…”

    The important common feature is the structure.
    All else flows from the structure.
    Both neoliberalism and fascism are a merger of state and corporate power.
    As we see in Australia with the crackdown on dissent. It does not matter if the dissent involves genocide, or climate change, or any other issue that affects corporate profits. Governments protect the corporate sector.

    So it seems appropriate to revisit the question put by Aaron Bushnell, the young US serviceman who self-immolated in front of the Israeli Embassy in Washington in February 2024 to protest at the US and Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. His last words on this Earth, as the fire consumed him, were: “Free Palestine!” Earlier that day, Aaron posted this message to his fellow Americans on X as he set up the livestream of his death: “Many of us like to ask ourselves, “What would I do if I was alive during slavery? Or the Jim Crow South? Or Apartheid? What would I do if my country was committing genocide?” The answer is, you’re doing it. Right now.”

    So we should also ask “What would we do if we were alive when our country became a fascist state? ” The answer is, we’re doing it. Right now.
    Because what we are dealing with in Australia, right now, is a merger of state and corporate power.

19. Thanks for another fine article that puts contemporary meat (for me) on the bones of history’s networks of power and guile. And once, the accumulation and control of money (where money originated from labour). But where now, it’s the accumulation and control of tangible assets through corporatization, and thereon control of govts, and then by their ‘experts’, the control of the minds of the populace. And as always, at the seat of all this, are the grasping and prestidigitating hands of religion – masters of arcane nonsense and belief.

    It seems to me that these devices are mostly in the hands of old fogeys (and perhaps their issue) – accumulated dross fleeing from the theatres of pre & post-WWI and WWII, either unwilling to stand and fight, or taking their ill-gotten gains to new pastures waiting to arise as the new opportunists, creators and backers of new despots. Thinking themselves as unstoppable, like their lifelong revenge on life.

    I noticed Lucy’s use of the descriptor,’neofeudalism’, a term also considered by Yanis Varoufakis, who later said “Capitalism is dead. Now we have something much worse” and opted for the term ‘techno-feudalism’ – maybe, considering the ‘now’, more apposite. After all, the Techbros are masters at reiteration of psycho-babble (perhaps taking over from religion), of financial extraction through pumping of corporates, and leveraging of despots in a love-fest. It is notable that they rushed to kiss the ring of the Orange Man. Outwardly, they don’t focus attention on the past, their inculcations are directed at middle-aged aspirants and the young, in a process to engender chaotic minds, and offer rescue via consumerism, bling and infantilization.

    And, in the ‘western’ love-fest, gratitude was demonstrated by the despots through the curtailment of ByteDance. Although with Trump’s deferral, cracks are revealed. Through ByteDance, its founder Zhang Yiming became China’s richest person at $49.3bn – 43% more than in 2023. ByteDance’s TikTok is hugely popular worldwide, and TikTok statistics and demographics reveal its main content creators are significantly <25 y.o. (many Americans) and 79% of its 2.6 billion monthly visits are <45 y.o. This compares to 16.5 billion monthly visits to Facebook, with all its fogeys and almost endless ‘groups’.

    The oligarchs, Musk and the Techbros are sure to double down.

    It’s not coming at us like a steam train. It’s already here, searing our society, its economics and environment. Never mind resilience, revolution is required, and feet on civil ground is old hat and banned by the fearsome. It will likely be lead and run by the talented young in their now hushed and inimitable style, as they rightly hate being effed with. And likely they’ll be more unstoppable than the fogeys and despots.

20. I put this article up on an Australian website. You might think that it has nothing to do with Australia. But it does! The fascist chaos now developing in the USA could spread to Australia, as the Atlas Network promotes its Australian off-shoot “Advance”. Advance will funnel $millions into Trumpian-style propaganda, to influence the coming Australian federal election.

21. “The fascist chaos now developing in the USA could spread to Australia …”
    Crikey Noel, it’s already here!
    We might not have US-style chaos, but we certainly have the fascism.
    Lucy admitted as much in the first lines to her Corporatocracy article — “Our governments exist to enact the desires of their corporate masters.” That’s what fascism is — a merger of state and corporate power.

    We just don’t like to admit that we took our eyes off the ball. We fell for the con.
    What was the con, I hear you ask?

    The con was to believe that fascism is a crude development focused on ethnic cleansing, genocide, militarism and all those other nasties.
    To believe that a politically neutral business sector was above all that primitive brutality.

    And what happened because we were conned?
    We allowed the corporate sector to assume more and more influence until they now control the government.
    We have a Reserve Bank that now openly operates to serve the business sector in defiance of its charter. And with the approval of the government.

    But even worse, the politically neutral business sector, the ideologically pure business sector, that could have ended the Gaza genocide in 24 hours, kept selling arms to Israel.

    We do not just have a mild form of fascism, or a fascism we can live with, we have a fascism every bit as brutal as that which appeared in the 1930s.

    Or perhaps the truth is — we can live with it.

22. Yes Steve, agree wholeheartedly.
    My comment (above) was written entirely from an Oz perspective, the whole time the Oz (per se) hushed participations were whirling around in my mind, whilst my enunciations were from a global situation focused on the ‘West’ – the maker of our ‘trough’, and also our ‘feeder’.

    We are (in Oz) well and truly living with it. One wonders just how deep the shit has to get before we recognize the nature of the stench. The last para in my (above) comment refers specifically to the current situation in Oz.

23. Thanks for that Clakka.

    I should have referred to your comment, my apologies.

24. Challenge what? Your writing is incomprehensible as you go round in circles to avoid rebuttal/counter and definitions, simply to attack the words of others.

    You cherry picked an article that gives an overview and cites Tanton et al to then claim he’s not radical, therefore he’s liberal, then waffle for a few hundred words….. without looking for Tanton’s radical illiberal views nor defining ‘liberal’?

    SPLC ‘John Tanton was the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.’; and his friends working for FoxNews, ‘liberal’?

    Same base logic ageing Central Europeans use to claim that they are ‘liberal’, because they oppose(d) communism, while supporting corrupt radical right white Christian nationalists; or Americans describing anyone left of the far right as liberal….

    There is no clear definition for ‘liberal’, and you play the same game as climate science deniers in denigrating others and avoiding any clear presentation from yourself, hence showing no evidence of credibility in your views.

    Further, Tanton Network eg. SPA, RW media, influencers and leaders are now employing Orwellian messaging, like you do, to confuse ageing voters, ‘black is white, and white is black’ e.g. Dutton’s dog whistle, ‘the left is anti-semitic’….

25. Andrew Smith needs to take a good hard look at his discussion style.
    He has accused me of serious faults, but has not provided a single quote to support his case.
    Readers will note that Andrew rarely quotes from those he disagrees with, instead choosing to paraphrase the positions of others. This is disrespectful to the other view, and to the site, as it diminishes the quality of the discussions.
    But we have to ask why he would do this. Is it to muddy the waters, or to make him harder to pin down?
    As I’ve said before here, it’s hard enough getting to the truth when dealing with facts, so dealing with someone’s impressions and vague generalisations makes the job almost impossible.

    Andrew states that I did not look “for Tanton’s radical illiberal views.”
    I did not look for them — I stated them. As in “He became an extremist.”
    Do those who deal in impressions and generalisations have trouble with direct language?
    My simple, direct statement completely eluded him.

    The pitfalls involved in the habitual use of nebulous language in debating become stark when considering this from Andrew — “There is no clear definition for ‘liberal’,…”

    On first reading this I thought that Andrew had rolled over and accepted my position. But, no. I think that what he’s saying is just a cryptic repeat of his criticism of me for not defining liberalism. Because the rest of the sentence, consisting of Andrew’s stock-in-trade guilt by association, shows that he has no fraternal feelings for me at all. I’m shocked.

    But this exposes the weakness of debating by way of impressions — your own argument is severely undermined. You cannot win an argument by stating an opposing view as fact, then refuting it by hints and innuendo.

    And to repeat, there is no clear definition for “liberal”. If one existed, Andrew would have trotted it out.
    You also cannot win an argument by misrepresentation. As in “You cherry picked an article that gives an overview and cites Tanton et al to then claim he’s not radical, therefore he’s liberal, …”
    Andrew must have missed the follow up. I quoted wikipedia’s Tanton page that specifically referred to Tanton’s “ liberal concerns over sustainability.” Ouch!

    And what is it that we are actually discussing?
    Lucy might not like me saying this, but her articles about the Right are articles about fascism.
    This was the case for Corporatocracy, and it’s the case here. As in this from above — “The long game of the Mont Pelerin Society that spawned the Atlas Network became colonising government and the law, to make them the servants of the largest players in the economy.” Lucy calls this neoliberalism, she calls it neofeudalism, she avoids calling it fascism.
    And that’s the problem.

    Lucy fears the potential for fascism, that’s fair enough, but it’s already here. Until we recognise that, we will solve nothing, prevent nothing, improve nothing.

26. …shown by the Stanford entry on liberalism from which it is clear that liberalism is so slippery that it can be anything any liberal wants it to be at any point in time.

    It is also so slippery that Steve Davis has no difficulty making it mean anything he wants it to at any point in time.

27. That’s it leefe?
    With all the problems of liberalism that I’ve outlined here, in detail, and times without number over the months, that’s all you’ve got?
    I referred above to “the hypnotic pull of that ‘liberal’ word”, and, as forecast, here you are.

    I gave you an off-ramp.
    An honourable disconnection from an unsustainable position.
    As I explained above, you could have opted for “humanitarian” rather than “liberal”, yet, here you are.

    What is it about “liberal” that makes you prefer it to “humanitarian”?
    Surely it cannot be the gushy, sickly-sweet sentimentality with its feel-good vibe.
    Or the narcissism associated with individualism.
    Or a desire to extort from those who have little.
    So what is it?

    Keep in mind as you answer, that we live in a liberal system. It is universally referred to as liberal democracy.
    Keep in mind also, that the purpose of a system is what it does, not what it says.

28. Yes Leefe, interesting observation from Stanford. Where you say “… anything any liberal wants it to be at any point in time”, is indeed a conundrum, nevertheless I wouldn’t put SD in the class of those ‘liberals’.

    It’s a difficult subject, and I have watched intently the argy-bargy on it in the AIMN pages. Maybe, part of the points of SD’s commentary, is that it is for ‘liberals’ conveniently ‘slippery’. And to that affect, in seeking to show the advent and roll-on of the term ‘neo-liberalism’, it seems entirely relevant to plumb the historic origins, markers and ideals of ‘liberalism’, even in all its ‘slipperiness’. To me it’s a valuable exercise, and important in understanding how we are all affected, influenced wittingly or otherwise, position ourselves with regard to the status quo, our biases and blind-spots, and indeed the historic constituents of the ‘status quo’.

    Even though at times the argy-bargy ventures into tedium, for the above reasons I stay with it, learning all the time.

29. Thanks Clakka.
    Just to clarify my assertion about the Stanford entry on liberalism (for those who have not followed this as closely as you) “from which it is clear that liberalism is so slippery that it can be anything any liberal wants it to be at any point in time.”
    I’m doing this from memory now, but at the time it struck me that the entry mentioned so many wide-ranging features of liberalism, some of which were contradictory without being openly so, that I concluded that it could be anything a liberal a wanted it to be, and so could fairly be called slippery.

    An example of the contradictions is the alleged concern for community welfare combined with facilitating endless property accumulation. Those two aims are in conflict. In theory it sounds possible, but in practice we know it as “the trickle down effect.” I need say no more.

    Clakka, I thought it might be wise to check the Stanford position before posting. Found a goldmine, even though this is not the entry I first found a year or two back.
    From the Introduction to:
    https://plato.stanford.edu/archIves/sum2013/entries/liberalism/#LibThVal
    “As soon as one examines it, ‘liberalism’ fractures into a variety of types and competing visions.”
    And here’s the Conclusion:
    “Given that liberalism fractures on so many issues — the nature of liberty, the place of property and democracy in a just society, the comprehensiveness and the reach of the liberal ideal — one might wonder whether there is any point in talking of ‘liberalism’ at all. It is not, though, an unimportant or trivial thing that all these theories take liberty to be the grounding political value. Radical democrats assert the overriding value of equality, communitarians maintain that the demands of belongingness trump freedom, and conservatives complain that the liberal devotion to freedom undermines traditional values and virtues and so social order itself. Intramural disputes aside, liberals join in rejecting these conceptions of political right.”

    What is the outstanding conclusion from that passage? That liberalism has only one cohesive concept. That of political freedom. They reject all others.
    But that passage, although it is the conclusion to a very lengthy examination of liberalism, does not specify what the liberal concept of liberty entails.
    So I will.
    The liberal concept of liberty involves the freedom for unlimited accumulation of property. And all the evil that this entails.
    The liberal concept of liberty.
    It’s unmentionable.

30. Steve:

    I’ve said it before – you are not the ultimate arbiter of what words mean. Nor is Stanford. Language evolves, words can have multiple meanings and even more nuances. No-one has to comply with your dictates on the use of “liberal” (nor, indeed, any other term).

    The only point I’m making here is that your own definition and use of the word is no less slippery than that of any self-avowed social or economic “liberal”.

31. leefe, if you have a problem with my criticism of liberalism, why enter the discussion if you are not prepared to offer an alternative view?

    My use of the word is not slippery, because it does not change. But I will change my criticism when an alternative version of liberalism pops up, as it always does. I have no option. But that makes me slippery?

    You clearly wish to defend some liberal position, but cannot say why the word is preferable to “humanitarian”. I find that intriguing.

32. Why? Because I can, and because I have as much right to comment as anyone else. Again, no-one has to satisfy your requirements either to comment here or with regard to how they comment.

    I have said more than once that for me “neoliberalism” defines the economic and political ideology, while “liberalism” is about social and personal matters. Maybe you could try to remember that rather than insist that I use terminology of which you approve.

33. OK, so now (unless I’ mistaken) its about ‘liberalism’ and ‘liberty’. So what is the annoying prevalent political pre-history that drove those two expressions into common parlance. What was the prevailing antagonism? ‘Liberalism’ and ‘liberty’ as opposed to what?

34. leefe –“liberalism” is about social and personal matters.
    Except liberalism is not about social/personal matters. It’s a political movement. You are confusing it with “liberal”.
    “Liberal” can be used in the sense of personal matters, but that’s a world away from liberalism.
    Liberalism is a doctrine. A doctrine about a very specific concept of liberty, as the Stanford quote explains.
    That’s where the con began. It was an absolutely brilliant con. To use a word associated with generosity and care as the label for their system based on plunder.
    It’s so effective that even though it’s been explained to you before, you can’t let it go. Even though I’ve given you a superior alternative that cannot be misinterpreted, you can’t let it go.

    And this shows the limits to your statement that “words can have multiple meanings”. Those limits show why we need a certain level of consistency in meanings.
    If we were to follow your reasoning, would we say that we live in a “social and personal democracy”? It would be meaningless.

    “Liberal” as in “liberal democracy” has a specific meaning. But hey, it’s a free country, (so far) so leefe, if you want to identify with a political movement based on narcissism, self-indulgence, social disintegration and extortion, go for it.

    Clakka, I had this prepared before I saw your questions. I hope it answers them.
    To clarify further, when the theorists were developing their financial system they grabbed “libre” from Latin, associated with liberty. Liberty for what? For the unfettered accumulation of property.
    So “libre-al” became “liberal” and we’re dealing with the consequences still.
    The greatest con in history.

35. I’m having problems posting a reply, probably because I opted for an edit.
    Let’s see if a change of opening helps.

    Leefe –“liberalism” is about social and personal matters.
    Except liberalism is not about social/personal matters. It’s a political movement. You are confusing it with “liberal”.

    “Liberal” can be used in the sense of personal matters, but that’s a world away from liberalism. Liberalism is a doctrine. A doctrine about a very specific concept of liberty, as the Stanford quote explains.
    That’s where the con began. It was an absolutely brilliant con. To use a word associated with generosity and care as the label for their system based on plunder.
    It’s so effective that even though it’s been explained to you before, you can’t let it go. Even though I’ve given you a superior alternative that cannot be misinterpreted, you can’t let it go.

    And this shows the limits to your statement that “words can have multiple meanings”. Those limits show why we need a certain level of consistency in meanings.
    If we were to follow your reasoning, would we say that we live in a “social and personal democracy”? It would be meaningless.

    “Liberal” as in “liberal democracy” has a specific meaning. But hey, it’s a free country, (so far) so leefe, if you want to identify with a political movement based on narcissism, self-indulgence, social disintegration and extortion, go for it.

    Clakka, I had this prepared before I saw your questions. I hope it answers them. To clarify further, when the theorists were developing their financial system they grabbed “libre” from Latin, associated with liberty.
    Liberty for what? For the unfettered accumulation of property.
    So “libre-al” became “liberal” and we’re dealing with the consequences still.
    The greatest con in history.

36. I fucked up while editing that one; it should just say “liberal” is about social and personal matters.

    I can’t let it go? Coming from Mr I-Will-Never-Allow-Anyone-To-Get-Away-With-Using-Neoliberal-Instead-Of-Liberal, that’s rich.

37. “The interests of the business sector are not those of the state, or the people, although they may overlap on occasion.
    The interest of the business sector is business. Profit.
    As was approvingly said years ago, (Coolidge) “the chief business of the US is business.”
    Or to put it more crudely, “Stuff the people.”

    The US is a fascist state.
    Trump is a symptom, not a cause.
    He did not come from nowhere. He is an inevitability.

    As for your classical liberals, they were a bunch of nobodies who knew the potential for evil in the system they promoted, and did nothing substantial to offset that.”

    I have to agree but lets get one thing straight, Liberalism in Australia doesn’t have the same connotations it has in the USA. I know its rather pedantic here, but its important we don’t confuse the two. What has changed over the last few years is that conservatives are no longer happy writing the agenda, but want to move the goal posts while they have a chance to even more extreme lengths. “It hasn’t worked because we didn’t go far enough…” From my perspective this is sowing the seeds of revolution.

38. See the Powell Memo, another prescient road map..

    The Lewis Powell Memo: A Corporate Blueprint to Dominate Democracy (1971, inc original on .pdf)

    https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/democracy/the-lewis-powell-memo-a-corporate-blueprint-to-dominate-democracy/

39. Clakka, in regard to your query as to the history behind the liberalism con, I just came across this today. Michael Hudson in an interview explaining the role of one of the early theorists of liberal economics, David Ricardo.
    When he was testifying before the Bullion Committee, Ricardo stated that wages should be kept down, and the economy should be kept struggling so that the business class can accumulate sufficient wealth to control the economy and keep everyone else in abject dependency. Not stated in those words of course.

    But in fact, Ricardo spelled out in great detail exactly what the principles of the International Monetary Fund have been since 1944. (100 years later.)
    That is, force countries to have hard currency, i.e., gold, or US dollars, then they’ll be completely dependent on countries that can act as creditors.
    This was the antithesis of Modern Monetary Theory.
    Modern Monetary Theory has it that we should create money to promote actual economic growth and rising living standards, not simply create money in a way that makes money for the financial sector and the billionaires.
    They’ve created a system that perpetuates poverty, and convinced people to believe in it.

40. I’m not sure if the quote shown below helps, but I offer it nonetheless. It was sent to me by a mate and comes from a paywalled article on CounterPunch.

    I feel unable to actively participate here as I have long regarded Liberalism and Capitalism as being synonymous, and Neoliberalism a pernicious form of late-stage capitalism. The quote follows:

    “As the 1970s drew to a close, the Keynesian consensus that had held since the conclusion of World War II, was breaking down and began being replaced with what most of the world would come to call “neoliberalism.” (A term that can be confusing for North Americans; “neoliberalism” refers to a renewed and more intense stage of “liberalism” in the meaning that the rest of the world uses for that word, meaning a belief in allowing markets to operate with little governmental oversight and to allow market outcomes to decide social issues.)”

    That same mate has just sent me a link to this article from the same site:
    High-Tech Capitalism and Neo-Feudalism. It makes for interesting reading.
    https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/13/high-tech-capitalism-and-neo-feudalism/

41. Julian, thanks for the comment.
    It’s nice to know that I’m not alone in the universe! 🙂

    Yes, another confusing element to liberalism exists, in that in the US there is no Liberal Party, so they have a slightly different interpretation of the word.
    Many in the US are close to being politically and economically illiterate, so they assume that neoliberalism refers to a new progressivism. Your quote explains the matter nicely and concisely.

    Thanks also for the link — it’s a beauty.