Who here has read this? More critiques of Liberalism?

>saying something enough time makes it true
Can we just be done with deconstructionism? Can you not see how it's ruining everything? Philosophy is the watershed for everything that happens in a culture, and you're poisoning our water supply and trying to get us to blame God.

wut

the author is a conservative and deconstruction doesn't exist

That you honestly believe the latter is why you stupidly believe the former.

firstthings.com/article/2018/04/the-ignoble-lie

breddy nice article by the guy who wrote the book, but haven't read the book yet, i want to read it though

wait for boomers and the conservative elderly to die and we'll talk

nigga liberalism is capitalism

>Plato intends us to understand the myth differently. Unlike Marx, he did not believe that the members of the lower class would be unlikely to know their own interests. The underclass is likely to accept the myth because they realize it works to their advantage. Its members are keenly aware of the fact of inequality. That part of the “lie” hardly seems false to them. What is novel, and what works to their advantage, is the idea that inequalities exist for the benefit of the underclass as well as the rulers. That is, members with noble metals in their souls are to undertake their work for the benefit of everyone, including those whose souls are marked by base metals. By contrast, members of the ruling class are likely to disbelieve the myth out of self-interest. They balk at the claim that every person, regardless of rank, belongs to the same family. They do not want the advantages that might solely benefit their class to be employed for the benefit of the whole.
>Such a compact is difficult to achieve. Much of the rest of The Republic is taken up with the question of how the ruling class can be persuaded, or even compelled, to throw in their lot with the rest of the city, rather than simply dominating or neglecting the others. Given the brute fact of inequality, Plato sees the great challenge of politics to be the task of persuading the advantaged to see themselves as part of the whole.
>Compare Socrates’s expected response of the ruling class to this “noble lie” to the typical reaction of students at elite universities. Today’s elite students tend to focus on the myth’s claims about perpetual and generational inequality as the most objectionable part of the myth. The claim of common kinship seems unproblematic and even uninteresting. What explains the apparent reversal of scandal and resistance among the ruling class in our age?

capitalism doesn't need liberalism anymore, it has outgrown it and it's way more powerful than that to need any particular ideology to function

That's the truth. Just look at capitalist countries like China and Russia. Those are not what I'd call liberal democracies.

insofar as capitalism transforms humans into mere inputs, liberalism is an ideological free-rider. Capitalism, a force that unwinds all bonds, has no need of, but surely appreciates, an enthusiastic cheerleader.

Add UK and Germany to that list.

I'm confused by post.

Well put.

Huh? Freedom of expression is an important aspect of liberal societies. UK and Germany don't have that.

Good article. Thanks!

he wants to do the hitler salute but he can't
that's what it boils down to

Dangerfield's The Strange Death of Liberal England, 1911-14 (1935). A classic.