When Mead states that the wealth gap between the races is greater than ever, an interesting point is raised. I wonder whether this is a reflection of an increased nationwide wealth gap. That is, with blacks having been poorer in the 1960s, a racial gap simply reflects the overall trend. When one considers the off shoring of jobs and de industrialization of the US, the working class has lost the opportunity to work in such jobs. It may be that “racism” is but a facile excuse for a deeper problem.
so in this wonderful interview it raises the question of where Professor Mead would find himself in regards to Karl Popper's Open Society.There was a a good oped piece in the FT today about this subject of tolerance in an open society
Here’s one positive “take” for you: history in the past decade (the writing of it; the teaching of it; our appreciation and understanding of it) has been transformed, and overwhelmingly for the better notwithstanding the current fights over CRT; gender; patriarchy; “white male privilege”, to cite only a few.
History when I was a kid was mostly serial recital of kings, princes and presidents or of the wars that begat them or killed then off, nary a woman or a common person in sight.
Today, much revisionist history is enrichening our understanding...and challenging us to revisit our thinking. It’s valuable, and wonderful. Take “Oppenheimer” for example: it forces us to re-think our attitude to The Bomb - we might STILL conclude using it was justified (I do), but it wasn’t a no-brainer.
WRM is a brilliant historian and analyst. I made these same points in my book "Separated Together," published Jan. 27, 2021. Read chapters 8 and 10 to read about the somnolence if not perfidy of the West while Germany was preparing for a world war and the genocide of the world's Jews. The parallels between then and now are stunning and unavoidable. Ultimately, every occupied European country collaborated with the Nazis (as did the "neurtrals") while the Eruo population looked to the unprepared U.S. to save them and Western civilization. The Euros were blinded by their fear of war following the slaughter of the Great War. The U.S. was mired in isolationism. Then it was the Republicans, now it's the Democrats. In terms of policy plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Then it was Germany, Italy and Japan. Now it's Russia, China and Iran. Then the West thought that diplomacy, treaties and disarmament would prevent war (see Kellogg-Briand pact and the French students marching with signs: "Mourir par Dantzig?). Now the Western Left promotes appeasement, disarmament and support for the bad actors. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Today's liberals are not that liberal. In fact, quite the contrary, they require adherence to a certain set of behaviors which, if violated, expose one to cancellation in its numerous forms. That is fascist, the very thing of which they accuse the violators of their ideals. These social requirements are wholly unattractive to me, and I will not comply. Sorry, not sorry.
I was puzzled that Latin America was not mentioned at all. . Unlike Europe, it is trending left. China and Iran hav a growing presence there. It is also a source of the many minerals we need.
And when we speak about authoritarian governments why are Cuba and Venezuela not included.
"During the Enlightenment, we thought that we were escaping all of that, that we were moving toward a world of security and abundance. And now that we’ve reached it, it turns out there isn’t any security there after all." Again, this is just an untrue statement. Of course Mead doesn't let on about how he defines "security," but freedom from violence , including but not limited to state violence, would surely be a part of it. In that way, humanity if far, far safer and more secure than it's ever been. Is it possible that Mead doesn't know that?
In her discussion with Mead about the rise of populism, Bari posited that because she was a Jew she was scared of populism-- afraid that a genie was going to be released that she thought was going to bring back a anti-semitism and Mead agreed that Jews - and OTHER MINORITIES - have a right to be nervous that is was not a foolish thing to believe.
While I am certain that anti-semitism is alive and well in certain parts of the country, I am perplexed as to how Bari whose history with degrees from Columbia Universtiy where she led a campaign to oust a pro-Palestinian professor, positions as a very young writer for the MSM including the NYt and founder of her highly successful Free Press which has elevated her to the top of the independent media hierarchy, could be nervous about populism. Surely she is aware that a high percentage of the media as well as Hollywood insiders are Jewish. Are they all now to be living in fear that some populist will come along and remove them from their positions of power.
Bari and Nellie both stir the anti-semitism victimhood pot as often as they can. Speaking only for myself, I really can't handle yet another group of victims demanding guilt.
A few visionaries saw it before WWI broke out: the age of empire, predation, general wars -- of "war pays" compared to peace -- was already over. But no one else got it. After 1945, many saw and hoped. It did have some profound impact with the long period of relative peace, and growing economies and trade attested to a modern transformation of peace as far more than just the absence of conflict.
But then someone, like Putin, doped up on the fumes of dead empires, does it again. And the age of empires *is* over. It was over before 1900. It just took a few generations to get it.
The choice today is extreme -- the immense benefits of peaceful cooperation under modern conditions and immense cost of modern war. It's like "love one another or die" -- okay, maybe not love, but you get it. I think Rene Girard's last book about Clausewitz was about this.
Excellent diagnosis. What we are missing in America today is leadership which neither political party seems able to deliver. More likely than not we will have to endure great hardship for leadership to emerge at which point we have to pray that it is not authoritarian.
Bari, when you say there is a paradigm: we are living in the best conditions we ever have in history & yet GenZ, who have it all, are nihilistic, cynical and full of despair.
There is a correlation between having too much money, having it too easy, being spoiled, etc. in one’s youth, leading to later anguish and despair. This is true among all societies and countries, & throughout history. it is just that now too many people in this country grew up with too much stuff, & not enough struggle/hardship in childhood, so it is more noticeable. Many Parents unfortunately, shelter kids from experiencing disappointment in youth.
used to be that just the monarchs & aristocrats were f***ed in the head, but now it’s many kids who had it too easy growing up.
The more hardships you can create for your kids the better for them in adulthood. Let them experience not having hot water to shower on occasion. Let them experience having to walk long distances. The more chores, the better. If you can give them hard chores, that’s better. Learn to say no. To the kids. No to stuff. No to activities. No to toys. No to clothes.
If the answer wasn't yes in August, it certainly is now... or maybe it's no... because we are in a War Era.
When Mead states that the wealth gap between the races is greater than ever, an interesting point is raised. I wonder whether this is a reflection of an increased nationwide wealth gap. That is, with blacks having been poorer in the 1960s, a racial gap simply reflects the overall trend. When one considers the off shoring of jobs and de industrialization of the US, the working class has lost the opportunity to work in such jobs. It may be that “racism” is but a facile excuse for a deeper problem.
so in this wonderful interview it raises the question of where Professor Mead would find himself in regards to Karl Popper's Open Society.There was a a good oped piece in the FT today about this subject of tolerance in an open society
Here’s one positive “take” for you: history in the past decade (the writing of it; the teaching of it; our appreciation and understanding of it) has been transformed, and overwhelmingly for the better notwithstanding the current fights over CRT; gender; patriarchy; “white male privilege”, to cite only a few.
History when I was a kid was mostly serial recital of kings, princes and presidents or of the wars that begat them or killed then off, nary a woman or a common person in sight.
Today, much revisionist history is enrichening our understanding...and challenging us to revisit our thinking. It’s valuable, and wonderful. Take “Oppenheimer” for example: it forces us to re-think our attitude to The Bomb - we might STILL conclude using it was justified (I do), but it wasn’t a no-brainer.
WRM is a brilliant historian and analyst. I made these same points in my book "Separated Together," published Jan. 27, 2021. Read chapters 8 and 10 to read about the somnolence if not perfidy of the West while Germany was preparing for a world war and the genocide of the world's Jews. The parallels between then and now are stunning and unavoidable. Ultimately, every occupied European country collaborated with the Nazis (as did the "neurtrals") while the Eruo population looked to the unprepared U.S. to save them and Western civilization. The Euros were blinded by their fear of war following the slaughter of the Great War. The U.S. was mired in isolationism. Then it was the Republicans, now it's the Democrats. In terms of policy plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Then it was Germany, Italy and Japan. Now it's Russia, China and Iran. Then the West thought that diplomacy, treaties and disarmament would prevent war (see Kellogg-Briand pact and the French students marching with signs: "Mourir par Dantzig?). Now the Western Left promotes appeasement, disarmament and support for the bad actors. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Today's liberals are not that liberal. In fact, quite the contrary, they require adherence to a certain set of behaviors which, if violated, expose one to cancellation in its numerous forms. That is fascist, the very thing of which they accuse the violators of their ideals. These social requirements are wholly unattractive to me, and I will not comply. Sorry, not sorry.
On Interview with Russell Mead
I was puzzled that Latin America was not mentioned at all. . Unlike Europe, it is trending left. China and Iran hav a growing presence there. It is also a source of the many minerals we need.
And when we speak about authoritarian governments why are Cuba and Venezuela not included.
"During the Enlightenment, we thought that we were escaping all of that, that we were moving toward a world of security and abundance. And now that we’ve reached it, it turns out there isn’t any security there after all." Again, this is just an untrue statement. Of course Mead doesn't let on about how he defines "security," but freedom from violence , including but not limited to state violence, would surely be a part of it. In that way, humanity if far, far safer and more secure than it's ever been. Is it possible that Mead doesn't know that?
In her discussion with Mead about the rise of populism, Bari posited that because she was a Jew she was scared of populism-- afraid that a genie was going to be released that she thought was going to bring back a anti-semitism and Mead agreed that Jews - and OTHER MINORITIES - have a right to be nervous that is was not a foolish thing to believe.
While I am certain that anti-semitism is alive and well in certain parts of the country, I am perplexed as to how Bari whose history with degrees from Columbia Universtiy where she led a campaign to oust a pro-Palestinian professor, positions as a very young writer for the MSM including the NYt and founder of her highly successful Free Press which has elevated her to the top of the independent media hierarchy, could be nervous about populism. Surely she is aware that a high percentage of the media as well as Hollywood insiders are Jewish. Are they all now to be living in fear that some populist will come along and remove them from their positions of power.
Bari and Nellie both stir the anti-semitism victimhood pot as often as they can. Speaking only for myself, I really can't handle yet another group of victims demanding guilt.
It is a half a truth, an argument from ignorance.
The description of liberalism as a “vine seeking a tree” is insightful and thought provoking...
It's a world lacking Torah.
A few visionaries saw it before WWI broke out: the age of empire, predation, general wars -- of "war pays" compared to peace -- was already over. But no one else got it. After 1945, many saw and hoped. It did have some profound impact with the long period of relative peace, and growing economies and trade attested to a modern transformation of peace as far more than just the absence of conflict.
But then someone, like Putin, doped up on the fumes of dead empires, does it again. And the age of empires *is* over. It was over before 1900. It just took a few generations to get it.
The choice today is extreme -- the immense benefits of peaceful cooperation under modern conditions and immense cost of modern war. It's like "love one another or die" -- okay, maybe not love, but you get it. I think Rene Girard's last book about Clausewitz was about this.
Excellent diagnosis. What we are missing in America today is leadership which neither political party seems able to deliver. More likely than not we will have to endure great hardship for leadership to emerge at which point we have to pray that it is not authoritarian.
Bari, when you say there is a paradigm: we are living in the best conditions we ever have in history & yet GenZ, who have it all, are nihilistic, cynical and full of despair.
There is a correlation between having too much money, having it too easy, being spoiled, etc. in one’s youth, leading to later anguish and despair. This is true among all societies and countries, & throughout history. it is just that now too many people in this country grew up with too much stuff, & not enough struggle/hardship in childhood, so it is more noticeable. Many Parents unfortunately, shelter kids from experiencing disappointment in youth.
used to be that just the monarchs & aristocrats were f***ed in the head, but now it’s many kids who had it too easy growing up.
The more hardships you can create for your kids the better for them in adulthood. Let them experience not having hot water to shower on occasion. Let them experience having to walk long distances. The more chores, the better. If you can give them hard chores, that’s better. Learn to say no. To the kids. No to stuff. No to activities. No to toys. No to clothes.
Excluding Israel's atomic power makes this piece's context invalid.
How does it make the article invalid?
Yes