… Here’s another way to put my concern. The percentage of global GDP which is held in relatively non-free countries, such as China, has been rising relative to the share of global GDP held in the freer countries. I suspect we are underrating the noxious effects of that development.
If freedom has become disconnected from economic competence, then classical liberalism is dead.
(The XS suspicion, however, is that Cowen’s sense of “freedom” has been so corrupted by social democracy that it’s incapable of doing the work he wants it to here.)
The ADL has put together a helpful paranoid psychosis handbook, or “Hate Symbols Database”.
If you ever doubted that Neo-Nazi qabbalism is a dog’s breakfast, give it a skim. (They don’t even know how to count.)
Terrifyingly enough, “23” is in it, but only as a hand sign (phew!). Raw hate numerals include 1, 2, 12, 13, 14, 18, 28, 38, 43, 83, and 88, before reaching triple digits. Also beware ominous letter combinations such as “AB”. In fact, alphanumerics in general seem prone to evil, and are probably best avoided.
Are we missing something?
Submit a Hate Symbol to ADL at firstname.lastname@example.org
“This is just sour grapes because they missed 333, isn’t it?”
“You got me.”
Thus, nationalism turns into a class struggle.
Is anyone still disputing this proposition?
The new great divergence:
Increasing polarization, even fragmentation, of society is becoming apparent in US politics. There is a sense that society is separating into parts, each of which is listening only to other members of that group. The separation between groups can enable them to deviate even further in values and perspectives. …
That’s the process. Nothing else is necessary. The only task remaining is to accelerate it.
This is not — of course — conclusive. It would be a stretch to say that it isn’t suggestive. As far as practical politics are concerned, current leftist priorities look strikingly self-contradicting. Islamization or popular sovereignty — choose one (or less).
The essay at the attached link recommends re-education as a remedy, in an age when the dominant organs of opinion formation have collapsed into culture war and unprecedented illegitmacy. Good luck with that.
ADDED: On point.
The 21st Century is definitely getting its act together.
Garrett Jones lays out the (classical) liberal caution in regards to indiscriminate immigration. Here’s the question:
But what happens in the very long run? As immigrants shape the culture of their new homelands, will they import more than just new ethnic cuisines? Will they also import attitudes and policies that wound the golden goose of first-world prosperity? Ultimately, will migrants make the countries they move to a lot like the countries they came from?
Among much treasure, this is of special interest to XS:
Economists have long known that some of the strongest statistical predictors of long-run national prosperity have been “percent Confucian” and “percent Buddhist.” A famed paper coauthored by Xavier Sala-i-Martin demonstrated that conclusively. It’s time for scholars to investigate whether, for most countries, a pro-Confucian migration policy is a good option.
The same article that introduces the immediately-indispensable phase “dirty culture war” presents its deeply blue-tribal take on the state of the media struggle. Among much of interest:
Andrew Breitbart, Stephen Bannon’s collaborator in right-wing tabloid journalism and the founder of Breitbart News, often reiterated a maxim: “Politics is downstream from culture.” When normal voters assess, say, a complex piece of legislation, they are unlikely to read the bill itself; more likely, they will base their opinions on how the bill is portrayed by their friends and Facebook friends, by celebrities, and in the media. In his 2011 memoir, Breitbart summed up his position, writing, “The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. . . . I am at war to gain back control of the American narrative.”
To assume that Andrew Breitbart rates lower for culture-war strategic genius than Antonio Gramsci is mere Cathedral class-prejudice (favoring academic-format thought). He understood the basic thing, and there’s not much sign yet that Steve Bannon is deviating from his mentor’s path in the direction of pacifism:
He now refers to the media, with monotonous insistence, as “the opposition party.”
My belief about diversity and tolerance is that it is shaped like a Laffer Curve, so that as a homogenous society sees more newcomers it becomes progressively more tolerant until a point is reached at which this process goes into reverse, partly because there are just too many political and social incentives for division. Britain probably went past that optimum around the millennium, and France is therefore even further ahead.