This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Coming Apart
I just finished reading the best-selling Coming Apart by Charles Murray. I confess to not having heard of the book until I saw it in the store, but the cover of a champagne glass and a crumbled beer can instantly suggested to me that I was going to enjoy this new examination of the United States and its sociological disintegration of the past half-century.
I grew up in a middle-class household in the mid-1970s, and two general ideas were banged into my head: (1) if you work hard and apply yourself, you can get ahead in this country; (2) people who rely on welfare or unions are lazy bums. Having (hopefully) grown up a bit over the ensuing decades, my views on these matters is somewhat tempered, but upon reflection, it has eventually dawned on me that the nature of American society from those days wasn't that bad.
As a kid, I adopted what in retrospect could be dubbed a strict laissez-faire disposition toward business and the economy. If you took a time machine back and described to my young self the state of affairs that we have today (e.g. a tax system heavily in favor of the rich; massively disproportionate distribution of wealth; the rich getting richer; the poor getting poorer, etc.) I would have cheered it. This goes to show not to put much stock in the economic philosophy of a teenager.
Charles Murray - himself quite obviously a libertarian and supporter of free enterprise - bemoans the changes in the United States as well. His focus is on the likely failure of what he calls the "American project", which he describes as:
"the continuing effort, begun with the founding, to demonstrate that human beings can be left free as individuals and families to live their lives as they see fit, coming together voluntarily to solve their joint problems....To be an American was to be different from other nationalities, in ways that Americans treasured. That culture is unraveling."
Coming Apart starts off with an examination of "upper class" and "the cognitive elite" of the modern day. The author builds a convincing case of the exponentially-higher value placed on a smaller and smaller group of highly-educated, high-IQ individuals and the disparity in compensation between this group (basically the top 5% of the country) and everyone else. In the 1960s, Murray describes a country in which, yes, there were rich and poor, but the difference wasn't nearly as great, and the physical and cultural separations were much smaller. As he puts it, "...there just wasn't that much difference between the lifestyle of a highly influential atorney or senior executive of a corporation and people who were several rungs down the ladder."
I also enjoyed his examination of helicopter parents (believe me, as a father of young children in the increasingly-competitive Silicon Valley, this is an area where I have deep experience). I again quote: "The downside is that the new upper-class parents tend to overdo it. The children in elite families sometimes have schedules so full of ballet classes, swimming lessons, special tutoring, and visits to that therapists that they have no time to be children." This is a sentiment keenly expressed by the late George Carlin.
Mr. Murray cites four developments that created the new upper class in the first place:
1. The increasing market value of high IQ;
2. The physical and cultural separation of the top 5% and everyone else, best exemplified by the "Superzips"(one of which, Palo Alto's, I wasn't that shocked to see);
3. The "college sorting machine" - that is, it is exponentially more difficult to get into, say, Harvard or Stanford now than it was fifty years ago. If you were even a little smarter than the average college applicant in the 1950s, you wouldn't have had much trouble getting into an elite school. These days, you pretty much have to walk on water;
4. Homogamy: that is, the interbreeding of individuals with like characteristics, particularly with respect to IQ.
He also has an interesting discourse on what he considers to be the foundation of what American really is (or, should I say, was), which he calls the founding virtues: industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religion.
Coming Apart is as much a philosophical treatise as a sociological examination. On the topic of happiness, Murray defines it as "lasting and justified satisfaction with life as a whole", drawn from four domains: family, vocation, community, and faith.
As he turns his eye toward Europe, it's clear he isn't going to win many friends overseas. He politely describes the continent as "a great place to visit" but....
..the view of life that has taken root in those same countries is problematic. It seems to go something like this: The purpose of life is to while away the time between birth and death as pleasantly as possible, and the purpose of government is to make it as easy as possible to while away the time as pleasantly as possible - the Europe Syndrome.
I can't say I disagree with his assessment. He goes on:
Europe's short workweeks and frequent vacations are one symptom of the syndrome. The idea of work as a means of self-actualization has faded. The view of work as a necessary evil, interfering with the higher good of leisure, dominates. To have to go out to look for a job or to have to risk being fired from a job are seen as terrible impositions. The precipitous decline of marraige, far greater in Europe than in the United States, is another symptom. What is the point of a lifetime commitment when the state will act as a surrogate spouse when it comes to paying the bills?
And, as for the secularization of Europe:
Europeans have broadly come to believe that humans are a collection of activated chemicals that, after a period of time, deactivate. If that's the case, saying that the purpose of life is to pass the time as pleasantly as possible is a reasonable position. Indeed, taking any other position is ultimately irrational.
Most germane to our interest in the world of finance and the distribution of wealth is the "unseemliness" of the modern upper class, such as Aaron Spelling's 56,500 square foot house with 123 rooms and Henry McKinnell's $99 million golden parachute and $82 million pension he enjoyed after presiding over an era of plunging share prices.
Murray describes the upper class as having "abdicated their responsbility to set and promulgate standards. In short, he seems that highest echelon of the United States happily gorging itself on all its wealth (while simultaneously, ever-so-politically-correctly, taking pains not to offend any class, creed, or other background so as to draw unwanted negative attention to itself) and, ultimately:
The new laws and regulations steadily accrete, and America's governing regime is soon indistinguishable from that of an advanced European welfare state. The American project is dead.
Murray does save a brief section at the end of this volume to describe the prospect of the United States actually saving itself from this fate. The author states that the only hope is for data from the social sciences to convince citizens and its government to reverse the welfare state and the notion that every person is equally gifted, equally skilled, and equally capable. And, finally, that a religion-driven "Great Awakening" will change the tide of events.
Fat chance.
In any case, I enjoyed the book thoroughly. If you're interested in the United States, where it's been, and where it might be going, you might want to take the time to read it. It may be depressing, but no one gave assurances that reality would always put a smile on the face of every citizen.
- advertisements -
OMG, Tim Knight would like to be now a book critic. Does the perma bear view on his blog get all the review he wishes for his self centered doomsday purpose ?
"The author states that the only hope is for data from the social sciences to convince citizens and its government to reverse the welfare state and the notion that every person is equally gifted, equally skilled, and equally capable. And, finally, that a religion-driven "Great Awakening" will change the tide of events. ...... Fat chance."
Yes, it will take a religious "Great Awakening". However it is unfortunate Mr. Murray chose the "Great Awakening" touchstone.
The fact is, all political philosophies are religions. They are only less well defined than what is commonly considered religion.
One of Screwtape's great successes was to convince man that the study of Philosophy, quite literally the study of the development of human thought regarding immaterial truth, was a waste of time as a core of higher education. That success has led to the re-introduction in the public square an innumerable number of lies, deceptions and distortions that have already been considered, debated, and rightly discarded by philosophers.
What IS a fat chance is that data from social sciences will reverse the march of the "socialist", "liberal" and "progressive" religions.
We are all witnessing a great battles between ideologies, that is why the public discourse feels so divided...like a war. There are numerous religious wars going on around you.
That is why Mr. Murray is right in saying it will take a great religious awakening to change the tide of events. The name of that religion is not yet known. It may be the better known traditional ones, or it may be like Communism in Russia, one of those religions masquerading as "mere" politics.....
With the traditional religion's one knows the values and principals well.
With the masquerading religions, you're left to what folks like Ms. Pelosi tell you what will be tolerated and what will not.
Yes the ivy's are hard to get into if you are a regular guy like me (never did apply) but I work In the education field (unfortunately) and anyone who has enough zero's in their bank account can get in..or who's father was an alumn (and also makes a significant contribution). Why do you think they deny students with perfect SAT scores... And accept some with less than perfect or lower scores... Because they played the flute in h.s. band. They run out of spots from taking "special admit" applicants
Thank you for taking the time to read the book and forward your significant take-aways.
I am thinking that everyone who reads ZH regularly could have written this book, with their own particular perspective and twist.
The "Lehman Moment" started me on my own personal journey of discovery, first trying to understand "why" and then it expanded .. and expanding. 3 1/2 years later I have come to the conclusion that I would much rather be a slave than a slaver... if I cannot totally be free (at least I can be free in my thoughts and in that way have free will).
I never started the journey even remotely thinking of religion, the earths billions of years of forgotten/hidden history or thinking about the eternal questions of: "Who am I?", "Where am I?" and "Why am I here?" ... but that is where I am now. And, every time I think that I have some piece figured out, another avenue opens up that just sucks me in and I go "dang, now I have to rethink everything". Maybe it is meant to be that way ...
A couple of things: Much of observed human history has revolved around assumptions, particularly by our so called leaders, that we, as human animals, are incapable of self control, inherently evil (old testament all the way to Rumsfelt and Cheney), inherently animalistic (territorial, obsessed with competing for a heirarchy of needs ... air, water, food, shelter, procreation ... etc.) among other characteristics. We are driven further and further toward a new secular sodom and gomorrah by our leaders who constantly kill us off, tell us that our brothers are our enemies and make killing seem normal. They throw the animalism and hedonism in our faces as if it is the ideal and keep us in a debt slavery that feeds their needs, drives us to value acquisition of lower comforts and liesure as the ultimate achievement of life while forcing us to spend much of our effort on survival.
At least until I learn better, I believe that there is more to life than liesure for hedonism sake and that while we "may" have originally been bred for slavery, we have much more potential... given the chance, we choose several things in how we live our lives: good vs evil, in service of ourselves or others, in ignorance or in learning, productively or parasitically, hedonistically or morally ... and maybe they are all the same thing.
"I would much rather be a slave than a slaver..."
Interesting thought, and choice of terms.
Christianity demands an ascent of the will and intellect which the left describe as slavery.
The nice thing is American's get to chose their master, e.g. a "Christ" {i.e. religion} or a "Ms. Pelosi" {one of the masquerading religions}.....
Mr. Murry penned "The Bell Curve", to which much attention was given. Sadly, those who partake in Carlin's "Child Worship" attacked it; the work pointed out data that made questionable some of the dogma held Child Worshiper's.
There's a perspective that is critical to understanding many of the subjective views mentioned by Murray {I'm using based solely on Mr.Knight's piece}, and underlies Mr. Carlin's "Child Worship". There is a word for this perspective, it is feminine. Not female, not feminist, but feminine.
There's also another fact that comes into play. A greater accesses and immediacy to certain types of information, e.g. Mr. Spelling's house - something before the age of the internet which would have never been common knowledge.
The synergy of these two things have radically changed the perspective landscape in the past 10-20 years. There is a change in the consciousness that did not exist during the period in which Mr. Murry's book covers.
The tools of the 20th century for politician and those seeking change has been those philosophies, peddled as science because they apply the scientific method, commonly known as the "social sciences". Sadly the data and knowledge of variables used by these peddler's make those who are well trained in what differentiates reliable scientific conclusion from fantasy want to throw up. The most recent popular example is the "man made global warming" debate; which provides a nice nexus for study between the limitations of social science and the capabilities of actual science.
The 5%, by definition, have always existed. And the 5% have always lived far above the rest. What has changed is the immediacy and accessibility to information being viewed through a decidedly feminine lens. E.g. sense of fairness, of what determines self-actualization. Hint, those two things greatly differ for men and women.
So, what do I see these snips from Mr. Murray's book?
I see another opinion looking out over the social landscape, cherry picking data to explain what it sees. Not saying the observations are all wrong. However what seeds gave rise to these fruits, is a question that seems to be not covered....
Intelligence? Please!
Ask one to pronounce "nuclear."
The difference between then and now is the relative remoteness of the possibility of class mobility within the US.
If you haven't "made it" in America by now, it won't be happening. That is all. - Mgmt
Utter BS. It was much much harder to change one's class in the past.
What we see today are a bunch of people who've been through the govenment supported "Child Worship" { http://youtu.be/h6wOt2iXdc4 } indoctrination camp throwing a temper tantrum because other people have toys they want.
Hmmm ... look at the "miracle" founders of large successful companies and how they succeeded over other, many with the same or better ideas... virtually all of them were funded and supported by connections from their fathers... Most likely no one would every have heard of Bill Gates, George W. Bush or Warren Buffet if their fathers were construction workers.
We are taught in business school that discrimination in not about overtly making it harder on those who are not like us, but is much more about making it easier on people who are perceived to be like us. Once the heirarchy is established it is very hard to break. Yes, people can supplicate themselves and enter ... but as a well cared for servant... and yes, they do get nice toys for selling themselves.
Haha
1. Anyone expounding religion as the answer to anyones woes need a good slap.
2. "The purpose of life is to while away the time between birth and death as pleasantly as possible" Sounds logical.
3. Cheers for pointing out a good book not to read.
Thanks,
Fred.
P.S Did you ever notice how creationists always look so unevolved?
Do you work to live or live to work?
When anyone complains about the rich getting richer and the poor getting more poor, what exactly do they mean?
First, the poor person living under a highway bridge or on the street would be hard pressed to literally being more poor than he already is. Being this poor is literally bounded by zero. However, since the “poor” as a demographic have the highest rate of obesity, then they literally are not “poor” in terms of nutrition, even as a few individuals may go hungry. And a recent study of in-kind payments shows that a “poor” family of poor has so much in terms of benefits like almost free medical care, subsidized housing with subsidized heating and air conditioning, subsidized groceries that in some jurisdictions include fast food, that a wage-earner would have to earn almost $60,000 a year to have a higher standard of living.
How “poor” is that? Really?
And of the rich who are now “richer”, who is complaining that Payton Manning is being paid $90 million for a 5 year contract, or that Johnny Depp made only $50 million in 2010? Maybe they are complaining that Bon Jovi made $125 million according to Forbes, or that they reported Oprah had a net worth in 2010 of $2.7 billion.
Are we complaining that not everyone can be Oprah, or Payton Manning? Would that we could, but is that anyone's fault? What kind of world would we have if we saw Oprah coming and we stopped her from rising above being a mere reporter for a local black radio station in Nashville? What would life be like for everyone who now has a job thanks to Oprah? Or the charities she now supports? Nobody will ever know.
I suspect that this well-worn complaint about rich and poor is really a complaint only about some rich people. But who, exactly, except someone who got rich by breaking the law? Well, it turns out that the complaint is about people who got rich by breaking a law that we don't yet have, but in the minds of many people should have. Like laws and regulations that allow people to pay themselves a big bonus. Yet, doesn't Oprah enjoy a 'bonus” of sorts when one of her many business ventures does well and she makes more than she was expecting to? Who shall we let decide that is a fair bonus and and unfair one? What kind of government intrusion into our lives would we have to allow so that nobody in business would make more than anyone else thought was fair?
What kind of world would we be living in then?
I suspect that this well-worn complaint about rich and poor is really a complaint only about some rich people.
That's the kind of thing a soulless person completely lacking in empathy would say.
There are certainly some folks whose concern over "rich vs. poor" has to do with jealousy or envy of the tiny number of people who have "made it" into spectacular wealth.
However, most of us with such concerns are NOT concerned about Oprah or Peyton Manning, because after all, there are only 2 of those people, but instead about the 100,000,000 folks whose lives really do suffer real privation as a result of the way we distribute our resources as a country.
I personally see children every day who are rather obviously suffering from chronic health problems--often minor stuff, but occasionally issues that are going to cause long-term debilitation--and it seems pretty obvious to me that "we" as a society have the potential to prevent a lot of these problems, at such a low cost as to be negligible.
Rather than worry about the blame to be placed on parents, I question the wisdom of (and justifications for) structuring our resource-distribution in such a way. If the GOAL is to provide a dynamic society of individuals achieving their potentials, this is a lousy approach.
In fact, given what I experience, I'm forced to conclude that the goal is ACTUALLY to create a tiered system of class, in which only the offspring of the individuals best able to "game" the current economic structures are presented with real opportunity to achieve their potential, because 50-70% of the public is kept busy scrambling just to maintain basic survival.
This would be a predictable consequence of a system in which competition for benefit starts different groups at different positions on the starting line. Of course it would be easier to win a 400 meter race if you were permitted to start 100 meters ahead of the "poor," when the "poor" constitute 50% of competition.
None of this has anything to do with demanding "solutions" or adjustments from some central authority. That's a totally different issue. It has a great deal to do with the set of priorities we all choose on a daily basis about what is or isn't worth working for.
Would we be richer as a country if they were thin as rails?
"Europeans have broadly come to believe that humans are a collection of activated chemicals that, after a period of time, deactivate. If that's the case, saying that the purpose of life is to pass the time as pleasantly as possible is a reasonable position. Indeed, taking any other position is ultimately irrational."
Do you believe humanity would be better served by teaching children that they are sinners in the hands of an angry God?
This read sounds like Bonfire of the Vanities on steroids without the fictional subtleties. I think I already know the ending.
The guy is nuts if he thinks any movement backed by religion in this country will end in anything less than complete and umitigated disaster.
Really? What is religion? By every measure and definition religion has been measured, the liberal progressive dogmas together make a religion.
Trust me, you do not want what comes of the religion of a pure democracy. It is the anarchy of the mob. It is Cain and Able by the billions.
In the world of comparative religion--ie, the people who've actually studied the question--religion requires:
1) A metaphysic--the explanation for the *real* reason the universe is here and why you have a place in it
2) A meta-ethic--the overarching set of principles which are used to determine the difference between good/bad
3) A teleology--an explanation of the connection between the set of strictures and principles elaborated by the religion and the rewards offered to the faithful--the "why" of the story
"Democracy" lacks all three.
You're full of shit--you don't have the faintest grasp of what constitutes a "religion," and you have no business at all pretending to be an authority on the subject. I guess you must be really masculine, tho. Do you oil yourself up and roll around with other guys demonstrating your prowess?
@BlunderDog
Ah, comparative religion studies.... I see. A group of thinkers get to decide what is a religion.... Regardless, sorry there Blunder; the ideology of "democracy" does have all three.
Seems you did get your name descriptively correct. And your fantasy about my masculinity goes a long way to confirming the central image of your name.
Good luck with the anger there, dog.
I'm not angry, I just said you're full of shit. The hinting around the phrase "child-worship" is more dog-whistle than coherent idea.
You've got nothing to dispel my criticism? Unsurprising.
The real reason the universe is here is to ensure equality of outcomes, whether they be wealth, health care, education, the ability to have sex without consequence, etc. The over-arching set of principles is most clearly revealed by anti-racism, tolerance uber alles, the never-ending denunciation of inequality, and the belief that all white men are essentially evil (unless, of course, they're progressives). The teleology is best expressed by the very non de plume by which leftists prefer to be known -- progressives. If we as a society "progress" in terms of going from the past, to wit: what is bad (colonialism, white western cultural and economic dominance, slavery, religion) to the present and the future, to wit: what is good (global empire, the death of unreformed whites, egalitarianism, atheism), then we as a society have a teleology.
I say you're the one full of shit.
You'd have a better case if your reply had ANYTHING to do with what I wrote. That was all projection.
Religious people always assume that any societal change for the worse is the result of insufficient religion... even when a lot of the changes are driven by religion.
All of the major religions have an exoteric and esoteric aspect, with the exoteric side of things (rituals, invocations, traditions) all being radically different between each religion, and the esoteric aspects being very similar - meditation, humility, asceticism. The disagreements between Sufi mystics and Buddhist monks, for example, are minute compared with the differences between Shiites and Sunnis, or Catholics & Protestants.
Dogma+Ego==HierarchicalDominatorBS
As irrational of missing the splendor of the moon while violently defending the definition of it's consistency as a particular variety of cheese.
An "Awakening" is only likely to happen after a great fall. I've noticed that here and there in Europe the anti-imigrant crowd, the anti-Euro crowd is starting to gain political influence. The recent Panic amongst the Brussels "elites" over the wording of the new Hungarian Constitution especially the part that declares they are a Christian nation is interesting. Some of the problems for the eilite univerities in the US is they graduate more females than males, fewer of the graduates are from STEM courses, they have the attention spans of gnats, and the people that have hired them in the past are in getting into deep do-do. Intelligence that is not developed in the young is not of much use. It gets harder to learn things as you get older and some of the Havard graduates seem to have a problem figuring out the implications of deduction on their paychecks.
If you want a first hand account of America from the 1820s read Lafayette in America, 1824-5. It was written by Lafayette's personal secretary who traveled with Lafayette on a tour of every state. There are several dialogues with American citizens about what freedom from a capricious and burdensome government meant to people. Their joy at being able to determine for themselves how to live their lives according to their own abilities without the heavy hand of regulations.
I stumbled on the book in a local museum. As the book related to an area of history that is relevant to my line of work I feel privileged to have read it. It might be a good idea to pay cash for it. You might be considered an enemy of the state merely by purchasing it. This book should be compulsory reading in high school.
Start with Toqueville, otherwise one is merely reading Lafayette like a child looking upon the morning through the prior day's experiences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville
That sounds like a worthwhile read, I will find myself a copy. For anyone interested, it is available for free here - http://www.archive.org/details/lafayetteinamer01godmgoog
Thank you SO very kindly for posting that link!
I would argue that the emphasis on quarterly corporate earning as expressed in share appreciation rather than in dividend returns combined with wanton share issuance, covert off-balance sheet deals - along with the same in government - and throw in some twisted accounting - has blended into a corruption soup.
Pour into petri dish, add a drop (that's all that's needed) of human frailty and - Wheee ! - A corrupt society bent on displaying the results of labor without the messy labor, itself.
Just sayin'
I'd hardly agree that high IQ has much to do with it.
It's mostly nepotism and networking.
And, ultimately, erudition. And not necessarily anything that makes any sense. It's more about navigating a maze and rotely learning that maze.
I'm sorry but what is described here is related to:
But is not Europe or european civilization.
If you liked that book, you might enjoy these as well:
Bourbon for Breakfast by Jeffrey A. Tucker - https://mises.org/document/5509
In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks: . . . And Other Complaints from an Angry Middle-Aged White Guy by Adam Carolla - http://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Years-Well-All-Chicks/dp/0307717380/
"Fraud flows downhill," my sons economic professor says. He said it's natural for people to "follow the leader" i.e., if they see massive fraud at the top with no penalties, they follow in those foot steps and no longer feel guilt. They now see society values this fraudulent baavior by rewarding it instead of penalizing it.
As this author states, our "culture is unraveling."
Exactly.
++ 401 K
Isn't common sense just so uncommon? I'm looking forward to this read.
Thanks.
Another book review TK? What, have you run out of crappy charts?
Pleasant little hallucination of a book. Nostalgia is a seductive liar.
What is so devastating to this society are high intelligence coupled with a near lack of compassion and morality. The worship of mammon over any form of conscience of what is being done to the environment or fellow creatures. Self gratification pure and simple to the ultimate degree. Unfortunately this is becoming a case where the intelligent are killing their host which is supporting their lavish lifestyles.
You cannot jump from criticizing the intelligent to completely letting the less intelligent off the hook.
You don't need high IQ to grasp ethical principles, and live according to them.
High IQ sociopaths only succeed longer term, because the masses have lost their principles.
+1
This is known as a lack of empathy. Likely brought on by an extemely narcistic society.
This book and review is more superficial tripe by people who understand neither the US nor Europe.
The US is a Fourth Reich police state where people live in fear, with 25% of the prisoners in the entire world - over 2.3 million in a slave labour gulag - with a totally corrupt legal system stealing and confiscating assets from people.
The US is not a 'welfare state' - it is a nation of increasingly desperate poor people who often don't have health care, and little benefits other than the 'food stamps' SNAP card to buy a small amount of food each month.
Europe, in the north-western part of the Continent, remains the nicest place to live in the world, essentially no poverty, very little crime, almost no one in prison, much more real freedom, very little harassment by police or government or crooked judges and lawyers, a much higher quality of life, and much more protection of personal assets and wealth. It has been and still is the real 'kinder, gentler' place to be in the world.
Many of us here are still quietly religious, but like with the handguns and other firearms we own (yes, that's right, Continental Europeans own guns), the gold that we own, and other things, we talk about such things much less than Americans do, we wear them less 'on our sleeve'.
Perhaps the bungling of the EU leaders, the debt monster, the issues in the Mediterranean countries, the British Isles, and Eastern Europe, will end up ruining much of what we have in the years ahead ... but for the moment, in this quadrant of the world, things are still pretty nice, whereas the US is an increasing show of horror. Observing the USA is like watching 1930s Nazi Germany come back to life.
The book really seems quite a bit off, but Brussel bank guy (BBG) is totally off the rocker.
What the books gets wrong is the US is already a complete welfare state, with only marginal differences to any central European state.
Entrepreneurship and open competition is also almost as strangled as in Europe nowadays.
The US judicial system is shittier, yes, but "more real freedom" in Northern and Central Europe, are you kidding me? You have the freedom to move forwards or back along the beaten path in Europe, but try to go two steps left or right and you will become entangled in red tape - a softer form of control than a police baton, but NO real freedom nonetheless.
Well, enjoy the show from where "things are still pretty nice", but don't delude yourself that you could just withstand any wave of change which might roll onto you, much less become the nexus of any form of next "Great Awakening".
"The US is a Fourth Reich police state" .... "Observing the USA is like watching 1930s Nazi Germany come back to life."
So says the man from the state that is the home of the EU and some of the most amoral arms dealers in the world.
It would be hilarious if it weren't dripping with evil lies...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdob6QRLRJU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pry5iL4TIa8
4:20Absolutely correct, bank guy. A profound misreading of "what the founding ideals" of this country were (he needs to start with democracy, equality, justice for all) as well as an idiotic portrayal of Europe, "leisure" being bad, and "work" being good. (We acheived our peak "freedom" as a nation when Slavery was legal, there was no minimum wage, women couldn't vote, and children could work 12 hour days).
Murray, like so many ideologues,starts with a supposition and crafts his "facts" around it to make sure he is "right." He is not a scientist. He's a mediocre writer who has an opinion.
And like the millions of Americans (and devout Muslims around the world) who think the problem with the planet is too little religion, he is comically, tragically wrong.
What is a profound misreading is your belief in democracy and equality as you so framed them.
A Constitutional Republic was created specifically because the Founding Father's were keenly aware of the evils of a pure democracy; read the Federalist Papers
Likewise they did not believe in equality for all but rather equality under the law and freedom to peruse one's dream. Many of the Founding Father's looked upon blacks, the Irish, and others as lesser people. The characterization of the Irish as ape like creatures was not uncommon until some time after the great waves of Irish, fleeing the potato famine in Ireland, had established themselves in America.
But hey, who'd expect someone who want's to be known by the name "RoadLust" would believe anything other than that which supported his desires....
Yo bank guy...guess Murray must have touched a nerve.
Charles Murray presents evidence anf facts. Well researched and foot noted.
You sound exactly like he describes europeans. If the US does approach Nazi Germany, Europe will already have fallen into disarray and feudalism.