The Death Of The Liberal World Order

Authored Leonid Savin via Oriental Review,

A few days ago the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, published an article, titled “Liberal World Order, R.I.P.” In it, he states that the current threat to the liberal world order is coming not from rogue states, totalitarian regimes, religious fanatics, or obscurantist governments (special terms used by liberals when referring to other nations and countries that have not pursued the Western capitalist path of development), but from its primary architect — the United States of America.

Haass writes: Liberalism is in retreat. Democracies are feeling the effects of growing populism. Parties of the political extremes have gained ground in Europe. The vote in the United Kingdom in favor of leaving the EU attested to the loss of elite influence. Even the US is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement institutions. Authoritarian systems, including China, Russia, and Turkey, have become even more top-heavy. Countries such as Hungary and Poland seem uninterested in the fate of their young democracies…

“We are seeing the emergence of regional orders. Attempts to build global frameworks are failing.”

Richard Haas

Haass has previously made alarmist statements, but this time he is employing his rhetoric to point to the global nature of this phenomenon. Although between the lines one can easily read, first of all, a certain degree of arrogance — the idea that only we liberals and globalists really know how to administer foreign policy — and second, the motifs of conspiracy.

“Today’s other major powers, including the EU, Russia, China, India, and Japan, could be criticized for what they are doing, not doing, or both.”

Probably this list could be expanded by adding a number of Latin American countries, plus Egypt, which signs arms deals with North Korea while denying any violation of UN sanctions, and the burgeoning Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon.

But Haass is crestfallen over the fact that it is Washington itself that is changing the rules of the game and seems completely uninterested in what its allies, partners, and clients in various corners of the world will do.

America’s decision to abandon the role it has played for more than seven decades thus marks a turning point. The liberal world order cannot survive on its own, because others lack either the interest or the means to sustain it. The result will be a world that is less free, less prosperous, and less peaceful, for Americans and others alike.”

Richard Haass’s colleague at the CFR, Stewart Patrick, quite agrees with the claim that it is the US itself that is burying the liberal world order. However, it’s not doing it on its own, but alongside China. If the US had previously been hoping that the process of globalization would gradually transform China (and possibly destroy it, as happened to the Soviet Union earlier), then the Americans must have been quite surprised by how it has actually played out. That country modernized without being Westernized, an idea that had once been endorsed by the leader of the Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini.

Now China is expanding its influence in Eurasia in its own way, and this is for the most part welcomed by its partner countries.

But this has been a painful process for the US, as it is steadily and irrevocably undermining its hegemony.

“Its long-term ambition is to dismantle the U.S. alliance system in Asia, replacing it with a more benign (from Beijing’s perspective) regional security order in which it enjoys pride of place, and ideally a sphere of influence commensurate with its power.

China’s Belt and Road initiative is part and parcel of this effort, offering not only (much-needed) infrastructure investments in neighboring countries but also the promise of greater political influence in Southeast, South, and Central Asia. More aggressively, China continues to advance outrageous jurisdictional claims over almost the entirety of the South China Sea, where it continues its island-building activities, as well as engaging in provocative actions against Japan in the East China Sea,” writes Patrick.

And as for the US:

“The United States, for its part, is a weary titan, no longer willing to bear the burdens of global leadership, either economically or geopolitically.

Trump treats alliances as a protection racket, and the world economy as an arena of zero-sum competition. The result is a fraying liberal international order without a champion willing to invest in the system itself.

One can agree with both authors’ assessments of the changed behavior of one sector of the US establishment, but this is about more than just Donald Trump (who is so unpredictable that he has staffed his own team with a member of the very swamp he was preparing to drain) and North American populism. One needs to look much deeper.

In his book, Nation of Devils:  Democratic Leadership and the Problem of Obedience, Stein Ringen, a Norwegian statesman with a history of service in international institutions, notes:

“Today, American democratic exceptionalism is defined by a system that is dysfunctional in all the conditions that are needed for settlement and loyalty...

Capitalism has collapsed into crisis in an orgy of deregulation. Money is transgressing into politics and undermining democracy itself.”

And, quoting his colleague Archon Fung from the Harvard Kennedy School, “American politics is no longer characterized by the rule of the median voter, if it ever was. Instead, in contemporary America the median capitalist rules as both the Democratic and Republican parties adjust their policies to attract monied interests.” And finally Mr. Ringen adds, “American politicians are aware of having sunk into a murky bog of moral corruption but are trapped.”

Stein Ringen

Trump merely reflects the dysfunctionality and internal contradictions of American politics. He is the American Gorbachev, who kicked off perestroika at the wrong time. Although it must be conceded that if Hillary Clinton had become president, the US collapse would have been far more painful, particularly for the citizens of that country. We would have seen yet more calamitous reforms, a swelling influx of migrants, a further decline in the nation’s manufacturing base, and the incitement of new conflicts. Trump is trying to keep the body of US national policy somewhat alive through hospice care, but what’s really needed is a major restructuring, including far-reaching political reforms that would allow the country’s citizens to feel that they can actually play a role in its destiny.

These developments have spread to many countries in Europe, a continent that, due to its transatlantic involvement, was already vulnerable and susceptible to the current geopolitical turbulence. The emergence of which, by the way, was largely a consequence of that very policy of neoliberalism.

Stein Ringen continues on that score:

“Global financial services exercise monopolistic power over national policies, unchecked by any semblance of global political power. Trust is haemorrhaging. The European Union, the greatest ever experiment in super-national democracy, is imploding …”

It is interesting that panic has seized Western Europe and the US — the home of transatlanticism, although different versions of this recipe for liberalism have been employed in other regions — suffice it to recall the experience of Singapore or Brazil. But they don’t seem as panicked there as in the West. Probably this is because the Western model of neoliberalism does not provide any real freedom of commerce, speech, or political activity, but rather imposes a regime of submission within a clearly defined framework. Therefore, the destruction of the current system entails the loss of all those dividends previously enjoyed by the liberal political elites of the West that were obtained by speculating in the stock market, from the mechanisms of international foreign-exchange payments (the dollar system), and through the instruments of supranational organizations (the UN, WTO, and World Bank). And, of course, there are the fundamental differences in the cultural varieties of societies.

In his book The Hidden God, Lucien Goldmann draws some interesting conclusions, suggesting that the foundations of Western culture have rationalistic and tragic origins, and that a society immersed in these concepts that have “abolish[ed] both God and the community … [soon sees] … the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions.” And because by its very nature liberalism must carry on, in its mechanical fashion, “liberating” the individual from any form of structure (social classes, the Church, family, society, and gender, ultimately liberating man from his very self), in the absence of any standards of deterrence, it is quite logical that the Western world was destined to eventually find itself in crisis. And the surge of populist movements, protectionist measures, and conservative policies of which Haass and other liberal globalists speak are nothing more than examples of those nations’ instinct for self-preservation. One need not concoct conspiracy theories about Russia or Putin interfering in the US election (which Donald Trump has also denied, noting only that support was seen for Hillary Clinton, and it is entirely true that a portion of her financial backing did come from Russia). The baseline political decisions being made in the West are in step with the current crisis that is evident on so many levels. It’s just that, like always, the Western elites need their ritual whipping boy(although it would be more accurate to call it a human sacrifice). This geopolitical shake-up began in the West as a result of the implicit nature of the very project of the West itself.

But since alternative development scenarios exist, the current system is eroding away. And other political projects are starting to fill the resultant ideological void — in both form as well as content.

Thus it’s fairly likely that the current crisis of liberalism will definitively bury the unipolar Western system of hegemony.

And the budding movements of populism and regional protectionism can serve as the basis for a new, multipolar world order.



J S Bach Fri, 03/30/2018 - 22:48 Permalink

Oh, Wicked Witch of the West Wing, the cleansing fire awaits thy demise!  Those meds can only keep you standing for so long.  Keep tripping.  Keep stumbling.  Satan calls you to him.  The day approacheth.  Tick tock tick tock. 👹😂

Dindu Nuffins NidStyles Sat, 03/31/2018 - 01:36 Permalink

If our elites had left white Christians any stake, even a small one, in our own nations that our ancestors built, then maybe we could summon the pity to weep that China is displacing them. But the West is now wholly theirs and their brown pets' plaything.

They swindled and huckstered too eagerly, and left nothing in which we could see our own people and values represented, nothing for us to mourn as our own loss in their demise.

The toppling of the Talmudic West cannot come fast enough.

In reply to by NidStyles

NidStyles Dindu Nuffins Sat, 03/31/2018 - 03:51 Permalink

These people are not my elites. They are mostly trash larping as if they were worth more than the Jew dicks they had to suck to get there. They are dressed up Jew slaves nothing more. They get a script and pulled out for the right comment and the right part when they are needed.


They are actors for their owners, because they let themselves be enslaved by vanity and fear.

In reply to by Dindu Nuffins

BorisTheBlade NidStyles Sat, 03/31/2018 - 06:39 Permalink

Elite overall is an overrated concept. I'll drink with a man who went to hell and back and has his sanity and humanity intact and risk him kicking my sorry ass than sit and listen to some empty sit regurgirating his own underthoughts and sharing his path of sucking dozens of miles of cocks before people he neither knows nor cares. We are all gonna die at some point, being a tool and a miserable douchebag won't help the process, which in itself is very natural.

In reply to by NidStyles

JimmyJones Tarzan Sat, 03/31/2018 - 06:47 Permalink

Because Russia is the Boogeyman and it's the only the Leftist idiots have left to obstruct Trump with. Not to mention the appearance of war with Russia sells weapons, a little bonus for MiC

Translation for the NWO, everyone is crazy except for me. (Bunch of Looney control freaks)

Controlled by the same Mafia…

Also "We" aren't doing squat, "They" are.

In reply to by Tarzan

nmewn Stan522 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:00 Permalink


They were granted these lofty academic & government positions through cronyism (nmewn! are using one of those verboten, nasty ism's again! based on their prow-gressive ideology alone and immediately went to work advocating for thought/speech crimes on campus to be pushed into fruition by their fellow travelers in the regulatory-bureaucratic-justice state.

Now...they stop and look around at the smoldering heaps of wreckage they have created while lamenting their ideology is passing from the scene?

If they weren't such puffed up, self-centered, egomaniacal, know-nothings they would understand that with liberty & freedom comes a responsibility to practice self control, two things all "liberals" (note the small L) have no idea how to do.

Cuz, they're all so very smart ya know, just ask em, they'll tell ya ;-)

In reply to by Stan522

two hoots nmewn Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:10 Permalink

The below statements demonstrate (in the minds of those above us) that we must have controls or this, now, is what we become liberal or not (and maybe societies must have controls…but how many is too many, how applied, where, to whom????):

“….the disappearance of any external norm which might guide the individual in his life and actions…(followed by)….. in the absence of any standards of deterrence”,

There are some general truths in this article which is just fancy arranged words telling many what is already know.  That’s what good writers do?  Seems the only “world order” that will work is when some superpower takes it all and runs it strictly their way with force (like Gaza) to keep it…their way.  Any other attempts is like a Soro’s style metalized cancer that spreads through societies and governments leaving them hopelessly divided.   We do not need a world order, that is just some fanciful idea that is stuck in some elite circles desiring control/godhood.  They are full-up of money, pleasure, and as is a natural trait (starting with small kids wanting their way) for humans, they want more, ultimately full control, their way.  That idea needs stopped.

Added later:


Since the dawn of recorded time there was always a separation of wealth/worth, happiness/sadness, for example: see the widow’s mite story.   It is age old story, not new and not likely to change.   I don’t see it as some grand experiment that failed but simple human/social evolution that has taken its natural course, mainly control and power, again, completely natural (home/play/work/clan/global). So if this is where we find ourselves, this must be us, our natural way?   If there was another course, what and where was it (discounting the “fall” which makes it a really bad plan from the get go.)?    If we should have been different, why weren’t we?  If true, “Hope” replaces much of happiness and it soon became the mental manna for the masses.  They tried war and other revolutionary ideas but always settled back to hope after much death and suffering.  Hope even took/takes them to the possibility of another life, a better life but having no clear idea of its content or existence but hope is the last remaining thing to grasp.   I for one do not want to be equal in all ways with others, where is the individualism in that, for “I am” different.  If we were not designed to be different we would have piss ant brains (living in communal dirt piles) and no need for anything larger.  Welcome to nature.

 Note:  Hope had to take them to another life because hope does not feed, shelter, or cloth or prevent death, hence hope must go beyond this existence.    

In reply to by nmewn

nmewn two hoots Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:29 Permalink

For myself, one of the funniest...AND MOST REVEALING...things to come out of the rejection of Hillary was all the "journalists" being sent out from behind the city gates to speak to the deplorable...little people...out here in fly over country. They just couldn't understand it!

It says as much about their snobbish, elitist aloofness as it does about their actual understanding of the world. 

And I have to say, at this point I'm in no mood to give them anymore chances, I'd rather risk whats left on a plumber, carpenter or doctor ;-)

In reply to by two hoots

various1 Adolph.H. Sat, 03/31/2018 - 00:24 Permalink

Quiet you, peasant.

What drivel this article, as usual.

Strong America will bring about world order. And what does "liberalism" has to do with anything?

The propaganda word "liberalism" will surely change meaning. But, modern societies can not be "unliberal".

Usual drivel from ZH. All their "opinions" are nonsense pieces. Well, I suppose they need to get paid, just one propaganda over another.

In reply to by Adolph.H.

various1 Anonymous_Bene… Sat, 03/31/2018 - 00:37 Permalink

haha, peasant.

Re-posting CFR propaganda is the same as "posting it". This site gets paid by these fuckards. You HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON, DO YOU? hahaha. Peasants on this site.

Edit: Oh, peasants think that "what is going on" is meant about some moneys that some millionaires of billionaires pay this site?...

hahaha, no.

As replied below and added here:

Now, why do you think the fuckards from CFR posted this drivel?

Certainty not to educate you.

They have an agenda. EVERYONE ALWAYS DOES.



Think peasants, THINK!

In reply to by Anonymous_Bene…

Polynik3s various1 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 04:08 Permalink

Yes, never post CFR propaganda. 

Never say Liberal World Order. That was the main reason for the speech... To give the world a false history and Newspeak.

Rothschild World Order. Zio-Satanists. Anglo-Zionists. Khazarian Mafia. Zio-Cons. Neocons. Deep Judas State. International Jewry. Lucifarians. Israel.

All the above can be blamed, but never call it Liberal World Order.

Not sure what catagory various1 falls under though. Maybe Bush-Lucifarian or Hasbara troll or some Neocon dude stuck in 9-12-01.

In reply to by various1

DownWithYogaPants Polynik3s Sat, 03/31/2018 - 07:34 Permalink

Various1 must be from Trolledo Ohio. 

Look at the names here in Zh comments.  People who make useful comments usually have creative appellations.  Would you consider "various1" an inspired name? I would not.  I think it was machine made from a dictionary or some guy sitting at a desk tasked with creating a lot by hand.

Just for clarity here:

  • LIBERAL:  I refuse to use the word liberal for anything else but Jeffersonian Liberal these days. These are the good guys. The true westerners that built western civilization for the last 3000 ish years.
  • LEFTY: a rather scummy individual who lacks enough moral structure to be a liberal. They are the primary usurpers of the term liberal. They are the moral jellyfish ready to fit into any container that promises ill gotten gain or free shit.

In reply to by Polynik3s

various1 DownWithYogaPants Sat, 03/31/2018 - 12:44 Permalink

I despise liberals and republicans as much as the next guy.
All are faggoted puppets of these billionaires who tell you what to say and what to do.

This site is merely their HEDGE against loosers who do not eat their shit propaganda on the main news.

A bit better, sure. Attracts idiots who compost in their own filth, so that these billionaires know how to lord over everyone, without exclusion.

Now, why do you think the fuckards from CFR posted this drivel?

Certainty not to educate you.

They have an agenda. EVERYONE ALWAYS DOES.



Think peasants, THINK!

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Akzed Polynik3s Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:53 Permalink

My original red pill was a glossy four-fold flyer listing where all CFR members worked: DOS, DOD, DOT, WH, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, NPR, etc. Then I read None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen, and never looked back. I gave away hundreds of those books, and I left that flyer all over the Pentagon when I worked there. So if this all turns around I get some credit.

BTW, CFR HQ is the Pratt House in Manhattan. George Pratt Schultz was SOS under that great conservative, Ronald Raygun. Any questions?


In reply to by Polynik3s

RabbitOne various1 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:43 Permalink

Liberalism - Socialism - Marxist Anarchist. Choose the title. It will all die a miserable death over the next few years. It will be one crisis after another. Pensions! No money to pay for the $3 trillion deficit. Sovereign Debt! Dragi will stop printing euros and it will all fall down. Retirees! Deficits out of control to pay for retirements and medical care....and the list goes on and on...

In reply to by various1

MrAToZ Adolph.H. Sat, 03/31/2018 - 21:14 Permalink

There is nothing wrong with money, it is the most civilized way of doing business on a grand scale. Money is like a gun it's a thing a tool a measure of energy actually. In the right hands it can save lives in the wrong hands it can destroy without prejudice. It is the person welding the tool that determines the outcomes. Give a madman enough guns and ammo and you get wholesale murder. Give a politician enough money and you get the same.

There is nothing wrong with materialism as far as I can see. If it's your money and you want to worship it or buy everything at Macy's that's up to you. I probably wouldn't be friends with a person like that, but that my friend is liberty. This governmental credo that what's yours is ours and what's ours is ours too is at the heart of the problem.

Look at Hillary's face in that picture. Dollars to doughnuts she thinkin ' "We're making a new world and I'm gonna be in charge of it!"

In reply to by Adolph.H.

Tarzan css1971 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 06:58 Permalink

Actually, progressive is what they called themselves way back, until the country caught on to their love affair with eugenics, population control, and abortion in the 1920s.

They started calling themselves liberal to disassociate with eugenics, which was funded by The Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Institution in the late 1800s.

Economist Richard T. Ely, a founder of the American Economic Association and whose students at Johns Hopkins University included Woodrow Wilson, said “God works through the state,” which must be stern and not squeamish. Charles Van Hise, president of the University of Wisconsin, epicenter of intellectual progressivism, said: “We know enough about eugenics so that if that knowledge were applied, the defective classes would disappear within a generation.” Progress, said Ely, then at Wisconsin, depended on recognizing “that there are certain human beings who are absolutely unfit, and should be prevented from a continuation of their kind.”

After the Reagan era gave the term "liberal" a black eye, they began calling them selves Progressives again, knowing Americans are clueless about their own history...

In reply to by css1971

Polynik3s IridiumRebel Sat, 03/31/2018 - 03:58 Permalink

Liberal World Order is a deceptive name, like Deep State is really just traitors.

Don't let them write the last 30 years. Don't use their Newspeak. 

Liberal World Order was lead by Bush Crime family for years. Also, Not a USA Conservative vs Liberal battle, for you slow folks.

China, Russia, and many more told the Anglo-Zionists no one wants to play their Satanic games.

The Zio-Satanists are rebuffed, hurt, and now want to implement a harsher, brutaller world.

But the Zio-Satanists are inept and afraid of the light

In reply to by IridiumRebel

Oldwood Polynik3s Sat, 03/31/2018 - 04:10 Permalink

Progressives succeed by convincing conservatives that compromise is rational in order to retain power, much as drinking half a glass of poison rather than the whole is winning. Yes, they might not die from half a glass, but they are weaker, and the simple fact that they are still alive gives credence to their strategy which induces them to drink more.

Progressives simply laugh as they advance almost daily. JFK, a liberals liberal, would see this as pure communist usurpation, fulfilling the threats they had always made. Under progressivism America has adopted every aspect of the communist agenda, and we march forward.

In reply to by Polynik3s

FactDog TeamDepends Sat, 03/31/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

I do not live in the USA., nor do I hold any feelings one way or the other for the Country.  It simply is. 

However, I have made a lot of money in the last forty years by NOT underestimating the Yanks.  In fact, my lifestyle is only possible by investing in their major growth companies and expect that will happen for decades to come regardless of the state of Liberalism. 

Learn to deal with facts, not words of "wisdom" from the "smart" people.  Mankind will continue to progress regardless of what the intellectuals think. 

As said by that great philosopher, ME :


"Those that bow to widely acknowledged wisdom, are like the sands of the sea.

Large in multitude

Small by magnitude

And very difficult to wash from the crack of your ass."





In reply to by TeamDepends

RabbitOne FactDog Sat, 03/31/2018 - 09:04 Permalink

I do live in USA. And what we have failed to teach our children is the most evil invention of mankind is government. History can be boiled down to the following:

People start out tribal, then people merge tribes to start government for group protection, government becomes corrupt with power, government fails and tries to stay in power with wars, when wars fail they become dictators or oligarch’s to get the people to worship government, when this fails they commit genocide on the people who do not worship government to hold government together and lastly government collapses and people are once again tribal. Same cycle for the last 8000 years

We are currently in the stage where they want us “to get the people to worship government”. This is why they must take our firearms. People with firearms are a threat. Once they have our firearms we will be made to conform since we will no longer be a threat.

In reply to by FactDog

techpriest dogsandhoney2 Sat, 03/31/2018 - 00:58 Permalink

This is where left-right breaks down.

"Liberal" had a particular reference to favoring a change away from the medieval system of monarchy, and could include what we now call libertarianism (Natural Order, or lawful anarchy), or on the other end, various forms of socialism (the latest iteration of Plato's Republic).

"Conservative" also meant holding on to some or most medieval principles, one of them being that government is not the absolute authority, but a part of a distribution of authority between multiple organizations, a major one being the Church, along with independent cities.

Globalism, in this context, would certainly fit into the socialist framework as it calls for world government organizations to regulate all activity within all nations, similar to how the post Civil War USA operates. Given the wildly unaccountable nature of the American federal government, would a world government really be better?

In reply to by dogsandhoney2

css1971 techpriest Sat, 03/31/2018 - 03:11 Permalink

Mmm. Even social liberals were still in favour of a limited state. Today, even they would be called right wing.

There was a distinct change from liberal thought to socialist in the 1920s, possibly a bit earlier. An entirely different set of philosophers and ideas.

Liberalism today, is not original liberalism. Hence the term Classical Liberal.

"Liberals" today are democratic socialist, social democrats, which philosophically, yes favour Plato's Republic.


And yes, smaller is demonstrably better than larger. The states over the federal.

In reply to by techpriest

thatthingcanfly techpriest Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:15 Permalink


Have you read James Burnham?

One of his central theses was that liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. If you buy that concept, pretty much all the seemingly incoherent positions liberals purport to take begin to seem less incoherent.

For example: Liberals have been on an anti-Christian crusade since at least since the 1960s, as evidenced by their insistence on recognizing the lesser Jewish holiday Hanukkah and the completely contrived Kwaanza during the Christmas season, their political activism to remove manger scenes from town squares and the Ten Commandments from court-houses, and their representation of Christians on mainstream media as backward and "close-minded," whatever that means. Simultaneously, these exact same liberals encourage the immigration (legal and illegal) of Muslims, who harbor a foreign ideology that is totally incompatible with the West, and demand "tolerance" of these people's bizarre, satanic behaviors and rituals, insist on allowing them to build Mosques and Madrassas wherever they want, encourage celebrating Ramadan with a White House dinner every year, and tar-and-feather anyone who dares to criticize Muslims or Islam, even mildly, as a mean-spirited hate-filled racist. (Which race is Islam, again?) On its face, these two dramatically different approaches to the religion of the West and the religion of Mohammad appear inconsistent. But they're not! Both undermine Western Civilization. This is why a liberal can, with a completely straight face, adopt both of these positions, and not feel any internal conflict at all.

Read Burnham!

In reply to by techpriest

Oldwood thatthingcanfly Sat, 03/31/2018 - 08:35 Permalink

We really don't need a book to tell us what's happening.

It is clear progressivism IS suicide.

Every platform they stand demands sacrifice of self for a "greater good" which they call society, the collective, the State or simply some tiny minority interest that must take superiority over your own.

Progressives demand submission to an identity they imply is us, but yet "we" do not gain, individually or in group beyond simple platitudes .... or shit we really never even wanted but are now told is our "right".

Everything that we now "deserve" just for being alive, only requires our submission and surrender of everything we own, finding ourselves renters in our own home and town.

Suicide is the proper term because they are asking us to give what they cannot take.

In reply to by thatthingcanfly