Polish Politician Warns Of Europe's "Degenerate Liberalism"

Authored by Tunku Varadarajan, originally published op-ed at The Wall Street Journal,

As the North Atlantic Treaty Organization prepares for its annual summit this week, there is much talk about tensions between Europe and Donald Trump’s United States. But just as the American public is divided over Mr. Trump, Europe has its own deep fissures. The most prominent example is Brexit, Britain’s vote, months before Mr. Trump’s election, to leave the European Union. A close second may be the EU’s clash with Poland, its largest Eastern European member.

One reason Poland infuriates the EU, according to Ryszard Legutko, is Warsaw’s unswerving pro-Americanism. After Brexit, Poland will be “the most Atlanticist country in the EU,” says Mr. Legutko, a professor of ancient philosophy who also represents Poland’s conservative governing party at the European Parliament.

“That’s why we have the notion of strengthening the eastern flank of NATO with American troops,” he tells me in an interview at the Polish Consulate in Manhattan. “I do not think that a substantial reduction of the U.S. military presence in Germany will happen soon, but one cannot exclude such a possibility, once we remember how quick President Trump can be in taking decisions.”

If Mr. Trump is a harsh critic of American elites, Mr. Legutko plays that role, albeit with a less demotic style, in the European context. In his 2016 book, “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies,” he writes:

“The European Union reflects the order and the spirit of liberal democracy in its most degenerate version.”

That, he tells me, is why the EU “doesn’t merely have individual dissidents in its midst, but also dissident states.”

The prevailing EU attitude “not only toward Trump, but also toward Hungary, Poland, Italy and other dissident governments,” he says, is that they are “accidents, unnatural deviations, that could and will be quickly corrected.”

In the Polish case, Brussels is attempting to apply some muscle toward that end. Poland’s governing Law and Justice Party enacted a law, which took effect this week, imposing a retirement age of 65 on the country’s Supreme Court judges. The aim was to force out some long-sitting liberal jurists and replace them with more-conservative ones. Brussels accuses Poland of violating the EU treaty and is threatening to suspend the country’s voting rights in the union.

“More than 80% of Poles want the legal system to be reformed,” Mr. Legutko says indignantly. “They have had a very bad experience with the courts.” In the Polish Supreme Court—“a body of 100 judges, so with nothing in common with the U.S. Supreme Court”—there are “still members who faithfully and shamelessly served the communist regime in the past.” After communism’s fall in 1989, he says, there were “only 48 cases of judges being charged with collaborating with the communist regime by legalizing its political repression.” In 42 of these cases, the disciplinary courts refused to start legal proceedings. “In five cases, the judges were acquitted. Only one judge was found guilty.”

The Polish government insists its actions are a necessary debridement of the judiciary’s rotten corpus. The EU disagrees, Mr. Legutko says, because “it is liberalism incarnate.” In his book, he writes that “Poland shook off the communist yoke at a time when the Western world had already reached a phase of considerable homogeneity and standardization.” The smart set in Brussels finds the Poles irritating, he tells me, because they want Poland to be “indistinguishable from other EU nations.” An “exotic Poland” that pursues its own political course is unacceptable.

The EU’s elites, Mr. Legutko says, are unbending in their belief that “one has to be liberal in order to be respectable, that whoever is not a liberal is either stupid or dangerous, or both.”

Seconds later, he corrects himself: “I mean the elites of the West, including those of the United States. Being liberal is the litmus test of political decency. This is today’s orthodoxy. If you criticize it, or you’re against it, you’re disqualified.” The world has “shrunk,” Mr. Legutko laments, “and the liberal paradigm seems to be omnipresent.”

What is that paradigm?

“A liberal is somebody who will come up to you and tell you, ‘I will organize your life for you. I will tell you what kind of liberty you will have. And then you can do whatever you like.’ ”

His response—and Poland’s as a sovereign entity—is unequivocal:

“Don’t organize my liberty for me. Do not try to create a blueprint according to which an entire society must function.”

That’s why, he says, Poland is “a dissident member of the EU, and the primary reason why it has been attacked so much. Not because we did something outrageous, but because of who we refuse to be.”

Hungary, under Viktor Orbán, is also an EU dissident. It was, Mr. Legutko says, “the first to be attacked by the elites because of Prime Minister Orbán’s rejection of liberal ways.” But he thinks Brussels sees Poland as a bigger threat:

“Hungary is a small country. Poland is not. The criticism is severe because we are more important, in a way.” What goes down particularly badly with the conservative government in Warsaw is the “condescension” of France and Germany:

“They say to Poland, ‘Why are you making so much noise? Why are you doing all of this? You were part of the club before. You received all sorts of benefits. Isn’t what you got enough?’ ”

No, Mr. Legutko answers. All these “benefits”—such as the elevation of former Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk to the presidency of the “toothless” European Council—mask the disproportionate division of power within the EU. Equality of member states exists only on paper: “The big players use the European institutions to serve their own interests, and the political architecture condemns everyone else to subordinate status.” He says this could become “unbearable” for Poland, especially after Britain’s departure.

You might think Mr. Legutko would sympathize with Brexit, but he regards it as a nightmare. “It was very bad for Poland, and very bad for the EU, because Britain had been a country of common sense.” He describes the response of European leaders: “First, they started by insulting the Brits—they were fooled, they were duped, they were illiterate. The old senile Brits and the uneducated young were those who voted to leave, and those who were intelligent voted to remain.” That reaction, he says, is “typical. You cannot behave differently from us without being a fool.” For an American, the word “deplorable” comes to mind.

Could there someday be a Polish exit from the EU? No, Mr. Legutko says emphatically. “We will probably be the last to leave the EU. We will switch off the lights.” The Poles overwhelmingly favor the union but are concerned about its direction: “Polish history has been very turbulent, as you know. We lost our independence for a long time. So even as we join the world, we are very watchful of our sovereignty, very sensitive about it.”

That watchfulness can shade into hypersensitivity.

An obvious example is the law passed recently criminalizing speech that imputes to Poland complicity in the Holocaust. Mr. Legutko prickles when I ask about the law, taking care to point out that he’s “not extremely enthusiastic about it.” But he says it is a “reaction to the widespread use of the phrase ‘Polish concentration camps’ and ‘Polish death camps’ in the media. We did not establish them. We did not control them. There were concentration camps in France, but nobody calls them ‘French concentration camps.’ ” Mr. Legutko says that he, like many Poles, “agrees with this antidefamation law’s intention and sees nothing objectionable with its text,” but he does concede that it is likely to prove “counterproductive.”

It irks Mr. Legutko that many of the countries that criticize Poland for its Holocaust law have their own legal curbs on speech. That inconsistency appears to reinforce his weariness with the West. “Under the old communist regime, the West was considered an alternative to communism. It was a hope, a place in which one could find refuge from an oppressive and stifling ideology.” Such refuge could be temporary, for “a student who obtained a scholarship in France or Britain,” or permanent, for one who defected. But for those who stayed in Poland, “even watching American or British movies, reading books, or listening to the radio was like a breath of fresh air.”

Mr. Legutko says that “this feeling that there is a different world, unlike the one I live in, is disappearing because of the homogenization of Western culture.” The results are depressing. “Wherever one goes, from Germany to New Zealand, one finds oneself in the power of the same liberal ideology, the same jargon.” Dissenters, he says, are few and marginalized. An incorrect utterance can lead to swift, career-ending reprisals.

Paradoxically, in Mr. Legutko’s view, one now finds greater diversity and freedom of thought in some of the former communist countries, including Poland: “Political correctness is less oppressive, and there are influential nonliberal ideas. The fact that the Catholic Church is strong in Poland makes a difference, because it gives us a mental and spiritual access to ideas and sensibilities that have evaporated in the secular West.

“We often say, half-jokingly and half-seriously, that now Poland may become a country to which people will defect”—people “from France, the Netherlands or Britain.”

Comments

Adolfsteinbergovitch Tue, 07/10/2018 - 03:32 Permalink

In other terms the poles are fed up with negroes and arabs invading us while the Jews in charge do all they can to accelerate the movement. Let's call that the Zimbabweification of western Europe. 

Even my grandson understands that, and agrees wholeheartedly. 

O C Sure ACP Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:16 Permalink

"Liberalism is a poor descriptor...

Corporatism? Communism? Socialism? Fascism?"

Since good laws come from good habits and bad laws from bad habits, we ought to say that none of these, corporatism, communism, socialism, fascism, are good because each requires confiscation from others. Liberalism, though, from its root, liberty, ought to mean the absence of confiscation. However, by the turning of names does not. For what has been renamed as liberal is anything but for the sake of liberty.

In reply to by ACP

O C Sure css1971 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:35 Permalink

I see. A distinction could be added though. A corporation or company no matter how large or small would be just if it were meeting the demand directly to the market of those who voluntarily demand. Such an entity would not be just if it were meeting, or making up demand, indirectly by requiring that the third hop of government be involved so that there is any demand at all. In this way, an entity could rightfully "corner" or "own" the market provided that it is as a result of the former not the latter.

In reply to by css1971

Joe Trader O C Sure Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:47 Permalink

Besides Americans - good luck finding anyone more patriotic than Poles.

 

The fact that the E.U. is opposed to the purge of communist-chosen judges in Poland - really says everything about the E.U.

 

Liberals in Poland can count on the same fate as those communist judges - as Polish leaders have said on record they look up to what Hungary has done - and Hungary's actions will be used as a guide & influence in future actions against liberals in Poland. Liberals truly are domestic enemies.

In reply to by O C Sure

DownWithYogaPants Joe Trader Tue, 07/10/2018 - 05:43 Permalink

Let's untangle what the term liberal really means.  I am a a liberal. That means I believe in:

  • No gun control
  • No sex control
  • No financial control - abolish private central banking. Optimally we are on the gold standard with no central control
  • No drug control - lower the price until the CIA gets out of the trafficking business.

I'm sure I have missed something but you get the drift.  The term "liberal" has been hijacked by some real douche bags.

The term you are looking for when you are talking about the degenerates is "lefty" or "regressives".  I refuse to use the term "progressive".  That label is used as propaganda similar to how the PATRIOT act name was used. In total opposition to the actual functional output of the item.  That is to say it's a lie.

In reply to by Joe Trader

Teja DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 05:46 Permalink

80 percent of Poles want the justice system to be reformed? Well, in which direction? In a direction where the government controls the judges, making it difficult to uncover corruption? Not really probable.

Like Trump with the Supreme Court judges, Kaczynski wants to make his conservative revolution permanent, protecting his party from any corruption inquiries and steering Poland into a conservative direction. But it is a sign of weakness which will be counterproductive in the long run - lower level politicians will become even more corrupt, and if any political change is blocked via the justice system, it will lead to a revolution.

People moving to Poland because it is so wonderfully Catholic and conservative? Dream on. The brain and people drain will only accelerate, up to a point where Poland will be forced to set up emigration control measures.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Hugh_Jorgan Richard Chesler Tue, 07/10/2018 - 10:28 Permalink

It isn't degenerate liberalism. It is suicidal, tyrannical Leftism, Statism wearing a Liberalism's name-tag. Liberalism used to be a noble term of free and free-minded individuals, and that is why it was stolen by Leftists.

There is no Liberty when you invite an unlimited number of your enemies to come live off your tax money and allow them to rape and turn your home into a toilet. There is no Liberty when you are disarmed and thus have no recourse against the bureaucrat megalomaniacs that want to dictate limits on every word you utter and tax every move you make to keep a large dole-class of people who will perpetuate the status quo ad infinitum. It is end of the line insanity.

In reply to by Richard Chesler

CogitoMan Teja Tue, 07/10/2018 - 07:16 Permalink

Teja, all I can say is that you know shit about Poland. I live here and although I am not big fan of Kaczynski I support many of his ideas including cleaning the juristic manure.

I'll clarify to you and others true political game in my country.

We have three factions here....

Pro EU/German ..... aka PO with Tusk

Pro Russian....leftovers from communist times that have few minor parties but in general they are trying to hook up to whoever rules

Pro Jewish/US....those that run Poland, today mainly PiS with Kaczynski at its head

What we are lacking is true pro-Polish faction that has its own party. That gap is partially filled by huge NATIONALISTIC movement that to some degree controls the other three.

All factions above are trying to diminish influence of patriotic people. So far, unsuccessfully.

At this point my main problem with PiS is the fact that Knesset runs "Polish" government to some degree. At the same time Kaczynski does nothing but kisses Jewish/American ass. Poland should put Polish interest at the front, not Jewish or American. This is what Orban does. I'm jealous.

In reply to by Teja

Azannoth Teja Tue, 07/10/2018 - 09:25 Permalink

The problem in Poland is that everybody is corrupt to the bone, both Left and Right so no matter which way the pendulum swings Poland will remain a dysfunctional state ready to be cut to pieces by it's more pragmatic neigbours.

In reply to by Teja

SybilDefense DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 06:28 Permalink

I keep trying to name my own political beliefs, similar to yours, but it's difficult as the identities keep changing. I like "leave me the fuck alone ism".  Here's %5 to fund training we the people how to protect ourselves from invasion, and to manage sufficient military equipment so we will never have to.  Give it back if you don't spend it all.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

CogitoMan DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 07:01 Permalink

You are confused with political terms. What you say is 100% LIBERTARIAN point of view, not liberal at least at what they believe in today.  Yes, those ideas were espoused by true liberals that lived 100 years ago but that terminology was hijacked by socialists/communists and its meaning is totally different. Todays liberals support most of the  the ideas you are against except drug control. But this particular idea overlaps with libertarians point of view so is freedom of your sexual life. But liberals are vehemently FOR gun control and FOR financial control and most importantly FOR big (preferably socialist) government. So if you don't like those ideas you can't be liberal. Just educate yourself buddy.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

lnardozi DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 09:33 Permalink

Funny, I call myself conservative and I believe exactly the same things. Of course, I also believe there should be no federal law not expressly mandated by the constitution. None of that "interstate commerce" and "general welfare" bullshit. Can you imagine? Fifty different governments, and nothing to stop you moving to any of them along with all your legally acquired possessions?

Room for every kind of government you can think of, all driven by customer demand.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Bemused Observer DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

All of the terminology has been hijacked. The result is that it is nearly impossible to define your own beliefs by claiming to be this, that or the other. In fact, no matter what you are discussing, it can be instantly derailed by switching the discussion over to argumentation about what you ARE. You can have 2 people discussing a topic, and all is fine until one or the other claims to be 'liberal', 'conservative', etc. Suddenly it becomes all about THAT, and even if they were agreeing on many points, that's all over now and it becomes "You're stupid!", "You're a facist!", ad nauseum.

 I have no idea WHAT I am, and don't give a fuck about finding a suitable label. Present a situation, and I'll tell you what I'd do and why...but it is up to you to categorize it if you must. I refuse to waste my time trying to figure out what the fuck each group stands for (the hypocrisy runs strong in all of them!) and honestly? I don't see as much difference between them as some of ya'll do...

I start getting a little nervous when I seem to be aligning too well with one group or another. It's always a relief when I discover I have some outlier position on some issue that would cause that group to reject me, because I really don't WANT to be like those people!

Just to give you an idea...I am VERY pro second amendment. I am vehemently anti-death penalty. I am against the welfare state as I believe it to be a government scam, but believe that no citizen should be without a home, or should ever go to sleep hungry, or go without medical and dental care. I believe in good, consistent laws and enforcement, but also believe that a good 80% of the people currently incarcerated do NOT belong there. Only the physically violent or dangerous belong in a prison...the rest should be paying for their indiscretions in other ways.

I am against abortion for other than medical reasons, but do not want to see Roe overturned just yet. In fact, my whole position on abortion is basically that it is a MEDICAL procedure, and the law should NOT be involved except in cases of malpractice, fraud, licensure issues. The law should take no sides on the morality of the procedure, but merely insure that it, like all other medical procedures, is carried out by qualified persons, licensed to practice and following all the PP's of their profession. So, I have a strong moral opposition to abortion-as-birth-control, but have just as strong a moral objection to State interference in ANY aspect of someone's medical care. The GOP has shown a disappointingly hasty willingness to use State power to enforce their own 'moral codes', so I would leave Roe in place for now, because the SECOND it is overturned, they will become a law-making MACHINE! Cranking out VOLUMES of invasive, intrusive laws and regulations regarding an issue they have no business with in the first place. The State should 'campaign' for a position that strongly discourages abortion, even offer incentives not to abort unless medically necessary, and as long as it is not attempting to legislate the issue it can express its opinions. It does when it subsidizes anti-smoking ads, etc.

I believe in strong national defense, but not in a standing national military filled with people who have made it a CAREER.

I want all police to be bonded as a condition of employment. Other professionals are required to be, and medical professionals carry expensive malpractice insurance. The damage an individual can DO in certain fields is so great that we require this extra protection.

I am against all foreign 'aid', except in certain specific and limited natural disaster situations. For longer term and ongoing issues I'd be open to accepting some of their brightest to come get free-educated in whatever it is they need to get their shit together, but that's about it. We should send troops to protect our border, but should only be going after those already here who are creating problems, and anyone who HAS been here illegally for years, worked, raised a family, paid taxes, should just be 'citizenized'. Yeah, they did it 'the wrong way', but a lot of people do a lot of things 'the wrong way'. Why pick on this guy? 'Annoint' him already and let's drive on.

We need to stop 'enabling' the Israeli govt. and force them to work SOMETHING out with their neighbors. Then we should turn to our neighbor, Mexico, and tell them to clean out that cartel-shithole or we will send in the Marines and do it for them. We should be ALLIES with Russia by now. And fuck NATO, they should have been disbanded after the war.

I have no idea what categories I fit on these and so many other issues, or what label I should choose.

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

CogitoMan Bemused Observer Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:40 Permalink

Agree on about 75 percent of what you have said. Still let me mention things I do not agree with.

Death penalty.

Both, victim and offender have certain rights. Most important of them is right to live. Therefore if offender takes someone right to live he should be paying the price with his own life.

Let me explain why....

If potential victim takes the life of the offender in self defense he is allowed to go free. Yet, if offender is killing his victim THE RIGT TO LIVE by the victim is taken away from him. Yet, BECAUSE offender lives trough it he enjoys his life.

This PUTS THE OFFENDER rights above that of the victim. Common law says that all people deserve EQUAL RIGHTS. But, according to your view, murderer has more rights than the victim. I am vehemently against that!

Next.

People should have the right to....blach blach blach

Nope. Nobody has a right to anything except to live and do whatever he wants to do with HIS life while doing no harm to others.

Here is why....

Say, we have an alcoholic. It was his FREE choice and because of that he went to the bottom. After all, nobody MADE HIM alcoholic.

Question here.

Why anyone (including state) has a duty to help him in any way? After all it was his own FREE CHOICE to became alcoholic and making others to pay for his mistake is UNFAIR to others. It is the question of RESPONSIBILITY for the actions we take. Other people should NEVER be held responsible for the mistakes of others.

As usual there are exceptions to the rule.

Those exceptions in my view include those who fell on hard time by accident, like car accident , genetic disease and the likes which are not the result of executing free will.

In this case I do believe we should help those people. By decree. But this is the only exception I can see.

There is always another option of VOLUNTARY help. If someone feels that he wants to help an alcoholic or drug user he is absolutely free to do so. But again, it should be never ever done under the outside pressure. EVER!

In short it is fairly easy to define guiding ideas for just man. It will take only two sentences.

First biblical one...

"You shall not do unto others you do not want to be done to you."

I will add here that if you do not observe this rule you should pay at least twice the amount of harm you did to others-like death penalty for killing.

Second....

"YOU and only you must be held responsible for the acts you commit that are under your control."

That includes everything, from learning to get a better job to using drugs and ending on the street.

Responsibility for acts done under free choice should be the core of the way society functions.

 

 

In reply to by Bemused Observer

BarkingCat DownWithYogaPants Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:14 Permalink

Exactly. The root is liberty. 

I used to misuse the world also as I did not know any better.

That misuse lasted for a couple of decades,  until someone pointed it out to me.

These douche bags have indeed hijacked an absolutely great word and twisted it into meaning the opposite.

What I find even more appalling is that people actually continue to misuse it after seeing information like yours. 

If you let the totalitarians to redefine language, some day you will wake up and wonder why a natural right is something that requires a license and is only permitted to the pigs who now walk on two legs,

In reply to by DownWithYogaPants

Endgame Napoleon O C Sure Tue, 07/10/2018 - 07:59 Permalink

Political correctness is the most apt description, reflecting the signaling nature of it. PC replaced politeness. It also signifies class, and the world is flattening in attitude, in part, because the upper 20% have so much extra money (and excused time off from work) to travel around the globe, whereas the bottom 80% increasingly cannot afford rent. There is a silent majority of dissenters in the USA; it surfaced in the 2016 election.

In reply to by O C Sure

Superlat Adolfsteinbergovitch Tue, 07/10/2018 - 05:31 Permalink

Conservatives used to be mostly idiots, but now liberals are competing with them, since they think race is religion. Its NOT. Islam and catholicism are failed systems. Protestantism could be called the same, but it is only warmongering. It has birth control, ministers than can marry, and thus don't molest children, and it believes in science, except for the truly idiotic American right wing nutcases.

Liberals are morons to accept Islam. THey can accept the people who swear to dump Islam at the border. If not, go back to your home, and fix the dump you came from.

In reply to by Adolfsteinbergovitch

Endgame Napoleon Superlat Tue, 07/10/2018 - 08:15 Permalink

Liberals work hard to force everyone to concede that there is no difference between races, and then, they contradict themselves, beating the drum of identity politics all day long, making sure that this race or that race stands out and is rewarded or recognized by the society, just by virtue of their membership in said race.

Not sure if it is a religion or a career-ladder tool, used for marketing and political / corporate maneuvering.

Racial identity politics used to be more like a religion, requiring sacrifice to prove your morality, like going up against intact Jim Crow laws in the face of fire hoses before all of that was dismantled 50 years ago, but now, it is more like the kind of fake religious observance that is necessary to get ahead in life.

It is like how, in pyramid sales insurance jobs, they pressure you to join a church, where you can exert pressure on other church members to buy insurance from a fellow parishioner. Or, they will not even hire you if you are not already immersed in such an organization.

It is like how, in the South, teachers used to make students stand up in class, announcing where they went to church, one by one. If you do not attend the PC Identity Politics Church, you are not in the crowd that is being groomed for success. 

It’s neoliberal networking. 

 

In reply to by Superlat

otschelnik Tue, 07/10/2018 - 03:43 Permalink

Liberalism started with John Locke's Letter on Tolerance, and ended with Voltaire and the French Revolution.  Voltaire's biographer stated that his political principal was that "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. 

 

Now these people ARE NOT LIBERALS.  They are BOLSHEVIKS, they want to shut down dissent, any dissent from the left or the right.  Doesn't matter if its Bernie Sanders or the Tea Party targeted by the IRS / Lois Lerner.   

css1971 otschelnik Tue, 07/10/2018 - 03:56 Permalink

It ran through to the 1920s. Ended emphatically in the US with the New Deal. Similarly by the end of WWII in Europe, liberalism was gone .

They are certainly socialists, but none seriously believe in common ownership of the means of production any more. So they are more Fascist than Bolshevik. They should be out in the streets worshipping Mussolini, not Marx, after all It's Mussolini's ideas they are implementing.

In reply to by otschelnik

Superlat css1971 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 05:35 Permalink

The US abandoned socialism before it was even out of the Great Depression. Roosevelt shut a lot of those programs down even before the US went collectively into WWII.

In the 1950s, the US swung hard right, then moderated, then swung left in the 1960s, except for bang bang you're dead of three major liberals, JFK, RFK and MLK, which was a message not lost on folks. THe 1970s were liberal, then Reagan the union-wrecking, crack and gun dealing racist, began the path we've been on since 1980.

Meanwhile, right-wing idiots think we're a communist nation because the wasps and jews run the Federal Reserve like a Soviet piggy bank. THe Repugnicans became the Chinese Central COmmittee. The Dems are just spineless patsies along for the ride.

Right-wing voters are suckers, period.

In reply to by css1971

O C Sure otschelnik Tue, 07/10/2018 - 04:28 Permalink

"I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."

And we ought not fail to consider those who have expressed more superficial views. They too have contributed something by developing before us the powers of thought. For from the better thinkers we have inherited certain views but these others are responsible for the appearance of the better thinkers.

In reply to by otschelnik

Khan Bodin otschelnik Tue, 07/10/2018 - 10:04 Permalink

What kind of ignorant, moronic sack of shit are you? Liberalism in economic sense might not be the leissez-faire, free-market and invisible-hand mental masturbation pile of shit of Voltaire, Locke et al, but sure as hell it is in all other senses, especially social and civilizational ones. And, retard, if those you speak of were Bolshevik communists as you say they are, then they would be for public ownership, i.e. for national and people-owned means of production, instead they are like true liberals for fascist, capitalist class owned everything! There is no such thing in true Bolshevism or communism, only in liberalism. But this mindless western animal and others of his kind think that because those liberals want to spend some money by helping the poor, they must be Bolheviks and communists because of it. Your stupidity and ignorance, o degenerete western trash, is truly boundless! eheheheheh

 

You are just a lying amero sack of shit! Cancer! 

 

As is evident, this disgusting fascist worshiping degenerate western trash is in business of worshiping Invisible hand and pile of mental masturbation as its God! 

 

Quit spreading your Invisible Hand religion, degenerate western trash! World is sick of your fascist religion! 

In reply to by otschelnik