tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post30710219233979358..comments2024-03-29T05:14:33.223-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: Francis Fukuyama’s History of the World: Part IUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3586909706515000302011-05-29T12:50:29.600-07:002011-05-29T12:50:29.600-07:00Well written review, Sailer. Too bad it's behi...Well written review, Sailer. Too bad it's behind a subscription wall.TGGPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11017651009634767649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67059232237058313942011-05-29T03:51:05.387-07:002011-05-29T03:51:05.387-07:00I think Lukacs' opinions may reflect the fact ...I think Lukacs' opinions may reflect the fact that he got out of Hungary just before the Communist crackdown. <br /><br />Lukacs always portrays Communism as something ephemeral and flimsy and nationalism-especially Hitlerism-as strong, powerful and attractive. This is why-Lukacs says-it was a priority for Hitler to be defeated and the Red threat had to be ignored until that was accomplished. <br /><br />Yet he admits that Hitler lost his widespread appeal to non-Germans after 1940. And Stalin is somehow simultaneously a weak Communist and a strong nationalist.icrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28710632750093416372011-05-28T18:22:25.430-07:002011-05-28T18:22:25.430-07:00"I mean, I like Japanese people just as well ..."I mean, I like Japanese people just as well as anyone, but their ideal of governance may not be exportable."<br /><br />Exactly. I believe we're even seeing that in America, that the interaction between the culture and the government often determines the outcome. Change the culture of the people and the government may not function as well as it once did, if at all. <br /><br />As Sailer has mentioned, I think the idea that much of governance includes people volunteering to follow the rules even when there isn't enough of any type of law enforcement to make them all do so is important here.jb or mz's black hoodienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56501342601285269072011-05-28T08:19:06.842-07:002011-05-28T08:19:06.842-07:00Yan Shen said
>East Asian governance represent...Yan Shen said<br /><br />>East Asian governance represents a clear-cut alternative to Western style liberal democracy, and hence serves as a refutation of the Fukuyama thesis.<<br /><br />What is the compelling formula of governance possessed by the East Asians? Or, is the magic simply in the fact that they are East Asians?<br /><br />I mean, I like Japanese people just as well as anyone, but their ideal of governance may not be exportable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-69230489590172902682011-05-27T20:36:51.884-07:002011-05-27T20:36:51.884-07:00"Of course Lukas trashed Pat's books - Lu..."Of course Lukas trashed Pat's books - Luckas has always been a joke and a Liberal lap dog."<br /><br /> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArSLNJNUEIM&feature=relatedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26438091065225878822011-05-27T19:41:40.546-07:002011-05-27T19:41:40.546-07:00"In Lukas' WW II books he even called Sta..."In Lukas' WW II books he even called Stalin - a Georgian - a "Russian nationalist"."<br /><br />If you don't think Stalin was a Russian nationalist, then you don't know anything about Russia. His role was similar to Napoleon's - stopping the revolution, replacing it with its exact opposite (nationalism, authority, conservatism). He made a 180 degree turn. And so what if he wasn't physically Russian. Napoleon wasn't French either. French nationalists don't seem to mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-8629637835877467212011-05-27T18:29:43.161-07:002011-05-27T18:29:43.161-07:00Yan Shen's explanation is absolutely correct. ...Yan Shen's explanation is absolutely correct. "The End of History" theory looks better than ever.<br /><br />On a global level there has never been so little violence. Steve pointing to Libya as a refutation of Fukayama's theory shows a complete misunderstanding of it.RAHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-77099716823940185752011-05-27T14:28:49.053-07:002011-05-27T14:28:49.053-07:00Fukuyama's time management -- he attacks Hayek...Fukuyama's time management -- he attacks Hayek without evidently taking time to read him ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-41517654595122332992011-05-27T11:35:13.427-07:002011-05-27T11:35:13.427-07:00YS: In actuality, Fukuyama's end of history s...YS: <i>In actuality, Fukuyama's end of history should be interpreted in the sense that liberal democracy has essentially won the war of ideas and that no other sociopolitical form of governance has the same claim to universal validity or is free from internal contradictions.</i><br /><br />Perhaps you're "interpreting" Steve's throwaway wisecrack a tad too literally, son. It's hardly plausible that Fukuyama's thesis, which ain't exactly arcane, eluded him. Maybe the fact that you don't seem to consider Fukuyma's thesis wisecrack-worthy is what threw you.<br /><br /><i>Citing the example of the recent unrest in Libya as a critique of Fukuyama's assertions makes little sense, since the Arab uprisings clearly bolster Fukuyama's argument.</i><br /><br />Uh, I don't think Steve was adducing the Arab Spring as a refutation of Fukuyama's thesis on the basis of the the Arab Spring's being a bunch of historical events.Rohan Sweenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80204837956763133522011-05-27T08:51:53.820-07:002011-05-27T08:51:53.820-07:00"The natural end state for white countries mi..."The natural end state for white countries might be liberal democracy but they can't survive unless they are also ethno-nationalist."<br /><br />We agree on this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-28983500030097080912011-05-27T08:47:21.120-07:002011-05-27T08:47:21.120-07:00In contrast, Japan, though democratic, will remain...In contrast, Japan, though democratic, will remain Japan because it's a fascist-democracy. Like Israeli Jews, Japanese have a strong sense of what Japanese is and isn't. It might do them some good to liberalize a little more, but Japanese democracy is not founded on the notion that every facet of society must be liberalized, tolerance-ized, and diversity-ized. The leaders and people of Japan work together to ensure that Japan remains Japan, and Japan-ness is one of the defining identities and meanings of Japan. <br />In contrast, Germany is beholden to the liberal democratic model and abolishing itself, not so much due to low birthrates--which can be reversed with higher birthrates--but influx of non-Germans. Germans today say, "Islam is as much of part of German heritage as Christianity." How long can any nation last with such 'liberal democracy'? <br />Similarly, given that the nature/logic of capitalism is inherently globalist, it seems the sensible thing is to counterbalance it with some sense of national economism. So, the policy of nationalist-capitalism is saner than <br />globalist-capitalism. The latter is like whiskey and scotch. If you're gonna consume alcohol, you don't need MORE alcohol but need to eat something to counterbalance the effect of drink. Better to go with whiskey and buffalo wings. <br /><br />So, if a nation is gonna be a democracy, it needs to be a fascist-democracy. <br />Or, if a nation is gonna be a dictatorship, it needs to be a liberal-autocracy. (Better Singapore under Lee than Germany under Hitler.) <br /><br />Everything needs to be balanced or counter-balanced. After all, the advance of the West owed to Hellenism but the stability owed to Christianity(with spiritual roots in Judaism). <br />And East Asia was able to weather the violent transformation toward modernity because it Confucian values/order to lean on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-4556898486904972422011-05-27T08:47:08.260-07:002011-05-27T08:47:08.260-07:00I think I found the flaw in 'Liberal Democracy...I think I found the flaw in 'Liberal Democracy as the End of History'. Liberal democracy is like yin-yin or yang-yang instead of yin-yang. Liberalism is inherent in the idea of democracy, so 'liberal democracy' as an ideal is bound to be too much of a good thing, which is a bad thing. Too much freedom and tolerance is bound to cause problems(which is why PC thugs are trying ever harder to control the chaos they've unleashed.) <br /><br />Similarly, what was the problem with 'fascist dicatatorship' or 'fascist authoritarianism'? Too much order is bound to cause problems. <br /><br />Then the ideal should be something like a fascist-democracy. Such an order would guarantee basic political rights to all its citizens, but its foundations wouldn't simply be universalist and legalistic but rooted in culture, blood, soil, sense of history and heritage. Israel is a sturdy little country because it is a fascist-democracy. Politically, it is democratic like other democracies. But there is a strong sense of Jewish heritage, identity, and destiny at the core concept of the nation.<br />A fascist democracy can be reasonably tolerant but it will clamp down when the the core concept of the nation is threatened. If US were a fascist-democracy, we would, at this point in history, close all borders, deport illegals, and work hard to assimilate non-whites into American-Western culture. It's like the windows need to be closed during a rainstorm. But since US is a liberal democracy, the majority of Americans are not allowed to define what America is except in vague legalistic terms, which will surely lead to its demise. (One could argue US was indeed something of a fascist-democracy prior to the 60s. Founding Fathers were not fans of excessive freedom. Andrew Jackson was a fierce nationalist. Teddy Roosevelt had a strong sense of what America should be.) <br /><br />So, 'liberal democracy' is a redundancy. It's like sugar with honey. It's like day and day instead of night and day. And due to lack of any unifying mythic 'fascist' vision at the core, everything--'gay marriage', illegals living as legals, affirmative action demeritocracy, idiot radical feminims, apes gaining recognition as humans, etc--have all become possible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-13349441273443032212011-05-27T08:04:20.633-07:002011-05-27T08:04:20.633-07:00"He meant that History with a capital H, in t..."He meant that History with a capital H, in the sense of a coherent, directional sociocultural evolution had arrived upon liberal democracy as its highest ideal, one that could no longer be improved upon."<br /><br /><br />"Fuku never said end of H would mean the end of ethno-states or nationalism. He said nationalism would not be the central ideology guiding the world, and he was right."<br /><br /><br />He's at least half-wrong as liberal democracies can only be maintained by ethno-states. There has to be a (mostly) homogenous demos or it will break down.<br /><br />I would also say liberal democracies can only survive if the homogenous population are either individual-based at an instinctive level or clannish at the instinctive level but with that clannishness outweighed by conscientousness.<br /><br />Anywhere else will have a variably sized minority that might want a liberal democracy but they won't be numerous enough to attain or maintain it.<br /><br />The natural end state for tropical people is tribalism.<br /><br />The natural end state for clannish latitudes is gangsterism.<br /><br />The natural end state for white countries might be liberal democracy but they can't survive unless they are also ethno-nationalist.<br /><br />The natural end state for N/Asians may be something similar to white but probably not completely identical.<br /><br />.Wandrinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-61710886607768741542011-05-27T03:25:18.781-07:002011-05-27T03:25:18.781-07:00My apologies: incomparable Steve Sailer has alread...My apologies: incomparable Steve Sailer has already written (in 2007) a review of M. Hart’s book “Understanding human history: An analysis including the effects of geography and differential evolution.” <br /><br /> http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070812_hart.htm <br /><br />Moreover, I am almost sure, that I bought that book after reading that review.<br />Somehow I did not have the energy to read the book at the time.<br /><br />Long life Steve Sailer !!! ( And happy one, I would add.)<br /><br />Respectfully, F. r.Florida residentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38644677905820355102011-05-26T23:44:13.772-07:002011-05-26T23:44:13.772-07:00Though Germany and Japan took a wrong turn in the ...Though Germany and Japan took a wrong turn in the 1930s and 40s, they were able to turn into top-notch capitalist democracies because of their values and national character. So, ideas are not enough. Ideas are seeds that can grow only when planted on soil with right nutrients. This is prolly why Samuel Huntington has serious doubts about massive immigration from Mexico. He was skepitcal about Mexican-Americans utilizing ideas such as capitalism and democracy as other peoples such as Anglos and Germans. Ideas aren't much good if people can't use them right. The future of South Africa will demonstrate this very well. <br /><br />It's kinda like a math argument. Suppose some guy comes up with the greatest math equation that beats all others. So, it is declared as the End of Math. Well, maybe.. but what if most of the people can't even add or substract? What does the great math equation mean to them? It means nothing. Similarly, while democracy and capitalism may be the greatest political and economic ideas created by man after 1000s of yrs, what if most people in a given society cannot understand or use them properly? <br />What good is an automobile to a pack of dogs or a calculator to a bunch of baboons? <br />So, no matter how great an idea, its value will be judged by people who use it or can't use it. <br />Given the demographic future of the West, will democracy and capitalism amount to much? Was Hellenic knowledge of much use to illiterate Germanic barbarians? <br />Ideas are nothing without moral values and character of a people, and such values and character are, to some degree, rooted in human biology which vary from race to race. <br /><br />So, End of History or Ideas is meaningless if the West drastically changes demographically and fills up with people for whom these ideas mean little. Of course, there will always be ideas. Rappers have ideas too, and they talk the talk of democracy. But their meaning of democracy is not 'with freedom comes opportunity and responsibility' but 'freedom means the white man owes me stuff cuz they stole from us and we been victimized forever'. <br /><br />While this nation was founded on the notion of political rights--called 'negative rights'--, people like Obama wanna change the notion to include economic rights, or 'positive rights', which means take from whitey and give to blacks. How long could such 'democracy' last if blacks and their kind were to become the majority? <br />So, there is no single form or meaning of democracy. And there are also ideas a formula for future action and ideas as an afterthought. What if the West is eventually destroyed, and people look for reasons why. As an afterthought, will a new Gibbon credit the fall of the West on capitalism and democracy? <br />After all, suppose Fascism and Communism had prevailed in the West since the 40s. Suppose Germany did not invade Poland. Suppose most of Western Europe turned fascist while Russia and few others turned communist. Now, it might have been less pleasant for many to live under such systems. But, the future of the West would have been secured--as neither fascist nor communist European nations would have indulged in the craziness they're indulging today: multiculturalism.<br />If the West falls, the only idea will be the idea as afterthought. Not democracy and capitalism as the end of history but enders of history.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-71548284465359607022011-05-26T23:43:54.324-07:002011-05-26T23:43:54.324-07:00Indeed, Fuku himself, as a student of Huntington, ...Indeed, Fuku himself, as a student of Huntington, has paid much attention to the role of culture/history in the success/wealth of nations. Democracy may be the best and most advanced political idea and capitalism may be the best and most used economic idea, but if so, how come they don't work for all peoples and all nations? For people to properly utilize democracy and capitalism, they need to have certain values, character, habits, manners, traits. Those are the foundations upon which ideas can take root and succeed. And though certain values make the success of democracy possible, those values/characters are not created by democracy but through a creative-repressive process. Brits, the pioneers of modern democracy, were also inheritors of a culture of 'extreme' discipline, form, manners, propriety. British masses of the past didn't act like they're doing today but sought respectability and called higher-ups 'guvner'. If British masses had acted the way they're acting today prior to magna carta , I doubt if Britain would have moved toward democracy. The elites would have been too busy maintaining social order among the loutish masses to be working toward greater political freedom. In othe words, there would have been no Magna Carta.<br />Today, UK is a strange place. Pop culture and political ideology encourage more rappism, more anarchism, more riotism, more insane and inane youth culture. This destabilizes social order, which undermines democracy, which means the government has to use more Orwellian means to control society. UK barbarizes the soul while repressing the mind. It encourages more boorish rap music for everyone, which makes society more crazy. But since 'Victorianism' is bad and Afro-ism is good, it'd be politically incorrect to denounce wild emotions. Instead, the mind must be made 'correct' via indoctrination. Barbarize the soul and dogmatize the mind. I don't know how long this is gonna work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49707116587301936142011-05-26T23:43:28.142-07:002011-05-26T23:43:28.142-07:00"In actuality, Fukuyama's end of history ..."In actuality, Fukuyama's end of history should be interpreted in the sense that liberal democracy has essentially won the war of ideas and that no other sociopolitical form of governance has the same claim to universal validity or is free from internal contradictions."<br /><br />You make a valid point, but what if ideas are only as good as the people who use them? And did fascism really lose the battle of ideas or did it lose the battle of battle? Since the West won the Cold War, it could be said capitalist-democracy won the battle of ideas over communism. But fascism lost militarily in a massive war. Well, I suppose one could argue that the foolish/reckless decisions of fascist nations reflected the flaws of their ideology: when so much power is concentrated in a single figure, things careen out of control. Also, it's true enough that modern rightist or quasi-fascist nations like Chile, Spain, Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan all turned to democracy in the long run. <br /><br />But this still raises certain questions. Didn't the eventual success of democracy in those nations rely on economic growth made possible by 'fascist' regimes? Huntington seemed to concur with this to some extent. In that case, one could argue that democracy was as much the product (via quasi-fascism)as well as the reason for success. <br />What if it's true that while China is(and should be) gradually moving toward democracy, democracy would be bad for China at this moment.(Similar argument has been made for Russia.) In that case, democracy, while the goal of history, may not always be the idea that directs history in the right direction. After all, maybe rightwing military rule would have been better for Germany in the 20s than democracy, which proved to be too weak and opened the way for radicals like communists and Nazis. <br />The West didn't win the Cold War alone. It won partly with the success of parts of the developing world such as Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore. Yet, the success of those nations depended on quasi-fascism than on democracy. All, except Singapore, eventually moved to full democracy, but their success cannot be laid purely on democracy. They had iron-fisted leaders who enforced certain economic policies. What if quasi-fascism laid the groundwork for democracy? Doesn't it deserve some credit too? <br />Also, prior to success of democracy in the West, the European character had been developed through centuries of Christian discipline and repressive social order. This may have been 'tyrannical' and 'dogmatic', but couldn't one argue that it hardened the Western character to achieve greater things later? After all, German character is more capable and hardy than Polish or Russian character. What built the character of the white man in the America? The tough/rough job of settling wild lands into farms or taking it easy on California beaches with surf boards? <br />And it seems to me that the core of black character was built prior to their liberation in the 60s, from whence it's been going to pot. White racial oppression of blacks may have been unjust but it did make blacks want to prove that they could be men of equal worth. <br />Though none of us like oppression--and though most forms of oppression are indeed useless--, certain forms did produce character in a people, like the military can turn a bunch of wild boys into hardy men. Given that the best democracies were created and/or practiced by peoples who'd been hardened for longer periods under creative-repressive systems, might one not argue that all democracies have a 'facist' basis? Freedom is given shape by form, and form is hammered into the souls of people as character. Oftentimes, it has to be done by force, which is why children should not given too much freedom. Amy Chua goes too far, but her brand of 'fascist parenting' has its advantages.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-1042266153774036252011-05-26T21:56:52.234-07:002011-05-26T21:56:52.234-07:00@Lesley
It's obvious that Steve didn't re...@Lesley<br /><br />It's obvious that Steve didn't really get the gist of the Fukuyama thesis, because he's clearly interpreted the end of history in the sense of there being no more major historical events or tumultuous disturbances. In actuality, Fukuyama's end of history should be interpreted in the sense that liberal democracy has essentially won the war of ideas and that no other sociopolitical form of governance has the same claim to universal validity or is free from internal contradictions. Citing the example of the recent unrest in Libya as a critique of Fukuyama's assertions makes little sense, since the Arab uprisings clearly bolster Fukuyama's argument. As I stated before, Fukuyama has come out looking more prescient in the aftermath of the recent Arab revolts, because many people assumed that liberalism and the desire for freedom had little chance of taking root in traditionally Islamic societies.<br /><br />It's also obvious from your rambling, incoherent post that you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.Yan Shenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06626415549772069331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-38475708055810099362011-05-26T21:35:26.075-07:002011-05-26T21:35:26.075-07:00Fuku really should have named his book END OF RADI...Fuku really should have named his book END OF RADICAL IDEOLOGY(or MACRO-IDEOLOGY). His idea was that the era of MONO-IDEOLOGY claiming to answer all questions and provide all the solutions had come to an end. <br />Marxism was the first and last great threat/challenge to the ideal of a society defined by moderation, pluralism, property rights, and individual liberties. <br />The modern moderate-pluralistic societies had room for different voices, interests, factions, ideologies, enterprises, institutions, sectors, customs and cultures, faiths, properties, etc. It didn't claim to own the one-and-only TRUTH or promise utopia for all men. <br /><br />Marxism, in contrast, posited a supposedly perfect and flawless theory that would unify economics, philosophy, politics, spirituality, education, media, art and culture, science and research, and everything else into a perfect formula, the historical equivalent of E = MC2. <br />No longer would mankind rely on false notions such as 'private property'(bourgeois oppression), 'individual freedom'(opportunity to exploit fellow man or be left alone to starve),'religious freedom'(opiate of the masses), or entertainment(diversion for the masses from their sorry lot). <br /><br />In the communist order, all people would be collectively emancipated and equal and living with truth and justice 24/7. People would be free as one united mass than 'free' as 'individuals' to cheat fellow man or be left to rot in the gutter. And there would be no need for religion since social truth itself woudl be holy and sacred. <br /><br />But communism failed while the West prospered and progressed after WWII. The West also let go of its former colonies and brought forth great social reforms. Marxists had contended that: (1) Western capitalism depended on imperialism to succeed, but in fact, West did better after shedding imperialism (2) non-western nations, due to imperialism or neo-imperialism would never be allowed to succeed in the capitalist world order, but East Asia disproved this. <br /><br />So, the fall of communism really did seem like the End of Macro- or Mono-Ideology. <br /><br />But Fuku didn't pay enough attention to the fact that not only do ideas shape peoples but peoples(in this case, demography)shape history. <br />Even if the increasing masses of non-whites in the West fail to mount an ideological or intellectual challenge to Western society/culture, their very presence will change the core reality and meaning of the West. <br /><br />After all, Germanic Barbarians didn't change the course of history because they came up with an ideology or philosophy to challenge that of the Romans. No, they changed history because there were just too many of them and they had huge axes and wild passions. Because Fuku is an intellectual, he tends to focus more on culture and ideas than on sheer power of numbers and raw passions. Detroit's fall had nothing to do with ideas. It was just the sheer force of riots, lootings, and burning cars. <br /><br />There is the power of the mob, of the fist. Or Fistory. End of history doesn't mean the end of Fistory, especially when so many of those fists belong to angry mobs of another tribe. <br />Fistory begins now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29260524086389012672011-05-26T19:49:36.531-07:002011-05-26T19:49:36.531-07:00"Lukacs is not an honest man:
http://mises.or..."Lukacs is not an honest man:<br />http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=279"<br /><br />I think he's more honest than most, but he too often goes off on funny tangents and relies on macro-formulations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-12199492873657717202011-05-26T19:48:26.852-07:002011-05-26T19:48:26.852-07:00Yan shen ... "Steve, did you even understand ...Yan shen ... "Steve, did you even understand the argument Fukuyama was making in The End of History? He meant that History with a capital H, in the sense of a coherent, directional sociocultural evolution had arrived upon liberal democracy as its highest ideal, one that could no longer be improved upon."<br /><br />I think we all got the gist, genius. Every adolescent generation thinks this way. We just don't agree with him. He takes a word that has a very steady and easily understood meaning for almost everyone, even the dumbest, and then declares it no longer exists. Gasp! Let's buy the book and see why there will be no more history? 2000K perhaps?<br />He felt assured of fame and a place in -- history -- for his clever prediction and bold annihilation of a common concept. <br />I thought he was just a gimmick when he wrote it, and now that he's still at it, he's more tiresome than ever.<br />History, it seems, has passed him by.lesleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57079651204380818062011-05-26T18:21:19.794-07:002011-05-26T18:21:19.794-07:00I don't have a subscription to the American Co...I don't have a subscription to the American Conservative, so I only read the part of Steve's review that he posted here. In an earlier post Steve quoted the NYT about Fukuyama's book. Those snippets contained many embarrassing errors. For example, apparently Fukuyama thinks that the rule of law developed for the first time in 11th century Europe. <br /><br />In fact, ancient Greek cities posted their laws in public places for all citizens to see. Same for the Roman Republic. No one was supposed to be above the law there. <br /><br />How shameless does one have to be to write a book about world history, while not knowing anything about it? Also, if he's that ignorant about history, then he doesn't like history. He can't possibly be fascinated by it if he knows so little about it. The rule of law is just one example. That whole NYT write-up was full of howlers. If he doesn't like history, why the hell is he trying to teach others about it? <br /><br />Perhaps the coming death of the publishing industry will not be such a bad thing after all. No money - no hacks. Or at least less money - fewer hacks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-66587454850081590412011-05-26T17:27:54.418-07:002011-05-26T17:27:54.418-07:00Pat's WWII book was a total disgrace.
I don&#...<i>Pat's WWII book was a total disgrace. <br />I don't know about Hanson's review, but John Lukacs was right to trash it in the American Conservative.</i><br /><br />Lukacs is not an honest man:<br />http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=279icrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-3552278813012803872011-05-26T14:52:17.808-07:002011-05-26T14:52:17.808-07:00"Contra Yan Shen, the 'end of History'..."Contra Yan Shen, the 'end of History' has been proven false by the return of the ethno-state, and race/ethnicity as the main operating principle for division of spoils."<br /><br />Fuku never said end of H would mean the end of ethno-states or nationalism. He said nationalism would not be the central ideology guiding the world, and he was right. Nationalism today tends to be implicit than explicit. Nationalism was an explicit ideology for the West in the first half of the 20th century and then for the Third World in the second half--since national liberation meant third world nationalisms. <br /><br />But nationalism, though still powerful, is implicit and not really an overt ideology in most of the world. Vietnamese are nationalistic but don't make a big deal about fighting Americans or Chinese. Their main concern is money, money, money. <br />And even though the white nations of the West are fading into dustbin of history, there seems to be little resistance on the part of whites. Even Russia, darling of the white right, is allowing in massive immigration from the South. <br />So yes, tensions will exist but nationalism isn't an explicit ideology. <br />But it will continue to be important implicitly in many parts of the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-74066926506803897662011-05-26T14:48:54.840-07:002011-05-26T14:48:54.840-07:00Excuse me if the following admittedly partisan obs...Excuse me if the following admittedly partisan observation offends anyone, but the "End of History," or the ascension to the liberal democratic nirvana, has brought us... Barack Hussein Obama!? The late cultural historian Jacques Barzun wrote an important book as the new millenium approached entitled "From Dawn to Decadence: 1500 to the Present." The title speaks for itself. It wouldn't surprise - if I'm around to see it - that by 2030 Fukuyama's end of history thesis might prove to be literally accurate as we begin the slide down the long wave of a reversion to the [historical] mean.johnsalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01428743912818114522noreply@blogger.com