Libertarianism, cosmopolitanism, and Indo-European tradition

  Warning: this article lies on a metapolitical and ideal level, and not on a programmatic and political level. It was first published on « Counter-Currents Publishing. »

11-19-18-10-1  The obsession of liberals [libertarians, either “classical liberals” or “anarcho-capitalists”] with condemning economic or cultural Marxism is a dead end. Saving Western civilization requires the wisdom to identify, the courage to name, the true contemporary enemy of the West: cosmopolitanism. Cultural Marxism is a sluggish expression, which may at best designate Gramsci’s doctrine that Marxists must, before attempting the Revolution, achieve cultural hegemony; as for economic Marxism, which is only a way of designating communism and planning, it subsists at the margin. Cosmopolitanism is the ideology promoted by the “global superclass,” according to the expression popularized (if not initiated) by Samuel Huntington: the world superclass consists of a transnational network of uprooted and denationalized people, whose gestation dates back at least to the beginning of the 20th century and whose constitution accelerated with the fall of the Soviet bloc. This article aims to elucidate the conceptual relations between liberalism [libertarianism] and cosmopolitanism; and will outline the contours of a new variety of liberalism: a liberalism simultaneously directed against bourgeois nationalism and against cosmopolitanism.

Definition of cosmopolitism

  By cosmopolitan ideology, one must understand, here, the ideology that rejects humanity divided into nations. As such, cosmopolitanism condemns the particular mode of organization that characterizes a nation, which confers on a group of individuals the identity and the unity of a nation. That mode of organization is the following: a relative genetic homogeneity, as well as cultural; a chain of social and juridical ranks that goes back to a sovereign political authority (i.e., the supreme authority within the government); a territory that is covered by, and which limits, this hierarchical and homogeneous organization. Cosmopolitanism attacks the sense of territory and therefore borders, by forbidding governments to defend nations against indiscriminate free trade or free immigration. It also attacks the juridico-political hierarchy of a nation, in advocating the sole income and occupation inequalities, or in defending a world government. Finally, cosmopolitanism condemns the genetic and cultural differences between nations: not content with advocating the relativism of values within each nation—the abolition of moral boundaries enacted within them—it praises the leveling of races and cultures.

Continuer la lecture de « Libertarianism, cosmopolitanism, and Indo-European tradition »

Interview with Roy Barzilai, for Agefi Magazine–english version

  This interview was initially published on the website of Institut Coppet, on September 16, 2015. It was also published, in French, on the website of Institut Turgot, on October 20, 2015, and in the February 2016 issue of Agefi Magazine

 8056037 Roy Barzilai is an independent scholar, who studied both Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and Rivka Schechter’s philosophy of language, rooted in the Hebrew Bible. The synthesis of Rand’s Aristotelian philosophy, and the biblical creed of ethical monotheism provides profound insights into the ideas that shaped the Western mind. By exploring the intellectual history of Western civilization, Roy seeks to reach a greater understanding of the human mind.

  As a financial analyst for more than a decade, Roy became aware of the herd mentality in financial markets. He studied the Wave Principle of Human Social Behavior and the new science of socionomics, focusing on how change in social mood affects society, its ideas, philosophy, culture, and economy. This dynamism is the engine of history.

  Roy holds undergraduate degrees from Tel Aviv University in Law, accounting, and computer science. He is the author of two books: The Objective Bible, published in 2014, and The Testosterone Hypothesis, published in 2015.

Continuer la lecture de « Interview with Roy Barzilai, for Agefi Magazine–english version »

Entretien avec Deirdre McCloskey, pour le journal « Man and the Economy »–version francophone

  Cette entrevue a été publiée, en anglais, par le journal Man and the Economy, dans leur édition de juin 2017, et mise en ligne sur leur site web dès décembre 2016.

  Deirdre Nansen McCloskey a enseigné l’économie, l’histoire, l’anglais et la communication à l’université d’Illinois à Chicago de 2000 à 2005. Economiste, historienne et rhétoricienne réputée, elle a écrit 17 livres et environ 400 publications académiques sur des sujets divers et variés allant de l’économie technique et la théorie statistique à la promotion du transgenre et l’éthique des vertus bourgeoises. Elle est connue en tant qu’économiste « conservatrice » de l’école de Chicago (où elle a enseigné dans les Facultés d’Économie et d’Histoire de 1968 à 1980), mais se présente en tant que « femme du Midwest lettrée, adepte de la théorie quantitative, postmoderne, épiscopalienne progressiste et adepte du libre marché. Et non « conservatrice » ! Je suis une libertarienne chrétienne. »

  Son dernier livre (sorti en mai 2016 aux presses de l’Université de Chicago) s’intitule L’Égalité bourgeoise: comment les idées, et non le capital ou les institutions, ont enrichi le monde (Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World) et donne une explication fondée sur les idées quant à la forte élévation des standards de vie de 1800 à nos jours. Les accidents de la Réforme et de la Révolte en Europe du nord-ouest de 1517 à 1789 menèrent à une nouvelle forme de liberté et de dignité pour les citoyens – via la diffusion d’idées appelées « libérales » – qui provoquèrent ensuite l’explosion de la hausse des standards de vie par la voie du commerce dès lors « libéré ».

  Son livre précédent, appartenant à une même trilogie et intitulé La dignité bourgeoise : pourquoi l’économie est incapable d’expliquer le monde moderne (Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can’t Explain the Modern World – 2010) démontre que les explications matérialistes telles que l’épargne et l’exploitation n’ont pas suffisamment de vigueur économique ou de pertinence historique. Le premier livre de la trilogie L’ère bourgeoise (the Bourgeois Era trilogy), Les vertus bourgeoises: l’éthique de l’ère du commerce (The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce – 2006), démontre que, contrairement à ce que clame le clergé à gauche comme à droite depuis 1848, la bourgeoisie a du bon et l’enrichissement par le commerce n’est pas la pire des éthiques.

Continuer la lecture de « Entretien avec Deirdre McCloskey, pour le journal « Man and the Economy »–version francophone »