Top

The New Nationalist Perspective: Liberalism and Decadence

July 7, 2009

In this show, Dr. Sunic discusses the meaning of decadence. Decadence is part and parcel of the decaying liberal sysem, first described by a great German philosopher of history and cultural pessimist, Oswald Spengler, in his book ” The Decline of the West.” A must-listen show to understand the dynamics and death of liberalism!

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 57 min.

Contact Tom:
tom.sunic hotmail.com

Comments

6 Responses to “The New Nationalist Perspective: Liberalism and Decadence”

  1. Chris on July 8th, 2009 9:47 pm

    Very entertaining and informative show. Yet another wonderful addition to the Voice of Reason Network!

  2. Bill on July 8th, 2009 11:29 pm

    Very good show

  3. Listener on July 9th, 2009 11:02 am

    Listening to it now. About 40 minutes in. Very good and educative broadcast.

    Human rights is problematic in more than what it can be justified to be used for. In practice it does not apply lest people themselves apply part of it, no one has the right to enforce anything on a sovereign nation.

    I also thank you for bringing up these beautiful European concepts such as ausbildung. However it is used today, it has a direct etymological meaning for the people using it. In a way it could also be said to mean; “becoming”, or; “something you become from”. Which just like you and Jamie Kelso said, is actually the opposite to decadence. I hadnt even thought about that before.

    On a larger scale decadence is what is happening today, we as a race are actually risking to decay, rather than to become. Just a thought.

    As far as rolemodels, they are important to have. But if you don’t you can always reason like, to give you an idea

    “Im thankful that those bad people are there, so that I can learn from it and become something better”.

    Thank you both again for a very educational program.

  4. jimbo on July 10th, 2009 8:06 am

    Spengler penned his “Decline of the West” either on or abt the time of WWI; it can only be speculated as to what he would have made of today’s world…..except to say that, undoubtedly, he would have been agag, aghast & nauseated beyond belief!

    “points of interest”, re: Dr Sunic…..could the “Nuremberg Show Trials” be considered the formal “obituary notice” for the West & would Spengler, if he had to have survived WWII, have been a “defendant” ?

  5. Jason Van Biezen on July 21st, 2009 2:49 pm

    Unfortunately I cannot agree with your opinion. There are a few incongruities with your argument that I would like to point out:

    You mentioned the American firebombing of targets in France and Belgium during WWII was justified by the banner of “human rights.” I as you how is this not so? In WWII, bombing techniques were based on very primitive technology in comparison to the smart weapons used by the US military today and though civilians were not targeted, there would inevitably be civilian casualties. On the other hand, when you look at our enemy, Nazi Germany led by Adolf Hitler, a man who ordered the torturous deaths of 12 million Jews, Gypsies and other “undesireables.” These casualties were not the result of accidental deaths during a conflict which were literally unavoidable due to technological limitations, but rather the direct result of the abuse of power combined by one man’s malice against an entire people. Is not the death of 70,000 worth saving the millions of Jews whom were rescued?

    Regarding the Palestinian – Jewish conflict, it is incorrect to label both sides as supporters of different views of human rights. A simple definition of human rights is equality; the ability of every citizen to enjoy their birthrights of freedom of speech, freedom bear arms, freedom against false imprisonment / imprisonment without a trial; or rather the pursuit of such a society. Most modern democracies waver towards such ideologies yet all are unfortunately hindered by the oppression of the personal vendettas of elected officials, however that is a discussion for another time; my point being the Israelis follow the general form of democracy and the “freedom” associated with human rights.

    The Palestinians on the other hand follow a much different view of human rights, one based upon religion. Their view of human rights is brutishly simple: kill all non-believers. But in this we can see the inherent difference between the human rights of the two factions. The Israelis follow the philosophy that human rights encompasses all humans while the Palastinieans, as Hitler, wish to murder all those who are not of their own group; their in their faction remains “free” at the expense of all other humans.

    So no, the Americans were not the same as the Germans, and the Israelis are not the same as the Palistinieans. While democracies and republics are not the perfect models government that support true human rights, they are much closer than the totalitarian governments and religion-based regimes that plague this Earth.

  6. Ba Racknophobe on July 21st, 2009 8:20 pm

    Jason, you’re obviously a headcase.
    You’ve finished your Mossad assigned task, now go away.

Bottom