Is Liberalism Dead? Fukuyama vs Gray

43:17 —> we already are living in a society where predation is the primary means of amassing wealth

Politics isn't really about what is morally right or wrong. It's about who has the most money, power, and the ability to unalive anyone. That is the very sad human condition we find ourselves in.🙄 They know the people know that the decent and benevolent public image they portray to the public is just a big laughable charade. So people in power want us to know who has the monopoly of force and violence.

The Liberalism that Fukuyama described is rotting.

If people understood "postmodernism" (which has deconstructed everything social, especially liberalism), then what liberalism is today would become clearer.

Both "opponents" are largely the same. Both are very keen at pointing out the flaws of "autocracies", but are blind to the same the flaws in "liberal democracies".

Russia paying a heavy price? Last I heard Ukraine had heavier losses and less troops to call up

Really, really great discussion. Thank you.

Prof John Gray’s wisdom rarely disappoints, many insightful points here

Kind of nonsense without reality.

Excellent discussion!

FF made a great splash with "the End" and now it's going into that great dustbin of great ideas that people forgot. I'm sure it's not a great feeling to see your lifes' seminal work begin to dissolve before your eyes, so I can sympathize with FF, and I understand that he might be a bit off-kilter because of it. This might explain how he can promote a scenario where a Ukraine victory might lead to a favourable outcome. Ignoring the obvious catastrophe of engaging with nuclear weapons he supposes that the Russians will simply depose Putin and carry on in a recalcitrant fashion. Oh the incredible hubris !!! Yes, just as we've predicted the natural outcomes of our former endeavors to effect regime changes, we should trust our good judgement and give Russian society a good shake and expect it to settle down to playing ball with us. I am humbled by the deconstruction of what I had assumed to be an intelligent social critic.

The interviewer's faith in the Western alliance vis a vis Ukraine is touching, if rather naive.

"if Jelzin hadn't nominated a young KGB officer ..." how two elderly gentlemen chat away at the pub.

Wonderful conversation

Fukuyama says he is pessimistic about the future of liberalism because Russia invaded Ukraine, but he is optimistic about liberalism when America invades countries. Fukuyama was a leading supporter of the invasion and destruction of Iraq. Genocide and destruction is liberalism? In his philosophy liberalism includes the right to invade by certain powers. Both speakers claim that Judo Christian tradition gave birth to liberalism. Russia too is Judo Christian but it gave birth to Bolshevism. Philosopher Bertrand Russell associates communism with Judo Christianity. So which is it: liberalism or communism? Russell was a true liberal with a brain power of a thousand Fukuyamas and Grays. Fukuyama says end history means people want to live in western Europe and America. That is not true. Most people want to live in their own countries. That is why imperialists bomb countries to force people leave their countries. Fukuyama and Gray talk as if they are politicians running for office. I wasted 20 minutes on this video.

we already are living in a society where predation is the primary means of amassing wealth.

Fukuyama should talk with dugin but that'd never happen cause the "liberal" world isn't liberal at all. The fundamental assumptions of liberalism lead to its downfall. It's inevitable. It's not the only example of this sort either, in fact, often the end of a thing is built into its very being.

What free election? Donors decide results. What free speech? Universities are targetted for their analysis and media serve arms manufacturers.

Liberalism never survived Romanticism with its divided literatures, and patriotism of the 18th century. It sustains a goal but has been transformed routinely. The latest assaults of social media take discussion to the depths of tribalism.

26:00 On that point, "tactical nukes" seem to serve a similar purpose to strategic nuclear weapons: that is, they're political rather than practical. First, Russian war infrastructure has depended on capturing existing Ukrainian infrastructure to advance, and then it digs in, and so it can't effectively advance and defend territory that it hits so hard as to evaporate the infrastructure. But second, the relatively small yield of tactical nuclear weapons is such that, if the Russians really wanted to do that job, conventional weapons would seem sufficient, without locally irradiating the area so that in the first 48 hours after striking, their own troops can't advance on that zone without getting sick, and without the political consequence of escalating the entire conflict and likely bringing NATO directly in with a conventional response. That does not mean that Russia may never use them, only that their real purpose is to make threats about no-fly zones, and it would be a very bad idea to actually hit anything with them that the Russians plan to take.