Maggie's Farm

"These cultural orientations are not only incompatible with what an advanced free-market economy and a viable democracy require."

I don't think that the above statement is true. Let's take a look at how these concepts are grouped. First you've got:

[cultural orientation - incompatible - free market economy]

Cultural orientations have no obligation to be compatible with a free market economy. For example, there are many rules and regulations within the "bourgeois cultural script" which are not free market. The first and foremost being a sense of order and hierarchy, in the forms of paternalism; and aryanism. It's the idea that all men are not created equal; and that the strongest and best men are expected to rise to the top, where they will enforce the type discipline that females are unable to provide. There is the Platonic expectation that quality of life for all citizens and workers will be the highest goal; within reason.

On to the next:

[advanced - free market - economy]

There is no reason to assume that a "free market" economy is more advanced than other types. China, for example, does not have a free market economy, but has grown much faster than the United States. I hate to refer to Hitler, but he was trying to prevent the collapse of blue-collar wages in the face of an over-financialized economy, when he came up with the idea of "National Socialism." There wasn't enough time to see if it would actually work, because it was replaced by Capitalism and Communism. His goal was to protect workers from over-taxation, and the ravages of inflation. He blamed Wall Street and the Federal Government for the whole mess.

On to the next:

[advanced - free market economy - viable democracy - require]

Again, there is no reason to assume that a free market economy is in the best interests of its citizens; and further, there is no reason to assume that a democracy is required for a free market solution to work.

The word "required" is intended to imply that an over-financialized, over-globalized, free market is the ONLY option if a State wishes to provide the highest quality of life to its citizens. But that's not true. Cheap TV's are of no benefit if the workers are impoverished by an enormous class of "democratic" rent seekers.

Finally, the word "advanced" needs to be examined in more detail. In the context of the statement given, it's intended to mean "better." But is it? America's actual experience with an "advanced" global economy would indicate otherwise. There is the social disaster of a thousand cultures trying unsuccessfully to blend. There is the economic disaster of trying to support millions of Blacks, Mexicans, and old people. There is the ecological disaster of farmers destroying the land and water to grow food for export. There is the financial disaster of skyrocketing house prices caused by rich Asians buying-up all the land. There is the family disaster of working men who have been rendered superfluous by the loss of factory work; and the rise of feminism. (Which Hitler rightly recognized as Communism.) And finally, there is the existential disaster of raising a generation of children who don't know who they are, or where they came from.

So as far as I'm concerned, the whole idea of an "advanced" economy is nonsense. A real advanced economy protects its citizens from foreign invasion; be it ideological, financial, or physical. Globalism is nothing but an empty promise. Each country has its own unique culture and people, and must engage the world in its own way.