Neoliberalism Has Poisoned Our Minds, Study Finds

[ZiprHead]

“Institutions can promote well-being and solidarity, or they can encourage competition, individualism, and hierarchy.”

The dominance of neoliberalism is turning societies against income equality.
At least, that’s according to a study published Tuesday in Perspectives on Psychological Science. A team of researchers at New York University and the American University of Beirut performed an analysis of roughly 20 years of data on from more than 160 countries and found that the dominance of neoliberalism across social and economic institutions has ingrained a widespread acceptance of income inequality across our value systems in turn.
“Our institutions, policies, and laws not only structure our social life but also have a great influence on the kind of people and society we become,” Shahrzad Goudarzi, a Ph.D. candidate at NYU and lead author on the paper, said in a press release.

Their analysis found a correlation between the embrace of neoliberalism and the prominence of what social psychology scholars call “equity-based reasoning,” or a preference for merit over a preference for equality: the line of thinking in which material outcomes, like payment, wealth, and social status, should be proportional to inputs, like productivity, effort, ability and time. In short, the dominance of neoliberalism has promoted the belief that the wealthy have earned their spot in society just as much as the poor have.
“Institutions can promote well-being and solidarity, or they can encourage competition, individualism, and hierarchy,” Goudarzi said. “In our work, we find that neoliberalism has fostered preference for greater income inequality not just in industrialized nations, but throughout the world.”
The researchers find that political systems definitively shape beliefs, and within a period of four years—but they neglected to find a correlation in the other direction, that widespread beliefs have the power to change systems within the same period of time.
“If individuals’ distributive beliefs shape intuitions at all, such a process may require more than a few years to play out,” the paper reads.

“While it is perhaps intuitive that human beings shape the nature of the economies in which they live, our work shows the reverse—that economic systems mold human psychology to fit them,” Goudarzi said in the release. “Neoliberal, free-market reforms appear to increase people’s preference for high levels of income inequality.”

 

[SigmatheZeta]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

 

[Elixir]

Some degree of inequality is desirable. What we have now is medieval - level inequality. It will probably not last as long as the medieval period, because nukes.
Also because nukes, global dominance by dictators autocrats and kleptocrats will grow as they consistently supplant and subvert democracies. They will be the increasingly dominant form of governments going forward for the same reason that the Republican minority controls the US. They cheat, they lie, they’re ruthless and they’re lawless.

If you’re the grandchild of someone born today, it will be up to a very few what you do, what you see and what you believe.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Some degree of inequality is desirable. What we have now is medieval - level inequality. It will probably not last as long as the medieval period, because nukes.
Also because nukes, global dominance by dictators autocrats and kleptocrats will grow as they consistently supplant and subvert democracies. They will be the increasingly dominant form of governments going forward for the same reason that the Republican minority controls the US. They cheat, they lie, they’re ruthless and they’re lawless.

If you’re the grandchild of someone born today, it will be up to a very few what you do, what you see and what you believe.

It would seem that even the "desirable" inequality is something to be diagnosed and addressed. If somebody is not producing enough to live with the same quality of life as others, then we should wonder why. Some people have psychiatric disorders that are treatable. Others have plenty of potential, but we have not succeeded at winning over their confidence in the system. If one person would rather play video games and smoke marijuana, It seems that only a fool would stop at just judging that person. It feels more enlightened to try to figure out what could have so gravely damaged that person's belief that it is worthwhile to try to do more.

I understand the compulsion to disengage all too well. That disengagement was based on principle. I was disgusted with the system. I think that there are other people like me out there that are also disgusted with the system. I envision many minority groups out there that remain poor for the same reason. People that have been insulted over and over have no motive to reward insult.

However, if that trend continues, then it will eventually result in revolution. If people that have the potential to do better continue to disengage from the system because the system will never reward them commensurate with what they feel they are worth, they will not just stop having the leadership potential that they are holding back. They will eventually find an outlet for their leadership potential, and it will not be an outlet that benefits the people that are in power. Eventually, a breaking point is approached.

Eventually, there is going to be a version of Elon Musk that has all of the indigenous strengths of character that led to Elon Musk becoming wealthy and powerful, but that person will not have an economic system that is likely to reward them with lavish wealth. That person will have millions of disaffected people that are quickly starting to feel vengeful or even bloodthirsty.

We have reached a point where the wealthy and powerful are not going to do anything to stop the advancement of wealth inequality. It is not in their self-interest to do so, and it is very much in their self-interest to do whatever they can to entrench and to defend their hegemony. We have already crossed a point-of-no-return, but the wealthy and powerful are fools if they think that that leads to some glorious destiny where the "elite and the wonderful be rewarded for being inherently better than all of those other losers." That is not how it works.

What we are on collision course for is another time-period like the Spring of Nations. The big protests in the past few years are just the start. Anybody that thinks that they are just a "flash in the pan" is a fool. Even the followers of Donald Trump are really a lot more like the Black Lives Matter protesters than most people think. They are really driven by the same force, only one is reactionary because they falsely believe that they can fix everything by forcing us into a backward march while the other is revolutionary and thinks they can use force to deliver themselves unto justice. The causes of their behavior are really the same, and it is going to get a lot more intense over the next several years.

I really consider it unlikely that we can stop it from flourishing into another series of political uprisings like the Spring of Nations period in the mid-19th Century, and I am, quite frankly, at peace with it. I have survived poverty and devastation and homelessness. I can sleep a full night's rest in a ditch. I am a tiny dragon, folks. I can sleep on a tree branch or a ledge. I tell you your future for your benefit, not for mine.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

If the system rewards following the rules, then those with ambition will follow the rules. If the system punishes following the rules, then the shit will eventuly hit the fan.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

I made a mistake above! My guess that much of the Victorian unrest was more due to lack of mobility. If you weren't born in the right area and with the right parents, you were stuck.

 

[rousseau]

If political systems shape beliefs, what shapes the political system?

 

[Jarhyn]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

If the system rewards following the rules, then those with ambition will follow the rules. If the system punishes following the rules, then the shit will eventuly hit the fan.

I think more there is an issue where some folks want to only allow "following the rules" to be rewarding within a limited band: just rewarding enough to prevent revolution, but not rewarding enough to effectively penetrate station, regardless of merit.

There is a certain kind of glass ceiling that is beneficial to anyone in power because "power over people" is a zero sum game: there is only so much available to be had, and when someone has enough "power to", there is no more holding "power over" them.

So, to have more "power over" folks, they must limit "power to" do as people wish to below the threshold beyond which people may hold no real power over them beyond the power we would all exert to prevent the existence of assholes.

I do not think we ought accept the continued existence of this behavior. We ought name it, recognize it when it happens, and then disrupt the activities of such interests.

 

[rousseau]

I think more there is an issue where some folks want to only allow "following the rules" to be rewarding within a limited band: just rewarding enough to prevent revolution, but not rewarding enough to effectively penetrate station, regardless of merit.

There is a certain kind of glass ceiling that is beneficial to anyone in power because "power over people" is a zero sum game: there is only so much available to be had, and when someone has enough "power to", there is no more holding "power over" them.

So, to have more "power over" folks, they must limit "power to" do as people wish to below the threshold beyond which people may hold no real power over them beyond the power we would all exert to prevent the existence of assholes.

I do not think we ought accept the continued existence of this behavior. We ought name it, recognize it when it happens, and then disrupt the activities of such interests.

I believe there is a risk of attributing agency to some kind of faction that is 'keeping people down', and it not just being a systemic problem. Everyone, in almost any position is going to leverage what existing power they have to acquire more power. And if they're a part of an organization that brings with it another dynamic entirely.

In practice those with power are effectively stripping wealth from those with less wealth, but that's a structural, political, and historical problem, not an intentional conspiracy. The individual actions are intentional, but those actions are disparate, diverse, and emerge because of a weak political system. There isn't a coherent 'top' or 'bottom', there are just unrelated people with a lot of power, and the ability to acquire more because of an uninformed polity and spineless politicians.

There is also a fallacy at play in the belief that quality of life should always improve for everyone, all the time. That's the goal, but in practice the movement of history should see a little more rhythm and back and forth. Some states grow, some contract, some communities completely flounder, others prosper. The world is dynamic and doesn't always move 'upward'.

All of that isn't to say that equity shouldn't be a goal, but if we're going to make it a goal we should understand the root of the problem, and be realistic about what's actually possible.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think more there is an issue where some folks want to only allow "following the rules" to be rewarding within a limited band: just rewarding enough to prevent revolution, but not rewarding enough to effectively penetrate station, regardless of merit.

There is a certain kind of glass ceiling that is beneficial to anyone in power because "power over people" is a zero sum game: there is only so much available to be had, and when someone has enough "power to", there is no more holding "power over" them.

So, to have more "power over" folks, they must limit "power to" do as people wish to below the threshold beyond which people may hold no real power over them beyond the power we would all exert to prevent the existence of assholes.

I do not think we ought accept the continued existence of this behavior. We ought name it, recognize it when it happens, and then disrupt the activities of such interests.

I believe there is a risk of attributing agency to some kind of faction that is 'keeping people down', and it not just being a systemic problem. Everyone, in almost any position is going to leverage what existing power they have to acquire more power. And if they're a part of an organization that brings with it another dynamic entirely.

In practice those with power are effectively stripping wealth from those with less wealth, but that's a structural, political, and historical problem, not an intentional conspiracy. The individual actions are intentional, but those actions are disparate, diverse, and emerge because of a weak political system. There isn't a coherent 'top' or 'bottom', there are just unrelated people with a lot of power, and the ability to acquire more because of an uninformed polity and spineless politicians.

There is also a fallacy at play in the belief that quality of life should always improve for everyone, all the time. That's the goal, but in practice the movement of history should see a little more rhythm and back and forth. Some states grow, some contract, some communities completely flounder, others prosper. The world is dynamic and doesn't always move 'upward'.

All of that isn't to say that equity shouldn't be a goal, but if we're going to make it a goal we should understand the root of the problem, and be realistic about what's actually possible.

There is no "faction" but billions of folks disconnected except in their common hold on their self-interest and unacknowledged subconscious drives.

As I understand it the word for such is "zeitgeist".

This is specifically around the zeitgeist, however, of power of the selfish-but-informed. I expect few if any explicitly know this is what they are doing; it doesn't work as effectively when someone knows they are doing it!

Still, there is a steady, visible trend towards behaviors and ideas that self-perpetuate only in systems that thrive on a particular brand of unthinking ignorance and this means that if the behavior is persistent, and it is, it is persistent because it incorporates behaviors that protect the core behavior from "the corrupting influence of knowledge".

My expectation is that book burning stems as a behavior from a latent widespread meme that knowledge is doubt of parental unput, and doubt of parental input is the end of parental attempts at "downloading into their children", and in many ways, this is true.

It's just not a bad thing to let people grow into themselves rather than demanding they be little copies of their parents

 

[SigmatheZeta]

This is unremarkable. It is normal for people to tend to assume that they live in the best of all possible worlds. It is necessary for them to think so if they are going to function well in their day-to-day lives. It is a sort of pragmatic madness.

Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

If the system rewards following the rules, then those with ambition will follow the rules. If the system punishes following the rules, then the shit will eventuly hit the fan.

I think more there is an issue where some folks want to only allow "following the rules" to be rewarding within a limited band: just rewarding enough to prevent revolution, but not rewarding enough to effectively penetrate station, regardless of merit.

There is a certain kind of glass ceiling that is beneficial to anyone in power because "power over people" is a zero sum game: there is only so much available to be had, and when someone has enough "power to", there is no more holding "power over" them.

So, to have more "power over" folks, they must limit "power to" do as people wish to below the threshold beyond which people may hold no real power over them beyond the power we would all exert to prevent the existence of assholes.

I do not think we ought accept the continued existence of this behavior. We ought name it, recognize it when it happens, and then disrupt the activities of such interests.

I am just going to watch and laugh.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If political systems shape beliefs, what shapes the political system?

Access to necessities. When those needs are met, then stupidity and insanity take charge.

After all, look at the US. Things chugging along with Clinton as President, and the nation votes for the other party because... umm... And since then, gay marriage to CRT (and now even a stolen election not contested by the guy who it was "stolen" from) issues have been the main driver of the GOP to influence voters.

When things go too good for too long, people start thinking it is a natural state of existence... not that work or sacrifice was needed to meet those conditions.

 

[Elixir]

If political systems shape beliefs, what shapes the political system?

Access to necessities. When those needs are met, then stupidity and insanity take charge.

And the media. When some frivolous thing becomes the “trending” item du jour it suddenly attains the importance of a necessity. Even if it’s not real. Take the GQP’s manufactured urgency to get rid of CRT in kindergarten. The fact that it doesn’t exist is irrelevant. People can still be stirred to lethal rage, believing with all their hearts (and lacking the heads to know better) that they are crusaders for good. They become willing to tolerate, and even commit, atrocities for “the cause” even though it’s just a political gimmick.

 

[jab]

If political systems shape beliefs, what shapes the political system?

Access to necessities. When those needs are met, then stupidity and insanity take charge.

And the media. When some frivolous thing becomes the “trending” item du jour it suddenly attains the importance of a necessity. Even if it’s not real. Take the GQP’s manufactured urgency to get rid of CRT in kindergarten. The fact that it doesn’t exist is irrelevant. People can still be stirred to lethal rage, believing with all their hearts (and lacking the heads to know better) that they are crusaders for good. They become willing to tolerate, and even commit, atrocities for “the cause” even though it’s just a political gimmick.

I am not sure how this relates to the topic at hand--it seems to me both "sides" in North American democracies want to deflect from serious consideration of economic inequality to mulling over cultural issues.---partly because, on economics, neo-con and neo-lib sing from the same hymnbook.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

For a lot of them I think it's like my former boss--making it work was one of his main pleasures in life. It wasn't a case of work-life balance, work was life. What we would see as hell he didn't.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yea, I have to say that inequality has never bothered me in the least. Wealth is greatly overrated. I have friends who are extremely successful, but work 90 hours a week. Not for me. I'd rather work 50 hours a week and ski on the weekends! I'll bet that the average American with median wealth is not bothered by the fact that median wealth in the US puts him/her in the 1% compared to third world countries. Wealth is relative.

For a lot of them I think it's like my former boss--making it work was one of his main pleasures in life. It wasn't a case of work-life balance, work was life. What we would see as hell he didn't.

Making it work, in many respects, is also a main pleasure in life for myself. The issue is that for the majority of such people, there is no mobility from "making the widget work" to "making the dream project work".

If there was, we might see more dreams existing in the times our eyes are open.

I want a chance to run, not to be bled dry of my inspiration so as to fill a pocket but to bleed myself dry of my inspiration into the things I truly love.

 

[Bomb#20]

...
Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

...
I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

Which Victorian-era revolutions are we talking about? Victorian Britain never had one. If you mean the Russian Revolution, that would never have happened if Russia had been governed as competently as Britain was. For that matter, it would never have happened if Germany had been governed as competently as Britain was. The Victorian age broke down because its enemy had ineffective civilian control over the military and the only civilian in a position to hold the generals back was an idiot with an inferiority complex over his lame arm who liked wearing an army uniform and who thought he could prove his manhood by conquering France. Revolutions aren't caused by inequality or immobility, but by stupid governments.

 

[Bomb#20]

If political systems shape beliefs, what shapes the political system?

Access to necessities. When those needs are met, then stupidity and insanity take charge.

After all, look at the US. Things chugging along with Clinton as President, and the nation votes for the other party because... umm...

No we didn't. The nation voted for Gore. It was the electoral college and five SCOTUS judges that voted for the other party.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

...
Nevertheless, the consequences of inequality will eventually start to show, and we will rediscover, eventually, why extremes of inequality never really last forever. We still have not reached the level of inequality we experienced during the Victorian Era, but we will eventually. The consequences are likely to be similar. Revolutions, political instability, and so on.

Inequality unto itself never really bothered me, but I have always been realistic about its likely consequences. If the people want another Spring of Nations, then they can have it.

...
I'm no expert in the Victorian era. But I would guess that the revolutions then were more due to the fact that there was incredible lack of mobility then. Your success was primarily due to where and whom you were born to. If we want to avoid future disruptions, we should continue to find ways to lower the barriers to success and help people move up when they want to.

Which Victorian-era revolutions are we talking about? Victorian Britain never had one.

Palmerton negated the need for a revolution in the United Kingdom. Besides, if Prince Albert had not talked the queen out of attempting to dismiss him, then there might have been a real revolution in the United Kingdom. The fact that Prince Albert was so determined to encourage a lawful outlook on the limits of constitutional democracy has successfully led to the United Kingdom becoming one of the most stable constitutional monarchies in human history. This was why Palmerton was able to get away with giving words of support to those revolutions abroad.

Ireland actually did have a revolution in 1848, actually, but the severity of the famine there, not to mention the poor organization of the Young Irelander movement, led to that revolution turning out to be an unmitigated failure. More than anything, this really just proves how lunatic it is to rely too heavily upon one crop. When it is struck by a blight, the whole country starves.

Another thing that I believe helped to undermind Ireland's 1848 revolution was the fact that the government of the United Kingdom sponsored the emigration of starving Irish people to the United States. This was really a brilliant move because, without a large force of disaffected and hungry people to serve as manpower for the revolution, there was just nobody really there to fight it. About 30% of Ireland's population was offered a free trip to the United States, where they were going to be able to live under a republic just the way they had wanted, and they were not going to pass it up in favor of a misguided revolution that would have cut them off from the assistance that ultimately saved many of their lives. It would have been madness.

So yes, the Young Irelanders lost their attempted 1848. Big whoop. The reasons for the failure of that revolution and the fact that the UK was not really any breeding for revolutionary sentiment come down to a few important factors:

A) Prince Albert was a political genius that succeeded at talking the Queen of England out of biting off her nose to spite her face, which would have otherwise cost the British a tremendous amount of their confidence in the royal family's willingness to hold up their end of the social contract that preserved their constitutional monarchy, and​

​

B) Irish agriculture had utterly failed to modernize. Not only did many Irish pay for this with their lives, but it also cost the country any chance of independence in a year when there was otherwise a tremendous amount of political energy toward nationalist movements in that particular year. And​

​

C) Palmerton was really a very influential liberal politician. In fact, he was literally the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that represented the Liberal Party. In a way, the rise of the Liberal Party was really a sort of political revolution in its own right. They overthrew the domination of the Whigs vs. the Tories and introduced a whole new era in British politics. To say that Palmerton's leadership in the newly formed Liberal Party did not make him, in a way, a revolutionary would set one up as having a profoundly narrow-minded idea of what constitutes a revolution. The fact that the Whigs and the Tories were both overthrown was a big deal. Even though this occurred only 11 years after the Spring of nations, it still represents a major change, in British politics, that happened during the time-period.​

My opinion is firmly that the United Kingdom was every bit as affected by the forces that were behind the Spring of Nations as any other government, and I argue that it was only the talented statesmanship of several important, identifiable individuals and sheer dumb luck that prevented a more forceful revolution from shaking up the United Kingdom.

It is correct that "stupid governments" tend to play a role in the causes of revolutions, but to pretend that the more widespread causes of a revolution do not have any affect at all on political discourse would be outright demented.

Anyhow, my opinion is that the Spring of Nations was what really put the European continent on course for World War I and, eventually, for World War II.

I am strongly of the opinion that we only have a couple of decades of relative stability left before this country has gotten into a frame of mind that will be amenable to being turned to revolution. I think it is possible for reasonably competent statesmanship to hold off any serious upheavals until then, but we are going to reach a certain point where the only thing capable of stopping a major revolution would be another Palmerton-like figure, which is essentially an aggressive reformer that gives people a means of venting their revolutionary sentiments in a manner that does not result in overturning the established order. It is possible, and there is precedent for it. However, that is not really stopping the political motion: it only really constitutes redirecting the energy along less destructive routes, but it still has to go somewhere.

Fact: white people WILL be a minority group, in the United States, by the year 2045. This is going to be a major political turning point, and it will have consequences. I am not sure what those consequences are going to be. I will nonetheless be very interested in finding out.