Neoliberalism implodes in a crisis of truth and trust



Since the Enlightenment, liberalism has aimed to remove politics from the political. Given that human history is largely defined by clashing worldviews and violent conflict, the impulse to tame this dynamic is understandable. Liberalism, grounded in secular neutrality and rule of law, sought to suppress the passions that drive men to war. Its answer was to distribute power widely enough so that no single leader’s rage or charisma could lead a nation into chaos.

This project has reached its apex in today’s managerial neoliberal regime, where secular humanism serves as the ruling creed and experts, housed in supposedly impartial institutions, are tasked with determining truth. But the cracks in this foundation began forming long ago.

In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks a crisis of truth. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, 'Shut up!'

Our ruling class members have willingly torched the credibility of the very institutions they rely on for legitimacy — all in pursuit of temporary political advantage. That destruction has accelerated a collapse that now feels inevitable. Liberalism faced an epistemological crisis and failed to meet the challenge. Like every tradition that cannot defend its intellectual ground, it is watching its authority erode into dust.

Neutral governance comes with clear benefits. It claims to free society from bitter conflicts over religion and identity. It promises a greater scale of cooperation by stripping away regional particularities — traditions, customs, prejudices — that make governing diverse populations difficult.

Even technical differences tied to nationhood, like currency, units of measurement, or contract law, obstruct trade. But by creating institutions that claim neutrality in matters of faith, culture, and commerce, liberalism increased the scale of possible coordination. It built what amounts to a “minimum viable morality,” a lowest common denominator that allowed incompatible systems to function together.

The problem? That same minimum morality now appears insufficient to hold anything together.

Instead of serving specific peoples with particular needs, modern institutions — staffed by credentialed experts — aim to impose rational, universal standards on everyone. The promise is simple: equal treatment under a neutral system. The administrators of this system are chosen not for their biases, but for their supposed objectivity.

These institutions soon become more than arbiters — they become the final authority on truth. In the liberal order, they are the only legitimate source of knowledge. If it isn’t institutional, it isn’t real.

The economic benefits of this arrangement are obvious. Large-scale cooperation yields immense material gains. Yes, traditions and religious customs may erode in the process, but who can argue with abundance? Prosperity silences most dissent.

As long as the ruling class preserves the credibility of the institutions, the system works. Managerial liberalism turned experts into a new priestly caste — with one crucial difference: This priesthood could actually make it rain. As long as the economy grew and the promises were kept, no one questioned the myth of neutral expertise. All the boats were rising. Why complain?

Unfortunately for the liberal order, human beings are predictably flawed. The institutions were never truly neutral, and the experts were never infallible. Over time, the ruling class got greedy. They stretched their credibility to justify wars and push social engineering — even when it clearly wasn’t in the public interest.

As their grip on power tightened, they grew bolder. Those who ran the system began treating institutional trust as a political currency to be spent. They traded legitimacy for short-term advantage, eroding the very foundation that kept their authority intact.

This trend hit its apex during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Across the board — from the World Health Organization to local physicians — experts promoted obvious falsehoods to maintain power. The betrayal was staggering.

After watching that coordinated institutional collapse, the public started asking uncomfortable questions. If medical professionals — the most trusted experts in life-and-death matters — could lie, what else has the system lied about? Elections? Wars? Economics? History? Suddenly, everything is up for re-examination.

This moment terrifies the ruling class. Its members' entire strategy relied on institutional consensus to shape truth and steer public opinion. This is why disillusioned liberal voices like Sam Harris or Douglas Murray, once celebrated for challenging orthodoxy, now beg the public to get back in the box and stop asking questions.

Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with how we know what we know. Under managerial neoliberalism, experts — and the institutions they populate — became the foundation of knowledge itself. Truth was whatever the expert consensus declared it to be.

Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre (no relation) argued that the survival of any tradition depends on its ability to confront and resolve an epistemological crisis. In the liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks just such a crisis. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to scream, “Shut up!”

MacIntyre also insisted that resolving a crisis requires more than adopting a new framework. It demands understanding why the old one failed. But the current elite show no capacity for that kind of reflection. Instead of humility, we get hysteria — mockery, censorship, and cancellation from experts who should be asking how they got it so wrong.

The global neoliberal order has hit an epistemological wall, and its expert class members lack the wisdom or self-awareness to break through it. They will continue screeching and lashing out in defense of a collapsing worldview. But the truth is unavoidable: The era of rule by experts is ending.

This crisis brings danger, yes — but also opportunity. A new paradigm is emerging. And whatever comes next, it will not be governed by the priests of consensus.

This Yale professor warns of Elon Musk’s ‘fascism’ — and misses the real threat



Timothy Snyder may not be well known in American conservative circles, but his European influence is substantial. I hadn’t heard of the Yale historian until I moved to Vienna, Austria, where he enjoys a kind of celebrity status. European leaders frequently refer to his ideas, whether they are criticizing Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or comparing JD Vance’s criticism of censorship at the Munich Security Conference last month to the Holocaust. These talking points have crossed the Atlantic, reaching U.S. media through figures like CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan. Snyder’s influence among the American left continues to grow.

I recently attended Snyder’s “Making Sense of an Unsettling World” lecture at Vienna’s Institute for Human Sciences. His casual demeanor, paired with a Zelenskyy-style quarter-zip — a nod to the Ukrainian leader he has met and advised — reinforces his “rebel professor” image. This blend of defiance and intellect captivates and galvanizes college students, making Snyder both a compelling and polarizing figure.

Snyder’s call to 'defend institutions' fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable.

After the predictable barrage of ad hominem attacks on Trump — of which there were many — Snyder shifted his focus to the most controversial figure in the administration: Elon Musk. As Snyder spoke, I couldn’t help but notice the vast ideological divide between the left and the right. This gap felt particularly sobering, not just because of its seemingly unbridgeable nature but also because Snyder's perspective undermines the very foundation necessary to bridge such divides: dissent and dialogue enabled by free speech.

Snyder accuses Musk of building a privatized, fascistic government by dismantling America's institutions. According to Snyder, we common folk are mere pawns in Musk’s algorithmic “system,” which he claims is designed to predict and manipulate human behavior. The goal, Snyder argues, is clear: to destroy institutions, privatize government functions, and siphon taxpayer dollars into Musk’s pockets.

Negative vs. positive freedom

Snyder’s argument centers on a critique of the conservative notion of “negative freedom” — the idea that freedom is best preserved by minimizing external restraints on the individual. He dismisses this concept as “freedom against,” portraying it as a tool ripe for exploitation by figures like Elon Musk. In Snyder's view, Musk uses this version of freedom to turn the masses “against” institutions, only to privatize them for personal gain later.

In contrast, Snyder champions the left-leaning principle of “positive freedom,” or “freedom for.”This approach suggests that freedom is only legitimate when exercised in service of ideals codified and enforced through institutions. According to Snyder's 2016 manifesto, which evolved into his New York Times best-selling pamphlet "On Tyranny," institutions “preserve human decency” and serve as the greatest barriers to tyranny. In this framework, Musk emerges as Snyder’s villain, a modern-day figure following in the footsteps of 20th-century fascists who dismantled institutions to consolidate power.

Institutions need accountability

Snyder’s alarmism about Musk exposes the deep divide between the left and right on the nature of freedom and the role of institutions. While critiques of corporate and political power are valid, Snyder’s perspective assumes that institutions should be defended without question, a stance that conflicts with conservatives’ healthy skepticism of concentrated power — a skepticism the left once shared.

Positive freedom, as Snyder envisions it, relies on the belief that government can act as a benevolent force. This assumption contradicts James Madison’s warning that “if angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” But angels don’t govern us. Washington bureaucrats are subject to the same ills and vices that make government over the masses necessary. Defending institutional authority without scrutiny undermines the conservative commitment to negative freedom — the principle that individual liberties should be checks against excessive power.

Snyder’s solution, then, is not just to oppose authoritarian figures but to resist decentralization itself. He cites Aristotle and Plato to argue that inequality leads to instability and that demagogues exploit free speech to seize power. In Snyder’s world, speech is only “free” when it supports institutional interests rather than challenges them. Yet his call to “defend institutions” fails to recognize that institutions can be corrupt, bloated, and unaccountable. Snyder assumes institutions are inherently legitimate, ignoring the need for them to be accountable to the people they serve.

Where Snyder falls short

Snyder’s argument falls apart here. The left's crusade against so-called oligarchs like Musk isn’t about returning power to the people — it’s about re-centralizing it under authorities leftists consider ideologically acceptable.

Negative freedom is dangerous to them because it allows individuals to dissent, challenge state-sanctioned narratives, and question institutional orthodoxy. Yet it is precisely this freedom that has protected human decency from the imposition of top-down tyranny.

Snyder is right that institutions should be defended when they uphold the people's dignity, rights, and liberties. But just as institutions act as a check on the whims of the populace, the dissent of the people serves as a vital check on the inherent corruptibility of institutions. As Madison argued, both safeguards are essential.

When Snyder and his growing following on the global left seek to suppress dissent for the sake of institutional authority, they don’t prevent tyranny — they empower it.

CEO’s ‘targeted killing’ highlights a rising tide of anti-institutional rage



Brian Thompson, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group, was fatally shot Wednesday morning outside of his New York City hotel in what police have described as a premeditated, targeted attack. The 50-year-old CEO was shot multiple times by a masked gunman who had been waiting outside the Hilton hotel along Sixth Avenue, where the Thompson was hosting an investors’ conference. According to his wife, Thompson had received threats, and the bullet casings recovered at the crime scene had a personalized message hand-engraved on the shells: “deny,” “depose,” and “defend.”

This chilling event raises serious concerns — not just about security but about the rising tide of disillusionment and rage in our society.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves.

For years, I’ve warned about the potential for chaos when people lose faith in institutions. Back in 2010, while on Fox News, I vividly recall saying that the very people enabling today’s revolutionary rhetoric would one day find themselves dragged into the streets by mobs and beaten to death on live television.

It sounded dramatic then. Now, it feels prophetic.

The purpose of government

The crumbling of faith in our institutions is largely due to our willful ignorance of the very purpose of our government. Unlike governments throughout history, ours wasn’t designed merely to enforce laws or keep the peace. The Declaration of Independence boldly asserts that governments are instituted among men to protect our unalienable rights — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These rights aren’t granted by any king, congress, or court; they are inherent.

The founders understood something critical: When governments become hostile to those rights — when they oppress rather than protect — it is not just the right but the duty of the people to replace them. However, the Declaration also offers a sobering reminder: People are often more willing to endure suffering than to risk the unknown.

This principle resonates deeply with me. As a recovering alcoholic, I know the temptation to stick with the devil you know. I lived in the pain of addiction for years, afraid that sobriety might only reveal my worst fears: that I was irredeemable, unworthy of anything better. But when the pain became unbearable, I was forced to take the leap.

America is at a similar inflection point.

Pain breeds change — but it must be lawful

We’re living in a time of immense collective pain — pain exacerbated by COVID-19, economic instability, and institutional corruption. Many Americans are willing to embrace the unknown, as we witnessed in this past election. Cohorts from the left moved across the aisle to support Donald Trump. That willingness is a sign of desperation — and an opportunity for renewal.

But it’s also dangerous. The Declaration of Independence was never a call to mob violence or vigilante justice. It was a framework for lawful, peaceful change. America’s founders understood that revolutions driven by hatred and chaos destroy justice rather than uphold it.

When institutions fail — and make no mistake, they have failed — it’s easy to see why people might turn to violence as an outlet for their anger. Marxist revolutionaries, anarchists, and disillusioned citizens will be tempted to act as judge, jury, and executioner. We’ve seen this before in history, from the French Revolution to the riots that followed George Floyd’s death.

But let me ask you: Is shooting someone in the street justice? Even if the victim is guilty — say, a corrupt pharmaceutical executive exploiting the vulnerable — is killing him how justice works?

Justice isn’t about vengeance. It’s about accountability. It requires evidence, due process, and impartiality. Mob justice, on the other hand, tears at the fabric of our society. It replaces the rule of law with chaos and ensures that no one, rich or poor, is truly safe.

A dangerous pattern emerging

Brian Thompson’s murder may be just the beginning of a disturbing trend. As faith in institutions erodes, more people will take matters into their own hands, targeting pharmaceutical executives, health care leaders, and others they perceive as symbols of corruption. This is not justice. It’s anarchy disguised as righteousness.

If we succumb to this mindset, we lose the very principles that make America worth defending. Our nation’s strength lies in its commitment to reasoned debate, lawful protest, and a system where justice is blind.

We must resist the temptation to take shortcuts to justice. Instead, we need to demand better from our leaders, our institutions, and ourselves. The pain we feel as a nation is real, but if we channel it constructively, it can lead to meaningful reform.

The Declaration of Independence gave us the blueprint: a vision for building something greater, not tearing everything apart. It’s up to us to follow that example — with prudence, reason, and care.

This isn’t just about one man’s tragic death. It’s about whether we will uphold the principles of justice or descend into chaos. The choice is ours.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Secret Service’s Incompetence Is Exactly Why We Need Trump To Dismantle The Deep State

The security state is going to have to explain how it could have failed so badly and in so many respects, and why we should believe it.

'Cafeteria Catholic': Another prominent Catholic archbishop calls Biden out as a phony



The Catholic archbishop overseeing the Archdiocese of Washington suggested in late March that despite claiming to be a devout Catholic, President Joe Biden had effectively subordinated his faith to leftist politics. The term Cardinal Wilton Gregory used to describe Biden and others with the tendency to pick and choose which nonnegotiable moral teachings to follow was "cafeteria Catholic."

In his recent speech at a Napa Institute event in Washington, D.C., Cardinal Robert Sarah — one of the most senior and recognizable leaders in the church — similarly slammed Biden, reusing Gregory's descriptor.

Cardinal Sarah, the former head of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and president of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum under Pope Benedict XVI, noted at the outset of his remarks that the "West, while not the birthplace of Christianity, is home [to] much of what was once called 'Christendom' and much of what has become modern society, the roots of which are firmly European."

Sarah, a socially conservative West African, bemoaned the loss of distinction between the former and the latter, indicating that Catholics in the West have assimilated some of the same beliefs as "the general population."

The Catholic leader singled out Biden, now unpopular with the vast majority of American Catholics, as a poster boy for this kind of syncretism and willfully diluted faith.

"You have a self-identified Catholic president who is an example of what Cardinal Gregory recently described as a 'cafeteria Catholic,'" said the archbishop.

Blaze News previously reported that while Biden was celebrating the so-called "Transgender Day of Visibility" on Easter Sunday, Cardinal Gregory said that "like a number of Catholics, [Biden] picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts."

'Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.'

"There is a phrase that we have used in the past, a 'cafeteria Catholic.' You choose that which is attractive and dismiss that which is challenging," continued Gregory.

Cardinal Gregory further suggested that "there are things, especially in terms of life issues, there are things that [Biden] chooses to ignore, or he uses the current situation as a political pawn rather than saying, 'Look, my church believes this, I'm a good Catholic, I would like to believe this.' Rather than to twist and turn some dimensions of the faith as a political advantage."

While Biden's position on gender ideology and homosexual unions certainly put him at odds with Catholic teaching and the church, his radical stance on abortion stands in direct opposition with millennia-old church teaching.

"Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable," says the Catechism. "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life."

Cardinal Raymond Burke, a canon lawyer and former prefect of the church's highest court, said in 2020 that on account of his antagonistic posturing against the church's moral teaching on abortion, Biden "is not a Catholic in good standing and he should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

Cardinal Sarah noted that it's not only Biden who is a "cafeteria Catholic."

"Many of you Catholic public officials are in the same category. Many of your Catholic hospitals and universities are Catholic in name only," said Sarah.

'The latter is a dangerous disease even if its first symptoms seem mild.'

The religious leader noted further that the "important witness to the fullness of our Catholic faith" in America "has been traded for cultural assimilation" and that the "uniqueness of the Catholic community" in America has been lost at the macro level.

However, Cardinal Sarah said that whereas the faith in Europe is "dying and in some places is dead," in part because some prelates are fearful of "opposing the world," the same is not true of the majority of church leaders in the United States.

"[The European prelates] dream of being loved by the world. They have lost the concern of being a sign of contradiction. Perhaps too much material wealth leads to compromise with the world affairs," said Sarah. "I believe that the church of our time is experiencing the temptation of atheism. Not intellectual atheism, but this subtle and dangerous state of mind: fluid and practical atheism. The latter is a dangerous disease even if its first symptoms seem mild."

Cardinal Sarah clarified that by "practical atheism," he meant a loss of the sense of the gospel and the transformation of Scripture into a tool for secular purposes.

This practical atheism is growing increasingly popular among Catholics in other regions of the West, with the ostensible exception of the United States, said Sarah.

Cardinal Sarah added, "Too many do not take the faith seriously."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Libertarianism Had Its Moment But Is Ill-Equipped For The Task Of Saving America

Our cultural decadence and institutional rot can only be remedied by a movement unafraid to assert virtue throughout society.

The Secret To Marxism’s Success? Slowly Infiltrating Existing Structures

Marxists rejected the outward revolution that Karl Marx had planned, and instead opted to subtly shape the way people thought.
This FAILED Prison Policy is Destroying American Schools
play icon

This FAILED Prison Policy is Destroying American Schools

7 Important Social Benefits Kids Develop From Homeschooling

From high interaction with homeschooled families and graduates in multiple environments, professional and personal, I've definitely noticed differences.
Tyre Nichols Footage Unmasks The Left’s Ugly Blood Libel | @AuronMacIntyre
play icon

Tyre Nichols Footage Unmasks The Left’s Ugly Blood Libel | @AuronMacIntyre