Friday, September 22, 2017

Black Liberty Matters, by Jacob T. Levy

September 20, 2017

Black Liberty Matters




Originally published at: https://niskanencenter.org/blog/black-liberty-matters/

September 20, 2017
 
“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”
This was Samuel Johnson’s bitter rhetorical question about the American revolution, and the conflict it identifies has never been far from the surface of American political and intellectual life. Compared with the societies of 18th and 19th century Europe, the United States was unusually obsessed with the idea of liberty and unusually economically dependent on slave labor. Sometimes Americans like to tell ourselves that the revolutionary idea of liberty is what finally made abolition possible two generations later, but that sidesteps the paradox that the U.S. was one of the last countries to abolish slavery, and did so only after a decades-long expansion.
The great historical sociologist Orlando Patterson provided an important answer to Johnson’s question in his landmark study Freedom in the Making of Western Culture. Across the centuries, from ancient Greece to modern America, “people came to value freedom, to construct it as a powerful shared vision of life, as a result of their experience of, and response to, slavery or its recombinant form, serfdom, in their roles as masters, slaves, and nonslaves.” It is precisely in slave societies, confronted with the reality of slavery, that people most acutely perceive the importance of freedom, most clearly articulate defenses of it,  and most passionately demand it. Sometimes it is slaves or ex-slaves who do so. But often it is masters. Understanding all too well how they rule over other human beings, they identify being ruled like that as the great social evil, and they fiercely refuse to be subjected to it. Slaveowners and their neighbors can see what unfreedom is like, and they resist it for themselves. This is only partly because they come to identify their freedom as their freedom to own and rule slaves, and are desperate to protect their status as masters. In a more general way, they become very sensitive to anyone proposing to treat them as they treat slaves.
The Freedom of the Masters and the Rhetoric of Liberty
These intellectual and cultural paradoxes in antebellum America survived abolition, and in mutated form survive to this day. The language of freedom in American political discourse has very often been appropriated for the defense of white supremacy. We have often heard the loudest yelps for liberty among those trying to protect the terror and apartheid states of the Jim Crow south, the quasi-serfdom of sharecropping, segregated schools, miscegenation laws, and the suppression of black votes. Particular types of freedom or particular strategies for limiting governmental power—freedom of association, religious liberty, federalism, bicameralism, and so on—all came to be identified at one point or another primarily as ways to prevent the federal government from breaking the power of white rule, just as before the war the protection of private property rights had so often been identified primarily with the protection of slaveowners’ supposed property in other human beings.
None of this means that liberty is not a worthwhile, and true, ideal.
Like Adam Smith, I believe that we often engage in real moral learning by negative example. We learn the value of mercy and kindness through witnessing or understanding cruelty. We learn about justice by being exposed to gross injustice. Patterson’s theory of how we learn about liberty doesn’t mean that we don’t thereby genuinely learn something important. But this history does mean that the public language of liberty in American politics is often not to be trusted. Not to put too fine a point on it, those who proclaim their commitment to freedom have all too often assessed threats to freedom as if those facing  African-Americans don’t count —as if black liberty does not matter.
Treating Black Liberty Like it Doesn’t Matter Distorts the Picture of American Freedom
This exclusion of African-Americans from the calculus of American freedom extends far beyond the questions that most obviously connect to the legacy of Jim Crow, such as voting rights, and far beyond the borders of the old Confederacy.
The way we think about American freedom over time, or in comparison to the rest of the world, ought to be deeply structured by the rise of mass incarceration in the last three decades. It’s not—not in triumphalist narratives about revitalized market liberalism since the late 1970s or since 1989, not in comparative rankings and indices of freedom around the world, and certainly not in the unshakeable American public language that the United States is the freest nation on earth. At the level of gross political generalization, it’s common to encounter the idea that European and Canadian social democracies have chosen to make equality a priority, whereas the U.S. is committed to liberty. The distinctive policing and carceral practices of the American state, the ways that the U.S. is extraordinarily unfree, are nowhere to be seen in the comparison.
That is not to say that people who talk about freedom in American politics have nothing to say about the crises of mass incarceration and of violent, invasive, and militarized policing. American libertarians have always rejected the drug war that contributed so much to these crises. And libertarians have been happy enough to note the disproportionate impact of the drug war on African-Americans and Hispanics. But we have too often treated this as a rhetorical bonus on top of a pre-existing objection to the drug war.
Prisoners returning from forced labor, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 2011.
Prisoners returning from forced labor, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 2011.
What has been much too rare is an understanding of racism as a cause of the drug war and of mass incarceration. Nixon aide John Erhlichman was belatedly explicit about this.  After the civil rights movement, the Nixon administration couldn’t openly admit that it aimed to subject African-Americans to greater policing and control or to mobilize white voters by fear of blacks. The crackdown on hard drugs provided the needed fig leaf. As has so often been true, racism was a cause of the expansion of American state power, a cause of unfreedom. The centuries-old appropriation of the language of liberty by the defenders of white supremacy obscures this, over and over again.
This brings me to two recent and awkwardly-connected controversies within, and about, American libertarianism.
Nancy MacLean Missed the Story on Libertarianism’s Race Problem
The more prominent is the debate about Nancy MacLean’s book on James Buchanan, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and a founder of public choice theory. In Democracy in Chains, MacLean alleges that Buchanan was significantly inspired by the Confederate nostalgia of the Southern Agrarian school, and that his creation of the original ideas and institutions of public choice theory was very much tied up with Virginian resistance to Brown v Board and the civil rights movement. She treats Buchanan as the architect of a decades-long conspiratorial strategy to advance a political agenda that was both anti-democratic and compatible with (indeed possibly supportive of) the maintenance of Jim Crow. I did not know Buchanan and am not much influenced by public choice theory, but those who did and those who are have dealt devastating blows to the credibility of this story. See these two essays co-authored by Crooked Timber’s Harry Farrell and my Niskanen colleague Steven Teles. See also this review essay by my Bleeding Hearts Libertarian co-blogger Steven Horwitz in The Cato Journal and this one by another co-blogger, Michael Munger, in The Independent Review.  I will not try to add to these critiques, which I find entirely persuasive about Democracy in Chains’ details and core claims alike.
But part of what is so strange about Democracy in Chains is its choice of targets. The claims MacLean makes are untrue about Buchanan. But the history of the postwar libertarian movement is rich with moments of flirtation or outright entanglement with the defenders of white supremacy. This is most conspicuous today in the explicit sympathy for the Confederacy in some quarters, a problem I’ve written about before. There’d be no trouble writing a better book than MacLean’s about the dark history of libertarian politics that ran from Murray Rothbard’s support for Strom Thurmond’s presidential campaign to Lew Rockwell’s celebration to the beating of Rodney King to the racism that went out under Ron Paul’s name in his newsletters in the 1980s and 90s to the case of then-aide to Rand Paul Jack Hunter. The generalized distrust of institutions that can be part of anti-statism easily falls back on the fantasy of a unified pre-political national people, and that populist nationalism in America is almost definitionally white populist nationalism.
The particular fascination with Abraham Lincoln’s (genuine but far from unique) violations of civil liberties, the celebration of secession, the insistence on discussing the Civil Rights Act primarily in terms of freedom of association (as if white supremacy in the Jim Crow south were just a private taste that some people indulged), and an interest in freedom of speech that focuses disproportionately on the freedom to indulge in racially-charged “political incorrectness” could all figure in such a book. Rothbard was a decisive figure in the development of organized libertarianism, and the Pauls are hardly minor characters in libertarian and quasi-libertarian politics. I suspect they were less appealing to MacLean because Buchanan was close to Charles and David Koch for decades after Rothbard and his circle went to ideological war against them, and the Kochs were the exciting target for her to try to implicate.
But there are ways to neglect black liberty that are subtler than the white nationalism of the Confederatistas. Think about the different ways that market liberals and libertarians talk about “welfare” from how they talk about other kinds of government redistribution. There’s no talk of the culture of dependence among farmers, although they receive far more government aid per capita than do the urban poor. Libertarians absolutely and clearly oppose corporate welfare, but they don’t do so in the paternalistic language that corporate welfare recipients are morally hurt by being on the dole. The white welfare state of the 1930s-60s that channeled government support for, e.g., housing, urban development, and higher education through segregated institutions has a way of disappearing from the historical memory; the degrees earned and homes bought get remembered as hard work contributing to the American dream. But too many libertarians and their market-oriented allies among postwar conservatives treated the more racially inclusive welfare state of the 1960s and 70s as different in kind. White recipients of housing subsidies hadn’t been imagined to become dependent, non-autonomous, or unfree. When the FHA was insisting that neighborhoods be segregated in order to be eligible for mortgage or building subsidies, it contributed a great deal to the racial wealth gap that persists to this day. No free-marketeers of the era felt the need to engage in brave, politically incorrect inquiries into the lower intelligence of new white homeowners that might explain their long-term dependence. But once the imagined typical welfare recipient was a black mother, welfare became a matter not just of economic or constitutional concern but of moral panic about parasites, fraud, and the long-term collapse of self-reliance.
The Language of Liberty and the Rise of the Alt-Right
Returning for a moment to the overt white nationalists allows us to also think about the other recent dispute about libertarian politics: the embarrassingly large number of people associated with the racist alt-right who once identified as libertarians, or (even worse) still do. Some of this is just the inevitable sociology of the fringe. Those who join smaller political movements tend to come to think that mainstream sources of information and ideology aren’t to be trusted. They tend to be unmoored from a society’s dominant values and intellectual positions. And so, as they change their mind about things (and most people do, from time to time), they’re disproportionately likely to end up attached to other fringe movements. That’s just a selection effect about what kind of people join fringe movements, and it doesn’t say anything about the content of either movement’s ideas.
But it seems pretty plausible to me that there’s something more to be said. The capture of the language of freedom by the defenders of white supremacy and the Confederacy is a major fact about American political language and its history, and there’s a small but vocal group of self-identified libertarians who participate in it and perpetuate it. The racialization of the discourse around redistribution, such that people who think of themselves as committed to small government in general have a special visceral reaction against what they call “welfare” that doesn’t extend to the far larger redistributive activities of the state, is a major fact about more recent American political language. And the conviction that freedom of speech is mostly threatened by “political correctness” in American life, that saying racist things is a brave stand against censorship, that calling what someone else says “racist” is pretty much like censoring them—these are important facts about American political discourse today. Organized libertarianism partakes of all of these. I have argued elsewhere that American libertarianism’s dependence on Lockean traditions brings with it the fantasy of a unified pre-political people that might reclaim its liberty from distrusted governing institutions. And in the American political tradition, that kind of holist populist nationalism has always been white nationalism.
Re-imagining Libertarian Politics as if Black Liberty Matters
Now, libertarian, individualist, and market-liberal ideas, concepts, slogans, and advocates aren’t alone in having a history that is entangled with white supremacy. Hardly any set of social ideas in American intellectual history lacks such an entanglement. This is as true of the technocratic progressivism associated with the racist Woodrow Wilson as it is of the populist democracy associated with the racist Andrew Jackson. If federalism is tainted by Jim Crow, so is centralization by the Fugitive Slave Act and the white welfare state of the 1930s onward, among other things. (We can, of course, say something similar about the state and federal governments’ histories of crimes against Indians.) A particularly silly move made by some of MacLean’s defenders recently has been the insistence that constitutional restraints on racist majorities don’t count as counter-majoritarian or limits on democracy, as if “democracy” could only refer to some ideal state of affairs innocent of a history of herrenvolk democracy. The early American republic, and especially the Jacksonian republic, was at once much more democratic than any European state of the same era and much more racist, and these were not unrelated. A hierarchical society with countless small social gradations can treat racial subordination as continuous with many other kinds of subordination. A levelled hierarchy among whites sharpens the distinction at the edges of that category; a social hill is replaced by a social plateau that ends in cliffs. The expanding rights and proud equal dignity of lower-class whites came to consist precisely in their equal claim to whiteness; this became a foundational fact of American democratic equality. There’s no good reason to sever “democracy” or “progressivism” from their complicated genealogies while tying “federalism” or “freedom of association” to theirs.
As a scholar, I’m interested in all these histories. As an advocate, I have to be especially interested in the history of classical and market liberalism. I don’t want the convincing intellectual victory over Democracy in Chains to fool us into thinking that there’s no problem. I don’t want the forceful, true, statement that libertarian principles are incompatible with white supremacy to fool us into overlooking a morally compromised history and sociological and psychological patterns about how those principles turn into general political discourse.
Reimagining libertarian politics in light of the truth that black liberty matters will take a lot of intellectual and moral work. And this task, reorienting a set of ideas and ideals in light of a morally compromised history, of understanding what lessons need to be learned from it, of separating the arguments for liberty from the yelps, is insiders’ work. No one else is going to do it for us.
Jacob T. Levy is Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory and Director of the Yan P. Lin Centre for the Study of Freedom and Global Orders in the Ancient and Modern Worlds at McGill University; author of Rationalism, Pluralism, and Freedom and scholarly articles including, most recently,”Contra Politanism“; a blogger at Bleeding Heart Libertarians; and a Niskanen Center Senior Fellow and Advisory Board Member.

Friday, September 8, 2017

New: Glossika learning guide (from docx)









How You Can

Achieve

tiluency

like Polyglots














Most people start learning foreign languages by learning to read the alphabet first. Some of the world's greatest polyglots rarely do this because they know there is a better way. The reason for this is because there is a big disconnect between the spoken word and the written word. Experienced language learners understand this.



You may be thinking, "I'm not a polyglot." If I don't learn the alphabet then how am I supposed to pronounce this language?



I'll show you how. Anybody can become an accomplished language learner, in much less time than you think. But you do need to adjust your approach.



Cool
tiact




1.    Less than half the people who have learned to speak Mandarin Chinese fluently have learned the writing system. They can hold a conversation with friends and family in Chinese even without knowing how to read and write. This is possible for any language you'd like to learn.

2.    There are 6900 languages in the world, of which only
200        or so national languages have standard writing systems. All other languages are never written; only spoken.






Writing systems are more tied to culture than to the actual languages they represent. In other words, if we represent the sounds of the language accurately, we can save you a lot of time trying to figure out a new writing system.



If so much of the world speaks languages that are not written, and yet interact with their neighbors in another unwritten language, and they manage this without textbooks, vocabulary lists, tests, then how do they do it?



Think about your own community. How about the children who haven't started going to school yet. Do they speak your language fluently? Have they learned how to read and write yet? Do they know anything about grammar and spelling? Probably not. Are they able to express themselves and create new sentences anytime they want? Probably yes! How can they be fluent without knowing these things?



We can learn like children. Exposure develops familiarity. Learning like children doesn't mean abandoning textbooks entirely. So let me show you what you need to break through to fluency.

How to Measure Progress with Reps

Learning a language like a polyglot means that you spend very little time on basic things: what is a noun, what is a verb, what is an adjective, and so on. Nouns are things. Verbs are actions. Adjectives describe things. And these parts of speech change in most languages. Polyglots know this and they don't worry about it. They just start practicing.



Let's visit a gym. What are you most likely to see people doing there? Besides jogging, probably li[ing weights. All those machines laying around look a bit confusing and intimidating. But for those working out, there's an order in which they use them, there's a specific number of li[s they do, and there's a specific amount of rest time between each exercise.



The weightli[er knows there are machines for the arms, the legs, the back and so on. Much like the polyglot, they don't really worry about the details, they just start working out.



The typical weightli[er at the gym will do several sets, with each set made up of repetitions, or "reps". Each rep has a specific amount of weight.



tiluency Requires This Many Reps




Think about this scenario: if I were to give you a daily workout schedule on these machines every day for the next few months, and you were to do a total of 60,000 reps, what do you think you'd look like at the end of that training? You'd probably look like a completely different person. You'll be

in shape, you'll be fit, and you'll both look and feel great. If I were to challenge you to any athletic endeavour, you'd be very confident and handle it without a problem.



We've found that the same holds true with language: you need to do lots of reps. Those reps need to be done in a specific order for best results. You'll get better results spending your time on reps rather than on memorization.



You'll start to feel the effects of fluency coming on when you hit 30,000 reps. You'll be confidently using the language at around 60,000 reps. And we recommend to keep pushing until you've done 90,000 reps.



Using an easy-to-follow system, it's not hard to go through 500 sentences per day. At that rate, you'll get through 60,000 reps in 120 days, which is 4 months. That's about a semester in university. And most students coming out of language classes have barely done 5000 reps, less than 10% of your progress. It's no wonder they won't feel fluent and they'll certainly be wondering how you did it. Yet, you’ll know the secret to success.



What about Grammar and Pronunciation?




All of this will fall in place as long as you focus on your full sentence reps. For one thing, grammar is already built into place in full sentences. You'll be learning the most frequent grammar forms as native speakers speak. And that's the exposure we give you.



Pronunciation is very much like a muscle. The more you practice and use it, the better it gets. Don't expect results in one day. It takes time. Learn to hear what you sound like and adjust the way you sound.

It's better not to worry about mistakes in grammar or pronunciation and just to keep practicing. The more practice you do, the less you'll have to worry about.

What We Know from Polyglots




Polyglots approach language learning knowing they can acquire a language in a short period of time. So they tend to seek out the most effective methodologies to help them achieve this. There's no need to waste time on ineffective textbooks, rote memorization, or language classes that focus on grammar. Polyglots know that the writing system can both be an asset and a liability, and in the beginning, it's better to get speaking quickly, then later couple those skills with the writing system to acquire vocabulary at a much quicker rate. Learning the writing system in this way saves lots of time and prevents major pronunciation errors.



The founder of Glossika, Michael Campbell, is a polyglot. But he's unlike most polyglots you may have heard of such as: Richard Simcott, Vladimir Skultety, Luca Lampariello, Benny Lewis, Steve Kaufmann, Olly Richards. What makes Michael different from them?



Not only has Michael acquired many unwritten languages, he's also acquired languages from a half dozen language families. He's much more similar to polyglot Stuart Jay Raj in this respect.



In a video produced by accomplished polyglot, Vladimir, he stated that Chinese was the hardest language he had ever learned, a statement he made clear that has nothing to do with the writing whatsoever. This was because all of his European languages felt like variations or dialects of each other. He hadn't been truly challenged with a real "foreign" language until he learned Chinese. Michael Campbell, on the other hand, feels that Chinese was one of the easiest languages to learn and now speaks four Chinese languages and another handful of aboriginal Austronesian languages. But his reasons are slightly different than Vladimir’s.

Michael Campbell has been invited to speak at conferences, has appeared on television and radio, and has done many press interviews in Chinese.



Between 2001 and 2010, Michael Campbell tested and developed his methods while he lead the way for more than 10,000 students to fluency: average language learners like yourself. He now welcomes you to join the hundreds of thousands of people he has had the pleasure to influence and guide since then.



Today, the Glossika method is known worldwide and ranks among the highest performing programs and hailed by many as "Pimsleur on Steroids”. John McWhorter, professor of linguistics at Columbia University, recommended Glossika in his TED talk “4 Reasons to Learn a New Language”. Glossika is now used in universities worldwide in the USA, UK, Russia, Japan, Taiwan, China, New Zealand, including members of staff at MIT. It is used by government officials and those training for diplomatic roles.



Comparisons with Leading Products

1. Hours of Audio


In a single package, Glossika provides you with over 120 hours of audio spoken by native speakers. Compare this with Assimil's 3.3 hours, Living Languages 6 hours, Pimsleur's 75 hours (for its few largest courses).




Hours of Audio

120



90



60



30



0

Assimil                                       Pimsleur                                       Glossika




2. Vocabulary


Glossika builds a vocabulary of 3500 words, approximately the same as Assimil and 5x more than Pimsleur.

3. Content


Glossika contains 3000 conversational sentences, many of which are question & answer mini-dialogues. Far more than any other course on the market.































4. Writing Systems


Glossika handles hard writing systems with ease: native script plus full transcriptions plus pronunciation guide for every single sentence (with an easy-to-follow series of YouTube Glossika Phonics videos to learn from). Pimsleur, on the other hand, does not provide any text.



5. Unwritten Languages / Regional Dialects


Glossika handles unwritten languages and regional dialects with ease: we transcribe everything so you can both see it and hear it. And again, the phonics are there for every sentence.

Because Glossika solved the problem of unwritten languages, we also deliver languages as they're actually spoken. Most courses on the market

teach literary Persian, literary Armenian, literary tiinnish, and many others. Glossika delivers how the language is actually spoken on the streets, differing greatly from the written word and how most textbooks teach language. Be confident that the language you learn from Glossika will be engaging and easy to communicate with native speakers.



6. Spaced Repetition


Glossika Spaced Repetition (GSR) audio is unlike any other program. Unlike Memrise, Pimsleur, Anki, Duolingo, GSR doesn't just remind you of information when you're about to forget it, which isn't all that great for long-term memories. Instead, GSR is built to work with your sleep patterns and the building of long-term memories. GSR doesn't remind you

--     it builds habits. A[er using GSR, there is no issue of remembering or forgetng, but rather speaking in a way that just feels right, because you do it out of habit. Just like a native speaker.

“exactly the language product t h a t y o u ’ r e l o o k i n g f o r … reasonable and humble approach to language learning… ability to be realis:c and honest about the language learning process…”











Brian Powers
Language Around the Globe






“… highly effec:ve, research g r o u n d e d m e t h o d … i t ’s a treasure trove of high quality dialogue material that you won’t find anywhere else.”











Donovan Nagel
The Mezzofan:







“We highly recommend Glossika for those who want to become beEer (and faster) at making sentences.”


“Glossika audio content tested every corner of my brain... and it reminded me of scores of small things I had learned but forgoEen about t h e I t a l i a n l a n g u a g e . . .
G l o s s i k a c o u l d r e a l l y transform your speaking a b i l i t y i n y o u r t a r g e t language.”





Ellen Jovin Words & Worlds of New York




“ I ’ v e a l w ay s a d v o c a t e d learning vocabulary purely in contextual sentences instead of from lists, and Glossika is the perfect resource for doing just that."









Israel Lai
Rhapsody in Lingo







“. . . y o u a r e a b s o l u t e l y rewarded with a rich body of knowledge, not only about your new language, but about the process of language acquisi:on.”


“Every language has certain grammar paEerns... learn these common grammar paEerns, you have a good grounding in t h e l a n g u a g e . O n c e y o u re co g n i s e t h e s e co m m o n phrases... you can cope easily with many familiar situa:ons you’ll find yourself in. In a nutshell, Glossika gives you all this founda:onal stuff on a plate… which is awesome!”


Olly Richards I'll Teach You a Language





“A course I really like for i n t u i : v e l y i m p r o v i n g my knowledge of the gramma:cal structures and vocabulary of a new language… ”











Conor Clyne
Language Tsar







“So if Pimsleur is the alpha of the audio courses then Glossika is definitely the omega... Never has there been such a direct path to fluency than there is with Glossika.”










Jan van der Aa
Lorenzo Swank

LanguageBoost
Language Learning Library
Best Way to Learn German

“ C o m p r e h e n s i b l e i n p u t method... you will get the feel of how to say something correctly.”












Teddy Nee Nee's Language Blog





“Comprehensive and effec:ve system that delivers speaking a n d l i ste n i n g t ra i n i n g t o fluency.”












David Hagstrom
Talk with my Neighbor


“This method is actually a ninja. It will teach you grammar without teaching you grammar and you won’t even know it’s doing that.”












Polyglod






“… a very solid language learning method that should be in every serious language learner’s toolbox.”













Lingholic


“... your brain can recognise it automa:cally...you will be able to keep up with na:ve speakers when the :me comes... What’s Glossika? In 3 words: scien:fic language learning.”








Dave Hale
tiind tiluency






“Throughout the course are the sorts of sentences that you actually need to use in d a i l y l i fe … I fe e l m o r e confident”












Wannabe Polyglot








“Glossika speeds up this natural
“I  highly  recommend  (the
“I love it! … seriously. What I
process of exposure and allows
lesser known) Glossika.”
love about Glossika is that you
our ears and our ‘mouths’ to

have put into a concentrated
become  accustomed  to  the

pill what I would have done
language… We can now hear

with  hundreds  of  books
the words, recognize paEerns

myself.”
and  naturally  pick  up  the


rhythm of the language.”







Simon
John McWhorter
Stuart Jay Raj
Dawn of Truth
TED Talk (4 Reasons to Learn
hyperpolyglot

a Language)


Join the Global Community of Glossika Users Today!

Below we include a step-by-step guide to selecting your language, and how much time it's going to take you to reach fluency. We can measure the results, and we can deliver those results to you with certainty.



If you're looking for a boost in your career, or a promotion, or a new job in another country, or the opportunity to do business with another country, then where will your fluency be in 3 months from now? 6 months from now?



Do you know for sure? How can you measure your results and how much fluency you have attained?



We've figured this out for you ahead of time here at Glossika, and we're here to help you reach your goal.



The Hardest Language in the World




We believe that all languages are the same. They all have difficult or challenging aspects, but they also have easier aspects.



The hardest language in the world is your first foreign language. Your second and third foreign language won't be as hard anymore. And your success rate will increase. But you can always come back and give your first language a second shot and break through to fluency.

Choose a Language


If your native language is English, and you want to choose the easiest and fastest route to fluency, I recommend any Germanic or Romance language. Some of the easiest languages include Swedish, Norwegian, Afrikaans, Italian, or Spanish. Languages that are a bit more complex include Dutch, German, Danish, tirench, and Portuguese.

If you'd like a challenge, then start with a language outside of your language family. Later if you learn more languages, they appear so much easier. If English is your native language, this would be a non Indo-European language. In Europe and the Middle East there are several you could choose: tiinnish, Hungarian, Turkish, Arabic, and Hebrew. And this would include all languages in East and Southeast Asia and Africa and the Americas.

Choose a Schedule




This largely depends on how much time you have every day and for how many months you can stay dedicated to your goal. Once you order a course, we will deliver you a detailed schedule to follow.




Glossika Resources










Glossika Blog

Regularly updated with new ar8cles about language learning. Free ebooks are buried among these ar8cles!


Glossika Phonics Channel

Specifically dedicated to the interna8onal phone8c alphabet (IPA) and covers all the symbols and sounds used in the IPA.


Glossika Training Channel

A lot of new videos coming out tiall 2016 on how to use the Glossika method and how to tackle various languages.






Contact Us!


training@glossika.com


Join User Discussion

glossika.com