I Don’t Know What ‘liberalism’ Means Any Longer.

Dec 19, 2019, 7:30 PM

I don’t know what ‘liberalism’ means any longer. It used to mean constraining government. But it meant that under parliamentary control. I think the western experiment in ‘aristocracy of everyone’ by continuous expansion of the franchise in order to justify taking political power(organization of the production of private and common) from the monarchy and the church, and to justify the expansion of taxation for the purposes of redistribution – is a clear failure.

I don’t think you can get away from 1) rule of law and markets for adaptive velocity 2) state-private investment in increasingly complex and expensive investment in competitive innovation, 3) the need for ‘decider of last resort’, whether despot, monarchy, 4) money isn’t real any longer, so it’s just a tool of positive incentive (coercion?) and we will (shortly) see the end of the private global capitalists, and the universal adoption of the chinese method of state money and interest management.

The liberal order was made possible by the European Colonial Expansion, and the relative weakness of (small) european governments compared to the strength of the emerging middle class, and the vast pool of middle class genetic reserves built up in europe over more than a thousand years. We have been in the post modern order since marx, freud, boas, cantor, adorno, friedan, rothbard/rand, trotsky/neocons sequentially tried to undermine men (marxism), culture (frankfurt), truth (derrida), women (feminism), and the western identity.

We have been in the post liberal order since the bolsheviks started the revolt against it, and now the muslims are revolting against it – last century the jewish revolt, an this century the muslim revolt. The chinese and russians and now indians have been through their experiment and are returning to world norms. The west is more malinvested in the falsehood because of the jewish postwar influence in the academy to suppress all eugenics (study of human behavior)was successful at displacing the germanic martial aristocratic tradition, by rallying women and minorities using media, academy, democracy, immigration to destroy western civilization with false promise of freedom from darwinian necessity that made western excellences possible.

Our constitution (Rule of Law of sovereignty and reciprocity ) is not rigid enough (like a scriptural document) to limit our conquest by democratic and propaganda means. ANd we did not understand our traditions we only practiced them. So we were easily sold false promise by sophism, pseudoscience in the modern world like our women and lower classes were sold false promise by sophism and supernaturalism in the ancient world – and this ‘second great failure’ is the end of the possibility of democratic majoritarianism – unless we can prohibit false promise of freedom from natural law from the informational commons. As far as I know there is no optimum social political and economic order, only a sliding scale of what is possible given a genetic distribution and the relative state of development. If it is possible to develop many small monarchies under the same rule of law of sovereignty and reciprocity that is the optimum social and political order, as long as the ‘bottom’ is prohibited from reproduction as it was in the ancient world by nature, the middle world by manorialism, ad the present and future world by eugenic policy. Every other order declines in competitive utility from there.

Leave a Reply