The end of liberalism

Humankind can act quickly based on its own notions, but then we wait for nature and its natural laws to shape the end result. Even when we control the material means of our future, consequences are governed by the non-material interaction of forces, like information or mathematics.

Starting with The Enlightenment, European society went liberal with the idea that each individual’s thoughts, desires and judgments were equally valid. Mankind became more important than nature. This meant that our thoughts were more important than the consequences of our actions.

It took several centuries to see this, which was only appropriate, because it took several centuries to reach that stage of degeneracy. The root of liberalism was probably a prosperous society which sheltered its incompetents, malcontents and manipulators.

From that view, the following article takes on a different tone:

Eighty years on, it would be easy to sit back and reassure ourselves that the worst could never happen again. But that, of course, was what people told each other in 1932, too.

The lesson of history is that tough times often reward the desperate and dangerous, from angry demagogues to anarchists and nationalists, from seething mobs to expansionist empires. – The Daily Mail

They are telling us that when times are bad, the bad come out of the woodwork.

An alternate history: when times are good, the bad are able to rule because of the complacency of most people, who can’t think past when their next paycheck will arrive.

In fact, what we see through the last 2000 years of history is a process of overcoming. The intelligent rise despite the others dragging them down, and societies survive because when things are bad, the people who have been pointing out the incompetence of our social system are able to temporarily win out.

Think about the people you know. Which is more likely, that they live in denial, or that they’re magical geniuses who have everything under control until they are periodically interrupted by violent realists?

With the hazy years of The Enlightenment, we declared that each human being is more valid than nature, which is a way of talking about natural laws and the consequences of our actions determined by such laws. This legitimized denial of reality and endorsed illusions.

It just took a while to play out. Eventually, it found a voice in modern liberalism/leftism in 1789. This movement snowballed and when war was declared on the nationalists — the archetype of right-wing ideas — in China, Japan, Germany, Austria and Italy during WWII, the left found itself on top.

Its only problem after that was Communism, which is an extreme form of leftism like fascism is an extreme form of rightism. Communism was the new bogeyman.

Communist theory teaches them to believe that the most effective way to break the will of the opposition is to de-legitimize its ruling class, degrade its culture, destroy its confidence in its own institutions and its own way of life.

Hu Jintao believes that the West is waging a conscious memetic war against Communist China – because he knows that Communists including himself have been waging a conscious memetic war against Western civilization since the 1840s. Sadly, this is not yesterday’s news.

What Jintao can also see, and the reason he is actually right to fear memetic warfare, is that the West has been seriously damaged by Communist successes at memetic subversion. The damage didn’t end when the Soviet Empire collapsed, because too many people in the West internalized and naturalized Soviet attack propaganda. Many of its tropes have become tribal shibboleths of major Western political tendencies, despite being just as wrong and just as toxic as when they were first uttered. – Eric S. Raymond

The leftists pondered this, and then introduced Marxist ideas in a new way — through culture. This culminated in the West in the hippie revolutions of 1968, which showed a cultural and social force overcoming knowledge of history, politics, economics and even common sense.

When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991, the cultural Marxists reached out to their most promising allies, namely those in the commercial world. They did not ally themselves with the established industries, but “alternative” service industries like entertainment, media and art.

Eventually they expanded into other industries. The two were ideal pairs: consumerism and commerce benefit from having zero standards so they can sell whatever they want to an audience that, lacking a cultural or moral center, needs lots of products to fill the void. And leftists want permissiveness.

This new movement coincided with the 1968 generation making it into their 40s and 50s. During the 1990s, it seemed that hippie ideals had grown up, put on suits and won out over everything else. At least, they were more popular by the numbers.

After a brief interruption for a Republican president in the United States, this movement made a bold move to seize power in 2008 with the election of Barack Obama. But then a curious thing happened: leftist ideology requires the notion of an oppressor, or an opposing force, holding it back.

As of 2009, nothing held it back. It implemented its grand designs and in response, people in society began to endorse its ideas. This coincided with the results of the grandparents of those ideas, put into motion a half-century before, becoming apparent.

Results did not match promises.

As a result, in 2009 the reign of 1789 unofficially came to an end. World liberalism collapsed because its ideas simply did not work. Most people are still unaware of this, but like all truly profound social shifts, this one is occurring underground.

It is now widely accepted that the years of New Labour government were an almost unalloyed national disaster. Whichever measure you take – moral, social, economic, or the respect in which Britain is held in the world – we went into reverse.

Nevertheless, historians may come to judge that these 13 years of Labour misrule served a vital purpose. In retrospect, the Brown/Blair period may be seen as a prolonged experiment which taught the liberal Left that its ideas cannot work, do not work, and have no chance of ever working.

…So rampant and all-pervasive was the influence of this liberal-Left elite that by the end almost every meaningful action taken by the democratically elected John Major government could be sabotaged or blocked outright by a progressive alliance, which stretched through the Civil Service, the BBC, and the universities.

…A sea change is at work. In practically every area of British public life – state spending, the economy, education, welfare, the European Union (where Ed Miliband refused to condemn Cameron’s pre-Christmas veto), mass immigration, law and order – Conservatives are winning the argument and taking policy in their direction. – The Telegraph

Right now, world liberalism retains one primary strength: it is still very popular. Liberalism offers the idea that we can change our world by altering the effects of our actions without changing our actions, and that is a pleasing notion. It suggests we can keep doing what we want and turn out OK.

However, an increasing group have recognized that like drug addiction or other forms of denial, liberalism will destroy our society just as all denial has destructive effects. As a result, a backlash has formed and while we must be very patient, the downfall of liberalism has begun.


  1. Eric says:

    Well, I’m not so sure that fascism is so much of an extreme thought. I think it’s rather extreme to eat fast food, watch TV and letting someone else dictate your own life, your own future.

    1. In addition to the above, to me, it seems extreme to allow social popularity to dictate decision making.

      1. crow says:

        It seems extreme to me, to hate somebody for not being in agreement. Yet this is the default behaviour of leftists.
        Tolerance, you know. Extended to those who agree, and to designated ‘victims’, yet witheld from anybody else. Meaning ‘bigots’.

      2. Ouroboros says:

        YES. Something is just really disturbing about “Well, most people who hardly know what they’re talking about want it, so here it is!”. Give me aristocratic monarchy.

  2. Esotericist says:

    As I see it, this article is a type of shorthand response to Guns, Germs and Steel.

    The most important point it makes is that liberalism has failed and the world has not yet realized this fact. There are investment opportunities not yet realized as well.

    The part I find most interesting on a personal level is the idea of Communist meme-warfare against the West. Are we sure it was Communists, or just our own socially voracious liberals?

    1. EvilBuzzard says:

      Are we sure it was Communists, or just our own socially voracious liberals?

      In the days of Engels and Marx, the Communists were our own voracious liberals.

    2. crow says:

      I’ve long seen liberalism (as we now know it), as a sort of mental virus inserted into the West by the now defunct USSR, during the Cold War.
      Regular psy-ops in the ongoing struggle for dominance.
      The virus has proved far more durable than the state that spawned it, turning into a doomsday weapon that can’t now be externally stopped.
      But, like any virus, it has a half-life, taking out a majority of targets, while being impotent against the inevitable few that are intrinsically immune. Eventually it will weaken and wither, leaving behind it the ones who never succumbed, the stronger for their survival.
      Seeing it in these terms, socialism might be the best thing that ever happened to the West, for all its destructive horror.
      Damn my optimism :)
      It’s like a mental virus, all by itself!

      1. It could constitute a herd-thinner that carries off the weak and, drugging their brains with endorphins from a sense of altruistic self-negation, leads them to their doom.

        If all of the liberals disappeared tomorrow, we’d have no television, human interest stories or punk rock bands.

  3. Liberal says:

    You’ve got to be out of your mind. You want to return us to a pre-Enlightenment society. Perhaps you should read a little history. The quality of life is extremely better for everyone today. We live in a society where anyone who gets a good education and works hard can make a lot of money. Nobody is being held back by the poor. Even nobles couldn’t dream of the kind of ridiculous lives that the rich live in today’s America. We even had a surplus under liberal President Clinton. Quit blaming your own failures in life on everyone else but yourself.

    But you are right about one thing. Not everyone’s thoughts are equal. That’s why people like you are rightly alienated and ridiculed by more than 99.9 percent of society.

    1. We live in a society where anyone who gets a good education and works hard can make a lot of money.

      Even nobles couldn’t dream of the kind of ridiculous lives that the rich live in today’s America.

      And do the above create an ultimately positive result?

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        …..And do the above create an ultimately positive result?

        Scratch Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Cuban as a bunch of money-grubbing piggies and how then do you articulate your message? Do you think these guys all chipped in and helped pave the information superhighway out of sheer altruism?

    2. crow says:

      It’s always heartening to see a bit of comic relief :)
      What a great sense of humor!

    3. Ouroboros says:

      How exactly are we “Enlightened” today?

      You talk of quality of life? What is so great about working in a shit office job in a grey building in a city of 3 million strangers who do the same thing to go buy useless garbage to show how “successful” they are? Yes, we’re so totally free and enlightened today! Why, my neighbor only told me today that our enlightened society has record breaking depression, crime, violence, obsession with objects and rampant sodomy. I am so glad we aren’t barbaric like those pre-moderns who were just big meanies! They didn’t even have ipads!

      1. crow says:

        Ah, but don’t you see?
        The leftist, by his nature, is unable to make a correlation between his own chronic dissatisfaction, and his own connection to the state he inhabits. He will always blame somebody else for the fact that, although things are ‘great’, they still somehow suck.
        He ruins his environment by his very presence, but is forever unable to see this is exactly why his environment always falls short of what it could be.
        It’s always YOUR fault, you damned nazi fascist rightwing bigot!
        (Nothing personal :))

        You just gotta let them rant, rave, and wreck everything, for there is no stopping them. After it’s all toast, then reason will reassert itself.

        1. Ryan says:

          “The leftist, by his nature, is unable to make a correlation between his own chronic dissatisfaction, and his own connection to the state he inhabits.” this is exactly true, people cannot separate the problem from its cause as of yet. solutions are bleeted out in the same massve mimicry of liberal buzzwords and socialist dogma, but they are lost and have lost respectablity, it is aimless now, the whole “cibil rights” movement gave it purpose, but now all thats left to champion (to use as a scape goat for wealth redistribution) is pedo[hilia and sadism. liberalism is becoming stale, it does not CONTROL the dialogue anymore.

    4. Spite says:

      Die and go to Hell.

  4. Meow Mix says:

    Crow and Brett, I like this:

    “It could constitute a herd-thinner that carries off the weak and, drugging their brains with endorphins from a sense of altruistic self-negation, leads them to their doom.”

    You guys bring up a clever point, wouldn’t it be funny to cheer for a communist revolution and secession somewhere in the USA, like the left coast perhaps. Maybe it wouldn’t even have to be a revolution, just a peaceful handover or ‘special economic zone’. That perfect socialist utopia would attract all the brilliant liberal-commie minds there. Then, when the economy collapses and the executions and famines start, the rightwing can smirk at the suicide of the American left.

    1. crow says:

      You got it :)
      I’m tired of resisting.
      The left is too smart. Let’s get onside with them, give them their paradise and retire to a safe distance…
      Like fireworks, in the hands of retards.
      Golly. Better than the circus!!!

      1. Apuleius says:

        Once one realizes that liberal ideas are essentially and ineluctably self-destructive, the role of liberalism in the human comedy becomes apparent.

        Its most salient characteristic is its hubris, which the ancients rightly connected to tragedy. While the results are tragic for the deluded liberal, for those possessing the equanimity to remain aloof from such noxious ideas the results can only be comic.

        Perhaps that is why our friend Liberal, like most others of his ilk, seems so bereft of a sense of humor. What a silly braying ass!

        Rather as Puck proclaimed, “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

    2. Perhaps we can convince them that there’s a new liberal paradise farther geographically (and otherwise) left than California, and have them congregate there. We won’t tell them it’s a giant raft, until we cut the mooring lines. Maybe in Asia they will find a use for such people.

      1. Ryan says:

        yeah they use them to “grease” tank treads, LOL

    3. LuxLibertas says:

      Liberals are parasitic. After destroying a host, they find a new one.

      1. Or is it that liberalism the mentality is the parasite, and liberals are its host?

  5. In the 1930s liberals believed equality could be created through economic reform and democracy – the positive results were modest, so by the 1970s libearls had given up on economic populism (in its more moderate forms, this was liberalism’s finest hour, but technological advance was working against economic equality)

    In the 1960s liberals came to believe equality could be created through social reform and spiritual enlightenment – it didn’t happen (without guidance the working class became the new underclass).

    In the 1980s liberals took a right turn and many came to believe equality could be created by free markets – but the markets were opened up and equality didn’t happen (if anything, poor countries and minorities got poorer)

    In the 1990s liberals came to believe equality could be created through mass education, yet economic inequality has actually expanded
    under the age of education mania (the now indebted lower middle class are the new lumpen proles)

    -whether liberals pursue equality through right or left wing means, the result is always failure because their goal (equality) is always unobtainable.

  6. hvehve says:

    Hm, but don’t liberals usually believe that everyone is equal, not so much what they say is equal? If anything, they value the opinions of whatever victim groups they attach themselves to far more than anyone else.

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 0.997 seconds