Liberalism 1789-2009

city_at_nightFor some time on this blog, we’ve been talking about the idea that a sea change confronts humanity. In this big change, we realize that the last 224 years were spent on a mistaken direction launched by the French Revolution of 1789.

This direction, liberalism, is destructive because it leads to denial of reality. Its roots are in a broader philosophy called crowdism, which places individual perception above reality itself, and thus bonds together individuals to enforce this shared illusion.

When humanity embarked on this direction, way back in 1789, it seemed like we were onto something good. Our older orders were under assault by rising population and the discovery of new lands, and with that, a shift in social order. Instability breeds opportunity for the opportunistic.

At the time, it seemed like we were trading slavery for freedom. We were casting aside the old rigid rules. We were discovering new ground. And as if they believed it, the old guard clamped down on the oldest rules they could find, but seemingly were unable to understand the reason for them.

But now, much like during the end of WWII or the fall of the Soviet Union, we’re experiencing a watershed event. These happen when a big system fails, and in such a profound way that we realize the problem is the assumptions behind the system and not some transient error.

This event will debunk liberal democracy as other forms of government have been debunked. It will also bring down the idea of centralized government, even representative government, because these clearly lead to outcomes in which mob rule takes over.

It’s stupid to blame this on Barack Obama, but his election was a signal. With that, democracy gave up the pretense of electing people based on anything but the whims of the crowd and the media who goad them on. The best-looking candidate and the one who promised the easiest lies got in.

With 2012, and the re-election of a man who was clearly out of his depth and pursuing unrealistic Marxist policies at the expense of the historical majority, it was clear that these “new voters” — the young, women, minorities, self-hating white males, LGBT, etc. — were forming a coalition not for their own interests, but to destroy the majority.

However, this isn’t entirely surprising. Liberalism is based on the idea of equality and freedom, both of which are open-ended and defensive ideas. If you don’t have equality, there’s no way to get it, except to pull others down. In the same way, you need freedom — from what? From anything but your own whims, apparently. This is how these philosophies boil down over time.

It’s popular to say that liberalism is an ideology and conservatism is not, but really, an ideology is a political values system. The liberals have the advantage because theirs is simple and unifying. It is the idea of the Revolution itself: the marginalized band together and overthrow the “fortunate” ones in power.

As our more astute thinkers noticed, however, this is a self-consumptive ideology. It doesn’t find solutions; it finds targets. And when it has no legitimate enemies, it attacks its own. Sadly, this was played out in the French Revolution, and the Russian revolution after it, which became prolonged orgies of murder that descended into infighting.

Conservatism has been fighting a rearguard action because it’s impossible to mobilize a majority. Not hard, impossible. The majority doesn’t recognize its own shared interests and, in the classic form of people not united by strong leadership or compelled by immediate risk, it descends into individualism. Everyone does what is convenient. None but a few grasp the severity of the problem and work to arrest it.

Everyone else figures that they “win” by having a good time and not getting locked into any kind of ideology at all. But that approach leads to them being marginalized and, marooned in their own desires, losing out on any sense of community. Thus they become self-hating, despising themselves for their indulgences which turn out — over repetition — to be banal, unsatisfying and childish.

Thus the long wait began for liberalism, like Communism before it, to show its hand and detonate itself. Now it has. Both the USA and Europe have spent themselves into debt through “Great Society” cultural Marxist social programs, and not only that, have trashed themselves socially through disorder. In rebelling against commerce, they have made it stronger, and now all parts of our lives are for sale.

As a result, slowly, very slowly, the minds of people begin to turn. That is to say they are turning away from the liberal-defined political scope and worldview, which is narrower than the world itself. They are turning toward possibilities outside the narrow band they have been told is safe.

Modern people are entirely self-censoring. They are able to think until they run up against a socially-unpopular idea. Then they panic and retreat, and lash out at whatever made them think such a taboo thought. But that, too, provokes a backlash, and one that simmers underground with legitimate ire at the forces that hold it back from being expressed.

Multiple systems are failing at once. Society is chaos; economies are trashed; governments are corrupt; elites are self-serving cowards; the environment is getting progressively wrecked; we can’t trust the media, or even science. All have become submerged in the Crowdist lie.

Some are even suggesting a radical re-design of society itself, without shops or factories. Others think civilization itself will collapse suddenly, and we’ll get a period of Mad Max style anarchy before restoration of order.

Many of us however are looking at this more simply. We should backtrack to the point of error, and turn away from that decision. That means no more liberal democracy. No more PACs, no more internationalism/diversity, no more large corporations and interest groups buying the vote.

Unlike the “revolutions,” this is a revolutionary idea: one thing by thinking outside the box, fixes our problem. It’s worth trying. Even if right now it’s social taboo.

14 Comments

  1. GC Cooper says:

    The western democracies will fall, but not for the reasons you suggest.

    Failure will come due to bankruptcy as the democracies continue to go further into debt. At that point, societal structures will vanish and a new structure will arise in its place. As Alexis de Tocqueville said:
    “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”

    Trying to predict the outcome of a revolution is rarely profitable, other than to say the transition from democracy to XXXXXXX system will see mass starvation and billions dead.

    1. “As our more astute thinkers noticed, however, this is a self-consumptive ideology. It doesn’t find solutions; it finds targets. And when it has no legitimate enemies, it attacks its own.”

      …or invents them. See: miogynists, racists, etc.

  2. K.A. says:

    I believe in mountains. Let’s all go mountaineering.

    1. crow says:

      Can you imagine what sort of mountaineers most people would make?
      Then again, it would be unequaled as a voluntary means of population control.

      1. Akireman says:

        Maybe if we mixed it up with some survival tests in forests and tundras. There are many mountains which are fairly easy to climb, even for the average soft, weak, sedentary modern. Mountain walking tends to be a very popular recreational activity, as far as outdoor activities go.

        Luckily there are still some places, of great beauty, in the world where it’s fairly hard to survive if you don’t really want to/have been inert your whole life. I think forests and similar places are unique in that they’re both breathtakingly beautiful, and not to be taken lightly if you need to survive the night in them without modern implements (even with him it’d be hard).

        Though I guess, if we say mountaineering means _living_ on some remote mountain somewhere…that’s a bit different. Most people would indeed fail that task, just due to inability to self-amuse without a constant stream of entertainment.

        1. 1349 says:

          there are still some places, of great beauty, in the world where it’s fairly hard to survive

          Moon. Mars. Europa (Jupiter II).

        2. K.A. says:

          Most ‘inert’ people could very much benefit by returning to nature and realizing that some of their doings are superficial at best. It takes an initiative which many lack.

  3. Blake Judd says:

    The problem is your last paragraph.

    It’s not that it’s taboo, but it’s taboo to taboo. Taboo is acceptable in liberal democracy. Defying the taboo (insert traditionalism and chastity) would be defying liberal wankery.

    We’re all doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed

  4. etype says:

    The problem with the right or conservatism is that they allowed the left to hijack and re-interpret two ideas which are essentially the property of the American right. This disavowal of duty is the reason for the public’s proper sense of conservatism’s breach of promise.

    That is ‘liberalism’ and ‘equality’.
    Something even you, a ‘conservative’ perhaps do not understand, as you mention these words in the pejorative
    sense, with no indication of their proper meaning .
    Liberalism is supposed to mean ‘freedom from government.’ not ‘freedom from moral norms.’
    And equality is supposed to mean ‘equality before the law’, in terms of all men, be they rich and powerful or poor and weak, are both treated the same before the law.
    Not forced norms on behalf of the hopeless.

    Until the right takes back ‘Liberalism’ and ‘Equality’ and restore their proper meaning, they will fail. Because people want liberalism and equality, they just don’t know what these things are, or why they want them, except that they do, and the public is right.

    1. crow says:

      Interesting. How in the world could that be done? Redefining terms is the stock-in-trade of the left. Can a redefined term be re-redefined?

    2. 1349 says:

      Liberalism is supposed to mean ‘freedom from government’ not ‘freedom from moral norms.’

      Which is not less amoeban and manipulation-prone.
      What are the limits of freedom from government? And what government exactly – the modern one or the monarchical administration?

      And equality is supposed to mean ‘equality before the law’, in terms of all men, be they rich and powerful or poor and weak, are both treated the same before the law.

      That’s leftwing (unjust, destructive).

    3. Vigilance says:

      Equality under the law is rather silly. Poligamy is a boon for the upper class as their numbers are in smaller proportions than the middle and lower classes. There are many notable examples of biological degeneration of monarchical and aristocratic lines.

      Polygamy for the middle to lower classes is untenable due to the fact that it creates far too much tension through competition in lower classes.

      Equal treatment under the law would disrupt this balance and you end up with degeneration and a soaring crime rate.

  5. Joe says:

    Yeah, but what about all the free stuff you always talk about? We’ll still get free stuff, right?

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2013/1015/Walmart-Food-stamps-spree-caused-by-Xerox

    1. Joe says:

      By the way, I know I sometimes make snarky comments here, but I do take things seriously. I am just trying to sort through how it all appears to me. It is a complicated mess in many ways and I don’t see simple answers.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.606 seconds