Back when the Enlightenment™ came around, traditionalists criticized it because it made the individual the core of social order, replacing natural order.
They pointed out that this turned society from a functioning organism into a bureaucracy like those run by Genghis Khan and Darius. That kills culture, which results in a collapsed, mediocre, low average IQ, mixed-heritage dystopia.
People who liked the new way were called liberals for their desire to liberalize, or relax social standards, mores, aesthetics, behaviors, customs, cuisine, calendar, morality, and goals in favor of letting the individual do whatever he wanted.
Early on, they developed a fetishism for the foreign and exotic, mainly because it violated normal rules and passive-aggressively forced toleration of those violations, which in turn made the rules and standards weaken and disappear.
People did this for varying reasons. Some were defectives with mutations. Many were simply poor, stupid Dunning-Kruger cases who belonged as serfs in the fields. Others were the new middle class, which rose to power only to find out that it hated the world it wanted to create.
These new liberals always adopted the same policy: it was socially unacceptable to allow others to suffer, so they simply had to find someone suffering and use him as a pity pet to demand that the rules be abolished.
They started with the poor, moved on to women, then diversity, and finally homosexuality and transgenderism. They do not care about these people; they want to use them as symbols, and then will exploit them just like anyone else.
Liberalism however requires the idea of a “revolution.” That is, the way that things are done has to be seen to be bad so that some new way can be adopted despite being unproven, conjectural, and “idealistic” in the sense of symbolic, or one-dimensional in terms of social appearance and public relations, not nuanced and complex because it is based on cause-effect relationships over time like natural selection and natural order.
Once that revolution is won, liberalism consumes itself; think of a storm of locusts that grows rapidly by eating all the crops, then dies out from lack of food. Or a red tide, which grows on a sudden burst of nutrition, then suffocates itself from lack of oxygen caused by overpopulation.
In other words, you either have good leadership or you have “everyone do what they want, if they can afford it and it doesn’t offend anyone else,” which we might call the bourgeois morality of the middle classes, who always want more customers.
Liberalism proves good at producing more customers. America rules the world by having the most impressive consumer base of any nation, and its sheer buying power has dominated until the rise of China, which has so many more people that it has taken over.
However, once liberalism no longer has a revolution and therefore someone to revolt against, it becomes The Establishment and must make good on its promises, which it cannot. Relaxing rules creates disorder, which raises costs, and this paralyzes actions in the same way corruption does, by raising the price of doing anything new until people simply stop trying.
At that point, liberalism changes from attempting to free the individual from rules to demanding that the individual obey a narrative, or a story which explains the complexity of life in simply symbolism of things humans find socially acceptable or not.
In their effort to maintain diversity, which creates a swing vote against the majority, Leftists find themselves reversing liberalization from empowering the individual to enforcing behavior on the individual:
Critical race theory — and its various postmodern cousins — is not some interesting interpretation of social and political history that we are free to examine, embrace or discard. Its proponents do not seek to frame a critique of modern America to be tested alongside alternatives.
They insist that a traditionally liberal approach to evaluating the merits of competing ideas is itself an outgrowth of an illegitimate system of oppression.
Once liberalism has power, questioning authority becomes a hostile act and the liberals will crush it so that they may keep liberalizing the individual, in theory. The goal of liberalization has replaced any concern for the outcome of those actions.
At its core, liberalism consists of individualism, which is expressed as egalitarianism in groups in order to form a little mob, gang, cult, crowd, and clique which will enforce this rule on everyone else.
To these people, outcomes — accountability to reality — do not matter, so long as they continue the scam of being able to do whatever they want, having society pay for it, and being protected from criticism by widespread social approval.
If that social approval wanes, their power goes away.
This gives us the fundamental divisions between Left and Right, namely that the Left is egalitarianism/individualism where the right is realism/transcendentalism:
- Left / liberal, progressive: those who want to move humanity away from something akin to a natural law ethic, with government taking an active role in the process.
- Right / conservative: those who want to support and defend something akin to a natural law ethic, with government intervention limited to defending / prosecuting acts of aggression.
Long ago, Amerika distinguished itself by approaching politics through a philosophical analysis, which shows that the root of Leftism is egalitarianism, and a psychological analysis, which shows that people adopt egalitarianism out of individualism, or “me first before all else.”
At its core, liberalism consists of the desire to never be told by others that the individual is incorrect or behaving badly. It removes natural order and in fact reality itself from human consideration in this way, much how symbolic religions by doing away with reality also made their own beliefs irrelevant, since without the need for reality, nothing can be real, and therefore all religion occupies a space belonging normally to decoration.
By removing natural order, Leftism made modern life into a process of arbitrary conformity so that the great equality experiment could continue toward what was presumed to be Utopia. Unfortunately for them, Utopia never arrived, and people are defecting.
At that point, liberalism enters its death-cycle, in which it increasingly cracks down on those who notice reality in order to enforce its narrative, but by driving away reality from consideration, makes itself increasingly irrelevant.