There’s a lot of confusion out there mainly because nothing can be trusted to be what it is; all has been redefined as political objects.
As a result, people are casting around for a Grand Unification Theory that can make sense of their world. For example, the quest to define liberalism plagues many:
This situation seems to be assisted by the pervasive idea that what happens in society is a matter of collecting a group of ideas together (a political platform) and then advocating for your leaders to then implement the collection of wishes which then come true. So a Libertarian will make a list as so: I want liberty for all, weed legalization, free exit, small governance etc, while a designated socialist will demand a list as so: equality, social security, social justice etc.
Under the guise of criticizing liberalism, this is a liberal idea: let everyone do whatever they want and somehow the best result will come about.
It ignores the fact that all learning comes from asserting that some ideas are superior to others.
It confuses the methods of enforcing liberalism with its fundamental idea, which is egalitarianism, or the notion that all should be able to do whatever they want without criticism from others.
Look further for its actual core:
The starting point in all of this is firmly not in the â€œwhat does/ did happen.â€ The original cathedral analysis (not the nonsense it has become) was firmly in the â€œwhat did/ does happenâ€ category, De Jouvenelâ€™s analysis is firmly in the â€œwhat did/ does happenâ€ category, Carlyleâ€™s analysis of the effects of non-governance is firmly in the â€œwhat did/ does happenâ€ category. All of these things lead to unpleasant, but deeply necessary conclusions.
In other words, embrace entropy, because we should not pay attention to better methods, but whatever most people normally do, even if this is known to lead to breakdown and decay.
The above philosophy is fundamentally indistinguishable from mainstream liberalism. Let people do whatever they want, and criticize no individual’s choices, because we are all equal.
In other words, it affirms the fundamental idea of liberalism.
We know (or should know by now)conservatism is a progressive offshoot that is younger than progressivism, and all this claims of classical liberalism are just attempts to resurrect an older form of leftism.
This confuses libertarianism with all conservatism, ignoring the large differences between the two.
Luckily the article takes a twist toward the interesting:
So white nationalism is a collection of platforms with a central premise of declaring that ethnic interests should be secured to varying degrees, whilst neoreaction seems to be a collection of libertarian, rationalist and paleo-con platforms with no real rhyme or reason plus an advocate of extreme non-governance via AI and/ or automated constitutions (the ultimate magic â€œshouldâ€ and â€œmustâ€ political thinking.)
Here he nails it out of the park: all modern movements are built in the form of liberalism. They seek to provide a System that manages our future through automated means like rules and voting, simply so that we do not need to violate egalitarianism and appoint some to positions of power simply because they are better people.
As this shows us, the only escape from the modern time is the escape from Systems. These are based on what “should” be not in a practical/realistic context like nationalism, but in an emotional/social one like Leftism, because only a super-simplified way of life like ideology can unite such a chaotic system.
The only solution is escape from Systems into the wilds of culture-based leadership (nationalism) and leadership by the best (aristocracy). This eliminates the “should,” and produces the realistic, and even more importantly, the aspirational.
But it requires a slightly more complex analysis than the “finding the right answer is liberalism” introduction used in the original blog post.