Lets Get Real(politic)
liberalism is rhetorical justification for tyranny
The core assumptions of a new American populism as a political strategy to circulate the corrupt, incompetent, and evil ruling elite can’t survive alongside a framing that takes for granted liberalism as a universal and timeless ideal. I know this is difficult to appreciate with the American founding being somewhat animated by enlightenment values, but it is nevertheless true. America has succeeded in spite of this ideological poison buried in its heart, not because of it. For our country to survive, this cancer must be excised. In a video interview, Charles Haywood enunciates the issue well.
I partially stole this from Roger Scruton… the essence of Enlightenment political thought… revolves around two core principles, and these are the principles of the the left because there's a direct line from the Enlightenment through 1789 to 2023.
The first is total emancipation from all bonds not continuously chosen… No one is to be is to be hampered from total freedom in any way…
[The] second [is] total forced egalitarianism, though you can argue these two things are in tension with each other but that's a separate argument. Together those things serve to create a Utopia, Heaven on Earth and that is the entirety of left thought… These are the core beliefs of the left, and they are relatively new beliefs, a couple hundred years old, but they animate 100% of left behavior either directly or indirectly.
He then goes on to explain:
The sad irony is that the American founding was functionally informed by the Enlightenment but, it didn't appear in its extreme forms or didn't appear to suffer the same defects because of the unique virtue of the society of the time. Basically America has spent much of its history eating the seed corn of that virtue much of which is based upon its religious underpinning and thereby sequentially revealing the underlying poison of the Enlightenment. This accelerated of course at the beginning of the 20th century with Woodrow Wilson and the progressives bringing in things that were explicitly anti-religious that is sometimes were clothed in religious doctrine like Unitarians who believe in one God at most which was very common in New England and things like that and then of course getting into the post-war era where America seemed like it was riding high but again the the underlying poisons were working their way through the system and you can argue why they've emerged now or, what the Frankfurt School has to do with it… but these things were baked into the cake from the beginning… because they're based upon these these pillars of the Enlightenment. Every so often I get these insane responses, like “the enlightenment isn't that Emmanuel Kant said XYZ!”… People keep accusing me online of being engaging in the Hegelian dialectic… I don't know what the Hegelian dialectic is, [I] don't care, not interested. Same thing with Kant. I mean there are other people who are political philosophers in this time period, but they're not relevant to the underlying philosophy of the Enlightenment which is what has created the horrors that we see around us today.
Before I continue let me stipulate that there are aspects of classically liberal values that I hold personally alongside many other Americans. That said, it is essential to recognize that these values are ultimately subjective. A preference for treating people based on character over other traits doesn’t make one a good person in any objective sense. Accepting that such individual values will emerge under conditions of negative freedom is not a concern. Universalizing these values, however, constitutes a revolt against nature and corresponds directly with the tyranny and horror rapidly enveloping western civilization.
Ideology Vs. Realism
With all this talk of ideology it might seem like examining the philosophical foundations of the Enlightenment and leftist political thought is in order. I have other plans. Exactly why leftism is a revolt against nature and how such beliefs animate those infected by it to destroy everything beautiful and good in the world is complicated. Most people will only be able to grasp such things intuitively. Such intuitive understanding is enough if we can all accept what political ideology really is. Fundamentally, political ideology is merely the set of assumptions and justifications used to pursue self-interest. While this seems very straightforward, it can become very complicated when this pursuit comes at the expense of others, as it must to some extent insofar as people exist with incompatible values. To drive this point home let us examine how the political ideology of liberalism serves this function.
Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) and Liberalism
The development of the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) in its current configuration as depicted by the above organization chart1 wasn’t the sole product of liberalism. Banking cartels helped facilitate both world wars, and other ideology was used to justify these conflicts among the various factions. Even after WWII, nationalism provided some of the massive support for military spending that functioned to centralize power. In the wake of the Cold War, however, liberalism2 facilitated an ideologically uncontested consolidation of power into the enforcement layer of G3P. Just as we may intuitively understand that egalitarianism is evil, many of our enemies at echelon who serve the Eye at the End of Time intuitively understand that to best serve their God, power must be continuously consolidated. The particulars of how and why are secondary to the overwhelming certainty that to remake the world such that the Eye is pleased, there must be no ability for individuals at the “subject” layer to resist. The policy diktats advanced by servants of the Eye must be obeyed, whatever that cost. Don’t mistake what I am arguing here. Those in the upper echelons of the hierarchy of global power don’t all necessarily worship the Eye consciously, but they do all functionally serve to satisfy their own self-interest.3
The Lie of Altruism
The reason liberalism is so rhetorically effective in justifying the enslavement of mankind to a small cabal of internationalist bankers is directly related to the widespread misapprehension of altruism. Many like to believe altruism exists so that they, in turn, can believe that they are themselves altruistic. Absent this motivated reasoning, it is painfully obvious that human beings act in their own self-interest. Well developed and spiritually aware human beings can come to hold higher order values that entangle their self-interest with the wellbeing of their fellow man, but this is not altruism. Navigating life to end up in a place where we are only content so long as we are in service to others is a virtuous endeavor that has historically made for a high trust and highly functional civilization, but again, this is not altruism.
Wanting good things for the world does nothing, and the credit given by the left to those who hold the proper beliefs is only further evidence of philosophical bankruptcy. Doing good things does something, but only in a spiritual context. What is good? This can only be defined spiritually. What purpose does a given endeavor serve? Does it fulfill said purpose without undermining other higher order values? What purpose does your life serve? Setting forth a secular “universal good” is a simple rhetorical sleight of hand that allows base desires and preferences to masquerade as “altruism.” This isn’t something that can happen. This is something that does happen. Every time. If a supposed altruist isn’t quick to admit how their endeavors align with and support their own self-interest then they are either lying, stupid, or spiritually bankrupt. Confer status and prestige upon such charlatans at your peril.
Realist Populism
While populism can turn into a political ideology where the “common man” is imbued with a moral quality superior and in contrast to “the elite” I don’t advance that here. Many on our side may feel that way. That is fine. I do not. There is no single political ideology that unites a new American populism. We are animated by many overlapping and largely compatible beliefs. Federalism makes it so very different beliefs can be ultimately compatible by creating communities within communities where expectations for homogeneity of values decrease in proportion to the size of the community.
Populism is a political strategy that can be used to advance the self-interest of those forced to the bottom of the G3P organizational chart. It is a means by which the policy targets can come to influence, and perhaps even one day abolish, the global policy rapidly accelerating towards the ultimate and complete subjugation of man to the Eye. This strategy can’t be successful unless we accept that we are bound by some bonds, including those not continuously chosen, imposed by nature. This means rejecting Enlightenment political philosophy with the false promises of egalitarianism and freedom from responsibility. This means dismissing out of hand the idea that anyone is altruistic, as such rhetoric only undermines virtue in service of the vicious. It also means that our political self-interest can’t be realized if we’re not honest about what we want and who we want it from. We aren’t living in a world where everyone can win, because there are people who define our complete and total subjugation as victory. We must recognize that we’re fighting a war to wrest power from compulsive and perpetual liars who will implore us to consider their motivations charitably as they actively plot our destruction.
Excision, Not Amputation
There is value and nobility in kindness and compassion, but taken in isolation, these virtues become vices. The sentiments that provoked the American people to declare and achieve independence from the Crown coalesce into a greater whole, and they embody a spirit of excellence needed for such success to be replicated against an international order that no longer recognizes popular sovereignty. In order to surgically preserve and restore a healthy and functional body politic, the cancerous growth that conflates liberation from tyranny with freedom from reality must be removed. Towards this end, a precision instrument is needed. Fortunately, such a tool is available for the discerning intellectual. I speak of course of the Zetetic blade which is explained by
here:
I won’t pretend that such an excision will be easy, but I have a sense that it must be possible. In any case, it seems obvious to me that any American truly worthy of the name is duty-bound to try. America started with the rejection of political rule from afar without representation. I don’t know exactly what a widely appealing and internally consistent Americanism will look like, but I do know that no American worth their salt is willing to live as a mere policy target of those who don’t even notionally represent their interests.
The managerial variety to be precise.
I consider the best psychological model for mapping how servants of the Eye are acting in their self-interest is the manner by which those who demonstrate fealty are conferred elevated status. The material advantages of being aligned with the regime are more obvious, but fail to explain why businesses are willing to suffer financial losses in order to maintain appearances that they have the “correct” social beliefs. Using this lens ideological capture of institutions can be understood as a way to hijack associated prestige in order to ensure there are no alternatives to ascend the social hierarchy thereby leveraging the psychological limitations of the white collar status-obsessed segment of the population.
If you are convinced we are a Proposition nation not a people, we need to adjust the proposition. I am not, and reject we are or were mere propositions. Whoever utters these words has already betrayed us (you don’t utter them ).
So those who live in ideas can relax the grip of this obsession upon your minds, AND OTHERS.
Do let your obsession with our founding flaws go… there’s no sin to exercise. As we were never an exercise in mere intellect or social engineering, any so called flaws in our design… aren’t relevant. We were built by over 160 years of blood, sweat, suffering and a people who devised a couple of political contracts, if this one has failed we remain a people and get another. No one claims there’s no such thing as France because they’re on their 5th Republic.
The core errors of the Enlightenment are over weighting the problem solving skill called reason, and the tendentious and contentious concepts of right, and the disagreements at times on facts and what they mean.
That’s not our problem.
Our problem is we talk and think too much.
We’re slaves to those who act.
The original sins to exorcise aren’t the Founders, but your own …your own vanity if you need a sin. The Vanity that minds can get it right is above all else the Enlightenment’s mortal sin.
So please define this corrupt version of liberalism other than by association with the globalists. I don't think you're wrong, btw. To cite someone you know well, Friedrich Hayek claimed to be classical liberal rather than a conservative. He did share a tradition, if we are starting from the Enlightenment, which includes David Hume and Adam Smith, to start, and arguably reached a 19th century apogee with JS Mill. (I know that Hume is now often deemed a conservative, but he wrote extensively on liberty, including market freedom, and his defense of free speech is worth reading even today).
I ask because I do think this tradition has been subverted, corrupted and co-opted. Let's take some examples. If we follow the Anglo-American tradition, the government exists by consent of and to serve the people. From Locke and Hume ("I am an American in my principles") to Franklin and Jefferson, et alia. Both intrinsic in this set of beliefs and explicitly stated, the people have a right to rebel -- to overthrow their government if it turns tyrannical or otherwise becomes so vastly dysfunctional it no longer fulfills its reason for existence. If instead we follow the UN on Human Rights as opposed the Anglo-American tradition which discusses Inalienable Rights, the people do NOT have a right to rebel -- do NOT have a right to overthrow or refashion their existing system of government. Instead, and in contrast, the people have a right to representation -- and generically defined participation. This effectively means the following: so long as elections are held in which people can vote, the state cannot neither be deemed tyrannical nor vastly dysfunctional. (The problems with elections globally? Well, books HAVE been written).
Such was not how our Founders understood it, but that seems hardly the core issue. We need introduce the distinction de facto / de jure (in reality vs in law). In British America prior to the revolution, local representation government was an empirical reality. The noted historian Jack P. Greene has well-documented that the conflict was very much the colonial assemblies -- the local "parliaments" -- against the British Parliament in terms of who had legislative authority -- and who actually represented the people living there. In other words, similar to the notion of a "jury of one's peers," representative government was practiced as first local and de facto -- not as nationalized and de jure. Democratic forms of governance existed on the community level -- or not at all. It had to actually practiced -- not conferred once every four years from above by the state as absolute sovereign. Hence classical liberalism emphasized individuals with some degree of self-determination who made choices which had consequences. The state had a greatly reduced role.
In contrast, the current practice of "democracy" -- of representative governance -- is de jure, not de facto: it is the ongoing ratification of absolutist corporate-state authority by highly controlled and hence largely ritual elections. One has the right to vote, but increasingly, one forfeits all the other rights -- including the once Inalienable Rights -- which were part and parcel of Classical Liberalism.
This has since gone global -- what many experts refer to as the "Liberal Peace Thesis." The UN (and often enough, USA) experts arrive, and impose or monitor national elections with NO concern for any de facto democratic practices in the community or representative governance on the local scale. Our experts then pronounce a winner and then call their work done. No concern about individuals engaged in self-determination (however limited) in the personal, professional, and economic spheres -- they voted. DONE. They are represented. They have participated. Now, let the State (often enough, the globalists working through their newly installed leader) do its work unhindered, unchecked. The people will vote again in 3, 4, 6 or whatever more years. DONE. None of this, however, is how Locke or Jefferson or JS Mill understood consent of governed and the social contract. So I'm not sure we can blame them.
Moreover, we have a wider war going on against individuals and even family units doing anything that smacks of self-reliance or self-determination: gardening is now bad for the planet. Exercise, not eating highly processed commercialized foods, and accepting responsibility for one's health and fitness: fascism. "Doing your own research:" socially unacceptable stupidity. (And to think I once taught college students how to do their own research -- and this was a standard part of the curriculum. How insane we all were). Self-defense in circumstances when the rule of law has completely broken down: unspeakable. Barbaric. Don't even go there.
I'll have to get off my intellectual ass and try to explain better -- if only to myself -- how classical liberalism was co-opted and corrupted by the globalists, working hand-in-hand for sure with certain American elites: see the Madeline Albright Doctrine, see JJ Mearsheimer on the Liberal Delusion, etc. But I'm far from ready to give up on the Classical Liberal tradition. That seems like conceding to the Neo-Feudalists. If you are not drawing on this tradition in opposition to the emergent Neo-Feudalism, what is your alternative? If say Locke to Hayek no longer matter, then why fight it? If it no longer means anything to be an American citizen, if we have only the rights the UN grants us, then f*ck it -- why bother?