[annatar1914]

It may come as a surprise that I have not been following the Impeachment proceedings as part of an effort to remove US President Donald Trump from office. I have not been following it because the results are a foregone conclusion, along with the 2020 Presidential elections as well;

''Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur''... "The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived."

Everybody anti-Trump has been so focused on ''Orange Man Bad'' that they can't see anything else but him.

Everybody Pro-Trump has been so focused on ''God-Emperor Trvmpvs the First'' that they can't see anything else but him.

I guess I live in another universe, I'm always like Toto, running around looking for the man that I shouldn't be paying attention to behind the curtains.

Having not seen a single moment of the Impeachment proceedings, I think that I possess the proper frame of mind in which to look at the thing as a whole, that and the State of the Union address by President Trump.

I just wasn't interested. Not in the stupidity of his detractors in the august chamber of the people, nor in his exaltation of what he has accomplished in the past year, during the State of the Union. And the articles of Impeachment... What a joke, a fraud, a waste of time and money!

''Make America Great Again''.... And the fearful rebuke of Socialism during the SOTU. Imagine the spectacle we have here; there are no real Socialists in political life almost anywhere in the world, but the Capitalist President sees them as the biggest threat to ''Make America Great Again''. Of course he's right, everyone should know. Capitalism is in serious trouble, it's probable final crisis, and Socialism is the natural response of sane human beings to that Crisis. It's either that or we go back 1000 years or so, and give up on the whole idea of genuine human progress.

Some people might have missed that amid all the Kabuki Theater.

[foxdemon]

@annatar1914 I agree with your prediction that Catholicism will make a comeback in the West. Modernity is being rejected and it’s inevitable replacement is traditionalism. In the West that means Catholicism.

I also agree most people are caught up in the details and fail to perceive the big picture. There are some ideas that I believe provide explanatory power for the times.

One is called Cliodynamics. This is an attempt to analyse history to identify underlying processes and possible provide predictive abilities, somewhat like Azimov’s Harry Seldon and his psychohistory. Peter Turchin is the mover behind the concept and has written about the life cycle of empires.

What he found in his study of the rise and fall of empires is that whey go through a series of stages, from founding, expansion, glory, and decline. Since we are interested in the decline phase on this thread, the interesting casual influence he identifies is decline is preceded by and driven by an over expansion of elites. Too many elites vying for power, it seems, are detrimental to the heath of an empire. It is the preceding period of glory and abundance of an empire that creates too many elites, and as economic conditions tighten up, their struggles for dominance over the shrinking cake lead to that empire’s demise.

One take home message from Turchin is that he thinks the ideology or theology that the elites subscribe to during the decline does not matter. After all, in decadence their world is a world of their own fancy and the system of belief can be shaped to suit their fancy rather that the believe system shape their behaviour as it did during preceding phases of that empire.


I am interested in your assessment of Turchin’s ideas.


Here’s a link.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/



A similar line of thought is evident in John Bagot Glubb’s essay, ‘Fate of Empires’.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf


A few methodology pointers:


Elites

When talking about elites, we should recognise that these are the urban elites. The urban centres have the highest population density and thus greatest social complexity. The cities dominate culture. And it is the elites of those cities that are the dominant group in this cities. So the social health of that elite is crucial for the viability of the culture in question. A decadent urban elite will result in dysfunctional cities and the decline of said culture. I think we are seeing a very clear example of this in the UK.



Origin of politics

Sometimes we need to go back to first principles. Politics is about who gets what, when and how. But this only matters in a delay return economy.

We can distinguish between immediate return and delay return subsistence economies. Immediate return means you caught or gather it and consume it with no storage and only limited distribution. No one is specifically dependant on anyone else for distribution.

A delay return economy means you grow it, harvest it and then must store it in sufficient quantities to last until next harvest. This requires the management of resources. Someone must be responsible for the distribution of resources thus that scarcity is avoided. Everyone else is specifically depended on that person for subsistence. That person that’s has great power over others. If that position is inherited, we have class.

So we only get politics as we know it from agriculture onwards.


@Potemkin comments?

[annatar1914]

@foxdemon , thank you for your post, it has been most informative and gets my creative thoughts going! You said;

I agree with your prediction that Catholicism will make a comeback in the West. Modernity is being rejected and it’s inevitable replacement is traditionalism. In the West that means Catholicism.

I do incline to that idea still, with the modification as I stated in a recent thread that ''Mary'' will eventually be exalted to a position analogous to the ''Heavenly Mother'' of Mormonism, and further, to be claimed as the Holy Spirit Incarnate, the Third Person of the Triune Godhead. Furthermore, the more Roman Catholicism goes on it will seem to incorporate elements of a Mormon style cosmology and theology (although I might have given that impression before unwittingly) so much as the ''trajectory'' of Western/Faustian thought always cuts through these particular grooves, because of the nature of this Culture's foundational theology; the ''Filioque Procedit'' inserted into the Creed.

I also agree most people are caught up in the details and fail to perceive the big picture. There are some ideas that I believe provide explanatory power for the times.

Yes, we don't ''do'' much Meta-History in institutions of higher learning anymore.

One is called Cliodynamics. This is an attempt to analyse history to identify underlying processes and possible provide predictive abilities, somewhat like Azimov’s Harry Seldon and his psychohistory. Peter Turchin is the mover behind the concept and has written about the life cycle of empires.

What he found in his study of the rise and fall of empires is that whey go through a series of stages, from founding, expansion, glory, and decline. Since we are interested in the decline phase on this thread, the interesting casual influence he identifies is decline is preceded by and driven by an over expansion of elites. Too many elites vying for power, it seems, are detrimental to the heath of an empire. It is the preceding period of glory and abundance of an empire that creates too many elites, and as economic conditions tighten up, their struggles for dominance over the shrinking cake lead to that empire’s demise.

Sounds like closer to Toynbee and Carrol Quigley than Spengler, but most perceptive.

One take home message from Turchin is that he thinks the ideology or theology that the elites subscribe to during the decline does not matter. After all, in decadence their world is a world of their own fancy and the system of belief can be shaped to suit their fancy rather that the believe system shape their behaviour as it did during preceding phases of that empire.

That's true enough, they will at this point in time take up what is most immediately useful to them.

I am interested in your assessment of Turchin’s ideas.


Here’s a link.

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamics/

Many Westerners would be put off by his themes of determinism and cooperation rather than competition as human drivers, but I am not. I'm enjoying reading him, we should discuss him further!

A similar line of thought is evident in John Bagot Glubb’s essay, ‘Fate of Empires’.

http://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf

Well, the basic Skeleton of his work has stood the test of time, although in the past I think I've managed to relate his 250 years lifespan of Empires to Spengler's 1000 years of Civilizational life quite well for myself (I'll pot that soon)

A few methodology pointers:


Elites

When talking about elites, we should recognise that these are the urban elites. The urban centres have the highest population density and thus greatest social complexity. The cities dominate culture. And it is the elites of those cities that are the dominant group in this cities. So the social health of that elite is crucial for the viability of the culture in question. A decadent urban elite will result in dysfunctional cities and the decline of said culture. I think we are seeing a very clear example of this in the UK.

Toynbee also writes of this quite well. To me, when the Elite turns against the ruling ideas of their society (or a faction thereof) they compose the leadership cadre of Toynbee's ''Internal Proletariat'' and even a ''External Proletariat'' (''Proletariat'' defined by Toynbee by those who are ''in'' rather than ''of'' a particular civilization) of barbarians on the frontiers, and that leadership overthrows that society. Thus there is a ''rotation of the Elites'' over time.

Origin of politics

Sometimes we need to go back to first principles. Politics is about who gets what, when and how. But this only matters in a delay return economy.

We can distinguish between immediate return and delay return subsistence economies. Immediate return means you caught or gather it and consume it with no storage and only limited distribution. No one is specifically dependant on anyone else for distribution.

A delay return economy means you grow it, harvest it and then must store it in sufficient quantities to last until next harvest. This requires the management of resources. Someone must be responsible for the distribution of resources thus that scarcity is avoided. Everyone else is specifically depended on that person for subsistence. That person that’s has great power over others. If that position is inherited, we have class.

So we only get politics as we know it from agriculture onwards.

Can't be denied. Scarcity is the primary factor, because if civilization is to exist, people have to be made to realize that if everyone tries to get what they want, all will wind up eventually with nothing, unless some are compelled by others to be satisfied with the lesser shares in return for security.

[annatar1914]

I voted today in my States' ''Super Tuesday'' primaries. As i'm a registered Independent, I could only vote in the Democratic Primary, which I did.

We in America had a Revolution, a genuine break from much of the past 4000 years or so in most places in the World, Liberty... But that liberty is under attack, and has been for generations now, and the politicians and money interests just don't care. It's easy to give up and be cynical about the whole exercise. For a long time I wanted to just give up, I truly despise most politicians today including the person I voted to be the Democratic nominee for President, and intellectually I can see why I truly wanted to just stop voting for the bastards.

Well, I voted because the American Revolution isn't finished, because it has to be protected from Counter-Revolution every generation and there are only so many more tools in the tool shed other than a protest vote...

[annatar1914]

Today if someone were to ask me what the world, the System which presently rules this world, is truly like I would say watch this Russian movie;

This is not merely Russia, this is the whole world, which Russia is part of. I cannot tell someone to be smart, or to be a fool, this Forum is full of both sorts of people. I am an American, I guess still, for I talk too much. If I had to say what we Americans are like though, we're like the God-damned vampires feasting on the flesh and blood of the world,( only unlike the ones in the movie who are far better and less hypocritical than we), we will try to convince ourselves and all others that the piss on the face we're raining down on everybody after we're done is holy water...

[quetzalcoatl]

I voted today in my States' ''Super Tuesday'' primaries. As i'm a registered Independent, I could only vote in the Democratic Primary, which I did.

We in America had a Revolution, a genuine break from much of the past 4000 years or so in most places in the World, Liberty... But that liberty is under attack, and has been for generations now, and the politicians and money interests just don't care. It's easy to give up and be cynical about the whole exercise. For a long time I wanted to just give up, I truly despise most politicians today including the person I voted to be the Democratic nominee for President, and intellectually I can see why I truly wanted to just stop voting for the bastards.

Well, I voted because the American Revolution isn't finished, because it has to be protected from Counter-Revolution every generation and there are only so many more tools in the tool shed other than a protest vote...

Voting is a sad duty. I can only trudge to the polling booth in a forlorn hope that somehow, someway, I can contribute to a more humane world. When I walk out, I can only hope I haven't somehow betrayed that intention.

[annatar1914]

Voting is a sad duty. I can only trudge to the polling booth in a forlorn hope that somehow, someway, I can contribute to a more humane world. When I walk out, I can only hope I haven't somehow betrayed that intention.

Throughout most of human history, Elites were replaced only by wars and rebellions, by violence, only resulting in new Elites much the same as the old ones. The principle of Voting is allegedly that the people are able to replace the Elites with people who represent them, and do so without violence.

In this respect, Communism actually is more ''conservative'' than Liberalism, oddly enough, in that Communists do not believe that it is possible to merely vote the troubles of the people away, that an Elite is simply too entrenched for that and that this idea is utopian. Reactionaries agree for the most part with the Communists about voting, that it doesn't change anything about the System that is in place.

What voting does accomplish however is the implicit premise that the individual voter will abide by the results of the election regardless of whether or not their candidate has won by enough votes or not against their rival, that the voter will accept that the candidate that won will then take up the office they're running for.

[Potemkin]

Throughout most of human history, Elites were replaced only by wars and rebellions, by violence, only resulting in new Elites much the same as the old ones. The principle of Voting is allegedly that the people are able to replace the Elites with people who represent them, and do so without violence.

In this respect, Communism actually is more ''conservative'' than Liberalism, oddly enough, in that Communists do not believe that it is possible to merely vote the troubles of the people away, that an Elite is simply too entrenched for that and that this idea is utopian. Reactionaries agree for the most part with the Communists about voting, that it doesn't change anything about the System that is in place.

What voting does accomplish however is the implicit premise that the individual voter will abide by the results of the election regardless of whether or not their candidate has won by enough votes or not against their rival, that the voter will accept that the candidate that won will then take up the office they're running for.

Indeed, and this is a huge conceptual gulf between liberals and everyone else - liberals identify 'democracy' with the formalism of voting. People can now vote in Iraq, but is it really a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense?

I am reminded of a comment made by a Soviet apparachik during the Cold War, who denied that the British Labour Party could be a truly left-wing party representing the interests of the British working class on the basis that, having lost a general election, "they do not immediately proceed to sabotage."

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin ;

Indeed, and this is a huge conceptual gulf between liberals and everyone else - liberals identify 'democracy' with the formalism of voting. People can now vote in Iraq, but is it really a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense?

It recalls the reasons I believe that there really is a 'false consciousness' that pervades the political thought of most people. We abide by the results of the election in a Liberal society because nobody wants to be the first to use violent means to dispute results we don't like, out of reasons of personal safety and comfort or those of our loved ones, in most cases( That's why revolutionaries are either gifted with equally heroic loved ones, or are loveless in this world with few personal human attachments). Revolutions often fail, and the price of failure is often pretty grim.

That's why rebellions are evil, while revolutions are good, by the way. A rebellion is an anarchic spasm of violence against the very principle of authority and obedience itself, a riot gone cancerous. A Revolution is a righteous desire to set up new authority to give one's obedience to, for the betterment of all, the common good. In liberal society, persons disgusted with the System are content with a wild rampage of senseless arson, looting, rapine and murder, and are quickly subdued by Liberal authority... And rightfully so.

I am reminded of a comment made by a Soviet apparachik during the Cold War, who denied that the British Labour Party could be a truly left-wing party representing the interests of the British working class on the basis that, having lost a general election, "they do not immediately proceed to sabotage."

From a Revolutionary Left perspective, he would be correct insofar as following Lenin goes. In fact, this is true from a genuine Reactionary perspective, which would regard any attempt by the real Left to peacefully win an election as a call to arms to force them out of office, General Pinochet and the other military officers overthrowing President Allende in Chile comes to mind as an example.

So it's only the Liberals, ''Left'' and ''Right'' wings of them alike, who pretend to abhor the use of violence in solving political disputes.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin ;

It recalls the reasons I believe that there really is a 'false consciousness' that pervades the political thought of most people. We abide by the results of the election in a Liberal society because nobody wants to be the first to use violent means to dispute results we don't like, out of reasons of personal safety and comfort or those of our loved ones, in most cases( That's why revolutionaries are either gifted with equally heroic loved ones, or are loveless in this world with few personal human attachments). Revolutions often fail, and the price of failure is often pretty grim.

That's why rebellions are evil, while revolutions are good, by the way. A rebellion is an anarchic spasm of violence against the very principle of authority and obedience itself, a riot gone cancerous. A Revolution is a righteous desire to set up new authority to give one's obedience to, for the betterment of all, the common good. In liberal society, persons disgusted with the System are content with a wild rampage of senseless arson, looting, rapine and murder, and are quickly subdued by Liberal authority... And rightfully so.

Indeed, and there have been spasms of rioting and looting in British society in recent years, perpetrated by people who would be horrified if there were to be a real Revolution in Britain. Middle-class 'anarchists' smashing shop windows and stealing plasma TV sets do not a revolution make. Lol.

From a Revolutionary Left perspective, he would be correct insofar as following Lenin goes. In fact, this is true from a genuine Reactionary perspective, which would regard any attempt by the real Left to peacefully win an election as a call to arms to force them out of office, General Pinochet and the other military officers overthrowing President Allende in Chile comes to mind as an example.

So it's only the Liberals, ''Left'' and ''Right'' wings of them alike, who pretend to abhor the use of violence in solving political disputes.

Precisely, and this is why revolutionaries and reactionaries understand each other in a way that liberals will never understand either of their opponents. After all, the real struggle is between the revolutionaries and the reactionaries, with the liberals as mere bystanders who prosper only when capitalism is in its stable phases (which is not often, historically speaking). And as Trotsky pointed out, two opposing armies can only land blows on each other insofar as they are similar. Incidentally, this also indicates that Allende was essentially a liberal rather than a revolutionary. If he had been a true revolutionary, he would have seen Pinochet coming. Not only did he not see him coming, he actually put him in charge of the Chilean armed forces. Did he really think they would let a Marxist government take power just by winning a general election....?

[annatar1914]

@Potemkin ;

Indeed, and there have been spasms of rioting and looting in British society in recent years, perpetrated by people who would be horrified if there were to be a real Revolution in Britain. Middle-class 'anarchists' smashing shop windows and stealing plasma TV sets do not a revolution make. Lol.

Lol, true. Not only do they not make a revolution, they in fact replicate/imitate the robbery inflicted on the people by the Bourgeoisie, by the destruction or looting of goods made by the working classes which will have to be made up by them over time. Consider thus the LumpenProletariat, the lower pole of Capitalist Systemic existence, but mirroring the Capitalist's money worship, materialism, and desire for primitive accumulation...They envy the Capitalist but wish only to BE the Capitalist at the top. Therefore we touch upon one of the reasons for President Trump's success; he consciously mirrors and reinforces the Lower Classes fantasies of how they would act and be if fortune smiled upon them were they to have his wealth and power.

Precisely, and this is why revolutionaries and reactionaries understand each other in a way that liberals will never understand either of their opponents. After all, the real struggle is between the revolutionaries and the reactionaries, with the liberals as mere bystanders who prosper only when capitalism is in its stable phases (which is not often, historically speaking). And as Trotsky pointed out, two opposing armies can only land blows on each other insofar as they are similar. Incidentally, this also indicates that Allende was essentially a liberal rather than a revolutionary. If he had been a true revolutionary, he would have seen Pinochet coming. Not only did he not see him coming, he actually put him in charge of the Chilean armed forces. Did he really think they would let a Marxist government take power just by winning a general election....?

Very perceptive, which is why people like you and I laugh at the attempts to paint Bernie Sanders and Corbyn as raving Bolsheviks when they are nothing of the sort, but props of the System entirely. I suppose one could fool oneself and end up like Allende, but I have my doubts that would be the case very often.

Keep in mind then one of my central theses in my worldview; that President Trump is an Objectivist, a partisan of Ayn Rand, and therefore someone who by primitive reactionary instinct alone has far more sense regarding his real enemies (who they are and who they aren't) than any Liberal would or even could likewise. This is why he will keep on winning and growing ever stronger in power, influence, and popularity.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin ;

Lol, true. Not only do they not make a revolution, they in fact replicate/imitate the robbery inflicted on the people by the Bourgeoisie, by the destruction or looting of goods made by the working classes which will have to be made up by them over time. Consider thus the LumpenProletariat, the lower pole of Capitalist Systemic existence, but mirroring the Capitalist's money worship, materialism, and desire for primitive accumulation...They envy the Capitalist but wish only to BE the Capitalist at the top. Therefore we touch upon one of the reasons for President Trump's success; he consciously mirrors and reinforces the Lower Classes fantasies of how they would act and be if fortune smiled upon them were they to have his wealth and power.

Very perceptive, which is why people like you and I laugh at the attempts to paint Bernie Sanders and Corbyn as raving Bolsheviks when they are nothing of the sort, but props of the System entirely. I suppose one could fool oneself and end up like Allende, but I have my doubts that would be the case very often.

Keep in mind then one of my central theses in my worldview; that President Trump is an Objectivist, a partisan of Ayn Rand, and therefore someone who by primitive reactionary instinct alone has far more sense regarding his real enemies (who they are and who they aren't) than any Liberal would or even could likewise. This is why he will keep on winning and growing ever stronger in power, influence, and popularity.

I absolutely agree. The liberals (whether left or right liberals) cannot understand why Trump keeps winning and winning and winning, despite his obvious personal deficiencies. It's the same reason why the Roman Emperors like Nero or Commodus kept winning and winning and winning, despite their obvious personal deficiencies. The mob loved them for being who they were - their own transfigured, fantasy selves, kicking the shit out of the mighty and the pompously self-righteous ruling elite....

[annatar1914]

I absolutely agree. The liberals (whether left or right liberals) cannot understand why Trump keeps winning and winning and winning, despite his obvious personal deficiencies. It's the same reason why the Roman Emperors like Nero or Commodus kept winning and winning and winning, despite their obvious personal deficiencies. The mob loved them for being who they were - their own transfigured, fantasy selves, kicking the shit out of the mighty and the pompously self-righteous ruling elite....

@Potemkin ;

It is with a kind of relief, that here on PoFo there's somebody who gets what I'm saying. And not only gets it, but says it in better form than I, lol

This is why I also expect that all across the ''usual'' Democratic Party Demographic, Trump will have a greater percentage of that vote (African American and Hispanic, American Indian, low-income White, etc..) than any previous GOP politician ever.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin ;

It is with a kind of relief, that here on PoFo there's somebody who gets what I'm saying. And not only gets it, but says it in better form than I, lol

This is why I also expect that all across the ''usual'' Democratic Party Demographic, Trump will have a greater percentage of that vote (African American and Hispanic, American Indian, low-income White, etc..) than any previous GOP politician ever.

Absolutely. And the liberals still won't understand why it happened. Lol. The American Republic is entering its death throes, @annatar1914 - I think we both know that.

[annatar1914]

Absolutely. And the liberals still won't understand why it happened. Lol. The American Republic is entering its death throes, @annatar1914 - I think we both know that.

I knew it perhaps as early as the 1979 Islamic Iranian ''Revolution''. ''We'' found a new Enemy, even as we were trying to finish up the Cold War with the older Enemy.

Few after 1979 did understand the gradual transformation of the American Republic into the American Empire entirely back then, that ''we'' would have about 20 years to force the world into our Imperial mold with relative impunity, and then with vigorous resistance against it.

But yeah, the Liberals won't get it even after President Trump leaves office in 2028, having fundamentally changed the political landscape in the interim, forever excluding them from serious political roles thereafter.

[Potemkin]

I knew it perhaps as early as the 1979 Islamic Iranian ''Revolution''. ''We'' found a new Enemy, even as we were trying to finish up the Cold War with the older Enemy.

Few after 1979 did understand the gradual transformation of the American Republic into the American Empire entirely back then, that ''we'' would have about 20 years to force the world into our Imperial mold with relative impunity, and then with vigorous resistance against it.

But yeah, the Liberals won't get it even after President Trump leaves office in 2028, having fundamentally changed the political landscape in the interim, forever excluding them from serious political roles thereafter.

Don't underestimate the liberal establishment, @annatar1914. They'll try very hard to find way to claw their way back into power. After all, Emperors came and went but the Senate remained.... This process will not end with Trump; he's merely the Tiberius Gracchus of the American Republic; the real struggle is yet to come. But it will come.

[annatar1914]

Don't underestimate the liberal establishment, @annatar1914. They'll try very hard to find way to claw their way back into power. After all, Emperors came and went but the Senate remained.... This process will not end with Trump; he's merely the Tiberius Gracchus of the American Republic; the real struggle is yet to come. But it will come.

Indeed you're absolutely correct I believe. And of this future that I personally see, I have written elsewhere just a moment ago here on PoFo. I think we're definitely in the stage you're talking about.

[Wellsy]

In your discussion of bow liberals simply defend the system of authority but are essentially opposed to any particular end you make me think of this summary of Carl Schmitt on politics.
[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/political-theory/carl-schmitt/[/url]

Schmitt criticizes the spectrum of political philosophies on the left, from anarchism and Marxism to liberalism. He argues as follows:
Anarchists want the abolition of the state and view political power as inherently evil. They differ from liberalism only by opposing sovereignty more radically than liberalism. Anarchists and Marxists claim that representational democracy is not an answer. It is a residual power-formation left over by the bourgeois revolutions in Europe. IN the eyes of these people representational democracy is flawed, because it operates with a conception of political power that anchors it in elected leaders rather than in issues. They claim that this formation of political power cannot stop the process of erosion and corruption that occurs within the body of the state.
In addition, anarchists, Marxists, and other left-wing liberals understand the human being in a fundamentally bourgeois sense, that is, non-nationally, non-racially, non-religiously, and non-gendered. From a leftist point of view, bourgeois identity is grounded in a shallow sense of rationality in relation to social affairs. Marxists see the nation state as a temporary problem and expect a fully liberated and universalized humanistic future where political conflicts are not longer necessary, and where the idea of sovereign power becomes obsolete. Liberals also try to eliminate sovereign power, but unlike Marxists, they have no notion of history driven by political-economic transformations. Therefore they developed a constitutional strategy of the separation of powers with checks and balances, as well as the universal rule of the law.
Whereas Marxists pursue class warfare to advance their goals, liberals pursue an opposite strategy of the neutralization of conflicts. They refuse to distinguish between friend and enemy, and thereby they reject the core of the process that creates political identity. Liberals by nature want to diffuse social tension and struggle, and by doing so, they try to turn politics into administrative affairs. Schmitt criticizes this tendency towards neutralization and asks them: “how can you decide not to decide?” By avoiding conflicts, they reject the other as other. Liberalism allows differences, but only within a legal framework that understands itself to be rational, hence also universal. This will render fundamental differences into degrees of similarity, thus failing to recognize the real differences between people or groups of people. Liberal parliamentarians try to decide all questions by law, but what they really do is attempting to defang and tame politics. The consequence of a liberal understanding of the state is a weakening of the state that exposes it to the dangers of political factions, such as fascists, Bolsheviks, or, in today’s environment, to large corporations and lobbying groups. Schmitt argues that liberal republicanism is not really a political doctrine; it is a negation of politics, an attempt to replace real politics with law, morality, or economics. In fact, liberal parliamentarians are elitist as well, without admitting or recognizing it. They think they represent moral and legal humanism. The enemies of liberal societies, then, are easily labeled as anti-humanist, or even as terrorists whose motivation nobody can understand. The next step is to treat them as insane, anti-social, or as enemies of all of humanity.
Schmitt suggests to attack liberalism by exposing the neutralization tendency. This will allow us to see that liberalism in its core is not a philosophy of law and politics based on impartial, Enlightenment-style rationality, but rather a form of political theology, because the hope is to dissolve the sovereign nations into a system of universal legality. Schmitt’s critique of modern liberal thinking is based on a nuanced reading of Hobbes and the history of sovereignty itself. In his final analysis, he detects a process in modern times that transforms politics as unavoidable power struggle into a form of politics that aims to establish a universal humanism as a secularized version of theology

And more and more Im beginning to really feel this tendency because in liberal thought there is no common good and often a common good is an imposition on the individual to merely consume what ever they desire. There can be no sense of self interest overlapping with a shared interest because there are but a competing set of individual interests which the state merely sets boundaries on. Until of course change is forced through illiberal means through social movements. Hence the likes of Rawls is incapable theoretically to account for the civil rights and womens libs movements because it frames politics as a consensus mode pf decision making for which no one can entirely agree on anything and fighting is bad so the status quo and stability remains. Hence the progressive that MLK dubbed the white moderate who says he is all for anothers freedom but steps on their toes and says don’t rock the boat too much, give it time and your freedom will simply be given to you by the elite. Showing themselves essentially opposed to progress because conflict is upsetting, can’t understand how someone could be motivated to put their life on the line for an ideal.

[annatar1914]

In your discussion of bow liberals simply defend the system of authority but are essentially opposed to any particular end you make me think of this summary of Carl Schmitt on politics.
[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/political-theory/carl-schmitt/[/url]

And more and more Im beginning to really feel this tendency because in liberal thought there is no common good and often a common good is an imposition on the individual to merely consume what ever they desire. There can be no sense of self interest overlapping with a shared interest because there are but a competing set of individual interests which the state merely sets boundaries on. Until of course change is forced through illiberal means through social movements. Hence the likes of Rawls is incapable theoretically to account for the civil rights and womens libs movements because it frames politics as a consensus mode pf decision making for which no one can entirely agree on anything and fighting is bad so the status quo and stability remains. Hence the progressive that MLK dubbed the white moderate who says he is all for anothers freedom but steps on their toes and says don’t rock the boat too much, give it time and your freedom will simply be given to you by the elite. Showing themselves essentially opposed to progress because conflict is upsetting, can’t understand how someone could be motivated to put their life on the line for an ideal.

Schmidtt is a profound political thinker, so much more than the crude and simplistic picture as some sort of ''Nazi'' that we are allowed by our liberal betters to think of him. Yes my friend, Liberalism is corrosive of the very ends of rational organized society, even though as you point out they claim to be standard bearers of precisely that.

The groups that I predict will oppose this Liberal corrosion however will not be the Marxists of old as such, but as per the workings of Divine Providence/the Cunning of History-the Dialectic, something so new it appears to be old, or so old that it seems young and strange to modern eyes. That is to say, with pre-modern roots. Only the Pre-Modern, but active Pre-Modern however, can successfully resist Liberalism even as it devours itself. I will expand on that at some point soon.

Liberalism is pretty much dead now, and the American Republic with it, but we'll have to be prepared for some time to come to hear the tired old platitudes for a while, as the Oligarchs fight it out for the prize of real power hidden behind the hollowed out shell of the Liberal experiment.

[Hindsite]

But yeah, the Liberals won't get it even after President Trump leaves office in 2028, having fundamentally changed the political landscape in the interim, forever excluding them from serious political roles thereafter.

President Trump is not allowed to stay in office more than 4 more years, if reelected.