In an interview with The Financial Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the end of an era of liberalism. According to him, “the liberal idea” has outlived its usefulness. This is particularly obvious in the moment when the peoples of Europe spoke out against the mass inflow of immigrants, open borders and multiculturalism policy.

The Russian President also noted that the liberals tried to impose its will on the world and made a lot of mistakes, “the Liberal idea is outdated, — stated Putin. — She came into conflict with the interests of the overwhelming majority of the population.”

But what is this the liberalism that had set himself against the majority of the population of the planet? The liberal answer is freedom, and as always, be deceiving, luring us into a trap. Because the Russian word for “freedom”, so pleasing to the ear, consists of two absolutely different in its content concepts.

As argued by one of the founders of liberal ideas, the Englishman John mill, we must distinguish between categories such as liberty — the underlying liberal ideology as such, and freedom. Both the modern Russian language translates as freedom. But it would be more accurate to translate liberty as “freedom from” and freedom as “freedom for…”. And this, as argued by sir John mill — two big differences.

Here lies the trick of the liberals screaming about freedom. Liberal freedom is only and exclusively — it is important to stress that “freedom from…”. First and foremost, freedom from all forms of collective identity. Liberalism puts at the centre of its ideology of the individual. Russian people think — “well, well, the individual is me, this is my wife, friend Bob, we are all individuals”. But here, as in the case with the concept of “freedom” there are details in which lies the devil.

The liberal individual is absolutized, that is completely cleared of any collective traits from belonging to the ethnic group, nation and even nation (it would seem that the political category generated by modernity).

But that’s not all. The individual should be cleared of God, faith, all religious. You say, “liberalism does not prohibit religion.” Yes, but only at the individual level, as “personal,” “God must be in the soul,” as the denial of any of institutionality as maximum granularity. It is desirable that it was Protestant or syncretic sect, even better — its own “religion,” individual “faith” in something exceptionally their individual. But in any case not derived from Tradition, not the original, but rather new, invented by the man himself.

But that’s not all. The liberal individual is cleared from any kind of identity — religious, class, national — goes on. And then it needs to be free from gender identity. For man and woman to share their sexual identity with others. And it is fundamentally contrary to absolute individualism.

It may seem that this is an optional element of the liberal program that it can’t be. Liberals are just joking. That’s not all liberals are such and our Russian liberals still nothing. But our liberals in contrast to the West, for example, European liberals are retarded (as, indeed, all our in relation to the West, the West in General, which declared itself civilization, and the rest of the savages and barbarians).

Looking at Europe, managed today the most advanced, progressive liberals, understand that the exemption from the gender identity is not only something optional that, on the contrary, the tip of the liberal ideology. Does not exist and cannot exist, by definition, a liberal who advocates for the rights of LGBT people. Moreover, full-fledged, advanced liberal he should be LGBT, or he is wrong, retarded, not advanced liberal.

Full, finished, not clouded by any substances liberalism does not ask, and demands the release of the individual from all collective, including his own gender.

Freed from the collective identity of the majority, liberalism denies everything connected with the domination of the majority. It seems to us that a liberal is always for democracy. In the US liberals even directly referred to as “Democrats”. But here, as in all things, that alleged liberalism, too, lies the trick. And if the original democracy is the power of the demos, i.e. the political power of the majority, is liberal democracy — a government of the minorities. The less minorities than drobne — the democratic. You can’t wrap my head? It’s because you’re not a liberal.

Seems to be well in the economy-that is exactly what liberalism out of the competition. There is even a myth that the liberals are the best economists, and that only a liberal government can lead the country to development. But here is a disappointment. Practice (not theory) shows that the dominance of liberalism in the economy leads to the dependence of man on the global oligarchy. For the main law of a liberal economy — the “equal terms poor even more poorer, the rich richer”. The same applies to States.

The liberal economist does not serve his people (a relic) and not state (this is something that should be overcome), but the liberal idea and its bearers. The liberal government thus provides all the conditions for a liberal-economic minorities — the global oligarchy, transnational corporations and world government. The expense of the majority. At the expense of the state. If they are, of course, the real liberals.

Liberalism, therefore, it’s always a trick, deceit, deception. Freedom of choice? Yes, but only two. “Coca-Cola” or “Pepsi-Cola”, “Democrats” or “Republicans”, IBM, or Apple. You say — “well, that’s an exaggeration, there is always something more” Is, but then you drop out of the mainstream, become marginal, and another step from the offered choice extremists.

Liberalism is the free choice of identity? Yes, but you can’t have a collective identity. You can choose tattoos, piercings, Paul. But you cannot be on the side of the national state, religious institution, people. You can’t even be a supporter of the sexual majority.

Liberalism is a new form of totalitarianism. Defeating their ideological opponents, Marxism (second political theory, which sets the basis for a class) and Nazism (third political theory, which sets the basis for the nation), liberalism, with its individual is left alone with himself, having the opportunity to say what they believe is right. Without objection, claiming only their values. And when he began to assert categorically and unreservedly — the world was horrified. However, this does not mean that it is only necessary to return to the previous opponents, Marxism and fascism, and the balance of power restored. It only will delay the inevitable end. The alternative to the current postliberalism lies generally outside the scope of modernism. This is not the second and not the third, and some fourth political theory.

The liberal ideology of human rights has in view only the rights of the individual, not even the citizen (a collective political identity, always referred to separately from “person”), but that is cleared of all collective of the Posthuman.

In the limit of liberalism is against man — against foundations, traditions and against freedom, in the end. After all, if, for Mill, “freedom for…” this is the freedom to do anything, liberalism is only “freedom from…”. Not for something, but just not to be. This is the basics of the classical liberal philosophy, the essence of the liberal metaphysics, liberalism is a purely nihilistic program leading to the abyss. Here, Putin is right. What this contrast? But that’s a topic for another conversation…

Read more •••


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here