The Liberal Political Theology | Neema Parvini

Neema Parvini (2022) - From the realist perspective of [Carl] Schmitt, there is no structural difference between the liberal state, the communist state, and the fascist state — or indeed any other state. The only difference is the extent to which a regime may obscure the nature of its power or else genuinely buy into myths of neutrality. Viewed in this way, a state wedded to liberal democracy is as ‘totalitarian’ as any other since, by its very nature, it will be unable to tolerate any leaders who are not always already liberal democrats. 

 

"Liberalism is to freedom as anarchism is to anarchy." — Ernst Jünger, 1977

 

Should such leaders rise, the stalwarts of liberal democracy will perceive them as ‘populists’, ‘fascists’, ‘threats to democracy’, and so on. The extent of free speech, free inquiry, free thought, and so on is a liberal delusion. In fact, the range of ‘allowable opinion’ is always exceedingly narrow and the liberal democratic state is marked by its intolerance and spectacular inability to imagine any worldview that is not its own. The dominance of liberal political theology is total. Schmitt would not have disagreed with Oswald Spengler who wrote in The Decline of the West:

"England, too, discovered the ideal of a Free Press, and discovered along with it that the press serves him who owns it. It does not spread ‘free’ opinion — it generates it. […] Without the reader’s observing it, the paper, and himself with it, changes masters. Here also money triumphs and forces the free spirits into its service. No tamer has his animals more under his power. Unleash the people as reader-mass and it will storm through the streets and hurl itself upon the target indicated, terrifying and breaking windows; a hint to the press-staff and it will become quiet and go home. The Press today is an army with carefully organized arms and branches, with journalists as officers, and readers as soldiers. But here, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and war aims and operation-plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows, nor is allowed to know, the purposes for which he is used, nor even the role that he is to play. A more appalling caricature of freedom of thought cannot be imagined. Formerly a man did not dare to think freely. Now he dares, but cannot; his will to think is only a willingness to think to order, and this is what he feels as his liberty."

As Edward Bernays would go on to say these ‘are the invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. […] In some department of our daily lives, in which we imagine ourselves as free agents, we are ruled by dictators exercising great power.’ The point is that viewed from the outside, liberal democracy looks just as ‘totalitarian’ as any other regime even if it relies more on subtle persuasion, nudge techniques, and other psychological tricks than coercion to obtain its results.

Quoted from:
Neema Parvini (2022) - The Populist Delusion

The Rulers and the Ruled | Gaetano Mosca

Gaetano Mosca (1896) - Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from all societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

 

[...] In reality the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can therefore be dealt with one by one. Meanwhile it will be easier for the former to act in concert and have a mutual understanding simply because they are a hundred and not a thousand. It follows that the larger the political community, the smaller will the proportion of the governing minority to the governed majority be, and the more difficult will it be for the majority to organize for reaction against the minority.

"I can certainly call myself an anti-democrat, but I am not an anti-liberal;
indeed I am opposed to pure democracy precisely because I am a liberal.
I believe that the ruling class ought not to be monolithic and homogeneous
but ought to consist of elements which are diverse in regard to origin and
interests; when, instead, political power originates from a single source,
even if this be elections with universal suffrage, I regard it as dangerous
and liable to become oppressive. Democratic Jacobinism is an illiberal
doctrine precisely because it subordinates everything to a single force,
that of the so-called majority, on which it does not set any limits."

[...] What happens in other forms of government — namely, that an organized minority imposes its will on the disorganized majority — happens also and to perfection, whatever the appearances to the contrary, under the representative system. When we say that the voters ‘choose’ their representative, we are using a language that is very inexact. The truth is that the representative has himself elected by the voters, and, if that phrase should seem too inflexible and too harsh to fit some cases, we might qualify it by saying that his friends have him elected. In elections, as in all other manifestations of social life, those who have the will and, especially, the moral, intellectual and material means to force their will upon others take the lead over the others and command them.

[...] From our point of view there can be no antagonism between state and society. The state is to be looked upon merely as that part of society which performs the political function. Considered in this light, all questions touching interference or noninterference by the state come to assume a new aspect. Instead of asking what the limits of state activity ought to be, we try to find out what the best type of political organization is, which type, in other words, enables all the elements that have a political significance in a given society to be best utilized and specialized, best subjected to reciprocal control and to the principle of individual responsibility for the things that are done in the respective domains.

"Who says organization, says oligarchy. [...] Historical evolution mocks all the
prophylactic measures that have been adopted for the prevention of oligarchy."
Robert Michels, 1911

[...] Any political organization is both voluntary and coercive at one and the same time — voluntary because it arises from the very nature of man, as was long ago noted by Aristotle, and coercive because it is a necessary fact, the human being finding himself unable to live otherwise. It is natural, therefore, and at the same time indispensable, that where there are men there should automatically be a society, and that when there is a society there should also be a state — that is to say, a minority that rules and a majority that is ruled by the ruling minority.

Quoted from:
Gaetano Mosca (1896) - The Ruling Class (Elementi di scienza política).

See also:

 Robert Michels (1915) - Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie).
Vilfredo Pareto (1916) - The Mind and Society (Trattato di sociologia generale).

Who Ever Sets the Price of Gold and Silver | Stephen Mitford Goodson

There was an increase in trade and Rome became one of the most prosperous cities in the ancient world. [...] bronze coins represented national money and were paid into circulation by the state and each was only of value in as much as the symbols on which its numbers were recorded, were scarce or otherwise. This money was thus based on law rather than the metallic content. [...] This can be considered as an early example of the successful use of fiat money.

While fiat money is much criticised in some quarters, for example by the followers of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, there is nothing wrong with it, as long as it is issued by government, not by private bankers, and is carefully protected against counterfeiters. Non-fiat money, in contrast, has the serious drawback that who ever sets the prices of gold and silver, i.e. private bankers, can control the nation’s economy.

[...] in September 45 BC, Caesar found the streets and cities crowded with homeless people, who had been forced off the land by usurers and land monopolists. 300,000 people had to be fed daily at the public granary. Usury was flourishing with disastrous consequences. [..] Caesar fully understood the evils of usury and how to counter them. He recognized the profound truth that money is a national agent, created by law for a national purpose, and that no classes of men should withhold it from circulation so as to cause panics, in order that speculators could advance the rates of interest, or could buy up property at ruinous prices after such panic.

Caesar introduced the following social reforms:

1. Restoration of property was done at the much lower valuations which held prior to the civil war (49-45 BC).
2. Several remissions of rents were granted.
3. Large numbers of poor citizens and discharged veterans were settled on allotments.
4. Free housing was provided to 80,000 impoverished families.
5. Soldiers’ pay was increased from 123 to 225 denarii.
6. The corn dole was regulated.
7. Provincial communities were enfranchised.
8. Confusion in the calendar was removed by fixing it at 365¼ days from 1 January 44 BC.

His monetary reforms were as follows:

1. State debt levels were immediately reduced by 25%.
2. Control of the mint was transferred from the patricians (usurers) to government.
3. Cheap metal coins were issued as the means of exchange.
4. It was ruled that interest could not be levied at more than 1% per month.
5. It was decreed that interest could not be charged on interest and that the total interest charged could never exceed the capital loaned (in duplum rule).
6. Slavery was abolished as a means of settling debt.
7. Aristocrats were forced to employ their capital and not hoard it. 

These measures enraged the aristocrats and plutocrats whose “livelihood” was now severely restricted. They therefore conspired to murder Caesar, the hero of the people. 

 

The 'Ides of March' Denarius (43/42 BC), a declaration of the Republic's 'liberation' from tyrannical Caesar.
Ironically, Brutus appears on the obverse professing he killed Julius Caesar on the Ides of March.
This is one of the most sought-after coins from the Roman world.

Quotes from:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2019) - A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind

 

See also:

Stephen Mitford Goodson (2017) – How The Banking System Works

 Alfred Deahl (2020) - Money Talks: A Very Short History of Roman Currency

Stephen Mitford Goodson (1948 - 2018) was a South African banker, author and politician who was the leader of South Africa's Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party. He stood as a candidate for the Ubuntu Party in the 2014 General Elections.

The Developed World Populism Index │ Ray Dalio

* The latest point includes cases like Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France,
Podemos in Spain, and Five Star Movement in Italy. It doesn’t include major emerging country populists,
like Erdogan in Turkey or Duterte in the Philippines.

On March 22, 2017 Ray Dalio published "Populism: The Phenomenon", a paper that analyzes the role of populism in today’s world and in history. Ray Dalio runs the $150 billion dollar hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest. The paper introduces a "Developed World Populism Index", which Dalio says measures the strength of populism over time. It’s a weighted index of the vote share of anti-establishment parties or candidates in national elections for major developed countries since 1900. The index shows that populism is now at its highest level since the early 1930s. Contemporary populism includes supporters of Donald Trump, UKIP in the UK, AfD in Germany, National Front in France, Podemos in Spain and Five Star Movement in Italy. "Populism is not well understood because, over the past several decades, it has been infrequent in emerging countries (e.g., Chávez’s Venezuela, Duterte’s Philippines, etc.) and virtually nonexistent in developed countries. It is one of those phenomena that comes along in a big way about once a lifetime — like pandemics, depressions, or wars. The last time that it existed as a major force in the world was in the 1930s, when most countries became populist. Over the last year, it has again emerged as a major force."
 

A portrait of President Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) hangs on the wall behind President Trump in the
Oval Office of the White House. Jackson was a rich, bragging populist, who said: "I was born for a
storm and a calm doesn’t suit me." Also: "Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must
sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms." Trump like Jackson is a rich, bragging
businessman, a narcissist and reality TV star, who never held any public office before. Calm doesn’t
suit him either, and millions at the U.S. home front are prepared for storm and blood
(see also HERE + HERE).

"We believe that populism’s role in shaping economic conditions will probably be more powerful than classic monetary and fiscal policies (as well as a big influence on fiscal policies)," writes Dalio and three Bridgewater colleagues. Populism is a political and social phenomenon that arises from the common man, typically not well-educated, being fed up with 1) wealth and opportunity gaps, 2) perceived cultural threats from those with different values in the country and from outsiders, the “establishment elites” in positions of power, and 4) government not working effectively for them, according to Dalio. In other words, populism is a rebellion of the common man against the elites and, to some extend, against the system. In summary, populism is:

• power to the common man.
• through the tactic of attacking the establishment, the elites, and the powerful.
• brought about by wealth and opportunity gaps, xenophobia, and people being fed up with government not working effectively, which leads to the emergence of the strong leader to serve the common man and make the system run more efficiently.
• protectionism.
• nationalism.
• militarism.
• greater conflict, and greater attempts to influence or control the media.

The Dawn of Transhumanism | Alexander Dugin

Ray Kurzweil, Google's transhumanism-guru, predicts that 20 to 25 years from now,
humans will be a hybrid of biological and non-biological intelligence that becomes
increasingly dominated by its non-biological component.

Alexander Dugin (Sep 13, 2016) - The trend of transhumanism is gaining popularity across the world, first and foremost in the West where it originated. Its symbol is a circle with the letter “H” for “human” and the plus sign: H +. The supporters of this trend enthusiastically accept all modern technology and take the idea of progress to its logical conclusion. In their opinion, the enhancement of technology is leading humanity to a state in which more perfect beings can be artificially created out of the human species. This is to be achieved by refining all parts of the human body by means of replacing them with artificial attachments that are indistinguishable from body parts and internal organs. This includes the technological simulation of consciousness or the registration of consciousness in different “receivers”, the cartography or mapping of the brain. The latest discoveries in the genome structure allow organisms to be corrected and their quality to be enhanced on a fundamental level. 

"We are the future like it or not."
Zoltan Istvan: The Transhumanist Wager.

H+ is a new level of humanity which will be free from disease, imperfections, and will ultimately achieve physical immortality [HERE+ HERE]. The body will be able to be changed or corrected and, at some point, even printed by 3-D printers. Virtual networks will become humans’ new habitat and will gradually come to completely replace our normal reality. Compared to H+, the utopias or dystopias of The Lawnmower Man or The Matrix will become something archaic and overcome. Transhumanism is not simply a pastime for eccentrics, designers, or technological progress’ fanatics. It is the result of the last few centuries over the course of which humanity has come to seriously believe in the myth of progress and evolution. H+ is the final, logical conclusion of the modern era, Modernity. The main idea of Modernity was liberating man from any and all constraints. First they started with religion, tradition, and caste society, and then they fell the State and nation in favor of civil society. Then they abolished the normative view of gender and the normal family, legalizing the most diverse forms of gender mutations and perversions. And all of this took place against the backdrop of the technological development of new forms of production, computers, and advances in programing and the synthesis of new materials. Ideology and technology gradually merged into something one and indivisible. Technological progress has become an ideological factor, and ideology has, in turn, become nothing other than technology. Hence the replacement of classical political forms with spin doctors.

With USD 900 mio. Larry Page established Calico Labs in 2013 with Arthur D. Levinson,
ex-chairman of Apple, as part of Alphabet/Google. Calico pursues a cure for aging and
associated diseases. In 2014 Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, and Arthur D. Levinson
established the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences to fund research in understanding
living systems and promoting life extension (HERE).

Now we have come to the final phase of humanity’s liberation from its limitations. In the West, there is already no longer any religion, political hierarchies, normal families, or State in the fullest sense of the word. All borders have been completely crossed, i.e., transgressed. Now all that remains is one final step: overcoming the boundaries of the human species itself. This is H+ - the last word of liberalism. Transhumanism is no bizarre side product of technological development - it is the logical end of the modern age. According to Modernity, we were supposed to reach the age of cyborgs, hybrids, mutants, and chimeras, and now we have arrived. Of course, the vast majority of humanity today are not ready to become cyborgs or mutants. But no one asked the majority of mankind. All history is made by elites. The masses are never ready for anything. But this means absolutely nothing. They are not ready - they are being prepared, and no one even notices. Transhumanism is inevitable if we accept the main trend of the modern era, faith in progress, development, and the betterment of humanity. This religion, or rather pseudo-religion of progress was introduced to Europe and the world by the Enlightenment. This heresy gradually replaced or pushed into the periphery all traditional forms of religion, first and foremost Christianity. It is impossible to stop halfway on this path of progress. Saying “a,” we have to say “b,” “c,” “d”, and all the other letters of the alphabet. H+ is the last letter. Henceforth only computer language begins.

The only ones who are on the opposite side of post-humanism are consistent and fundamental traditionalists. They reject not only the final mutation, but all of Modernity, the very idea of progress and development, the scientific image of the world, and democracy and liberalism. Instead, traditionalists affirmed and affirm God, Church, Empire, caste, power, and folk customs.  Not progress. The modern world is not progress, but the result of decline. It is the kingdom of the Antichrist. Fighting against H+ to reject the final transformation dictated by the very logic of the liberal ideology of Modernity while still accepting other aspects of Modernity is meaningless. Transhumanism is the inevitable tomorrow if we agree with what our today is. If we want to change our fate, we must go back in time and understand where we committed the fatal mistake. Holy teachings assert that the devil is capable of almost everything, but he cannot create man. He can only make a parody of man or manufacture his simulacrum. H+ is clearly a scheme of his (see also HERE + HERE).