EVERYONE MUST OBEY THE LAW
NO NORMATIVE-POLITICAL-IDEOLOGICAL COURSE OF ACTION OR PROGRAMME IS BEING SUGGESTED WITH REGARD TO ANY MATTER WHATSOEVER, EVER
[[MAKE SURE YOU STUDY "CONSERVATISM AS A HISTORICAL PHENOMENON" ON THE CONSERVATISM PAGE!]]
[[RED ALERT!
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
RED ALERT!
FIRE! FIRE! FIRE!
IT IS FROM THE PASSAGE BELOW, QUITE CLEAR NOW, THAT IN SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS, WE HAVE:
1)
A DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF A SOCIAL PHENOMENON AS IT INITIALLY
EXISTED AND AS IT DEVELOPED IN ITS VARIETY OF FORMS AS TO ITS CONTENT
(E.G. "DEMOCRACY" IN ANCIENT GREECE WHICH META-DEVELOPED ALL THE WAY
INCL. THROUGH THE EKKLESIA OF THE DEMOS, THE COMMONS, ETC. UP TO THE END
OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE (cf. Contogeorgis, and the Two Studies by P.K. on
Marx in regard to pre-industrial and pre-exchange value/capital-usury
dominated society (i.e. in regard to agrarian-based use value society in
the Ancient Hellenic and later (Roman-)Orthodox world (incl. the
non-Hellenic Orthodox world in all its variations and with all its own
distinctive Slavic and other features more generally), and other
scattered references by P.K.);
2) A DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF AN IDEAL TYPE (WHICH OF COURSE IS NOT AN ENS RATIONIS, IT DOES
REFER TO THE REAL WORLD, BUT IS REINFORCED OR INTENSIFIED REALITY OF
DISTINGUISHING/DISTINCTIVE FEATURES (DIFFERENTIA SPECIFICA) IN REGARD TO
OTHER IDEAL TYPES OF E.G. SOCIAL FORMATIONS AND POLITIES (E.G. "MASS
DEMOCRACY" AS OPPOSED TO "OLIGARCHIC BOURGEOIS LIBERALISM" AS OPPOSED TO
"SOCIETAS CIVILIS"(/(LATE) FEUDALISM);
AND
3)
A DESCRIPTION AND EXPLANATION OF CONCEPTS REPRESENTING IDEOLOGIES (E.G.
FRENCH REVOLUTION-ERA AND TODAY'S USE OF "DEMOCRACY", AND ALSO TODAY'S
USE OF "LIBERALISM" AND "CONSERVATISM", WHICH CAN AND OFTEN HAVE LITTLE
OR NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL DEMOCRACY, LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM -
even when they were in their final-stage historical forms which had some
sort of content-related connection with reality as the real social
organisation of a real society - BUT HAVE EVERYTHING TO DO WITH
POLEMICS, OBFUSCATION, IDEOLOGISATION[[, INCL. SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY
GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ACCUMULATIONS, CONCENTRATIONS AND
CRYSTAL(LISATION)S OF WEALTH AND POWER THROUGH PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY
(MOB OR MAFIA-LIKE) NETWORKING (CONTROL) "BEHIND THE SCENES", WHICH,
SAY, IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE USA, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, AUSTRALIA,
AND THE USA'S OTHER (PART OR FULL) VASSAL STATES, WHICH ZIO-USA MORE OR
LESS CONTROLS THROUGH "SATANIC CIRCUS MONKEY" EMBASSIES AND THE BIG
MILITARY AND DOLLAR STICK BEHIND THE EMBASSIES, ETC., HAPPENS THROUGH
RULING COMMUNIST OR OTHER PARTIES, AND OR CLIQUES AROUND "STRONG MEN"
ETC., AND WHICH COULD OR PROBABLY - FOR CONCRETE HISTORICAL
(GEOPOLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL-POLITICAL) REASONS, AND NOT BECAUSE OF
SOME KIND OF "MAGIC" - AMOUNT TO (AT LEAST UNTIL NOW IN HISTORY) A WORSE
POLITY AND STANDARD OF LIVING FOR MOST PEOPLE ON AVERAGE, BUT NOT
NECESSARILY ALWAYS, THAN THOSE COUNTRIES IN THE ZIO-USA SPHERE]].)
"
... The lack of absolute
theoretical coherence (cohesion) and the almost unlimited multiformity
(great
variety/diversity of form) in regard to individual points, in accordance
with time
and place, do not constitute the characteristic feature of conservative
theory, but rather the natural concomitant of the
historical life of all the great political –and not only political–
ideologies.
For the knower of the international history of liberalism and of
democracy or
of socialism, the multitudinous variety or diversity of their forms from
country
to country, and we can say, from decade to decade, does not constitute a
secret.
Inside all of that, however, certain fundamental perceptions, views and
stances,
which justify the unified comprehension and presentation of each and
every
respective ideological phenomenon, remain discernible. Thus are things
also as to conservatism, however, this can
become apparent and manifest only when its (conservatism’s)
historical content is determined and defined clearly, and in this way an
end is
put to the arbitrary use of the concept, at least in scientific
analyses." From "Conservatism as a historical phenomenon", p. 61 of the
Greek journal/periodical Leviathan 15 (1994) = Konservativismus, pp. 18-19.
THERE
CAN BE A GREAT DEAL OF OVERLAP BETWEEN 1 AND 2 ABOVE, AND EVEN SOME
OVERLAP BETWEEN 1 AND 3, IN THE SENSE E.G. THAT ACTUAL HISTORICAL DEMOCRACY
HAD A STRONG IDEOLOGICAL ASPECT AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL HISTORICAL
DEMOCRACY'S EXISTENCE, SINCE AS WE KNOW FROM THUCYDIDES, DEMOCRACY CAN
AT LEAST IN PART "SORT OF, KIND OF" BE THE RULE OF ONE MAN.]]
"LIBERAL DEMOCRACY"
If you're interested in concepts and science, this website on a number of pages - apart from P.K.'s own comments (usually in passing) I've translated thus far -, refers to such matters.
Given that terminology in academic and or popular usage has its own history, including history as polemical use, and given that (both serious and risible-clown-like) political scientists and commentators of all sorts - from experienced journalists to politicians and journalist-hacks/ imbeciles-propagandists, will use whatever vocabulary "is going" in order to "communicate to the people" and betwixt themselves, there is absolutely no point in arguing over which is the "correct definition" of a term or concept and trying to get others to use your own definition - whether it is epistemologically and scientifically (much more) useful or not. [[If I'm not mistaken, "liberal democracy" was popularised during the Cold War (or even slightly earlier) as opposed to (Soviet-)Communistic/Fascist/National-Socialistic "totalitarianism" - the latter is also a problematic term just like "liberal democracy" because e.g. how can a regime be "total" and yet still have opposition spring up (e.g. those opposed to both Stalin and Hitler during their reigns), and then come undone after defeat in war or by the machinations of Beetroot Head? - And no-one is saying that for most people a "liberal democracy" is not a much better regime to live under in terms of personal freedoms etc. than a "totalitarian" regime - it's just that things in reality are not that Black and White/Good and Evil and in terms of Science, there needs to be much more detailed investigation and conceptualisation... in regard to all Grey Areas... ALL AREAS... incl. the social-historical-political circumstances of the regime in question... and once such investigations are undertaken, "totalitarian" regimes may not seem that "Evil" and "liberal democracies" may not seem that "Good and Innocent"... because everyone has their reasons and all regimes are relations of forms of POWER-IDENTITY - LIKE IT OR NOT!]]
What I can repeat again here is that P.K. showed how "human rights" don't exist in practice given that there is no world state providing and enforcing them - all that exists are "civil rights" within specific states and rights called "human rights", and likewise, when doing his macro-historical sociological ideal-typical comparisons wherein the differentiae specificae of every social formation are highlighted, the notion of "liberal democracy" is absolutely nonsensical, and of course never used. This obviously in and of itself does not invalidate Mearsheimer's basic thesis of his 2018 book (as far as I can tell from the brief excerpts I've read) that there are no realistic prospects whatsoever for a "liberal world order" of no war and "human rights for all" - that is the position which one can discern directly or (very) indirectly from studying all the greats of political theory and political science (Thucydides, (the best of Aristotle (see The Political and Man)), Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Clausewitz, (parts of) Tocqueville, (the "good bits" of Marx), Weber, Aron (notwithstanding the Frenchman's "flirting with pacifistic Utopianism" re: Clausewitz), Carr, Morgenthau, Kennan, Bull, Waltz, et al. (it goes without saying that all the classics can teach us a lot, from Socrates/Plato, to Montaigne and Montesquieu (Ferguson, A. Smith), to Kant and Hume, to Pareto, Durkheim and Simmel, to Mackinder and Mannheim, et al., et al., et al. - the "problem" is to know what "to do" with the classics...) - and not to mention studying all of world history (as much as possible!) and P.K.'s books incl. The Political and Man, Theory of War, Planetary Politics..., The Political in the 20th century,...).
What it does mean is that in accordance with P.K.'s strict macro-historical ideal-typical comparative schema, we have, as far as Western Europe is concerned (with the USA "appearing" somewhere between a late stage 2) morphing into its own, in part, kind of, early stage 3) (without a significant social welfare state before FDR) - see immediately below), three main social formations, post-ancient world:
1) Societas civilis ("feudalism") of relatively fixed hierarchies, law (customs, etc.) derived and handed down from (peoples' conceptions of) and in the name of God, rural-based societies, (big landowning) aristocracies and monarchs/princes etc., feudal privileges, etc., etc., etc. (say: c. 1000 A.D. and earlier, to c. 1500),
2) Oligarchic bourgeois liberalism - grosso modo (don't forget these are ideal types and don't cover all specific/concrete particularities, exceptions and the like, which must be studied re: specific times and places by historians, etc.) - of looser but still quite firm and solid hierarchies, state power controlling monarchs and or feudal interests more so than in the past, more social mobility compared to previously - but not "(very) fluid" social mobility, with a rule of law (in theory for (nearly) everyone - but generally no "universal" social-welfare state - notwithstanding some real-world exceptions in rudimentary form) determined by a much wider elite than in societas civilis, including people from trade, business and (later) industrial, professional strata, castes and classes, parliament, etc., but still with an emphasis on the patriarchal family and fairly limited cross-class mobility, eventual artistic harmony deriving from periods of artistic/representational "tumult and even chaos", etc., but with increasing massification, urbanisation and secularisation (say: c. 1500 but esp. c. 1700/1800 to c. 1900),
[[
This excerpt from the second study of P.K.'s German booklet on Marx (pp. 61-63), also helps understand what liberalism is in historical context:
"Marx explains this incurable theoretical
inadequacy of Aristotle so that “Greek
society rested or was based on slave labour; that is why for its
basis, Greek society had the inequality of men and of its labour force. The secret of the expression of value, the equality and equal validity of all labour(s),
because and in so far as they are human labour in general, can only be
deciphered when the concept of human equality already possesses the firmness of a popular prejudice. That is, however, only possible in a society
wherein the commodity form is the general form of the product of labour, that
is, also the relationship of men with one another as
commodity possessors is the dominant social relationship.”[i]
Marx sets here basically the model of economic and political liberalism, which
constructs society in terms of theory on the basis of the representation and
notion of a market, upon which the individuals appear in principle equal and
equivalent producers, in order to exchange their products with
one another, against the model of ancient society, in which the in principle
inequality of men is accompanied by the closed agrarian economy and consequently by the precedence of the use
values over exchange values.
Precisely, the wakeful and alert sense of the contrast and opposition between the
liberal-capitalistic and the ancient Greek model – a contrast/opposition which
interrelates most closely with the fundamental historical contrast/opposition
between industrial and pre-industrial society – allows Marx to avoid a very common, widespread mistake, i.e. to deduce new times
political democracy from ancient democracy. Certainly, Marx knows that the
ideological invocation of idealised democratic models from antiquity played a
considerable role in the social-political struggles of the New
Times (and in particular at the time of the French
Revolution);[ii]
on the other hand, however, he does not take ideological positions at (their)
face value, and he distinguishes the apprehension of the historical past, as it
is determined through these or those ideological positions, from the concrete structure
of authority as dominance (domination, rule, ruling (holding sway) over others)
in a society, which does not exist anymore. That is why the revival of antiquity and of ancient democratic models appears
as a gigantic masquerade, especially, as Marx writes, history only
repeats itself as comedy. Such resurrections of antiquity were supposed to
confer authority, gloss and grandeur, something which later proved to be a prosaic bourgeois social
and life perception, or, a concrete form of dominance;
precisely because they (the said resurrections of antiquity) were also superfluous
when this latter (concrete forms of bourgeois dominance) found its own language
and its own historical style. Marx, by looking – from this sober point of view –
at both antiquity, as well as at the new-times republican-democratic cult of
the same (antiquity), had no difficulties in classifying – with
regard to the exploitation of surplus-labour – the Athenians καλὸν κἀγαθόν (=
the beautiful(, noble) and good) in
the same sociological category as the Etruscan priesthood, the civem romanum (=
Roman citizen), the Norman baron or the American slaveholder of the 19th
century."[iii]
[i] Loc. cit. (= Das Kapital, I),
p. 74 [ii] See the
first pages of »Der
18. Brumaire von Louis-Bonaparte«;
cf. the (i.e. Marx’s) letter to Lassalle of 22. 7. 1861 = MEW, 30, p. 615.
[iii] Das
Kapital, I, loc. cit., ((foot)note 23), p. 249.
]]
and
3) Mass democracy, which cannot be a "liberal democracy" because "liberal", in the sociological-political (not merely ideological and/or just "rule of law" - see below) sense, is a differentia specifica (inclusive of hierarchical class distinctions etc.) of 2) above*, and because mass democracy (of mass production and mass consumption) provides for significant state intervention and regulation in the economy (as a kind of "right to hedonistically consume" welfare and "material right" etc.), as well as an abolition of the bourgeois distinction between private and public spheres, in addition to a whole host of "hierarchy loosening", from relatively fluid - macro-historically seen - social mobility to all manner of massified and atomised "freedoms" or "degeneracy" (depending on the observer's point of view and set of dominant values), with urbanisation and atheism (replacing the one mythical silliness of God with the other absolutely lunatic belief in the ultra-ideological dogmatic LIE of the "equality of everyone because everyone is the same", "anti-racism" whilst simultaneously committing auto-racism!!! etc., etc., etc. - obviously for any society to function and have a degree of social disciplining necessary for Social Order and Cohesion, there must be dominant myths-religions and or ideologem(e)s-ideologies, the question though is which, under what and which social-political-economic-legal-cultural-etc. circumstances, provide the best long-term societal-cohesive "glue"), and the attendant TV/Mass Media "ZIO-LOBOTOMY" getting "out of control" and leading to the potential auto-genocide of white peoples - since everyone and everything is combinable and or interchangeable with one another - incl. by low indigenous white birth rates and mass APE-ANOMIE invasions and Other-worship, etc., as well as mass legal GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY ZIO-PUSHED Third ("Turd") World immigration - obviously P.K. never once used the term "Zio", "Ape", "Turd", "Satan(ist(s))" or other loaded/impolite etc. terms (except occasionally about our Tribe, and again he was absolutely right to do so - the "Zio" business is this Site's literary persona both making a point about GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY in wielding forms of Power by a particularly - DISGUSTING, ULTRA-UGLY, VILE AND UTTERLY REPREHENSIBLE, FILTHY ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS GROUP (thus seen as a subjective matter of Taste - have you ever stopped to think how repulsively, disgustingly, offensively foul it is to view So???'s and ???????erg's and many other such Heads day-in-day-out in the mass media?), whilst Israel has FULLY SHUT BORDERS and everyone else is told to "do the One World" ZIO/USA-LOBOTOMY and ZIO/USA-ASSISTED femino-faggotised COLLECTIVE SUICIDE, etc., etc., etc.) (say: c. 1900 until today, though the 1960s and 1970s' cultural revolution signaled that mass democracy had spread - like a kind of GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE ZIO-CANCER - throughout all of society, beyond the avant-garde, having demolished most of what was morally and ethically official dogma and or the dominant world image/ world view for centuries, if not millennia - e.g. a man is a male born with a cock (dick, penis), a woman is a female born with a cunt (pussy, vagina), standards of Beauty and Taste were Ancient Greek-Roman and or (mostly Euro- (and or Near-Middle Eastern-))Christian, Marriage is between a Man and a Woman for the purpose of the biological reproduction of the Species (nation, ethnos, (sub-)race, collectivity/group),... and anything else is like or that of a Freak, an Abomination, Abnormal, an Exception, a (very) rare Exception, Contra Naturam, Mentally Insane, etc.).
[[Long-term historical causality is a very complicated matter and obviously in the West, Catholics and/or Protestants and/or Secularists/Atheists played the major roles in social transformation from societas civilis to oligarchic bourgeois liberalism to mass democracy, with the Jews as such causing nothing as such, but particularly from c. 1850 playing a GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE (and by no means the only or even necessarily major) role in "pushing and nudging things along" away from white Christianity and white collectivism - and that is why they are SO DESPISED BY SO MANY, including their historically developed, necessary for them and proven method of PRIMITIVE SECRET SOCIETY networking (which many other groups have done and do) in becoming and being in certain countries (USA, UK, France, Germany before WW2, Australia, etc.) GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATELY inter alia and dependent on time and place - academics, superior court justices, specialist medical practitioners, Mass Media and Mass Entertainment and Publishing Barons-Owners-Personalities, Billionaires, Bankers, Corporate Types, Big Business incl. Pharmaceuticals Players, Big Money Political Party Donors, Government/Foreign Policy Advisors, Israel Lobbyists, etc., etc., etc. - it is really SICK STUFF for a non-Jew with high collective consciousness of his own - Let's put it this way: if in every elite position where there is a Jew in the USA, the UK, France, Australia, etc. there was a Greek, and if Greece had FULLY SEALED BORDERS with ethno-racial pro-Hellene legislation (which it once did, but which has been repealed in recent decades incl. under ZIO-USA and ZIO-EU influence), whilst Israel's borders were open to all the Mohammedan-Afro-Asiatic APE-ANOMIE invasions of HATE, then I, as the Literary Persona, of this Site, would have a totally different view of "Jews"... - think about it, it's not difficult to understand, and most Mohammedans with high levels of in-group consciousness, and switched-on Chinese and Indians (Hindus) et al., would and do think similarly.... the whole issue revolves around Distributions of Power to members of groups and perceptions of both one's own and other groups... and where there are long and strong historical memories... HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!... Good Luck with all of that!!!!!!!!!!]] {{In other words, given the GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE Privilege Jewish Elites have - it is absolutely GROSS e.g. 0.5% or 1% or 2% of the population occupying and or controlling 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%+ of certain Elite Positions in certain countries, no Jew should ever talk about "White Privilege" or "The Holocaust" to non-Jews, when more than 200,000,000 innocent people were massacred and or otherwise unfairly killed in the 20th century - and the fact Jews do "stuff like that" is what makes them SO UGLY, SO VILE, SO SICK, SO FILTHY, SO DISGUSTING, to those who Scientifically Observe Human Affairs and are not ZIO-LOBOTOMISED, i.e. "thought-controlled" into Submission to the Forces and Representatives of EVIL, THE DEVIL and SATAN...}} [[It is understood that the vast majority of people who live in a mass democracy, including amongst serious political scientists, are not concerned at all about Distributions of Forms of Power which lead to GROSSLY DISPRORPORTIONATE Zio-Jewish accumulations, concentrations and crystal(lisation)s of Power at elite level. Obviously, the matter did not interest P.K. either - though he left more than enough "theoretical space" open for anyone who wants to make the observation and investigate the matter further. This site's literary persona has made the observation. And nothing further is being suggested in terms of "a cure or therapy". Every concentration of Power will eventually - one way or another - meet with another concentration of Power. And the Strongest wins. And the Strongest is NEVER ALWAYS the same group with the same concentration of Power - no matter how long their "lucky run" lasts.]] (REPEAT: Science qua science does not and cannot ever choose which are the "preferred values" and the "preferred aesthetics" etc. - so what is "normal" to and in one society, or more accurately to most of a society, incl. society's elites, is "abnormal" in another society. One of the reasons that there is always a level of tension and conflict in society - incl. all the co-operation - is that at some point values clash because people in groups clash, just as they can clash at the individual man-to-man level too. Western mass democracies - so it seems - are entering into "tumultuous times" because the "multi-cultural mix" is not bearing the fruits expected. Similarly, at an international level, you can talk all you want about "human rights" but at the end of the day, Han Man and Hindu Man and Ape Man and ??? Man and Rus Man and Many Other Men say to ZIO-USA, "FUCK YOU, what's in it for me?" And if there is no agreement, then there could be trouble... up to serious trouble. - And that's why serious USA patriots who love their Founding Fathers and their Country like Pat B????nan or Pau? ??aig ???erts or Ro???t W. M???y or J??n Mear????mer, L??e Gol???ein, M????el L??d and many others (notwithstanding all the things they don't agree about as between themselves and all the objections they would raise to my Over-the-Top etc. Assertions, Rudeness and Overall Deliberately Silly Literary Persona manner), and don't want to live in a state of heightened Tribal/Cultural Conflict or even Wars, are very weary about "Save the World, Make the World Like Us with Open Society Open Borders" IDIOCY. Such IDIOCY can only lead to MASS-SCALE ANOMIC DISASTER. It cannot possibly lead to anything else. And as far as White Nationalists and White Identitarians are concerned - no matter how much I or anyone might or might not sympathise with a lot - though by no means all - of your positions and claims, how realistic is it that you are going to get to your Preferred End Point? Seriously, NOW. How realistic is it in terms of the way the real world operates and the way most of the people in the real world think? I suppose the only real answer is "Let's see what happens, to where the politics/struggles lead, what "shocks to the system" befall Western mass democracies (if and when they happen), and TIME WILL TELL".) [[And a bit of FUN: If Woman complains about Sexism, then she should be told "Who by and large still does all the spade-muscle work necessary for Society to have Infrastructure, Buildings, Houses and Machines etc. to Function (not to mention war)? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP (AND Have children in families with men and do your housework and be good wives and mothers)!". If Black Man complains about Slavery, then he should be told "Who but Whites, Yellows, Browns have also been Slaves, Coolies, Super-Exploited Proletarians in History by the Tens and Hundreds of Millions? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP (AND do some work and stop complaining)!". If Gay Man complains about not being the centre of attention, then he should be told "Who but Straight Men and Straight Women by the Vast Majority can Secure the Reproduction of a Nation, Race, Ethnos, Collective, Group?" SO SHUT THE FUCK UP and DISAPPEAR (i.e. KEEP IT PRIVATE)!". If Mohammad Man complains about not fitting in, then he should be told "Who but Christians, Buddhists and Hindus throughout more than 1350 years of Mohammedanism have been subject to your Continual Invasions, Conquests, Hate, mass direct (by and under the Sword) or indirect ("soft power") forced Conversions, Unending VIOLENCE and EVIL"? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP, AND PREFERABLY, FUCK OFF TOO!". And if Jew Man talks about Pogroms, Massacres and the Holocaust, then he should be told "Who but non-Jew Men from Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas have not been slaughtered by the hundreds of millions throughout the centuries and do not wield GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE forms of power at elite level in certain countries? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP! WE ARE TOTALLY SICK OF YOU!" - And if Western society can SAY ALL THAT to those who should be told, Western society might return to some kind of normalcy again, we hope...]]
In the era of mass democracy, which at a planetary level, can and does take many forms, "liberalism" survives as an ideology of "free markets and free trade ending war and uniting the world in peace and under the rule of law", etc.. [["Liberal" just like "cultural Marxism" in the mainstream USA-sense of today - are from a Kondylisian point of view - scientifically-conceptually obfuscationist and inaccurate at best, if not downright STUPID. What is meant is Western mass democracy, because social-historically as explained above "liberal" goes with the oligarchic bourgeois, and, Marxism is the Reverse-Side of Bourgeois Liberalism and was never an Ideology of ZIO-USA mass-democratic Imperialism or (perhaps more accurately) (ZIO)-USA World Geopolitical and Cultural Relative Hegemony as eventuated since WW2 until today. The fact that "everyone" uses those terms in those ways is a plain fact (arising from (Left-Right) polemics and obfuscation, etc.), and there's nothing that can be done about it. All I can say is that the Kondylisian Macro-Historical Schema is Scientifically far more Fertile and Useful for understanding societies and their major "structural" changes over long(er) periods of time.]]
The above is a very poor and cursory look at the notion of "liberal democracy" (and I've deliberately included a lot of "topics" in such a manner as to mislead you as to what is really important scientifically if you are asleep and not awake) - and is intended only as a basic point of orientation. YOU NEED TO STUDY CAREFULLY both
Conservatism and Decline...
as well as other Kondylisian texts I've already translated, to start to understand all the matters at hand (including many I have not mentioned here),... and I won't have translated both of the above-mentioned books before about 2040 - if ever...