Why Have People Turned Their Backs On Liberalism?

 

Someone once asked why liberalism, in its current form, is a particularly despised branch of ideology. People such as John Locke and Thomas Paine talked a big game about it during its golden years because "freedom" was on the menu and everyone should be served, hence it being coupled with "democracy". This worked out for a good "almost" 150 years and then something happened. Rights for black voters came in. Rights for women voters (probably one of its worst mutated features) and Woodrow Wilson's election and our entry into World War One under the guise of "bringing to democracy" to the eastern sphere, (we all know how that worked out), out were the Monroe Doctrine principles of Theodor Roosevelt, the international realism of "get in, do your job and get out". Edward Said, a prominent political theorist, felt that some countries in the third world, and to an extent, the second world (Russia and other "less-than-well off Eastern nations like Serbia and Bulgaria, we're currently in a conflict with the former case) were more suited to "tin-pot dictators" because it suited their cultural and social attitudes, which is the core of r1a phenotypes where nihilism and strongman leadership is important, whereas r1b phenotypes prefer more freedom of movement and are more apt towards openness, but this is not without its drawbacks, hence why most people west of the Rhine river have an innate need for social progress and justice and those east of it are more supportive of authoritarianism and a need to maintain order. both have their drawbacks inherently but in an ideal world the progress and liberty of r1b could complement the reliance on tried and true methodology of the r1a. Think of as a European Union without the endless lobbying and corruption from those with ulterior (think capitalistic and universalist motives that exploit the weaknesses of both phenotypes, both the depression and misery of r1a and the progress at all costs of r1b), more of a pragmatic approach to life that Americans such as Charles Sanders Peirce and William James sought out (what works is what's true). Its not like they can't learn from Americans, despite Herr Dugin stating otherwise. But back to the original question, why are so many people opposed to liberalism and democracy nowadays? I would say its because a lot of it had to do with it being decoupled from a premise of natural law to justifying anything that set humanity on a course of "endless progress" that it devalued anything found in nature. transsexuals aren't found in nature, therefore they are not right, a lot of people try to throw around this myth that matriarchal societies existed in nature, but alas they did not, so they are not right, any new identitarian invention, including the concept of nation states (which is distinct from tribalism, as nations are concepts, not just America but as a whole, baptised on the altar of the not-very-American French revolution) which are legal fictions, and not found in nature, Also they are "not right", man's essence was city-states, like Athens and Sparta, small tribal conclaves of culture, not vast states and empires which are "fictional realities" of modern day politics. liberalism is a form of leftism that justifies progress at all costs (dialectically so) so it would be self-evident that it would end up where it is exactly where it is supposed to be today, far to the left of things such as Marxism and Maoism on social scale, with people like John Stuart Mill (barf) expediting its acceleration and destroying the natural law principles it was established on since the days of Marcus Aurelius and Thomas Hobbes.

                                                                                        J./Adolf Stalin