Miles Mathis on liberals

Recently, I have slammed Miles Mathis for his liberalism. It turns out that just a few days prior to this, that he wrote an essay specifically outlying why he considers himself a liberal or "progressive". In short, he basically goes back to the actual fact that liberalism doesn't mean transsexuals, and even says that the US founding fathers weren't liberals, to justify this individualist paradigm that actually did lead to them, in short. The thing is, the founding fathers WERE liberals yet aristocrats, and that's a bad thing. These British spooks were actually going against what the American population thought. The original settlers came NOT for an individualist republic, they came to establish a collectivist nation. I will dwelve more into that later.

"To see what I mean, let’s transport ourselves back to the 1880s. Back then,conservatives were those people who wished to conserve the status quo. Hence the name. They were quite satisfied with the way things were set up, and why should they not be? They were rich and connected and had it made."

This is true, and this is why I disagree with conservatives and "traditionalist" neo-reactionaries who are obsessed with monarchy and aristocracy. However, I disagree with liberals as well, and WANT a strong authority. Things aren't so Manichaean as Mathis points out.

"Liberals were those who were not satisfied by the way things were, and so they were pushing for reforms. In general, they wished to see more fairness in government policies. They wanted those not “of the manor born” to be given a fair shot at good employment, good wages, court access, and all the various fruits of society.The founding fathers have even been sold as liberal in this sense, since although they were rich guys, fully connected, we are supposed to believe they believed in democracy, republicanism, and fairness in general. That is why they go on and on about that in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Those are liberal documents, in that they deny not only the divine rights of kings, they deny any other sort of favoritism based on name or birth. "

Yes, and this is exactly the false dialectic they push. Mathis is even nearly right in the next paragraph:

"As it turns out, the founding fathers were not liberal at all. They were fascists,and the whole liberal stance was just another conjob. The United States were never meant to be republic, much less a democracy, they were meant to be another outpost of the Phoenician Navy. Meaning, another occupied and conquered territory, with the citizens only fooled into thinking they were empowered or progressive in any way."

Founding fathers were fascists even though by definition, the first US government was a highly federal state with no unified army, completely non-fascist (fasces = bundle of sticks, i.e. unity makes strength). But whatever, Mathis defines fascism as any collectivist authoritarian government, with the "top-down control" he obsesses over.

"But the point is, the citizens needed to be fooled into thinking their government was liberal, because most of them were not rich or connected. They weren’t conservative, because they had come to the US to find something better. If they had been conservative they would have stayed home in England, Ireland, Germany, or wherever, and continued to salute the King or sing God Save the Queen. They had come to the US because they were progressive: they were seeking progress, not the same old oppression by the ruling families. So, in hoodwinking these people, the governors had to speak their language. The governors had to convince the citizens that they stood for progress, fairness, and liberalism by any other name. This was going to be a land of equal opportunity, equal access, equal consideration, and equal rights. That is,liberal, not conservative. Conservative implies unequal rights and unequal access. Preference for the rich and the old bloodlines."

Yes, they weren't conservative. No, they weren't liberal. They came from the Scottish Presbyterian tradition and actually HATED both the Anglican monarchy over in England, but hated also the LIBERTINES. These libertines were the libertarians and liberals of today, '''and were the liberals of the enlightenment period as well, which Mathis praises''' You have to understand that in the church these people were in, there were two civilisations; the outward one utilising Roman law with some sense of collectivist monarchism, and the ascetic, monastic people. The latter of which inspired the early libertines in that all were equal under the monastery, and later the Marxists. So the conservatives of today ARE in-fact liberals, and that's not a good thing. They wish to conserve the libertine tradition simply because of the degeneracy that they inspire. So in a sense, the modern-day shills who complain about libtards are wrong, but they're also right, in that classical liberalism DID lead to modern-day degeneracy. The conservatives of the 19th century were monarchist reactionaries, but they were also wrong. Et cetera.

"You will say, “Then where would Modern liberals ft into that? What if we transported these icky people who are always pushing mixed bathrooms on us back to the 1880s. Where would they fit into your mix?” NOWHERE. No one,conservative or liberal, would have ever thought to think of such a thing back then, much less promote it. So let’s ask the opposite question: what if we transported one of the liberals of 1880 into the present time. What would they think about politics now? They would think exactly what you and I think of it:they would be disgusted. They would not believe society had fallen so far. They would not be in favor of any of the things now being promoted by the so-called left. Do you know why? Because the things now being promoted, which most sensible people detest, are not being promoted by the left or by liberals. They are being promoted by CIA agents and cloaked fascists posing as liberals, in order to blackish liberalism."

You're right; because not only would nobody think of a thing back then, but the classical liberals wouldn't know about what their ideology would lead to. Their "all men are created equal", their Bacon, their Locke, their Paine, their Voltaire, etc. (all aristocrats!) on paper wouldn't lead to that, but in reality it did. We aren't struggling to buy a piece of bread here in like that shill Orwell's 1984. We have had more freedom than we have ever had, and guess what? Things are crap, because this ideology is crap.

"That’s right, trannies, mixed bathrooms, transitioning children, and all the other things now promoted as the result of an out-of-control left have nothing to do with liberalism or the left. They aren’t being promoted by real leftists. They are being promoted by agents of your own government, and your own government is not liberal. Neither is your media. The media and government in the US are fascist and therefore far right. They are owned and run by the very wealthiest families, and those families are interested in one thing: maintaining their hegemony at any cost. Maintaining hegemony is conservative. It is not liberal.The rich families that run this country are not liberal. Do you really think the Rockefeller’s are liberal? The Rothschilds? The Gates, Bushes, Kennedys, Vanderbilts, Oppenheimers, Cohens, Hoffmans, Astors, Schiffs, Warburgs, Bacons, etc. No, they are not for progress or fairness. They are for maintaining their obscene levels of wealth, and for continuing the current schemes which allow them to steal from you with impunity. They wish to keep you down, which is not liberalism."

I would actually agree with Mathis here; these aristocrats aren't liberal. They are enlightened oligarchs. Take the homosexual mason Frederick II for example, he used the enlightenment to his own advantage yet still was an absolutist raised on the collectivist Prussian tradition. They know that liberalism has failed and thus have carved out an oligarchy which is no different from that of the western monarchies. The false opposition however is completely liberal, and promotes liberal ideals, doomed to fail again and lead into the same paradigm of misery caused by libertine individualism, and the rich exploiting your misery caused by libertine individualism.

"Remember, these people like to control both sides of every argument, and they figured out a long time ago the best way to defeat an enemy was to infiltrate him and flip him. So for many decades they have had a prominent project to blackwash the left. We saw it my paper on the Tate/Manson murders, where these people infiltrated the hippie movement of the 60s, which was anti-war.Antiwar is a progressive stance, therefore left, so the fascist government considered these people enemies of the State. The State wants constant war,because it is profitable. So they hired actors to pretend to be hippies, then had them do horrific things. This successfully blackwashed the anti-war movement,and gave the US government five more years in Vietnam, where they could continue to engorge themselves on the treasury. "

Yes, exactly Mathis. But they never infiltrated the left. They left is itself the infiltration, which they use to create a false dialectic. Individual libertinism vs. total oligarchy.

"More recently (past 40 years), they have hired hundreds of actors and media“personalities” to infiltrate TV, film, and radio, selling you the idea that the media is liberal and that liberalism is to blame for all your problems. Rush Limbaugh led the way in this project for a couple of decades, but he had literally thousands of paid allies on TV, radio and the internet. Yes many of the examples of this“liberalism” Rush and others used were reprehensible, but exactly none of them were the result of real liberalism, or pushed by real liberals. I am a real liberal,and I supported none of them. With closer study, it turns out all of these schemes and projects over the decades were dreamed up and promoted by government or academic stooges, and often publicized by Hollywood stooges. A little digging shows these government, academic, and Hollywood stooges were paid by various NGOs, Foundations, think tanks, and government agencies, and that NONE of them were actually liberal. Most pretended to be liberal, but none were. They were underwritten by Rockefellers or Fords or Gates or Carnegies or Hughes or Soros or Kochs, and none of those people or Foundations are liberal. They are fascist. They are owned and run by extremely rich people who have no interest in fairness, progress, or liberalism by any other name."

Again, so right yet so wrong. Liberalism is itself a controlled ideology destined to fail, and its dialectic with conservatism simply exists to keep a strong authority rising up from it. Same with what he says about faux environmentalism after this, which exists to keep you bogged down in fake attempts of saving the environment while actually doing nothing.

"Do you think they are promoting trannies as a form of progress or fairness? No, they are promoting it as a continuation of Project Chaos. The governors aren’t interested in progress or fairness. They are only interested in squelching any potential outbreak of progress or fairness. What they are interested in promoting is your total confusion, since that keeps you disempowered. You won’t make any progress as long as you don’t even know disempowered. You won’t make any progress as long as you don’t even know what “liberal” means. As long as they can keep you in the wrong pen, you won’t ever figure out who you are what you should be doing. If you are dispossessed but think you are conservative, just because Rush told you, you will never figureout how to do yourself any good in this world. Everything will backfire, because you will always misunderstand your position. You will mistake you friends for your enemies, and vice versa. "

No, I do not consider myself conservative. I want a GOOD authority that actually serves the people instead of reaping the benefits, but is still a collectivist state built on the principles of self-sacrifice. I'm willing to give something up for the family. The family for the extended family. The extended family for the clan. The clan for the tribe. The tribe for the nation. However the fake alt-media will take this to be "top-down control" and will ridicule you for it. The "elites" are in reality no more evil than hobo down the street in his own nature, if he refuses this order.

"That is exactly what is happening here, where the governors are trying to prevent any alliance between me and my readers. They are ecstatic to find me calling myself a liberal, and to have my readers pointing the finger at me for it.The governors have pre-blackwashed our relationship, you see. They want you thinking of yourself as a conservative, because if you do you are automatically anally of the Rockefellers, Fords, Bushes, and even Clintons. [Yes, remember that Clinton sold himself as a conservative democrat, not as a liberal. That’s how he won the 1992 election: he appealed to conservative democrats, who had previously voted for Reagan and Bush.] And if you call yourself a conservative,you will be suspicious of anyone like me, who comes along and tells you you are mad to do so. "

No Mathis. What prevents an alliance between me and you is the fact that you cling onto this failed masonic paradigm and will not help build a nation. ANYBODY that tries to achieve any form of power you will out as a spook trying to get the liberals. This is why nobody is going through with a solution, Mathis, because this anarchist mentality bogs you down into an infinite rabbithole with no solution to actually overthrow the ruling class. If somebody actually tries doing it, you'd at best condemn it, and at worst claim he's an agent. I'll make an alliance with you once you accept that shepherding is the solution. Create a centralised state that SERVES the non-aristocratic people first and foremost. End the effeminate aristocracy that has bogged us down for years. The settlers of America prior to the masonic revolution didn't seek libertinism, they sought to do what I propose now.

"This is a reminder not to let yourself be defined by these manufactured issues.They seem important, but they are usually fake. Do you have any real experience with trannies, for example? I don’t. But we all have real experience with an upper class bleeding us constantly. Squashing us, taxing us for things they aren’t delivering, paying us a pittance for our work, constantly stealing from the treasury, and lying to us everyday about almost everything."

Yes. Now are you going to accept destroying this upper class to form a new one that seeks to benefit us instead of using us to benefit them? Are you going to accept at least forming a unified clan as a part of the boycott and eventual tax revolt?

"I have been told that even if I am right about this, if I were smart I would not place too much emphasis on it. I should accept current definitions in order to build alliances with my readers. But you can now see why I cannot do that. My readers have been flipped and thereby disempowered by a government project,and I see it as my job to unflip them. I am not here to make easy alliances, for the sake of maximizing my numbers or donations, as others appear to be. I am here to tell the truth. It may take some time for my readers to realize they have been flipped, but in the long run my way is the best way. In the long run, it creates the real alliances and the lasting numbers."

And will this last? No, an imperialist power will just sweep through you and enslave you again. Liberalism fails, and the oligarchs know that. By seeking to repeat this failure, you are part of the problem, Mathis.