0074 Part two of Diesen’s book concerns the rise and fall of political liberalism.  Chapter three opens with a discussion of Western civilisation as an amalgam of political liberalism and nationhood.

What is another word for political liberalism?

Does “pluralism” suffice?

0075 In 1828 AD, French politician and historian Francois Guizot publishes A General History of Civilisation in Europe,in which he proposes that the unity and the advancement of civilisation are founded on conformity to a great idea.

Surely, such a great idea goes into slot D in Diesen’s Greimas square.

The fulcrum point is a great idea.  The fulcrum point balances on a theme.

0076 What about Western civilization?

Diesen suggests that the idea is pluralism, as defined by a balance between liberalism and conservatism.

But, I don’t think that pluralism is the great idea (D).  I think that is is a focal point (A).

Correspondingly, liberalism slides into the slot for gesellschaft (B) and conservatism goes into the slot for gemeinschaft(C)

0077 How so?

Liberals fixate on rational choices.  People are rational actors.

Should I correct myself?

Liberals (B) fixate on opportunities that appear to be rational at the time.  So do illiberals, such as fascists and communists, as well as (il)liberals, such as American big government (il)liberals (“bigilibs”, for short).

Also, conservatives (C) fixate on apparently irrational, religious and cultural traditions that are familiar to their communities.  The conservatives may go so far as to insist that there is an object that brings everyone… oh, more than that… all creation… into relation.  God brings all things into relation, including and especially us, because we are the only creatures in the universe who seem to be aware of this ultimate relational being.

0078 So, if pluralism is the focal word (A), then what would be the theme, the great idea (D), that satisfies Guizot’s vision?

Whatever the theme is, it would enter the slot for D.

0079 Here is a picture of Diesen’s Greimas square, at this moment.

0080 According to Diesen, the purpose of chapter three is to explore the rise of Western civilisation (spring and summer) and threats from contemporary dogmas of liberal absolutism, universalism and civic nationalism.

0081 His declaration of intent inspires me to ask, “Who is sovereign?”

The individual is sovereign in liberal absolutism.

A political idea, what Dugin calls an “-sim”, is sovereign in universalism.

A nation-state is sovereign in civic nationalism.

Oh, lest I forget, international corporations are sovereign in globalism.

0082 Ah, I now know what goes into slot D.

0083 Here is Diesen’s view of Western civilisation, since the time of who?  Machiavelli?  Martin Luther?  Thomas Hobbes?

0084 For each of these figures, Western civilization, often called “Christendom”, is already old.  The longest living institutions are ethnic and religious.  Both contribute to the sovereignty of the nation-state, along with a wide range of other loyalties.  Loyalties extend to the church, the king, the barons, the trade guilds and other political actors.  The word, “religion”, is used to describe competing Christian (but also political) factions.  The (so-called) thirty years war resolves the contested loyalties with the Peace of Westphalia (1648 AD).

The Peace of Westphalia concludes the spring of sovereignty (D) with a treaty elevating the king as sovereign within each jurisdiction.  Plus, jurisdictions are primarily territories of common ethnic, religious and linguistic traditions.

0085 Here is the spring of sovereignty for the West.

0086 The summer starts with the so-called “Western Enlightenment”.  Pluralism enters the picture as the balance between liberals (we, the individuals) and conservatives (we, the people).  The summer of pluralism peaks during the time of the French and American Revolutions.  After that, the West rushes into the mechanical revolution, which empowers individuals and disempowers the people.

Individuals gain sovereignty.  Liberals insist on the rights of the individual.  Rights are often enumerated in constitutions.  Constitutions exemplify gesellschaft.  Prepolitical ethnic religiosity erodes. The term, “secular”, as a way to label irreligious liberals, appears in the English lexicon around 1860, at the end of the summer of sovereignty.

0087 In Western Europe, autumn begins with the consolidation of Germany and Italy, as well as the rise of divisive political movements (including Marxism).  In America, autumn opens with the War of Southern Rebellion and the War of Northern Aggression.  The war is anything but civil, which is the label that gets attached to the conflict, fifty years later.  With this precedent, I re-label the First and Second World Wars as the First and Second Battles of the Enlightenment Gods, the Unexpected War Among Naive Mercantilists (Who Should Have Known Better) and The Hot War Among Fraternal Ideologies.

The natural and social sciences advance.  Educated secular liberals propose rational organizational objectives that demand sovereign power in order to implement.  Religious conservatives are more and more regarded as throwbacks to the superstitious attitudes of pre-scientific ages.

When Pope Leo XIII issues an encyclical decrying the errors of modernism, secular know-it-alls laugh.  Science demonstrates that ancient and Aristotelian explanations of the world do not withstand scientific scrutiny.  Fare thee well, Saint Thomas Aquinas.  It is too bad that you are no longer relevant.

Pluralism operates in name only, because both liberal and conservative elites share a common conviction that a centralizing government is the only authority capable of pursuing rational organizational objectives, such as urban planning (getting rid of ethnic Catholic neighborhoods in urban cities in USA’s “North”) and value-free education(replacing an apparently irrational Bible with principles that every rational agent would agree with).  The revisionist historian, Dr. E. Michael Jones, writes book after book on these topics.  All are entertaining.  All describe how both liberal and (so-called) conservative elites operate against religious folk, of all stripes, during these times.

0088 Here is a diagram for autumn.

0089 In chapter four, Diesen discusses the winter.  He calls it, “the graveyard” of sovereignty.

0090 Diesen starts chapter four, titled “The Postmodernist Graveyard of Western Civilization”, with the claim that postmodernism is the epitome of excessive liberty.

But, what is “liberty”?

What is the meaning, presence and message₁ underlying the spoken word₂?  Can one have too much liberty?  What about responsibility?  Does “liberty” without “responsibility” equal “an excess”.  Or, does it equate to a gesellschaft-based manipulation of a term as a way to deceive those who regard the term according to gemeinschaft-based tradition.

0091 An educated person stands in the university hallway.

I address the authority, saying, “Oh, most academically certified person, what is the message of liberty?”

The warlock replies, “Do what thou wilt.”

Postmodernism takes liberty with language itself, the foundation of gesellschaft.

0091 Pluralism has a new name.  Diversity excludes those who do not celebrate the transformation of the word, “pluralism”.  It is not enough to accept the substitution.  One must “celebrate” it.

Here, I launch from Diesen’s platform, with a scholastic version of a triple-twist.  Let us see whether I can land this feat of mental gymnastics.

Here is the picture.

0092 I speak of the USA.

In the current winter of sovereignty, “diversity” replaces “pluralism” (A).  This implies that one must accept the gesellschaft’s linguistic game in order to even address the focal word, the civilizational attribute, under consideration. Those who do not embrace “diversity” are bigots, phobes, supremacists, and otherwise deplorable (C).  These labels come from bigilibs (B), who cannot rationally defend their postmodern ideologies, which are founded on a new style of science, which I call “interventional science”.  An interventional science promotes models of nature and society that support organizational objectives.  These organizational objectives demand sovereign power.  Otherwise, they would never be implemented.  They do not arise spontaneously.  Instead, these objectives must be broadcast and cultivated, before conformity is harvested.

“Deplorables” (a term coined by presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016) labels those who were ridiculed, by president, Barack Obama, as stupid and backwards people who cling to their guns and religion (the second and first amendments to the American Constitution).

Both of the named bigilibs are globalists, suggesting that sovereignty no longer resides in the individual or the people or the state.  Instead, sovereignty rests in international actors who finance political campaigns and ballot-counting operations in a rigged exercise of so-called “democracy”.  Just like the word, “liberty”, holds a novel, technical definition, so does the word, “democracy”.

0093 Ooof!

That was my landing.

0094 Now, for a little humor.

Comedy is frozen in the winter of sovereignty.

The funny part is that there is no humorous name for bigilibs, because even to say the word, “bigilib” is to identify oneself as incapable of the conformity required by postmodern ideologues.  The adjective, “secular”, will not do, because “secular” means “I am not religious”.  There is no label for “I am religiously not religious.”, especially when the second word, “religious”, means “claiming membership in a Christian faction”.

This comedian has a suggestion.  “Judeo-Pagan” sounds just as legitimate as the term, “Judeo-Christian”.  Plus, the term fits the conceptual claim that “I am religiously not a member of a Christian faction”.  Additionally, the Judeo-prefix adds the Old Testament theme that God (whoever that is) will take retribution on His Enemies, which, for Judeo-Pagans, are Judeo-Christians.

This uncanny logic is on display in the March 2023 issue of the magazine, First Things, where a columnist, Liel Leibovitz, contributes an opinion piece titled, “We Are All Jews Now”.   His point of view coincides with Diesen’s use of the term, “gemeinschaft”, as well as the term, “Judeo-Christian”.  Indeed, Liebovitz writes that America’s Judeo-Christians currently are in the same alienating situation that Jews have found themselves in, over and over again, since the um… well… how should I say it?… theodramatic incident.

You know, the one that the prophets warned about.

Notably, writing from the gemeinschaft stance, Leibovitz cannot see that the other side of the “holy war, waged by fanatics who won’t stop until their chosen beliefs are the only ones permitted to be proclaimed”, also contains of Jews. Very wealthy “secular” Jews patronize amazingly deviant pagans, such as the mavens of social justice, critical theory and social construction.

Judeo-Pagans ride the wave of unfettered financial capitalism, which will be discussed shortly.

Judeo-Pagans are the new gesellschaft, who, in the winter of sovereignty alienate their corresponding gemeinschaft.  Their (il)liberal policies aim to convey the impression of individual autonomy while maintaining censorial regulatory control of public discourse.

Judeo-Pagans are the new gesellschaft, who, in the summer of geoeconomics, support big government programs that impoverish people who work for a living, elevate people who comply with their system by pursuing careers requiring certification, and insisting on open borders.

If Americans are “All Jews Now”, then they are divided into a dominant gesellschaft and a reactionary gemeinschaft, that is, Judeo-Pagans and Judeo-Christians.

0095 Is humor is a dish best served cold?

0096 In 2023, when gesellschaft experts label gemeinschaft as reprehensible, using all sorts of nasty terms, well-funded corporate broadcasters and other minions of big government (il)liberalism take the accusations seriously, even though they are only true in the novel technical senses of the words.  

When gemeinschaft-loving comedians label gesellschaft-certified experts, as “Judeo-Pagan”, everyone is supposed to smile and chuckle.  But, not everyone is amused.

0097 Before proceeding to part three, on the rise and fall of economic liberalism, allow me to recapitulate the rise and fall of political liberalism (part two) using the Greimas square modified for Diesen’s approach to theorizing civilisation.

0098 The key word, labeling an attribute of civilization, is pluralism (A).  Pluralism outwardly manifests the changes of the season.

Here is the picture for Western civilisation from the point of view of the USA.

0099 Each of these statements addresses the question, “What is pluralism?”

“Pluralism” is a spoken word, whose meaning, presence and message change according to the civilisational season.  In the winter season, the word, “pluralism”, is replaced by apparently similar (yet substantially different) term, “diversity”.

0100 Why aren’t conservatives simply “uneducated” in the winter of sovereignty?

Why are they deplorable?

Well, wealthy educated (il)liberals, who occupy most of the federal institutions, including interstate corporations, have a way of buying now and paying later.  The method increases the amount of money that the Federal Treasury owes, under the stipulation that the same amount of fiat currency will eventually be printed by the Federal Reserve Bank, who is currently the main purchaser of loans from the Federal Treasury.  In short, the money borrowed by the Federal Treasury to implement big government (il)liberal objectives may eventually end up as money in circulation, courtesy of the Federal Reserve.

0101 What does this imply?

The so-called “deplorables” are left holding the bag, because they have to either pay the Federal Reserve Bank the amount that the bank printed in order to purchase the Treasury Bills that foreigners, who have figured out the scam, now refuse to buy or pay through inflation.

So, “diversity” means that pluralism is dead, because the ones saddled with the debt will, of course, be blamed for their ignorance of the ways that the meanings, presences, and messages of words have changed over the years.

0102 Here is a picture of the seasons for gesellschaft (B).

0103 Liberals promote individual autonomy.  Some would say, “individual sovereignty”.  Others would say “individual freedom”, without mentioning the concomitant, “and responsibility”.

This promotion sounds rational when compared to the irrational network of overlapping obligations that entangle the average European at the start of the 1600s.

This promotion sounds even better when some authorities start to claim the jurisdiction of other authorities, as if jurisdiction is a plump little lamb and the claimants are wolves (think vast monastic properties and ambitious barons aiming to establish their lordship over the same territories).

0104 When the bloodshed ends with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the notion of the individual is in the air, along with the image of pluralism, picturing a balance between people who are tolerant of others and people who are intolerant (that is, liberals and conservatives).  

By autumn, the educated liberals bask in the warmth of their own righteousness (after all, they are the tolerant ones) and recoil from the lack of interest by conservatives (who should be paying attention to the liberals, but are happily occupied with their own traditions).  In order to resolve this inequity, educated rationalists promote organizational objectives that require sovereign power to implement.  They will get their way even without buy-in by the inattentive conservatives.

0105 The USA North’s victory in the war of southern rebellion paves the way.

One hundred years after that victory, bigilibs are established in the large federal bureaucracies. The expansion of the federal government begins in earnest during the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

0106 Here is a diagram of the seasons for gemeinschaft (C).

0107 The American Constitution, particularly its first amendment, aims to separate religion from sovereign power.  The reason?  The thirty years of war preceding the peace of Westphalia involves a wicked mix of politics and religion.  Indeed, political action takes place under the guise of religious mandates.  Here, “religious” means “Christian factions”.

Of course, Christian factions do not appreciate the treaty of Westphalia.  The king decides which Christian factions are permitted and not permitted in his jurisdiction.  Members of certain factions (take a guess which ones) migrate to America and establish a new presence for the concept of pluralism.  The federal union of former colonies will not establish a religion (that is a Christian faction), but each state can promote or neglect whatever religion they wish.

Conservatives, preserving and promoting their own religions, are we, the people.

0108 Just as the term, “individual autonomy” (spring) shifts to “individual sovereignty” (summer) then to “individual freedom as opposed to belonging to a backwards-looking religious sect” (autumn) then to “individual freedom without responsibility” (winter), the term, “religious” (spring) shifts to “conservatives” (summer) to “Judeo-Christians, who don’t care about political action,” (autumn) to “Judeo-Christians, who conspire to impose their rigid beliefs upon the ‘freedom-loving’ bigilibs… or maybe I should say… Judeo-Pagans” (winter).

0108 Over and over, Diesen says that a civilisation starts to fail when the balance between gesellschaft (specialties that name political, religious and other cultural things) and gemeinschaft (tradition, community, and all that goes into belonging) fails.

The balance rests on a fulcrum, a balance point, a grand idea, an organizing principle, that also changes through the seasons.

Here is a diagram of the seasons for the fulcrum-theme (D).

0109 At this point, I have described Diesen’s story in my own words.  For Diesen’s own words, the inquirer must consult the text of his book, titled The Decay of Western Civilisation and the Resurgence of Russia: Between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft.

0110 The economic overtones in the political cycle of Western civilisation are obvious.

Part three of Diesen’s book concerns the rise and the fall of economic liberalism.  

Economic liberalism asks the government to avoid market interventions.   The French call the attitude, “laissez faire”, roughly translated as “let the market do what it is going to do“.

0111 Okay, what does the corresponding Greimas square look like?

Laissez faire is a type of economic statescraft.  So, economic statescraft goes into A.

Neo-gesellschaft policies associate to B.  These policies propose rational interventions under the appearance that one is leaving the markets do what they are going to do.

The citizens (C) do not notice any problem, because they follow appearances.  For example, to an atheist, a religious ritual is pure appearance.  So, who is going to object to the il(liberal) nature of neo-gesellschaft policies?

The grand idea beneath economic statescraft (A) is geoeconomics (D).

0112 Here is Diesen’s Greimas square for geoeconomics (D).

0113 Diesen notes that economic statescraft (A) aims to advance the nation in terms of autonomy (freedom from dependence on other nation-states) and influence (by promoting dependence by other nation states).  Sovereign interventions occur in the face of international challenges (B).  Policy (B) imperatives include (B1) controlling strategic industries and (B2) transportation corridors, (B3) regulating financial and economic cooperation and (B4) preserving gemeinschaft and social cohesion.

Ah, this must mean that economic liberalism is a style of economic statescraft (A).

0114 Next, Diesen discusses the rise of Britain, the ascendancy of the USA and the geo-economics of Western Europe, starting around the 1850s.

What does this imply?

I recall a season in the civilizational cycle of political liberalism (that is, pluralism) starting around 1860 AD.  This season corresponds to autumn.

Here is a picture.

0115 Weirdly, the rise of economic liberalism (as portrayed by Diesen) seems to correspond to this same period.

0116 Now, when I consider these two Greimas squares, occurring at the same time, I realize that political and economic civilizational cycles may not directly correspond.  Autumn for one attribute may be spring for another.

0117 What about a slot by slot comparison?

Economic liberalism (A) compares to pluralism (in name only) (A).  In the former, there is a balance between gesellschaft and gemeinschaft, in so far as the entire nation benefits from rational policies (B1-B4).  In the latter , gesellschaft has dominion over gemeinschaft and the balance between the two is tottering, because “scientific” rationalist liberals define organizational objectives that promote their world rather than the world of “unscientific” conservatives.

Secular liberals propose rational organizational objectives (all of which increase the power of central planners (B)). Neo-gesellschaft oriented experts apply so-called “scientific” principles to increase productivity in both industry and agriculture (B).  Larger corporations are able to sustain the regulatory burdens better than small family-oriented businesses.

Religious conservatives are derided as backwards (C) even though, as citizens (C), they are doing pretty well as the state pursues objectives that lessen economic dependency on other nations and increases economic dependency by other nations.  Bureaucrats aim for a favorable “trade balance”.  Industrial capitalism pleases traditional conservative citizens.  Some of these citizens even put their money into banks, instead of under their mattresses.

Finally, the autumn of sovereignty (D) and the spring of geoeconomics (D) coincide.

0118 Now, I recapitulate this examination.

In part one, Diesen proposes a theory of civilization based on two insights, (1) the distinction between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft and (2) the theme of civilizational cycles.

My examination adds value to Diesen’s approach by incorporating both insights into a Greimas square, as follows.

0119 In part two, Diesen describes the rise and fall of political liberalism, using all four seasons.  Pluralism goes into slot A.  Sovereignty occupies slot D.

0120 In part three, Diesen throws a curve.  He portrays two seasons of economic statescraft in a manner that shifts the previous frame.

0121 Chapter five is titled, “The Rise of Western Geoeconomics as the Tool of Neo-Gesellschaft”.  This corresponds to the statescraft of industrial capitalism or restrained economic statescraft (A).

0122 Chapter six is titled, “Unconstrained Economic Liberalism: Death of Community and Society”.  This may be labeled the statescraft of financial capitalism or unfettered economic statescraft (A).

Terminology is evocative, as well as descriptive.

0122 The USA serves as the first violin, so to speak, in a two-violin concerto with the West’s opposition in the cold war among materialist ideologies.

In the summer of economic liberalism, the USA adopts an ideology of perpetual growth, where industrial and agricultural capitalism (of spring) is increasingly supplanted by financial capitalism (of summer).  Diesen uses the terms, “control capitalism” and “unfettered capitalism”.  The transition is completed during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.  One year after his second term ends, the third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods concludes.  The so-called “Cold War” ends.

0123 The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 AD, occurs, perhaps, one-third the way into the winter of Western civilisation.  In 2023 AD, Western civilisation is two-thirds into this cruel season.  People who work lose their abilities to make a living.  Financial mavens make hand over fist.

Perhaps, now that all the actors of the Second World War are dead, academics should honor their fate with a new nomenclature.  Here is my suggestion.

The ideological component is not neglected when calling the twentieth century wars, “Battles among Enlightenment Gods”.  New histories may be written, because we now can look, at a distance, at the consequences of widespread adoption of ideologies.

0124 Of course, one Enlightenment God remains, Big Government (il)Liberalism in the political sphere and unfettered financial capitalism in the economic sphere.  Perhaps, the spheres belong to the head and the heart, respectively.

Either way, at the moment, in 2023 AD, the American empire celebrates “diversity”, rather than “pluralism” and America’s nemesis, the core of the former Union of Soviet Republics, has not surrendered its sovereignty to the bigilibs. Neither has communist China, Shia Iran and non-aligned India.  Only the western Europeans drink the flavor-aid of Big Government (il)Liberalism, going so far as to construct a double to the American Union of States, labeled the “European Union”, by some, and the “Nightmare In Brussels”, by others.  And, the Japanese and Koreans?  Hmmm, they love ordinary Americans, but their bigilib elites, maybe not so much, anymore.

0125 So, the cold war among materialist ideologies plays a role in the both the winter of sovereignty and the summer of geoeconomics.  The war provides the excuse to shift from the economic statecraft of control (in order to accomplish the four imperatives listed in point 0113) to unfettered financial capitalism.  After 1989, unrestrained economic statecraft eventually concludes that transferring a significant fraction of the USA’s factories to China would be profitable (for the owners, not the workers).  Soon, China’s cheap labor market becomes the starting point for the least expensive supply chains that the world has ever seen.

0126 And, America runs trade and spending deficits, as if there is no tomorrow.

Plus, America gives birth to the internet.  Thank you, Al Gore.

0127 Meanwhile, the military-industrial complex in the USA (as well as Europe’s NATO) requires an enemy in order to justify enormous budgets.  American troops are stationed around the world in order to… what?… maintain geopolitical and geoeconomic stability?  Perhaps, the bigilibs seek to defend themselves against the ghosts of defeated ideologies, such as communism, fascism and various branches of supremicism, or against the ghosts of once frightening opponents, such as the Soviet Union, or against the ghosts of poorly understood civilizations, like those in the Middle East.

Oh, did I mention the USA’s agreement with Saudi Arabia to only sell oil for dollars?

The price?

America is to defend Saudi Arabia from all external enemies.

0128 What about enemies within?

In 2001, a handful of cunning Islamicists, irate about America’s military presence on sacred ground, hijack three airplanes.  America’s War Against Terrorism begins.  

0129 Is this the Fourth Battle Among The Enlightenment Gods?

0130 Oh, there is a more evocative name for the interventions in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Ukraine and who knows where else.  These are the wars against the projections of Big Government (il)Liberalism.  America battles the ghosts in her mirror.

0131 Perhaps, this is a good place to plug Comments On Daniel Estulin’s Book (2021) “2045 Global Projects At War”,available at smashwords and other e-book venues.  Just as Diesen constructs a theoretical apparatus (which here, turns into a Greimas square), Estulin looks at current affairs through the prism of global projects (which, in the comments, turn into interscopes).  A comparison of Diesen’s and Estulin’s books (with this examination and the plugged commentary in mind) would serve as a great senior-level college project.

0132 I offer this plug as a distraction to what comes next.

There seems to be a paradox.

How can the season for political liberalism be winter and the season for economic liberalism be summer?

0133 Winter for the grand idea (in the former case, sovereignty, D) occurs when the manifestation (pluralism, A) no longer constrains the destruction unleashed by gesellschaft (bigilibism, B) upon gemeinschaft (traditionalists labeled as deplorable throwbacks to a bygone era, C).  Balance between gesellschaft (B) and gemeinschaft (C) is win-lose or lose-win or lose-lose.

0134 Summer for a grand idea (in the latter case, geoeconomics, D) occurs when the manifestation (unrestrained economic liberalism, A) productively yokes gesellschaft (unfettered financial capitalism, B) and gemeinschaft (people who work for a living, C).  Balance between gesellschaft (B) and gemeinschaft (C) is win-win.

0135 To me, it seems that these two figures are at odds.

Yet, Diesen’s concept of seasons provides a clue to a resolution.

The win-win of unfettered financial capitalism includes, at first, people who work for a living.  By the time that autumn approaches, a significant fraction of the West’s capital resides in the hands of a small number of elites.  At first, people who work earn enough to own an automobile and a house.  By the end of the season, people who work take out loans in order to “own” an automobile and a house.  People who work live in a debt trap.

The economic story of the West is complicated.  Here is one version of the story, in a nutshell.  

The continual enlargement of central governments (in Tokyo, Washington D.C. and Brussels) requires more spending than tax receipts, so these central authorities need to borrow money.  Central banks cooperate by keeping the interest rate artificially low, which allows governments to pay less interest for their borrowing.  It also puts more money into circulation.

On top of that, artificially low interest rates encourage financial players to borrow money at low cost to compete with worker’s savings.  Government-blessed money printing, plus ruthless competition by speculators, drives up the prices of necessities, so workers must borrow money, at high “market-based” interest rates, in order to achieve what savings once achieved.  

After fifty years of financial repression, bigilib elites privately own significant assets.  People with careers in corporations that borrow at artificially low interest rates have high salaries.  Corporate owners lobby for opening borders to desperately poor migrants in order to (1) not pay the salaries that deplorables need and (2) turn the migrants into debt slaves.

0136 So, at the end of the summer of geoeconomics, Diesen’s square looks like this.

0137 People with careers (that is, people working in protected markets such as law, medicine, state education and so forth) and migrants (who, presumably will join the deplorables in the debt trap after a generation or two) are the gemeinschaft that is cultivated by a gesellschaft of unfettered financial capitalists, along with their political, academic, and media shills.

I suppose that the plan is to use propaganda to turn the deplorables against the migrants in order to maintain both parties in the debt trap of financial capitalism.

0138 Unfortunately, I suspect that both the deplorables and the migrants will figure out the nefarious plan, as the autumn of geoeconomics begins.

The only people who remain clueless at the end of the summer of geoeconomics are the people with careers, requiring certification, who feel that their jobs are protected because of restrictions to market entry.

0139 Part four of Diesen’s book covers Russia, resurgent in the spring of neomodernism and the autumn of geoeconomics.

Russia, like any vigorous civilisation, is inclined to gemeinschaft.  However, encounters with the West motivates Russian leaders to prioritize gesellschaft, often to the extreme.  Diesen tells some history.

0140 Here is how I see his story.  It is sloppier than Diesen’s account.  But, it may do.

Russia establishes itself as a land-based power without land-based ships.  So, it’s mostly about horses until the Germans roll in with mechanical vehicles in the 1910s and 1940s.

St. Petersburg is constructed as Russia’s window to the West.

After Napoleon’s failed invasion, Russia is looking pretty good until something odd happens.  Russia tries to take Crimea from the decadent Ottoman Empire, only to find the British declaring war.

0141 Why do the British fight to protect to Ottoman Empire?

Well, it turns out that the Ottoman Empire owes the British banks the pound-equivalent of a decade’s worth of British industrial production.  The war is not about the integrity of the British Empire.  This war is about Russia inadvertently giving the Ottomans an excuse not to pay interest on their enormous debt.

Russia gets its military clock cleaned twice in the 1850s because of debt oppression in Turkey.

0142 (Incidentally, the so-called American “civil war” (1860-1864 AD) is another precocious example of unfettered financial capitalism.  The banks of the North (say, New York) loan Southern plantation owners so much money that repayment is not an option.  So, instead of surrendering their property, the Southern elites sign up their fellow citizens in a campaign to resolve the issue by breaking the Southern states away from the Northern states… er, I mean… the so-called “Union”.)

Historical parallels between America and Russia are unnerving in this regard.

In the mid to late 1800s, gesellschaft is in the air.  America frees the slaves of African descent.  Russia frees the serfs.  America sees the rise of corporate monopolies.  Russia sees the appearance of wealthy middle class farmers.  America sees the west as the new frontier.  Dostoyevski sees the east as Russia’s new frontier.

0143 In America, the Federal Reserve is created in 1913, right before America intervenes in the First Battle Among the Enlightenment Gods.  The Russian Revolution starts in 1918, as the Battle ends.

In the 1960s, during the Third Battle of the Enlightenment Gods, Western civilisation enters the winter of sovereignty and the summer of geoeconomics.

One third of the way into the winter of sovereignty, in 1989, the Soviet Union dissolves and America falls under the spell of Big Government (il)Liberalism.

In America, in 1988, George H. Bush, formerly head of the Central Intelligence Agency is elected president of the USA.  He reverses the Reagan revolution and sets a course for further growth of America’s federal government.

0144 What happens next?

Then, Bill Clinton is elected in 1992 (due to a third party candidate, Ross Perot, and the unpopularity of Bush) and um… here, the story gets foggy.  It is as if there is an information blockade on what happens to Russia during the Yeltsin years. What were Western financial capitalists up to?

Diesen is not really clear on this.  But, I bet the story is incredible, because a veritable nobody, Vladimir Putin, appears out of nowhere and foils… whatever the unfettered financial capitalists are doing.

0145 Well, if the British banks saddled the Ottoman Empire with enough debt that the gemeinschaft in Turkey could never repay, and if the New York banks saddled plantation owners with enough debt that the Southern gemeinschaft had to be called to war, then I imagine that the former Republics of the Soviet Union receive similar advice, from Western “money managers”, about how to manage their sovereign properties.  Surely, Russian leaders could borrow… um… enormous sums… to um… keep the economy going.

0146 When the gesellschaft lend money to the gemeinschaft, or when the gesellschaft take out loans in the name of the gemeinschaft, then the gemeinschaft become slaves to those debts.

What is loaning a person or a sovereign so much money that the loan can never be repaid by that person or the people?

The answer is “immoral”.

0147 Well, after the last two blogs, I have a better appreciation how the winter of sovereignty and the summer of geoeconomics coincide for the West.

Plus, I have taken a step closer to understanding Diesen’s concluding proposition.

The deplorables (and the about-to-be debt-ridden migrants) of the West will see a political spring in Russia even as the West experiences an economic autumn in geoeconomics.

0148 Diesen portrays the new spring for sovereignty as Eurasian neomodernism.

Here is how I associate Diesen’s argument with his Greimas square.

0149 Sovereignty (D) continues as a theme into the next civilizational cycle.

Its manifestation (A) is a new style of pluralism, which Diesen calls “Eurasian neomodernism”.

Perhaps, another alternate label is “neo-modern diversity”.

0150 Recall, for the winter of sovereignty in the West, “diversity” replaces pluralism, even as it negates it.  Pluralism is pragmatic.  People have different views, pluralism accepts this fact and strives to reach compromise.  Diversity inverts pluralism.  People appear different, but they all end up… um… the same.  They all end up compromised.

Compromised?

What if the only acceptable “compromise” coincides with big government providing the appearance of individual autonomy, while maintaining regulatory control?  Then, various proponents of organizational objectives work together in a hydra-headed alliance of gesellschaft factions.  Each institution within the alliance is effectively a religion, because its organizational objective emerges from (and situates) its own righteousness.  Big Government (il)Liberalism is a congregation of secular religions.

0151 Yet, none of these religions are “religious” (meaning, Christian factions).  So, by insisting on a narrow definition of the term, “religion”, the American federal government does not violate the Enlightenment mandate for the separation of church and state.

At the same time, BG(il)L, as a “not religious” religion (B), conspires to repress gemeinschaft (C), whose tradition includes the belief that God creates all things.

America’s current war between gesellschaft and gemeinschaft expresses itself as Judeo-Pagans (B) versus Judeo-Christians (C).

For the USA, one difficulty for the bigilibs (B) is that the Judeo-Christians (C) have guns.

0152 How does Russian neo-modern diversity differ from American bigilib diversity?

Diesen maintains that, given the fact that pluralism is dead and that some people’s “compromise” means “we always win”, an adult is required to supervise.  This adult must be pragmatic.  Plus, this adult must be ruthless in stopping fights before “compromise” is attained.

How can the task of neo-modern gesellschaft (B) be accomplished?

This adult must rely on a philosophical tradition that allows pragmatism.  For Russia, this philosophical tradition is Orthodox Christianity, tempered by the experiences of seven decades of communist rule.   For China, the philosophical tradition is Maoism, now tempered by the experiences of five decades of communist rule and increasingly open to Confucian philosophy.  For Iran, the philosophical tradition belongs to the Shia religion.  In India, the philosophical tradition is Hindu, tempered by decades of independence from British rule, yet celebrating the rule of law that British rule fleetingly imposed.

0153 So, what is the difference between neo-modern diversity (A) and bigilib diversity (A)?

The gesellschaft of bigilib (B) is fundamentally incoherent and inhumane, because the central state implements organizational objectives on the basis of a congregation of “not religious” religious righteousnesses.

The gesellschaft of neomodern diversity (B) is fundamentally custodial, pragmatic and supervising, like a parent that keeps an eye on the children.

0154 The gemeinschaft (C) intuitively sense the difference.

At the end of the summer of American geoeconomics (D), people with careers and migrants (C) are doing fine.  Citizens who work for a living (C) are increasingly slaves to their debts.  The economic system is rigged against them.

In the winter of American sovereignty (D), people who believe in God, Judeo-Christians (C) are under assault by a hydra-headed beast (B), demanding to indoctrinate their children in public schools and to take affirmative action against them according to the labels that the bigilib gesellschaft attach to them.  Bigilibs cannot compromise.  They only “compromise”.

Every word uttered by American Judeo-Pagans rewires vocabulary and cultivates alternate meanings, presences and messages to long-held traditional definitions.  Only the “educated” can keep up with the trends.