Disclaimer: Nothing within this page or on this site overall is the product of Panagiotis Kondylis's thought and work unless it is a faithful translation of something Kondylis wrote. Any conclusions drawn from something not written by Panagiotis Kondylis (in the form of an accurate translation) cannot constitute the basis for any valid judgement or appreciation of Kondylis and his work. (This disclaimer also applies, mutatis mutandis, to any other authors and thinkers linked or otherwise referred to, on and within all of this website). 


If you're interested in concepts and science, this website - apart from P.K.'s own comments (usually in passing) I've translated thus far - on a number of pages, refers to such matters.

Given that terminology in academic and or popular use has its own history, including history as polemical use, and given that 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 (more) useful or not. 

What I can repeat again here is that P.K. showed how "human rights" don't exist given that there is no world state providing and enforcing them - all that exists are "civil rights" and rights called "human rights", and likewise, when doing his macro-historical sociological ideal-typical comparisons wherein the differentiae specificae of every social formation must be prominent, 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 not 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 more indirectly from studying all the greats of political theory and political science (Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, Clausewitz, Tocqueville, (the "good bits" of Marx), Weber, Aron (notwithstanding the Frenchman's "flirting with pacifistic Utopianism" re: Clausewitz), Morgenthau, Kennan, Bull, Waltz, et al.). 

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 an early stage 3), three main social formations post-ancient world:

1) Societas civilis ("feudalism") of relatively fixed hierarchies, law derived from (peoples' conceptions of) and in the name of God, rural-based societies, (big landowning) aristocracies, 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 which must be studied re: specific times and places) - of looser hierarchies, more social mobility compared to previously, with a rule of law determined by a much wider elite than in societas civilis, including people from trade, business and (later) industrial, professional strata, castes and classes etc., but with still an emphasis on the patriarchal family and fairly limited cross-class mobility, and with increasing massification, urbanisation and secularisation (say: c. 1500 but esp. c. 1700/1800 to c. 1900),


3) Mass democracy, which cannot be a "liberal democracy" because "liberal" is a differentia specifica of 2) above, and mass democracy, provides for significant state intervention and regulation in the economy (as a kind of "right to hedonistically consume" etc.) as well as an abolition of the bourgeois distinction between private and public spheres, as well as 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 observers point of view and set of dominant values), with urbanisation and atheism and the attendant TV/Mass Media "ZIO-LOBOTOMY" getting "out of control" and leading to potential auto-genocide of white peoples by low indigenous white birth rates and mass APE-ANOMIE invasions as well as mass legal ZIO-PUSHED immigration - obviously P.K. never once used the term "Zio" (that's 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 ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS GROUP whilst Israel has FULLY SHUT BORDERS and everyone else is told to "do the One World" ZIO/ USA-LOBOTOMY and ZIO/USA-ASSISTED feminofaggotised COLLECTIVE SUICIDE, etc., etc., etc.) (say: c. 1900 until today, though the 1960s and 1970s' cultural revolution signaled that mass democracy had spread throughout all of society, beyond the avant-garde, having demolished most of what was morally and ethically official dogma for centuries if not millennia). 

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" etc.. 

The above is a very poor and cursory look at the matter. 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...

Make a free website with Yola