THE UNITED STATES COURT AGAINST THE IDEOLOGY OF PROGRESS
The fact is that the only branch of the US government that has not yet discredited itself was until recently the courts. Their authority was unquestionable for all political forces. It is believed that corruption and ideological lobbying in the judiciary failed to take complete control. And now the judges appointed under Trump have made their move. All this requires very serious reflection.
The fact is that there is not just one American state, but two countries and two nations with this name and this is becoming more and more evident. It is not even a question of Republicans and Democrats, whose conflict is becoming increasingly bitter. It is the fact that there is a deeper division in American society.
Half of the US population is an advocate of pragmatism. This means that for them there is only one yardstick: it works or it doesn't work, it works/it doesn't work. That is all. And no dogma either about the subject or the object. Everyone can see himself as whatever he wants, including Elvis Presley or Father Christmas, and if it works, no one dares to object. It is the same with the outside world: there are no inviolable laws, do what you want with the outside world, but if it responds harshly, that is your problem. There are no entities, only interactions. This is the basis of Native American identity, it is the way Americans themselves have traditionally understood liberalism: as freedom to think what you want, to believe what you want, and to behave as you want. Of course, if it comes to conflict, the freedom of one is limited by the freedom of the other, but without trying you cannot know where the fine line is. Try it, maybe it will work.
That is how American society has been up to a certain point. Here, banning abortion, allowing abortion, sex change, punishing sex change, gay parades or neo-Nazi parades were all possible, nothing was turned away at the door, the decision could be anything, and the courts, relying on a multitude of unpredictable criteria, precedents and considerations, were the last resort to decide, in problematic cases, what worked/doesn't work. This is the mysterious side of the Americans, completely misunderstood by Europeans, and also the key to their success: they have no boundaries, which means they go where they want until someone stops them, and that is exactly what works.
But in the American elite, which is made up of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, at some point a critically large number of non-Americans have accumulated. They are predominantly Europeans, often from Russia. Many are ethnically Jewish but imbued with European or Russian-Soviet principles and cultural codes. They brought a different culture and philosophy to the United States. They did not understand or accept American pragmatism at all, seeing it only as a backdrop for their own advancement. That is, they took advantage of American opportunities, but did not intend to adopt a libertarian logic unrelated to any hint of totalitarianism. In reality, it was these alien elites who hijacked the old American democracy. It was they who took the helm of globalist structures and gradually seized power in the United States.
These elites, often left-liberal, sometimes openly Trotskyist, have brought with them a position that is deeply alien to the American spirit: the belief in linear progress. Progress and pragmatism are incompatible. If progress works, fine. If not, it must be abandoned. Here is the law of pragmatism: it works/doesn't work. If you want to move forward, move forward, if you want the opposite, no problem, that's freedom the American way.
However, the emigrants from the Old World brought with them very different attitudes. For them, progress was a dogma. All history was seen as continuous improvement, as a continuous process of emancipation, improvement, development and accumulation of knowledge. Progress was a philosophy and a religion. In the name of progress, which included a continuous increase in individual freedoms, technical development and the abolition of traditions and taboos, everything was possible and necessary, and it no longer mattered whether it worked or not. What mattered was progress.
This, however, represented a completely new interpretation of liberalism for the American tradition. The old liberalism argued: no one can ever impose anything on me. The new liberalism responded: a culture of abolition, shaming, total elimination of old habits, sex change, freedom to dispose of the human foetus (pro-choice), equal rights for women and races is not just a possibility, it is a necessity. The old liberalism said: be what you want, as long as it works. The new one replied: you have no right not to be a liberal. If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and must be destroyed. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of freedom, LGBT+, transgender and artificial intelligence.
The conflict between the two societies - the old libertarian, pragmatic one and the new neoliberal, progressive one - has steadily escalated over the past decades and culminated in the Trump presidency. Trump has embodied one America and his globalist democratic opponents the other. The civil war of philosophies has reached a critical point. And it is really a question of the interpretation of freedom. The old America sees individual freedom as that which excludes any external prescription, any demand to use it only this way and no other, only for this and nothing else. Only for abortion and gay pride, for example, and never for banning abortion or demonising perverts. New America, on the other hand, insists that freedom requires violence against those who do not understand it well enough. Which means that freedom must have a normative interpretation and it is up to the neo-liberals themselves to determine how and to whom they use it and how they interpret it. The old liberalism is libertarian. The new is blatantly totalitarian.
And it is in this context that the 1973 US Supreme Court decision on abortion Roe v. Wade must be seen. It is in favour of the old liberalism and pragmatism. Note that it does not prohibit abortion, but merely states that there is no clear solution at the level of federal law. States can solve the problem as they wish, but it means, no more and no less, that time is reversible. You can move in one direction, progressive, or you can move in the opposite direction. As long as it works. So it is not about abortion at all. It is about understanding the nature of time. It is about the deepest divisions in American society. It is about one America going to war with another America more and more openly.
The Supreme Court is now overturning the totalitarian dictatorial strategy of the neo-liberal globalist elites, who act - a bit like the Bolsheviks in Russia - in the name of the future. Progress justifies everything. Until then, all decisions have only gone in one direction: in favour of individualism, egocentrism and hedonism, and suddenly the Supreme Court takes an abrupt step backwards. Why, was it allowed to do so? And the almost desperate old Americans, pragmatists and libertarians rejoice: the freedom to do what you want, not what the progressives and technocrats say, to go in any direction, not just where the globalists are forcibly sending us, has triumphed again, and Missouri's brave attorney general has already shown what can be done. Bravo! It is a pragmatic revolution, an American-style conservative revolution.
Of course, all the globalist progressive crap is about to go down the drain. The old America has in a way counter-attacked the new America.
"If the kingdom of law is divided in itself, it will surely become desolate". Matthew 12:25 Better sooner than later....
Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini