Since the Enlightenment, liberalism has sought to remove politics from politics. Given that human history is primarily defined by clashing worldviews with violent conflicts, the impulse to tame this dynamic is understandable. Liberalism based on secular neutrality and the rule of law tried to curb the passion that drove men into war. The answer was to broadly distribute power so that the anger and charisma of one leader could not lead the country into chaos.
The project culminated in today’s management neoliberal regime, in which secular humanism acts as a delivery clause and perhaps as a delivery clause housed in an impartial system. However, cracks in this foundation began to form long ago.
With a liberal order, the collapse of institutional credibility marks a crisis of truth. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to shout “Shut up!”
Members of our ruling class were willing torched the credibility of the very institutions they rely on for legitimacy. That destruction accelerated a collapse that felt inevitable now. Liberalism faced an epistemological crisis and was unable to address the challenges. Like any tradition that cannot protect the intellectual land, it sees its authority erode by dust.
Neutral governance has distinct advantages. It argues that it will free society from the fierce conflict over religion and identity. It promises greater cooperation by stripping away the particularities (traditions, customs, prejudices) of the region that make diverse groups difficult.
Even technical differences related to the state, such as currency, units of measure, contract law, and other such technological differences interfere with trade. However, by creating institutions that assert neutrality in issues of faith, culture and commercial, liberalism has increased the scale of possible cooperation. We have built an equivalent to “minimum viable morality,” the lowest common denominator that allowed incompatible systems to work together.
problem? That same minimum morality now appears to be insufficient to bring something together.
Instead of serving specific people with specific needs, modern institutions (placed with qualified professionals) aim to impose reasonable and universal standards on everyone. The promise is simple: equal treatment under a neutral system. Administrators of this system are chosen for the intended objectivity, not for bias.
These institutions soon become more than arbiters – they become the ultimate authority of truth. In a liberal order, they are the only legitimate source of knowledge. If it’s not institutional, it’s not authentic.
The economic benefits of this arrangement are clear. Large-scale cooperation provides enormous amounts of material. Yes, traditions and religious customs may be eroded in the process, but who can argue about abundance? Prosperity is the most contested.
As long as the ruling class maintains the credibility of the institution, the system works. Management liberalism has transformed experts into new priestly castes – one important difference. This priesthood actually managed to make it rain. As long as the economy grew and promises were kept, no one questioned the myth of neutral expertise. All the boats were rising. Why complain?
Unfortunately, humans are, as expected, flawed for liberal order. The institutions were never truly neutral, and the experts were absolutely inseparable. Over time, the ruling class became greedy. They have grown credibility to justify the war and promote social engineering.
They became bolder as the grip of power tightened. Those who ran the system began to treat it as a political currency that spent trust in the system. They exchanged legitimacy for short-term advantages, eroding the very foundations that left their authority intact.
This trend reached its peak during the global Covid-19 pandemic. From the World Health Organization to local doctors, experts have promoted obvious falsehoods to maintain power. The betrayal was phenomenal.
After seeing its coordinated institutional collapse, the public began to ask uncomfortable questions. Medical Professionals – If the most trusted experts in life and death lie, what else has the system lied? election? war? economy? history? Suddenly, everything is for reconsideration.
This moment scares the ruling class. The entire strategy of its members relied on institutional consensus to shape truth and guide public opinion. This is why disillusioned liberal voices like Sam Harris and Douglas Murray, once celebrated for challenges on Orthodox, now ask the public to go back to the box and stop asking questions.
Epistemology is a discipline of philosophy that relates to how we know what we know. Under management neoliberalism, experts and the institutions they live in became the foundation of knowledge itself. The truth was that the expert consensus declared it.
Philosopher Alasdair McIntiel (unrelated) argued that the survival of tradition depends on its ability to confront and resolve epistemological crises. In a liberal order, the collapse of institutional reliability represents just such a crisis. And so far, the only answer from the ruling class has been to shout “Shut up!”
Macintyre also argued that solving the crisis requires more than adopting a new framework. You need to understand why the old ones failed. However, the current elites have not shown the ability to reflect on such a thing. Instead of humility, we get hysteria – ock ha ha, censorship, and cancellations from experts who should ask how they’re wrong.
The global neoliberal order has hit an epistemological barrier, and members of its class of experts lack the wisdom and self-awareness to break through it. They continue to screech and assault, defending their collapsed worldview. But the truth is inevitable. The era of expert rules is over.
This crisis, yes, but also poses a risk to opportunities. A new paradigm is emerging. And whatever comes next, it will not be ruled by the priest of the consensus.
