The race to know what the world will be like next

What about the epidemic of articles about the world that suddenly hit the media?

The epidemic is far from over, but we already see everywhere appearing a multitude of articles on the next world and an incredible proliferation of experts, visionaries, commentators and prophets of all kinds .

It is difficult to determine whether these projections into the future result from an indisputable finding of failure on the current situation and the disastrous handling of events or whether they simply do not make up for the boredom of editors condemned to forced inaction. But one thing is striking in this proliferation of opinions: the state is at the center of all discussions, at the heart of all controversies.

The state, but above all its doctrine, namely state liberalism, a totally eccentric and meaningless oxymoron, but which allows too many people to perish, to give lessons in philosophy, economics, politics and what do I know yet, basing their whole speech on a fantasy that has become a staple of French political vocabulary.


Let’s remind readers who are a little lost (or still have some doubts) that with very rare exceptions, when a politician, a philosopher, an economist, a sociologist, or a journalist talks about liberalism on TV, radio or in a newspaper, he talks in a general and often abstract way, about something he does not know, which he does not understand and which is absolutely not what he is thinking about: he is only repeating a politically correct cliché .

Just as the word globalization is the politically correct version of a conspiracy theory that a secret society seeks to destroy the will of peoples’ rebellion, the word liberalism is the politically correct version of another conspiracy theory that states would impose a totalitarian and collectivist ideology by forcing by force, coercion and taxes the establishment of radical and frenzied capitalism, Stakhanovist productivism and unlimited consumerism.

Liberalism (or neoliberalism) would be, according to them, the policy pursued by an obese and highly interventionist state, which would consist of massively helping the private sector with public money, proliferating a large number of useless economic activities and defending the privileges and rents of a minority, which would inexorably lead to the social and moral disintegration of society.


In short, in the media newspeak, neoliberalism is what any liberal has called for a long time by its real name: namely socialism: the conduct by the administration of the economic machine and the disappearance of the rule of law.

(Re-read urgently Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: “The first act in which the State really appears as the representative of the whole of society, (taking possession of the means of production on behalf of society,) is at the same time its Last act proper as a state. From one field to another, the intervention of a state power in social relations becomes superfluous and then naturally goes dormant. The government of people gives way to administration of things and the direction of production operations. The state is not abolished, it dies out “- Mr. Eugen Dühring turns science upside down, F. Engels, 1878 – or even Lenin when he clearly defines the concept in the Granat encyclopedia)

It is undoubtedly completely illusory to hope that the media world will one day make its mea-culpa and rehabilitate words in their proper place: words ultimately only have little importance, especially when they are used not not to share or enlighten, but to try to convince.

Let’s just prove to them that the concept of socialism has evolved since Marx as the catastrophic devastation of the application of the Communist prophet’s rantings was seen.


In the absence of mea culpa, it is a veritable epidemic of jacket flipping which seems to strike almost all commentators and experts who suddenly seem to discover all in their hearts that there is something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark… It must be said that certain observations on the system (whatever name it is given) and on the crisis that it is currently going through are self-evident:

The crisis came from a natural phenomenon. It is not economics, finance, commerce, politics or diplomacy that are behind the coronavirus epidemic, but nature. Even the most fundamentalist and the most eccentric, who see energies and little fairies everywhere, say it: nature imposes on us a reality-check, our “system” launched at full speed is being caught all of a sudden reality in the face.

As if positive law, left too long in utopian freewheeling and in omnipotent delirium, was suddenly overtaken by natural law.

The shortage is where we thought we had plenty. Health is the very foundation of the modern state, its primary justification. Over time, the Nation State centered on the defense of the territory, has transformed into a Welfare State, centered on the well-being of citizens, with health at the forefront. However, it is absolutely not health that is at stake in the current crisis (hospitals and carers do an incredible job) but access to health, access that the State promised fair and easy for all. Between the masks, the hydro-alcoholic gel, the tests, the treatments, the beds, the respirators… the shortage is everywhere and the State completely overwhelmed is forced to open the gates one after the other and to fade away in front of this horrible commercial sector which immediately reacted to it.

As if the state was forced to admit on its own that all these dumpsters of public money, all these laws and regulations, all this framing supposed to protect us, were ultimately useless.

The political world is completely discredited. The epidemic immediately brought to the fore all the prophecies of doom that sought to further increase the perimeter of the state by terrorizing the population: it is neither nuclear, nor global warming, nor landscape changes, nor the migrations which in less than a month have completely changed the lives of almost all the inhabitants of the planet, but a simple disease. You can hardly see anything but groans of agony in the pathetic posturing of those who, a few weeks ago, were fighting like ragpickers to explain that their apocalypse was the most serious and that which was going to happen first. As if the curtain had fallen or the end of recess had been whistled …

What to see in this flip-flop as incongruous as it is inevitable?

Only the future will tell, the prediction unfortunately finds itself confronted with two alternatives: one of them leans towards the achievement of a natural order of ideas (which would perhaps finally allow to see the light of the freedom at the end of this frantic race towards servitude), the other leans for the simple application of the principle of causality: how could those who have been wrong for years suddenly find themselves enlightened and struck by thanks?

There’s bound to be a world after.

Now, will it be made up of free individuals or will it be a version 2.0 of a utopia which has proved hard to fail? The stakes are high and the various prophets of a bright future in the best of worlds immediately understood this and are engaged in a frantic race to return to the front of the scene, even if it means to conspire today what that they idolized yesterday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *