The End of His Story
Liberal-Marxism and the "End of History"
J. R. Sommer argues that we live under the paradigm of liberal-Marxism, where all modern political movements, whether left or right, misleadingly perpetuate dehumanization and the illusion of change while neglecting true inward orientation and spiritual purpose.
The late twentieth century, dominated by American exceptionalism and hegemony, produced Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man. This book, fittingly American and something that could have been straight from the swamps of the Council on Foreign Relations or the RAND Corporation, encapsulated the essence of not just profound American arrogance, but liberal-Marxism generally.
In this book, Fukuyama suggests that the dialectical march of the world-society, now safely shepherded by the United States, is over: All remaining “illiberal” (i.e., un-Americanized) corporate states will soon find themselves drawn into the superior orbit of a Pax Americana — a “peace,” of course, backed by the full weight of the best-equipped military the world has ever seen. Americanism always harbors a threat; but this is not a function of America — rather, it is one of liberal-Marxism.
For those who have not yet read The New Colossus, liberal-Marxism is the ideological fundament of the entire world. The nature of liberal-Marxism is to envelop all, to absorb everything into final hegemony — not merely for political gain, but for metaphysical destruction. The latter point I leave for the book’s readers; in the meantime, however, here is a brief view of liberal-Marxism:
Liberal-Marxism is the fruit of Enlightenment liberalism; the liberal-democratic urge is identical to the Marxian one: equality. Liberal-democracy is secular Christianity just as Marxism is secular Judaism; and each, in its familiar and peculiar way, aims to topple the old order. Where these secular friends meet is at the apex of liberalism, which we identify here as liberal-Marxism — the revaluation of values, the leveling of ancient lands. All must be equal; if it is not, equality must be enforced. This, incidentally, is why we see in liberal-democracies the shift from “equal opportunities” to “equal outcomes” — this shift will only intensify, resulting in a more overt ... authoritarian tyranny. It will be a tyranny of the people shaped by Vanguard-prelates holding all the power. That the masses — the Mass Man — don’t see this is perhaps only a testament to their being deserving of servitude....
Liberal-Marxism is faith in an error: It is the belief that equal opportunity will inevitably become equal outcome—and when this belief fails to materialize, it is subsequently the belief that outcomes must be enforced at the expense of a natural hierarchy. In this way, freedom for all becomes freedom for none: the subversion of the natural process is the dehumanization of man, and a man dehumanized is enslaved. But this is precisely the point of liberal-Marxism.1
Important to note here is liberal-Marxism’s inherent leftism (something argued at length in The New Colossus); equally notable is my position that the entire world is liberal-Marxist. There are no exceptions among corporate states. The “conservatism” we occasionally see — especially that of the bellicose and seemingly burgeoning variety — is nonetheless liberal-Marxian, which is antithetical to conservatism. It is a conservatism born of liberal-Marxism meant to tyrannize and hegemonize everyone and everything.
True conservatism, if there is such a thing, can only ever have a spiritual (inward) basis and never a material (outward) one. This, incidentally, is why the whole world is one liberal-Marxian morass: materiality is only ever the goal; spirituality, if considered at all, is simply an afterthought meant to enrich the material experience (e.g., see Christian nationalism — a concept hardly different from its supposed ideological rival, secular humanism).
The liberal-Marxist “conservatism” so pervasive and apparently momentous today is only a sandbox for the beleaguered masses to safely vent their frustrations with the most recent swing of the liberal-Marxian pendulum. (And most are happy to imagine the pendulum will not vengefully reverse course.) Always interesting and ever ignored, however, is the incessant march toward mass surveillance and armament pursued by each faction of the liberal-Marxist vanguard; and equally fascinating for citizens of the sandbox is the vanguard’s unwavering, “ironclad” support for Israel. Meaningless critical declarations (if present at all) offered by bastions of liberalism the world over are more sandboxes — to keep the prying, disgruntled proletariat at bay. None of the declarations are tied to any substantive effort meant to thwart the unrelenting action of the Perennially Protected State.
Here enters the Galvanized Group (be they Zionists, Antifascists, Council on Foreign Relations-ites, “young voters,” “boomers,” etc.): happy lapdogs groomed to protect the interests of inimical forces, all too content to “cut ties” with the “real” dangers subverting society. Undoubtedly, leftism is inimical, pathological, and must be managed (lest it eradicates even the possibility of the inward turn); unfortunately, counting on liberal-Marxism to contain itself is a nonstarter. Casualties of the charade are the kids in the sandbox left attacking each other2 for the interests of another — perhaps the hedonistic parents raising their offspring to be just like them. To combat the trending fifth column, isn’t it funny how corporate states always make laws that can be easily tailored to suit the needs of whatever liberal-Marxist faction happens to be in power? Isn’t it funny how it’s only ever The State that gets stronger? Just don’t tempt the lapdogs with this thought—or teeth will be bared.
To be sure, some — maybe many — among the lapdogs will vehemently profess their autonomy, that they are fully aware of the circumstances and are biding time and chipping away at The [insert perceived injustice here] because . . . because they will be different once they are in power. Of course. Materiality pursuing materiality — this is the will-to-machine:
Unconscious consciousness is the will-to-machine driving all existence and the urge to material indulgence behind globalization. The dehumanization of man at the hands of sociopolitical progress and technologizing is a cosmic disintegration of being for the sake of infinite beyng. The will-to-machine is a will-to-thoughtlessness, which is the natural state of beyng. Pure beyng is the embodiment of living unconsciousness—a beingless beyng arising from the cooperation of a conscious consciousness that eliminates itself.
Ah, but when the flunky is in power, things will be different; we will finally focus on making justice great again. But such is impossible when one has been reared by hedonists and does not know the root of one’s own position. What to do when one’s position exists to eliminate itself?3
∞•∞
Foreign Affairs recently published an article (“Reading Schmitt in Beijing”) quietly lamenting the fact that Fukuyama’s “end of history” didn’t come. Instead, it said, Carl Schmitt’s assessment was more apt: The sovereign is paramount, and not a false liberality that terrorizes the globe.4 The article’s author interprets the paramountcy of “the sovereign” as explanatory of “authoritarianism’s” rise; but this article — like Foreign Affairs, like the liberal-Marxist world, generally — misses the point: it fails to assess itself. That is, we cannot expect liberal-Marxism to recognize its own purpose.
Whether we — as states or individuals defending states — fight for social justice or hierarchical meritocracy, internationalism or nationalism, our focus is never on the fundamental problem: our own self. We obsess — and desperately want others to obsess — over a hunted and fabricated purpose; our purpose must then become another’s. This is what is meant by the “end of history,” a theocratic world-state, or a regional hegemony: all is pursuit of material dominion, a seeking of some new exceptionalism. None of it, not for one second, takes a reflective look at the self seeking the imposition of its professed purpose.
Before the advent of dreaded “authoritarianism,” what divine utopia did we experience? Foreign Affairs, along with so many in the leftist media, would presumably have us believe it was something of an exceptionalistic paradise. Are we to believe them because of their awful inability to see their own authoritarian character? As we speak — now that “things have changed” — China instructs students on how to be more “masculine”; Russia does the same; the United States seems to be joining the fray with its nascent fight against all things “woke” and weak. No doubt many less powerful states and masses of wandering souls will follow their example. It’s a good thing to appreciate Nature and her almost infinite beauty and severity; it’s a good thing to recognize and respect Nature’s tenets; it’s a good thing to attempt to quell the depraved and unnatural.5 But to what end? Do we take such positive steps forward only to regress to a point of “ending history” from just another fiendish perspective? Sadly, the answer is — and always will be — yes. The reason for this is man’s complete misapprehension of his identity and actual purpose: He exists purely for what follows; this means he exists so that he will not. In pursuing what he imagines is a real and satisfying “end” (outwardly, materially), man finally ends his own story (inwardly, spiritually) — this, because he cannot help but think that one side dominating the other always was the purpose.
Read J. R. Sommer’s The New Colossus: Heidegger and the Will-to-Machine, brought to you by Arktos:
J. R. Sommer, The New Colossus: Heidegger and the Will-to-Machine (Arktos, 2025), Part I, §6 and §12.
See this amusing article arguing for the continuation of the “international order”: Ian Bremmer, “Welcome to a World Defined by Polarization, Instability, and Disruption” (February 2025), Carnegie.
Sommer, The New Colossus, Part II, §6.
Ibid., Part I, §14.
“...depraved and unnatural” — While detailed in my books, suffice it to say here that we mean that which increases suffering and/or impedes the inward turn.
What the hell is “beyng”?
Very well put sir