Can you explain in layman's terms what this part of the article is trying to convey? What is Oordism? What is Neoordism? What does "" mean? Answer must be 4-16 sentences. Answer must use real word politics as reference. Answer must be written in layman's terms. Answer must be idiot proof. Do not question what Dynamism is, that is a separate issue.

"As the 22nd century marches on the eternal tangle between Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism continues, with this time, perhaps much to the surprise of the past, Constructivism finally on top. While in many ways this was a result of the growth of identity politics, the return of nationalism, and the Chinese Dynamist experiment of the 21st century, it is in just as many ways because, for the most part, liberalism and realism have reached an accord.

The world of Neoliberalism, of worship of markets and capital and the rejection of state power and force politics, is gone. In its wake Liberalism and Realism have merged into (or at least embraced and spawned) two philosophies which dominate the background of the world, Ordism and Neoordism.

Ordism came as a reexamination of the older German Ordoliberals and the Freiberg school of economics as a way to fight neoliberalism without collapsing the world economy by way of revolution. Ordism promoted the development of a social market with government and regional oversight of corporations, but did so by turning the state into a shareholder. The idea was an armed truce between the private and public markets. The public market would maintain rule of law, stable currencies, infrastructure, and enforce corporate needs through military and diplomatic force, and in return the state would be a shareholder and board-member of every company in its territory. This effectively blurred the line between governments and corporations on the global scale, in that a grouping of corporations could now openly petition individual countries to defend their interests like traditional alliances (or in some cases establish political parties) while at the same time a coalition of nations could pool their shares and positions and direct corporate policies on a global scale. In the final stroke, blurring the lines between States and Corporations forever, Ordism held that Corporations could, to a limited extent, act with extraterritoriality and own enclaves, though as subdivisions of the state they are in.

Suddenly Realpolitik, Force Politics, Free Markets, and Capital became one and the same.

Neoordism, like all positions with "post" or "neo" or "meta" in the name came a generation later as a response to its ancestor. Neoordism, formed largely by the descendants of climate refugees and "third culture" individuals without any nationality, rejected the inherent premise of Ordism that states had to have clear territories. Neoordism as such adopted the standard message of blurring the line between Private and Public inherent to Ordism but adopted with it the idea that a state could have extraterritoriality in other states and establish enclaves like a Corporation. Essentially a state was simply anywhere that a majority of people accepted its sovereignty and as such that "Sovereign Majority" had the rights to sharehold into corporations and act in the ways that a state could, seizing infrastructure, collecting taxes, accruing arms, even inside the territory of another state. This was not the only split between Ordism and Neoordism however. Neoordism adopted the idea that because a state could be divided by allegiance rather than by continuous territory it could also act in effect as a corporation and establish state corporations of its own. In the inverse a corporation could establish territory of its own, no longer as a subdivision subservient to a state, if the Sovereign Majority of the area accepted it.

Within Neoordism there are two wings. The Capital Neoordists and Social Neoordists. The Capitals argue that because the principle concern of Ordism is protecting the market and rule of law the power of extraterritoriality and Sovereign Majorities should only extend to states and corporations. The Socials on the other hand believe that these rights extend to any philosophy held by a Sovereign Majority, and so NGOs and Religious organizations should have the rights to act as states or corporations and have enclaves.

Imperfect though it may be this system of Oordism and Neoordism has maintained relative peace and prosperity between peoples, though admittedly as the world still works to emerge out of the dark days of millions of climate refugees, collapsing states and economies on the scale of continents, and nationalist purges and pogroms, the people of the 22nd century are perhaps more flexible on the definitions of peace and prosperity than we are. For instance Freedom House has not existed for 80 years and nobody is keen on bringing it back.

With the long crisis over and an accord between the once bitter forces of Realism and Liberalism leaving them at peace, or at least resting for now, Constructivism has reared its head to dominate the foreground of politics and philosophy world wide. In a world where the day to day is dominated by questions of nationalism, identity, globalism, and culture, every major political philosophy addresses it and as a result the political compass has reformed with very different axes."