Why Liberalism Is Just Passive-Aggressive Totalitarianism

This article first posted to ROK on 6-3-16

 

I wanted to respond to some ideas that came up regarding last week’s article—specifically, some men chafed at the idea that an hierarchical, aristocratic state that emphasized virtue, was not sufficiently deferent to the special nature of their snowflakery (I tease, fellas), and would threaten to trample upon their rights.  This is a common idea, even amongst people who think they have rejected egalitarianism; they admit not all men are equal, but they are very keen to say “don’t inflict your morals on me,” thinking their morals are just as equal (maybe even more equal!) than others’.  Today we will look at why this, too, is one more impossible vision from the Liberal House of Mirrors.

The Essence of Liberalism

Let me first state that any philosophy allowing for rights in abstraction from the norms of objective morality, is Liberal—and this includes almost all of what calls itself “Conservatism” in the Anglosphere (and, increasingly, beyond).  At the heart of Liberalism, aka Modernism (in the technical terms used by Catholics such as myself), is the incoherent and irrational endowing of error with rights, often consequent to an incorrect valuation and application of the good of tolerance.

The first manifestation of this new philosophy in the West was Protestantism, which as Don Felix Sarda y Salvany said, “begets by nature tolerance of error.”  I do not say this to be offensive, but descriptive; it was the first manifestation of the feeling that men are entitled to their own opinions on ultimate questions, and ought to be “free” to act in accord with their conscience on these opinions—and that, therefore, authority must yield more or less to individuals’ rights of conscience.

freedom-of-conscience-freedom-of-religion-1-638

One can see that there is essentially no difference between this and the maxim of Justice Kennedy, which he penned to uphold worthless whores’ rights to murder their children without so much as notifying their husbands, the fathers: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”  I spit upon such damned nonsense; this is literally a carte blanche to do whatever the hell you want.  The story of Western Civilization from about 1500 A.D. to the present, is the story of how this absurd idea has played out in successive waves of incoherence and irrationality.

The only limit on this “right to define one’s own concept of existence” is the flimsy protestation that “your rights end where mine begin,” or, put otherwise: “don’t inflict your morality on me!”  This sounds good to the person who has not analyzed it critically, but in fact it is a complete impossibility.  We all live together in society.  Any viewthat one enshrines as the societal ideal is automatically and inevitably going to inflict itself upon everybody in that society, and will frustrate or contradict their own “concept of existence,” to some extent.

Indeed, it is a wildly tyrannical idea, because it is tantamount to saying thateveryone who does not consider their concept of existence to be totally private, relative and arbitrary, has no right to implement their views in society.  Yes, as we see, even Libertarianism advances this radically hegemonic principle, squelching all opinions and beliefs that reject the relativistic premise.  For, even to advocate that one should not inflict his moral views on someone else, is already an attempt to inflict one’s moral views on someone else!  And in the absence of an objective norm of morality, there is really nothing stopping the Supreme Court from interpreting the Constitution to mean that your right not to bake cakes for sodomites, ends where a sodomite’s right to demand cakes of you begins.  That this is even an issue, is proof of the absurdity of our system.

off my body

What is Truly Right, is Inevitably Annihilated by Pseudo-Rights

I, for example, believe that there are objective principles of morality, and a moral and rational role for the state; I believe it is absolutely right and just and salutary for society to be run on these principles, and that this means making definite judgments upon certain ideas and behaviors, “inflicting” this system upon everybody.  I also believe that I am morally obliged to prefer this system of governance, and to reject a Liberal one.

The Liberal, Libertarian or “Conservative” will recoil in horror; but, they are reacting to the mere candor of my position.  The fact, is that their viewpoints also require me to shut up, forsake my dearest religious and moral principles, and submit to a society organized along their preferred principles, which I know to be not only immoral, but also impossible and irrational.

When members of society install a form of specious relativism as their governing principle, they are inflicting their moral view upon me. They limit the scope of my social and moral action; they compel my submission to what they accomplish via their appeal to the mob; they shackle me to the moral drift and societal decline of a state piloted by the demagogued masses. They are denying my moral view that a just, rational and even divine social order should reign over society, and that, far from according “power to the people,”

I should hold the uninformed dissent of infidels and fools in contempt, regarding this latter as the infallible source of civilizational decadence. If they succeed in preventing me from implementing my moral vision and living in the society I would form for myself and others, they have succeeded in inflicting their moral vision upon me. They have nullified my moral and social aspirations. They have compelled me to live in a State where a chimerical relativism bulldozes my sublimer views without scruple.

An House Divided

lgbtworkplace gay religious

This conflict splits Liberalism down the middle: on the one hand, you have neo-Liberals claiming that people have a right to goods and services such as healthcare, because you can’t exercise your other “rights” or really be “free,” unless the government gives you a house, food, health care and Wi-Fi. They still pay lip service to the “your rights end where mine begin” view, but it’s obvious they now believe that anything that may be necessary to guarantee the more important rights, can plausibly be asserted as something to which one is entitled.

On the other hand, the sorry few who still cling to Classical Liberalism (Libertarians, some “Conservatives”), are futilely trying to keep the barque of negative rights afloat. They will say, for instance, that you don’t have a right to free health care, because this would mean you have a right to compel others to provide you with a service. They take this as a general principle – you don’t have a right to make other people provide you with the substance of your rights; your rights end where the rights of others begin—“don’t inflict your morality on me!”—but, unlike neo-Liberals, Classical Liberals “really mean it.”

The Only Sane Solution

But I answer that this principle is also incorrect. I believe in the right to due process, for example, and this requires that the State provide competent law enforcement, a judiciary, equitable processes for jury selection and compensation, etc., etc. I believe that the King(/State) has a duty to provide just laws and to govern justly. It is NOT a universal rule that I have no right to receive provision of goods or services from the State; the reason I am not entitled to free health care, is because it does not belong to the State to provide my health care, and it is not right for me to force others to do so, either.  The lesson to be drawn, is that real justice cannot exist in an (impossible) neutrality or compromise between “equal yet opposite,” mutually valid yet contradictory worldviews.

Rather than pretend that “neutrality” is actually neutral, the state’s governance and justice must be rooted in what is Right, and in that alone.  You may object: “but who determines what that is?”  We’ll explore this in future, but for now, suffice it to say that the objection solves nothing: even to determine that we must not determine this, is to determine it.

NewtonTruong

The Non-Aggression Principle, or Declining to Initiate Force, makes sense only if infractions against objective norms of morality are understood to be initiations of force. Without a unified acknowledgment of said norms, the government can easily justify its protection of any kind of outrage, and its persecution of any kind of necessary intervention or prohibition. The “family” in this picture, above, was celebrated for pioneering gay “rights;” then they pimped their adopted son out to a global pedophilia ring. This was one step too far… for now. Tomorrow, when society recognizes the “right” of children to consent to sex – they already “consent” to sex change operations, no? – the police who arrested these men will be unjust aggressors, and the “family” will be persecuted for having “their own concept of existence.”

That’s the heart of all this. Since we no longer believe that the only basis of rights is objective uprightness, and since we no longer orient our society towards this (allowing the masses, instead, to simply assert their whimsies as “rights”), and since we have founded a society based on the irrational attempt to accord rights to this tangled abyss of error, we are doomed to pretend that we are not inflicting ourselves on each other, despite the fact that any set of social norms—even the norm of pretending to reject norms—inevitably inflicts itself upon everyone.  Unless we repent, this already bitter crisis will keep playing out to the bitter, bitter, bitterest end.

I used to think people would wake up. Yet most still seem oblivious to the manifest inevitability of “inflicting a view,” despite the steadily escalating clash of moral inflictions in the name of forbidding moral inflictions over five centuries.  This has now entered a critical stage, because, having moved on from disagreement about less obvious points like the Trinity and Papal Primacy, sane people are now being asked to acquiesce even to palpably absurd ideas: collusion in sodomy = holy matrimony; Bruce Jenner = woman; up = down; square = circle.

The only thing for it, is to stop worrying about inflicting “a” view, and to start worrying about inflicting the right one.  Until men with just convictions no longer fear to take up the sword of a righteous authority, and to smite those who demand the right to dissent from justice and just authority, the West will continue to tear itself apart with a specious and manifestly prevaricating, passive-aggressive, intolerant “tolerance.”

ChristtheKing-672x372

God save you, men.

Advertisements

8 Comments Add yours

  1. running287 says:

    Since you told me to ‘shut up’ and then blocked me so that I couldn’t respond like the coward that you are, I’ll respond here.

    “And, in addition to that being impossible, incoherent and contradictory, it’s also not *your* place, nor can you know that your agnosticism is right. So, to be consistent, you should simply shut up and have no opinion.”

    Actually, we can’t know if ANY belief system is right, which is why you need to learn humility and concede that, objectively speaking, you cannot be certain of what you believe.

    “I understand that’s YOUR opinion, but plenty of others honestly disagree.”

    Right, which is why I, unlike you, support the right to disagree in peace without involving the [expletive deleted] government.

    I understand what you’re trying to do here: you’re trying to use my own debate tactics against me because you saw how effective they were.

    It’s not going to work, because those tactics are only coherent when arguing for freedom to disagree. YOU are the one saying all religions other than Catholicism should be banned, so don’t you try to pull a fast one and try to tell me that I’m imposing anything on you, as I’m not. I want you to be able to practice your silly religion just like anyone should be able to. Got that, you little snake?

    Good.

    Like

    1. aureliusmoner says:

      A few things:

      1) I do not regularly administer this blog; that is done by a friend of mine, who is out of town this week. I’ve only just gotten around to checking in on the blog, and am responding to your comment now, as I am first seeing it. Normally I would not respond to a comment like this on my own forum, because it is profane and uncivil (the other comments you made will not be approved for the same reasons); but I would hate for you to be vindicated in your belief that I have ignored your “rebuttal” because I am secretly aware of how right you are.

      2) I have never blocked you, here or at ROK. Perhaps another mod took some sort of action against you, if your tone was anything like it is here, but I did not.

      3) As to what you assert:

      “Actually, we can’t know if ANY belief system is right, which is why you need to learn humility and concede that, objectively speaking, you cannot be certain of what you believe.”

      I disagree; I believe there are numerous truths of reason, which the mind can know certainly. I would suggest reading many of the great manuals of Scholastic Philosophy and Theology that deal with the question. But in any case, your argument refutes itself; it is for this reason that I use your own argument’s tactics against you – not because I was awed by your tactics (!), but because your argument discredits itself. If we cannot know that ANY belief system is right, then: a) How do you know that? Are you sure it’s right? b) Even granting your incoherent premise, should we not then rather say that we have “no opinion” on what should be allowed in society, rather than saying that we therefore ought “not to impose” our views? For “ought” assumes that we do know some moral truths for certain; and if we really don’t know, then we must regard “imposing” and “not imposing” indifferently.

      And that is the point. You say that “those tactics are only coherent when arguing for freedom to disagree.” But in fact they are not coherent at all. “Freedom to disagree” is not really contained in that viewpoint, because it is being applied to first principles and not merely to contingent matters of prudential judgment; therefore, that viewpoint insists that all must agree on that people are free to disagree, period. Because the view is incoherent and stupid, even those who claim to believe it, don’t; rather, like sheep, they simply tolerate whatever is currently tolerable and don’t tolerate whatever is currently intolerable, while patting themselves on the back for being “tolerant,” but only in the right ways. Those who disagree that there is any inherent virtue (or rationality) in letting people disagree, so as to chase their bliss unhindered in any way they see fit, will be viciously abused and opposed by the mob of bien-pensant imbeciles, if their disagreement lies outside the socially acceptable bounds, and applauded or tolerated by the same if their disagreement remains within socially acceptable bounds. So, people who disagreed with faggotry were saintly 50 years ago, even though “agree to disagree” was already official doctrine, but finally became evil disagreement-monsters recently; for now, people who disagree with pedophilia are still pretty good people, even though theoretically they should “agree to disagree;” shortly, I’m sure, they will mutate into evil disagreement-monsters themselves; etc. As proof that even you don’t believe yourself, just as soon as I act on my disagreement with your principle of disagreement, on any issue beyond the pale, you will be ready to use the State or some other force to oppose me – not on the grounds that you simply dislike what I’m doing, but on the grounds that you think I should not be doing it, because we can’t really know what belief system is true, and therefore we should not have opinions on what people should or should not be allowed to do. The bitter irony, lamentably, will still be over your head.

      To assert that we must or must not, should or should not do something, is already to impose a view. The fact that you are imposing “not imposing,” does not make your view coherent; quite the opposite, it points out the deep pitch of confusion people have fallen into in our days, for, not only does it impose something in the name of not imposing, it even asserts a moral obligation to do so, despite disavowing the logical prerequisite of “should” and “ought” (i.e., the possibility of any certain knowledge of moral truth) in the first place.

      Feel free to reply, and even strongly to disagree; but know that only civil comments devoid of serious profanity will be approved.

      Like

  2. running287 says:

    If you didn’t ban me, then I say all well and good. For now, I’ll trust that you’re not lying.

    “a) How do you know that? Are you sure it’s right? b) Even granting your incoherent premise, should we not then rather say that we have “no opinion” on what should be allowed in society, rather than saying that we therefore ought “not to impose” our views? For “ought” assumes that we do know some moral truths for certain; and if we really don’t know, then we must regard “imposing” and “not imposing” indifferently.”

    I see what you’re trying to do here, as I’ve done this to leftists many times myself. Your counterarguments only work when I say something like “There is no absolute truth”. But I didn’t say that. What I DID say is that we cannot know what religion (that’s the ‘belief system’ to which I was referring; I should not have had to spell it out for you) is the correct one. And we CAN know that because we know that no Deity has come down and spoken to any of us about it. Or, if He has, we have no way of knowing for sure since we weren’t there. My premise is in no way self-contradictory; you simply want it to be so that you can try and be cute with your attempts at using my tactics against me.

    God didn’t come down and tell you that Catholicism is the correct religion. You’re taking other people’s word for it. Therefore, you cannot know that Catholicism is correct (this is the rub, by the way). If you think otherwise, then you simply don’t understand the definition of the word ‘know.’ If you didn’t grasp it with any of your five senses, then you don’t know. You only have reason to believe. That’s it. That’s all.

    And that, Moner, is not justification for revoking the 1st Amendment.

    The rest of your post has to do with you not being allowed to revoke others’ freedom, so I’ll address it as one block: the fact that society does not allow you to revoke other’s freedom does not mean that it is tyrannizing you.

    The irony is that you wish to do the very thing that you think (incorrectly) is being done to you: you wish to strip others of their freedom. Yet the whole of notion of freedom hinges on no one individual being able to take away freedom from others.

    So, yes, you’re being hindered, but only from taking away others’ freedom. That’s not tyranny. Just the opposite in fact. The fact that you can’t seem to understand that is mind-boggling.

    Like

    1. I let this comment go through but be aware that this is the last one that will.

      From this point forward, you may consider yourself banned.

      There are two reasons for this.

      The first has to do with the ridiculously unnecessary series of comments you left on this site previously which never saw the light of day. You’re behavior was childish, at best, and something which I won’t bother repeating, at worst. Frankly, I can’t be bothered to wade through a torrent of invective to let you have a ‘feel good’ while you pound away on the keyboard. And while your last comment was, at least, somewhat polite your obvious penchant for reducing thought to a string of four letter words precludes you from being allowed to participate in discussions here.

      Which brings me to the second point. This blog is not, as you seem to think, a place for free and open discussion. Those exist elsewhere on the internet. The purpose of this blog is to serve as an aid for Catholic men to deepen their understanding of sound practice and to serve as a sounding board for them to ask clarifying questions concerning that which they already hold to be true. If you are in the mood to argue religion in general, I’m sure a quick Google search will yield uncommon fruit for you to sample. If not, then there is always Return of Kings, which is how I assume you found your way here in the first place.

      I am writing this comment both as a common courtesy to you and also as a help to others who have inquired as to commenting guidelines, in the past. Neither polemic nor blasphemy will be tolerated. In the future, any comments that inquire as to the validity of religion in general will be moderated out and the gentleman who made the comment will receive an email from me encouraging them to contact us directly so that we may give their question the attention it deserves.

      As for you, Mr. Edwards, I wish you the best and encourage you to continue in your studies. You seem to me a young man, with the whole world open before you. I encourage you to get out in it and not be bound to the computer, as so many young men of today are. Yes, the world may be crumbling around us but that is all the more reason to go and see the things which are today and tomorrow will be no more; to appreciate what God has given us while it is still there to be appreciated.

      May God’s will guide you and His mercy shelter you in times of tribulation.

      Regards,

      The AdminVolunteer

      Like

    2. aureliusmoner says:

      I’m sorry to say that you are still not grasping even the fundamental concepts, here. As I’ve pointed out before, this is why including the average person in the discussion on how to organize and run a civilization, is a bad idea; many people lack either the intellect or discipline (or both) to understand a carefully reasoned argument, and how to arrive at, or how to apply, first principles. For example, you keep thinking that I’m “using your tactics,” when in fact my adoption of your arguments is a direct mockery of their incoherence. It would be funny, if it weren’t so sad, that you fail to understand this. My arguments – the arguments that actually advance my viewpoint – do not at all depend on an appeal to agnosticism or uncertainty, as yours do. I use your tactics to demonstrate the absurdity of your views, not to advance the views I actually hold.

      I have faith that Catholicism is true; I’m not saying I “know” Catholicism is true in the same sense that I know 2 and 2 are 4. Supernatural Faith is actually on an higher order than our innate knowledge of natural truths, so I am content with this.

      I have nowhere asserted an intent to impose Catholicism on people; the Catholic Faith forbids compulsory conversions as being worthless in any case. But we can know many truths of reason and nature with certainty; these, I would indeed impose on people.

      Liberty has a context; if we are certain that Liberty is a good, we are asserting that we know at least some moral truths for certain (i.e., the moral truths that tell us Liberty is good). The claim that we cannot know any moral truths for certain, would therefore destroy any substantive argument for Liberty’s goodness. That is the crux of the matter, and I pity you your inability to understand so simple a thought. I understand that this thought doesn’t occur to most people in our brainwashed environment. But I am always amazed at the resilience some people show in remaining obtuse to it after it is plainly and succinctly exposited. I assume this is because most people no longer read for understanding, but always read with a mere disposition to respond to emotional provocations in the content.

      Anyway, it is because we may indeed know some moral truths for certain, that we can value and appreciate Liberty. We may also, for the same reason, distinguish between authentic Liberty, and mere license. I do not presently have any legitimate authority over anyone; but the legitimate authority in society absolutely does have the right – nay, the obligation – to oppose mere license, and even, sometimes, to restrict legitimate liberties within the bounds of Truth and reason in various matters of prudential judgment, for the sake of the commonwealth. The fact that people have become too degraded in their intellect and morals to grasp this, is itself the reason for our paralysis in the face of Leftism. You do not even understand that your view is itself the dark heart of the Leftist revolution – it is truly, radically and revolutionarily leftist by all historical standards – and that is why leftism continues to prevail; even the “right-wingers” are left-wingers, nowadays.

      Like

  3. goldrushapple says:

    I just want to chime in and say excellent site. Can I add you to my blogroll?

    Like

    1. aureliusmoner says:

      Thank you very much. Please feel free to add us to your blogroll!

      Like

      1. goldrushapple says:

        Thank you!

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s