The ceaseless rush of everything leftwards, meaning towards an egalitarian levelling down (with, naturally, a presiding elite) cannot be resisted though it should not be accepted on that account. Nonetheless, though reactions will spring up, these will sooner or later be swept aside because they do not have sufficient sustaining power in a world that has turned its back on spirit. It's all about first principles, and the assumption of practically everyone today is that all human beings are basically equal in all circumstances. This, which is a materialistic view, has never been thought by any previous society. For Christians, everyone was equal or potentially equal in Christ but not as far as this world was concerned. That way lies the inevitable descent to the lowest common denominator. Then there is the idea that everyone is equally subject to the law, but that again was not regarded as extending to every aspect of society, seeing no difference between king and commoner as king and commoner. It was just that the law stood over everybody, and that was because the law was rooted in God.
But today notions of higher and lower have been largely abandoned, and this destructuring of structure and dismantling of order has left a world in which competing groups all struggle for power, paying lip service to the idea of a common humanity but really seeking advantage for their own little tribe. The end result will certainly be conflict unless that is offset by some form of political totalitarianism in which hard won freedoms are lost, bartered away in exchange for supposed security and stability.
I was unwillingly drawn into an argument with an enthusiastic feminist the other day. (Unwillingly because there was nothing to be gained). She took her feminism as a self-evident truth. She believed everyone had been oppressed by white males until recently who had lorded it over the rest of creation, subduing it to their dominating will. She asked me why I thought men and women should not be treated as completely equal, and when I responded that framing the question in that way put the matter as how the two sexes should stand to each other on a false footing, was unable to comprehend what I meant. I said that the real point was that feminism degraded the feminine by turning women into ersatz men, thereby destroying a harmony that relied on complementary opposites working together to their mutual benefit, and she countered that men had always exploited and controlled women. She insisted on casting the whole question in terms of power as leftists invariably do, and accused me of wanting to return to a past in which men held all the power, and women just had to go along with that. I said that those who were against modern feminism did not regard the past as a perfect example of how things should be, but that the cure lay in reform rather than revolution which is what has actually taken place. Rather than thinking in terms of power, we should be thinking in terms of love, support and respect, all things feminism erodes because of its unremitting focus on power.
I mention this conversation because what it demonstrates is that if the right meets the left on its own ground, allowing it to frame the parameters of the debate according to its own terms as it has done for so long, it will lose all the arguments. What it must do is set up new territories, and these must be rooted in the spiritual order as traditionally understood, though adapted to the modern sensibility with its increase of personal agency. For instance, if asked, as in the example above, whether men and women are equal, one could reply that this is a meaningless question. In one sense, of course they are equal. In another, they are different and meant to be. The differences may have been exaggerated in the past but that is no reason to deny or minimise them now. Working with the differences properly creates harmony but feminism, in the same way as does its alter ego, male chauvinism, simply brings about discord.
Because leftists are ideologues, often dogmatic ideologues, they try to force reality into their theories of how it should be. This never works. Instead, we must see what human beings actually are and build from that. But what human beings actually are must include the spiritual dimension because that is part of what they are. In fact, it is the essential part of what they are even in this world, and if it is denied no political system will ever work. Ideologies arise when people lose touch with their instincts and fail to develop intuition. They are the mark of the ignorant intelligent which is why they are so prevalent in our day. They always lead to separation from reality because they arise from the separated mind, that is to say, from self-enclosed thought divorced from God.
We see in the contemporary world all the inbuilt flaws of liberal democracy coming home to roost. It is said that any system is only as good as the people participating in it which is true enough but some are still better than others, and democracy clearly had many benefits. Now, though, it appears to have reached some kind of end game as its flaws become more pronounced and take over the whole system. Democracies generally start off as limited in their extent but, by their very nature, soon move into universal suffrage as equality is taken to mean what it says. But universal suffrage, attractive as it may sound to the superficial thinker, inevitably leads to the triumph of quantity over quality. The less able are given the same rights as the more able, and from then on collapse is only a matter of time. Whether that be into tyranny, as Plato thought as people turn to a perceived strong man to maintain order, or some form of societal breakdown remains to be seen. The fact is that what we call leftism, a materialistic liberal egalitarianism, will always end in the destruction of the good, the beautiful and the true. It is part of anti-creation, the reversion of matter to its raw form, a sin against the Logos.
Nicolai Berdyaev sums it up in a quote I have mentioned before on this blog, "The demand for a forced levelling, which comes out of the lower levels of chaotic darkness, is an attempt to destroy the hierarchic cosmic order which was formed by the creative birth of light in darkness, an attempt to destroy human personality itself." Believe it or not, this is the real motivation behind what manifests in this world as the Left, and which is doing so particularly forcefully now.
10 comments:
It's so terrible, this anti-white male stuff. I wonder if the white man is reaping what he sowed in the Sexual Revolution. All the broken hearts, abandonments, and betrayals from all that fornication and adultery coming home to roost in this horrible wave of resentment and malice, this horrible ideology. And moreover, the pathetic weakness of modern men earns us the contempt of our women. Much is forgiven of a strong man, but the weak are held in contempt.
The biggest shock in history is that the ostensibly soft and cuddly religion of Christianity was actually the root of the Western man's strength. Without God, he has no erection, no spine, no potency.
Ironically, white women in centuries past liked, loved, and respected white men far more than now, probably because it was unthinkable back then for men and women to use each-other like disposable trash. Daddies looked out for their girls. And men back then were stronger, more potent, full of honor, more likable. It doesn't have to be like this.
A very good piece William. Yes - to meet the left on their own ground is an insufferable position to be placed in.
I encountered this phenomenon when I used to debate leftists on the Guardian. No matter the quality of my post, someone with an inane avatar would post a dull-witted response and get showered with praise. It is almost as if they have some anti-philosophers stone which turns gold back to base metal.
But I do feel sorry for them. The post-death consequences of living such an anti-spiritual life are manifold - not least their descent to a twilight world of wraiths who live without the basic spiritual knowledge to even realise that they are dead.
It's being possessed by an idea - some truths pertinent in aspects of certain relationships and situations are taken out of realiy and given a seperate existence as a mental,abstraction. And then this becomes an ideology - a forced model into which everything is supposed to comply, without regard to whether it is fit or meet to do so.
And I think 'possession' is appropriate - these ideological whether as agglomerates of the passions and delusions that activate them or by some other means seem to usurp the agency of the people who are in their grip.
It is exactly like the religious mania (of a false or malign spiritual basis) that materialism sees everywhere but in itself.
You're right about not entering discussion within their set perameters - they live and think within their model, where their mis-equivalences replace the reality of the world's landscape and a painted tarpaulin is hung against the sky; and to step inside their way of thinking is, with whatever good intentions, the same as stepping inside a lie to persuade it of its error.
It runs right through their conceptual framework, so can't be argued against if the same concepts are adopted (even just temporarily, 'for the sake of argument').
(4th line - 'ideologies', not ideological)
Owen, I expect there is an element of reaping what has been sown both with regard to the sexual revolution, democracy and colonialism, but the main thing is the rejection of God. Once that has gone all subordinate hierarchies begin to go too.
Moonsphere, yes, the people you describe are like dead souls who celebrate their own deadness. I like your anti-philosopher's stone image. At least, I don't like it but it is appropriate.
Anon, they do live within a particular model as we all do to a degree. But theirs is founded on rejection of reality. And you're right that there is possession going on. Modern possession is more on the mental level than the psychic one as it was in Biblical days. But it is possession by demons all the same.
"What it must do is set up new territories, and these must be rooted in the spiritual order as traditionally understood, though adapted to the modern sensibility with its increase of personal agency."-
The spiritual order as it was traditionally understood is the Great Chain of Being. Its roots are in Plato and Augustine and it says, in brief, that the hierarchical structure of the world (and human society) is an expression of the Divine nature, which spans all the forms from the Seraphim to a clod of dirt. All are equal in that that are Divinely willed and have their being from God; all are different in that they express a particular degree of perfection that finds in provenance and terminus in God. Inequality, then, is not an injustice, but a harmony. What is discordant is an opposition to the Divine order and the rather stupid idea that justice means sameness in every respect. This is also self-contradictory, because absolute equality would eliminate the relationship among different individualities through which justice can only be realized. The hierarchical order is not only evident in physical creation and human society, but in the intellectual realm, where self-evident truths are innate and superior to the reasoned truths worked out by logic, most of which have a downward trajectory toward the physical world. But logic, lacking the proper premises in self-evident truths, can only reach false conclusions. When one starts with equality as uniformity, the logic will lead to a vilification of all differences and an attempt, inevitably violent, to eradicate them: liberte, fraternite, egalite by means of the guillotine. This seems to be our current direction.
I might add to the comments on the Great Chain of Being that although we express the Divine nature this expression does not eliminate our free agency and reduce us to an amorphous blob of Godhead or consciousness. Free will makes us individuals and the extent to which we exercise it, determines how close we come to God.
edwin, you say "self-evident truths are innate and superior to the reasoned truths worked out by logic, most of which have a downward trajectory toward the physical world. But logic, lacking the proper premises in self-evident truths, can only reach false conclusions." I come across this time and time again amongst clever people who lack any sort of intuitive understanding. An inability to comprehend self-evident truths leading to their replacement with ideas and theories built up out of a mind marooned in materialism
I think we should say equally in Christ, not equal in Christ. St. Paul was already combatting the communist construction of Christian doctrine, and I don't suppose it will ever go away. I'm not sure I altogether like the implications of equally in Christ, since it seems to me obvious that some Christians are more advanced than others, but I think the doctrine of equally in Christ served the good purpose of preventing division of the Church into first and second class Christians. In the historical setting, I believe it primarily served to prevent one set of rules for Jewish Christians, and another set of rules for gentile Christians. This of course leaves the problem of deciding who is, in fact, "in Christ," which the egalitarian ethos answers by saying "anyone who says they are."
I am far from the first person to say it, but I think leftism is rooted in an underdeveloped ego. It has occasionally been driven by outrage over true injustice, but the real engine of leftism is a psyche that feels humiliated by superiority. I first learned this when I ran track and cross country in high school and college. Some boys admired the best runners on the team, whereas others were envious. The boys who admired the best runners were proud to be associated with them, the boys who felt envy were humiliated. Envy was expressed in snide gossip that was intended to discredit the best runner--often by saying he was conceited. I'm sure you've seen the same sort of dynamic. In any case, my point is that a healthy ego dose not feel "small" in the presence of a man with a big house, or a big reputation, or a big vocabulary. It just feels grateful to live in a world that has such wonders in it.
Yes, you have correctly pointed out a flaw in the way I expressed myself. In my defence I did add potentially equal but the very word equal gives a false impression. I am very much a believer in gradations of everything including sanctity and it should be obvious that even if all sincere Christians are saved, some are closer to God than others. This just shows how hard it is to escape the polluting effects of leftist thought even when you reject the thing itself.
Leftism is rooted in resentment. This is seen time after time. Of course, an irreligious right can become greedy and selfish but as Dr Johnson said "the first Whig was the Devil."
Post a Comment