Belief in equal rights as a state of grace

November 8, 2012 § 14 Comments

Bruce Charlton is somewhat of a kindred spirit of mine when it comes to voting.  In fact he takes his criticism further than I do: he repudiates voting as a stupid and even demonic decision procedure tout court, at any scale and in any context.  So there are bus stops even further down the line than I go.

Below a post on why the political Left feels no qualms about engaging in voter fraud (well worth reading in its own right), I commented as follows (edited and expanded):

The Left recognizes that the process of voting is meaningless – what matters is getting the ‘correct’ answer. 

I don’t think that fully captures the relationship between the Left and voting. The Left cares deeply about equal rights. Indeed it cares about little else. All the “social justice”, all the looking out for the little guy against The Man, all the disquietingly clinical “compassion” is fundamentally, for liberals, about rectifying inequalities.  “Equal rights” is justice to the liberal mindset, despite the fact that it reduces the incommensurable value of human beings to utilitarian calculation, setting itself against nature and nature’s God.  Universal suffrage voting is the sin qua non of equal rights, the liturgy in which each autonomous individual expresses precisely, quantitatively equal political power.  It is the Black Mass in which all of the autonomous Wills of self-created free and equal individual liberals are aggregated into one tremendous Will.

The problem is that humanity doesn’t always choose liberalism; therefore giving precisely equal political power to all of humanity does not in practice result in the undistilled liberalism that it “should”.

Liberalism solves this problem by dividing actual humanity into liberals and enemies of liberalism. But because actual enemies of liberalism cannot exist – if liberalism had enemies, that would imply that liberalism asserts the substantive moral superiority of one group over another, a violation of absolute equality – the enemies of liberalism are viewed as something less than human, as clinical impediments, as subhuman disease rather than human enemy: as the untermensch. In practice then liberalism becomes an expression of the wills of free and equal supermen, self-created through reason and will, emancipated from the chains of history, tradition, arbitrary (that is, non-willed) nature, and anything else that stands in the way of the emergence of the free and equal emancipated new man.

All forms of modernity share this human/subhuman division of humanity as a way of resolving the inherent dissonance: that in order for liberalism to be legitimate on its own terms everyone must equally want it and freely embrace it; but in fact, in the end, nobody really wants it. So those who overtly reject liberalism are Nazis: in one of history’s great ironies, the Nazi becomes the ultimate transcendent oppressor-untermensch, contrasted to liberalism’s free and equal new man.

Right wing racist sexist homophobic Nazis aren’t the only group that leftism dehumanizes, by any means.  Anyone who isn’t the emancipated new man – self created through reason and will, the autonomous demigod Chooser precisely equal to every other Chooser – ultimately stands in the way of liberalism, and must either be assimilated or destroyed.  Medical waste bins are filled with the hacked up body parts of other subhumans, while still others are slowly dehydrated to death, having lost their capacity to autonomously choose.  But political right wingers aren’t just subhuman.  They have chosen their subhumanity, chosen to reject and oppress the liberal vision of unfettered freedom and absolute non-judgmental equality for all: a transcendent affront and heresy.

I’ve discussed this dynamic in a number of places over the years; e.g. here (and in the comments there).

Anyway, to the extent the Left uses whatever tactics it has to in order to disenfranchise the illiberal untermensch it is justified (in the leftist’s view), because they are Nazis anyway and ideally shouldn’t be allowed to vote. The liberal sees someone who votes based on illiberal motives similarly to how the average conservative sees felons who vote, or even dead Chicagoans.

Non-liberals[*] haven’t fully accepted the liberal social contract, and so they are not in the proper state of grace to receive the Sacrament.

[*] In reality, nearly everyone in modern first world societies has some greater or lesser loyalty to political liberalism.   But much like the “fact” that everyone who believes in stricter rules of engagement than I do is a radical pacifist, everyone to the political right of me is a racist sexist homophobic Nazi.

§ 14 Responses to Belief in equal rights as a state of grace

  • vishmehr24 says:

    Charlton is generally unreasonable. Voting demonic?. And pray, where was voting invented?. In demon-haunted Assyria, or Phoenicia?
    Or in Athens, a cradle of West?.
    Where was voting revived?. Was it not in late-medieval monasteries and Parliaments ?
    GK Chesterton, likened voting is a very Christian thing, a humble thing to ask the unasked, the meek, who do not show themselves and ask them their opinion.

    “All forms of modernity share this human/subhuman division of humanity ”
    True, but not all modernity is Liberal. A lot of it is anti-liberal reaction.
    Nationalism, fascism, Nazism and Islamism are NOT liberal.

    As I have formulated, the liberal denies the political nature of man that entails the distinction between a neighbor and a stranger.

    “Equal and Universal Rights” are a consequence of this denial. The Progressive liberal erases the distinction by making everybody a neighbor. Thus the Universal State.

    The libertarian liberal erases the same distinction by making everyone a stranger.

  • I agree with you, in the post, that Charlton takes his criticism of voting as a decision-making procedure too far. In doing so I think he misses some critical distinctions that I’ve made here.

    On the other hand, he is right that a wise authority is always a better decision maker than voting, assuming that wise authority exists; and there are inherent problems with voting that should make people uncomfortable with its procedural use in general. So while I wouldn’t call it demonic, it isn’t an exaggeration to say that it is always suboptimal and has problems of which most people are unaware.

    GK Chesterton, likened voting is a very Christian thing, a humble thing to ask the unasked, the meek, who do not show themselves and ask them their opinion.

    People of Chesterton’s generation can probably be forgiven for failing to foresee where liberalism has led. We don’t have the exculpatory scenario of projection here: we have the full responsibility implied by hindsight.

    True, but not all modernity is Liberal. A lot of it is anti-liberal reaction.
    Nationalism, fascism, Nazism and Islamism are NOT liberal.

    I don’t see the point in splitting semantic hairs.

    Islam isn’t a form of modernity at all (I decline to use the idiotic euphemism “Islamism”); though it is possible that some of the roots of modernity lie in ancient Islam.

    I gather from reading Marx that Communism believes strongly in equal rights, but communists came to the realization that the classical liberal property regime was just perpetuating a de-facto class structure so it had to go. I gather from Mein Kampf and other sources that the Nazis believed strongly in absolutely equal rights among the Volk, but explicitly acknowledged that in reality there are (sub)humans who stand in the way of the emergence of the free and equal new man. So Naziism makes rights-based dehumanization and murder explicit, while liberalism has that feature while hiding it in euphemism. Hitler started out as a supporter of democracy but became anti-democratic because he saw that democracy doesn’t achieve absolutely equal rights and the triumph of the will. That’s what extreme conditions will do to the modern mind: liberalism is modernity fat, dumb, and happy; communism and naziism are modernity gripped in the vice of hard reality.

    So the big modern political movements are close cousins. Mass market democratic elections keep the murderous nature of liberalism hidden in plain sight by making sure that everyone is complicit in it.

  • Tom K. says:

    “Universal suffrage voting is the sin qua non of equal rights”


  • Ha!

    I’m glad somebody caught it. If I make them too obvious it takes the fun out of writing them.

  • […] going on, but that power struggle is not between men-qua-men and women-qua-women: it is between liberalism (the tree on which feminism is a branch) and reality.  Even more grandly, it is between Good and […]

  • […] Egalitarian modernity struggles with the difference between pity and contempt, because to be “in” society at all just is to be equal.   To egalitarian modernity anyone who isn’t an equal isn’t anyone at all.  He is worse than contemptible: he is subhuman. […]

  • […] liberalism is not directly to destroy whatever is good. It is to create a world where freedom and equal rights are made universal through political action. It is when this political ideology encounters reality […]

  • […] explained before that in order to make sense to themselves, liberal societies have to de-facto divide humanity into […]

  • […] and the left liberals (represented by the Democratic party).  Despite the apparent division, all respectable political opinion inside the Overton window is liberal […]

  • […] simultaneously an oppressive tyrant and less than human, the Low Man provides liberalism with a consistent self-understanding of its failures.  If it were not for the Low Man, the free and equal New Man would be living in peace and harmony […]

  • […] I think the errors with that should be obvious, but if I have learned one thing in my time here in the Men’s Sphere it’s this: Most people don’t know what they are talking about. Because of that, they don’t know what others are talking about. This impairment is much more foundational than definitions of Game (conversations of which irritate some people, and even I find tiresome), but it remains that I am trying to have a discussion with people who don’t know what the word spirit means. They don’t know what the Gospel actually is.[2] So when I tell them that Game tinkers with spirits and stands against the implications of the Gospel they don’t know what in the world I’m talking about. I strike them as a different species. Presumably, that means as a subhuman oppressor. […]

  • […] when the Nazis do that, we know that when they are asking for Jews they are asking if there are any üntermenschen present whom they should haul off to the camps; and it isn’t obvious that answering […]

  • […] its way toward peak incontinence, so I suppose it isn’t too surprising that our central civic liturgy encourages universal […]

  • […] What unifies liberals is commitment to liberalism: to the idea that the exercise of political authority is justified inasmuch as it pursues liberty, and (concomitantly) equality of rights among the liberated. […]

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Belief in equal rights as a state of grace at Zippy Catholic.