In the land of lies, every day is opposite day
December 21, 2015 § 45 Comments
Lies typically get their purchase by imitating truth, and then ultimately asserting the opposite of what is imitated. We end up with a language filled with words that appeal to our sensibilities by pretending to mean the opposite of what they actually mean in practice.
Political liberty crushes subsidiarity beneath a monolithic bureaucratic authority which rules while pretending not to rule: which makes sure, good and hard, that nobody is allowed to tell anyone else what to do. Political freedom ensures that everyone is subjected to anonymous monolithic all-encompassing authority which hides unaccountably behind a wall of structural bureaucracy. That way nobody ever feels compelled, by social pressure or a misguided and really rather pathetic respect for authority, to doff his cap to the king. But if you don’t cast a substantively meaningless symbolic vote personally affirming the legitimacy of the political liberalism under which you are a tiny and insignificant subject, you are a traitor. Voting should probably be made mandatory; in the very least, people who refuse to vote have no right to complain. And it is a moral travesty that this political freedom is not comprehensively imposed on everyone, everywhere. Freedom should be imposed, by force of arms when necessary.
Equal rights impose a ‘live and let live’ philosophy formally and comprehensively on every person and institution in the name of tolerance, authoritatively discriminating everywhere that is necessary in order to eliminate discrimination and authority.
Fraternity means that if you will not agree that my political philosophy is right you are less than human scum.
Anti-authoritarianism means imposing anarchy on everyone against their will.
Hatred means being the kind of jerk that every right-thinking person despises.
Diversity means making sure that everyone is the same.
Dignity means making our defects into the principle of our identity.
Being open-minded means that you make all of the same unreflective metaphysical assumptions that I make. It means attributing everything that is good in the world to my narrow point of view.
Conservatism means making sure that there are plenty of ways around to dissipate the natural human instinct to conserve, providing an outlet so people can whine ineffectually without actually questioning liberalism.
Anti-racism means that we should despise any race of people who have, for any reason and in any context, historically shown hatred toward other races, or, equivalently, done anything objectively superior in any way to people of other races. But only as long as that race is the bad race, that is, white people, or white hispanics, and anyway I AM NOT WHITE!!! Whites are the Low Man! Anti-racism means importing large numbers of pliable brown skinned immigrants to do work that less pliable brown skinned citizens won’t do as cheaply and efficiently. And it means ensuring that the way white people see the world rules supreme. (Wait, what?)
Welcoming the marginalized means supporting society’s most powerful people in crushing fringe religious opinions. Mercy means empowering evil and lost people to destroy and torment themselves and their innocent victims. It means making sure that the way out of sin is as obscure and hidden as possible under a fog of sentimentalism. (Unless you are the kind of sinner we don’t like: the only people worse than you are the people trying to dissipate the fog).
Laissez-faire economics means that government should be aggressively and comprehensively involved in selectively enforcing mostly involuntary contract terms on debt slaves. Economic freedom means turning people into property. A scientific approach to economics means treating economic value as if it were nothing but the product of our imaginations, and money as if its value were spun into existence by magical incantation and pagan circle dances. Contrariwise, securities granting specific rights issued by the most powerful economic institution on earth against its real economic assets have no intrinsic value.
Responsibility and fairness mean that deadbeat dads who have been thrown out of their own home and had their children taken away – so that mommy could have a more exciting sex life and their children can benefit from the darwinist struggle of having a thug who doesn’t care about them in their life – should continue to hold up their end of the marriage contract while mommy doesn’t have to uphold hers. It means protecting women who are being abused by a bilocating husband who is capable of teleportation and has been beating his poor wife from his Iranian prison cell.
Respecting women means making sure that we treat them like children who are not responsible for their own actions. Unless they are gay.
Scientific impartiality means (at least methodologically) begging the question in favor of one of the most manifestly stupid and puerile metaphysical ideas ever conceived by man: metaphysical naturalism. “Science” means that, at least for the sake of argument and method, we should adopt the point of view that we ourselves are literally mindless idiots.
Transparency means hiding everything behind a wall of bureaucratic structure and superficial philosophical obfuscation so that authority can be exercised while pretending that it isn’t, and people can be, not subjects for the good of whom those in authority are responsible, but owned chattel; all while pretending that everyone is free and equal. It means more generally that you cannot see what rules over you and have no idea who or what they really are. Until they show up to kill you.
Checks and balances mean that structures and philosophies are put into place which make it impossible to stop mass murder; and bureaucratic measures are taken to ensure that nature doesn’t stop it either.
Marriage means the union of any two arbitrary things for any arbitrary reason, as long as the union can be dissolved at any time and for any reason. More generally, commitment means carefully remaining uncommitted to anything in particular. Except sodomy. Oh and contraception, if you are cisgender. For the time being, until you and your surgeon and your psychiatrist change your minds and decide to rearrange your legos.
Game means learning to be a man by spending all of your time and energy obsessing over how to curry favor with women.
Rape means mutually voluntary sex when both parties are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Or when one of the parties is a man.
A right to die means they will kill you no matter what you think or want.
Consent means that if you were right like me you would choose what I am imposing on you.
Responsibility and fairness mean that deadbeat dads who have been thrown out of their own home and had their children taken away – so that mommy could have a more exciting sex life and their children can benefit from the darwinist struggle of having a thug who doesn’t care about them in their life – should continue to hold up their end of the marriage contract while mommy doesn’t have to uphold hers.
TO: Mike T
I tried to include something for everyone. But there were a lot of stockings, so I may have missed some.
Someone IRL just told me that this post comes close to being the FAQ that was requested a few threads ago. It is more of a rant than an FAQ, but it does touch on a lot of the subjects we’ve discussed here and there is probably something linked in the OP to offend or at least annoy just about everyone.
Pretty comprehensive, yes, but is it all true? Dunno. Painting undefined things simply as meaningless or evil w/o a grain of truth? Not that I’m unsympathetic to your outlook, but in the realm of contingencies (an aspect of the real world) practice is sometimes better than the theories, which usually come after.
I was thinking over the weekend of the political liberties that the English noblemen claimed at Runnymede. This was a good and true moment of political liberty that informed American colonists. King John could easily have constructed his own sort of anti-liberal monism. Luckily, he was threatened with a good head-cracking. Liberties, rights, and immunities were gained that made that society one of the best on earth, ever. So, political liberties, and rights, and such like do have a meaning and must be acted upon from time to time. I just suppose there is no way to theorize these things before the fact. So, no “liberalism”, as you indeed say. Still, the contingencies of the world pose great problems no one can know and solve in advance. So, how horrid, actually, are the responses of those who came before us on the United States, given also that no one gets to choose the conditions under which he is born and within which he has to seek the good?
Just trying to keep myself from some sort of metaphysical monism, however appealing it might be.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
An epic post.
Yes, a good wrap-up. What is “cisgender”?
“Cisgender” is someone whose “gender identity” matches their biological sex. So sane people are cisgender. Bruce Jenner is not.
Basically it’s the opposite of “transgender.”
The structure of liberalism as “bureaucratic authority which rules while pretending not to rule” would seem to exclude Nazism and fascism as examples of liberalism. The oath of personal fealty to Hitler that the German soldiers took leaves no room for the authority that seeks to hide itself. Indeed, this personal touch resembles the pre-liberal regimes.
Even on other grounds, such as Nazi emphasis on particularity and moral authority of the nation, one can rule out Nazism as an example of liberalism.
“Cisgender” is someone whose “gender identity” matches their biological sex.”
Oh. So I’m one of those. I wonder where they got the “cis” part of it. It’s too close to ‘sissy’ for comfort.
I am ambivalent as to whether Nazism is considered a form of liberalism per se or is considered an example of what happens when liberalism crashes into reality.
It is true though that nazism still considered liberty and equality to be absolute among the herrenvolk. In that sense nazism is just a slightly more honest-with-itself form or iteration of liberalism, because it has faced (or was forced by circumstances to face) and accepted its own inherent division of humanity into the free and equal superman and the subhuman oppressor. Also it arguably accepted that with ‘rights’ come responsibilities.
I think many liberals understand this on a visceral level. As I wrote years ago, I think this visceral understanding — that if you take away the myth of zero group differences from liberalism you end up with nazism — is part of what makes the myth of zero group differences among liberals so strong.
Ha! Santa Zippy has two lists, and everyone’s on both. Candy and coal for all.
Great post Zippy. Your writing on usury has made me wonder about something. Catholics often condemn the evils of capitalism in vague terms and tend to explicitly or implicitly endorse violations of subsidiarity in the name of correcting those evils, but one hardly ever hears specific condemnations of usury except from traddy distributists (who are good guys but often overly romantic in my opinion). I may have missed it, but has The Holy Father, who condemns “the idolatry of money,” ever explicitly and comprehensively condemned usury?
Lest there be any confusion, I didn’t mean to suggest that the distributists are overly romantic in their condemnation of usury. I certainly agree with them on that point.
I probably should have googled first. Pope Francis does mention usury but it seems that he is referring only to loan sharks.
As far as I am aware there has been no detailed magisterial statement on usury since 1745.
I suppose my question was mostly rhetorical. With all the talk about economic justice, you would think we would here some real condemnations of usury, yet we do not.
While I’m sympathetic to the theoretical claims against usury, what are the practical options?
In our system how does one live, or become rich or wealthy, without participating in usury?
Nobody needs to make a living issuing – or investing the proceeds from – personally guaranteed (mutuum) loans.
FWIW I have had bankers ask me for personal guarantees on debt investments in my own projects; but I’ve never agreed to those kinds of terms, and I recommend against it not least because if the lender will not make the loan without personal guarantees, this strongly suggests that a simple debt instrument isn’t the right kind of investment contract. A convertible note or equity is probably more appropriate.
[…] Zippy lays it all out: In the land of lies, every day is opposite day. […]
@Zippy – Another excellent, aphoristic post.
These things are valuable at getting matters sorted out and keeping them clear in mind.
We both agree that the core of the problem is inversion of The Good as a way of destroying The Good.
This lets us know that it is NOT humans (either individually or collectively) who are behind ‘it all’ (how would opposite be a strategy for anything other than destruction?) – and also exactly who IS behind it all.
[…] Islam, even though they are horribly false understood objectively, appeal to people mired in ‘every day is opposite day‘ modernity who can feel that something is wrong with making our preferences and perceptions […]
[…] Modern politics enforces freedom on everyone, telling everyone what they have to do in order to make sure that nobody gets to tell anyone else what to do. The result is imprisonment in a comprehensively micromanaged hive, along with the relentless destruction of all virtue. Awareness of even the most basic virtue and vice is flushed down the memory hole, and evil becomes the new good. […]
[…] not disappear: it merely becomes sociopathic, ‘justified’ by consequentialism and other lies, as we attempt to replace human authority with neutral mechanical procedures. The telos of rule by […]
[…] That’s no surprise, I guess, because in the land of lies every day is opposite day. […]
[…] rationally incoherent, and therefore logically implies everything and its opposite all at once; but in a way which is not immediately […]
[…] Making freedom the principle of political action requires politics to not act. It requires politics to remain non-actual: it insists that prejudiced political authority prejudicially (a priori) favoring a particular understanding of the good must disappear. Insisting that freedom (and concomitantly equality and fraternity) are the principles of political action, are the final causes of political acts, requires politics to remain literally unreal, non-actual. It creates a political wraith, a ghostly creature which pretends not to exist as it tears out your entrails: the unholy ghost of modernity. […]
[…] the ‘conservatives’ or right-liberals who craft the newest, latest, most progressive innovations in the ways in which liberalism attacks and destroys the natural moral order. In order to stay […]
[…] are only ‘promises’ when every day is opposite day. Bitcoins are a commodity not a security. They are not promises made by anyone in particular: […]
[…] we live in the land of lies where every day is opposite day, the homily I heard today was not really about respecting the lost lives of unborn children […]
[…] fact that white people have always represented a small minority of the global population. As an insane, anti-real political philosophy liberalism requires a constant expenditure of economic energy to keep reality at bay. So far, in […]
[…] The issue has been raised as to whether one of my claims is that liberalism is a heresy, as opposed to simply false or a lie. […]
[…] Most folks love the empowerment they feel from (what they delude themselves into thinking is) personal possession of WMDs. In free societies every man is king, and reality is whatever you want it to be. […]
[…] constrained space of really allowable options. Given that this is the case it seems that the only honest approach is to unequivocally shun the deontology – and even the language – of liberalism […]
[…] More succinctly, theology is the queen of the sciences. Anti-realist modernism rests on non-theological theories of various parts of reality: on non-reality theories of reality. […]
[…] to make their favorite defects into principles of identity rests on a deeper commitment. This intuitively-appealing lie is that while politics must at times (out of unhappy necessity in an otherwise live-and-let-live […]
[…] in the real world, authority always involves particular men discriminating and restricting freedom freedom in […]
[…] Liberalism is an attempt to build, if you will, a completely brainless and mechanical society in the name of emancipation from the privileges of natural authority: it is the self-inflicted lobotomy of a society gone mad. […]
[…] is distressing to the modern mind, which desperately wants to believe that a politics with minimized authority is not merely coherent, not merely possible, but is the […]
[…] But failing to unequivocally reject liberalism does guarantee that we will. […]
[…] of the ways we can help bring clarity to the situation is to craft accurate descriptions of these superficially unobjectionable doctrines; descriptions we can set on fire and lob over the walls into the motte where modern conservatives […]
[…] that any theory is better than no theory at all; even when the theory in question is manifestly and demonstrably destructive, evil, deceptive, and just plain wrong. The important thing is that […]
[…] glass ceiling and the dirt floor are joined together by walls of irony resting on a foundation of bones, walls built and maintained by slaves chanting the mantra of […]