Bastard liberalism

I wish to initiate a series of posts on the most perverted error holding sway in western society. Excuse the emphatic title I used, but as I hope to show, a ruinous philosophy (I speak of Liberalism) deserves to be referred to in the harshest of terms.

Historically we can consider Mill as its chief initiator. He based the theory on two claims: 1) that the individual is absolute and supreme and has the right to decide anything concerning himself, provided that 2) the individual does not harm another person or people in the process [J.S. Mill, On Liberty]. (However, I'm not so much interested in the history, as I am on its practical impact on modern day thinking and outlook).

I'll consider the first claim in this post. Firstly, it is metaphysically perverse in every possible way, since it establishes man as the ultimate be-all-and-end-all. Any philosophy that does this starts out on a false assumption, with horrible practical results. In divorcing man from his Creator, and relegating the latter as irrelevant, the foundation of reality and of man's true place in this reality is thereby removed.

The diabolical distortion of freedom results from the first claim. The fact of free will, being so essential to man (and rightly so, when considered properly), becomes an end in itself. This means the mere fact of having free will is seen as an end in itself. Since man is seen as ''absolute'' he has the right to exercise that free will in any way he so pleases. And so, the liberalist claims that free will, whenever exercised with reference to himself, is a inviolable ''right'' no matter how it is used (provided such action does not ''harm others'', but as I will show in subsequent posts, this stipulation becomes meaningless in a liberalist framework).

"What involves myself and my individuality is totally up to me! No one sets the rules for me! I decide what I want for myself and that is my right!!" This no doubt sounds familiar in some way, and it is none other than that liberalism which removes any sense of duty to oneself. After all, if one is the be-all-and-end-all of oneself, then one has no duties to oneself independent of what one wants (however evil and stupid and irrational such wants are). Let me kill myself! It's my right. Let me mutilate myself! It's my right. Let me engage in sick fantasies! It's my right. Let me fulfill all my lusts to my heart's content (of course, thereby destroying the dignity of my body, but that's beside the point, for I'm not constrained by any duty)! It's my right......

And so on. It's clear that exulting one's 'right to do what one wants with respect to oneself', far from exulting oneself as an individual, actually degrades and perverts the individual beyond belief. But what else can be expected, when the individual is divorced from the reality that in point of fact, he is not supreme, independent,  with the right to decide all things for himself? It's the dictatorship of the individual, as opposed to the liberating rule of the Creator which is the only way individuals can truly flourish according to their true natures (i.e.: that one is not utterly independent, supreme, etc).     

Arbitrary discrimination

Health Minister Nicola Roxon attacks Opposition Leader Tony Abbott on abortion issue
FEDERAL Health Minister Nicola Roxon has launched an attack on Tony Abbott and his religion, accusing the opposition leader of letting his "personal beliefs" in Catholicism affect policy formulation...

"We want to provide help and information and choice to women, not give them a lecture," the health minister told parliament...

Opponents argued the groups selected to formulate the advice to be provided on the helpline were biased because they followed Catholic teaching and were openly pro-life.
Ms Roxon said Mr Abbott allowed his "personal beliefs to interfere and get in the way of providing completely accessible and non-judgmental public services".

"Mr Abbott doesn't live in the real world," she said.

We often hear such criticisms leveled against not simply Tony Abbott, but generally against those whose outlook is shaped by 'religion'. And as the federal election comes nearer, we will continue to hear this line of criticism. But what logical value does it have? Absolutely none. Moreover, it is self-refuting to those who try and press the point.

Now to briefly analyze. Certainly, in Abbott's case, his Catholicism helps "affect policy formation''. This is an obvious observation; for in firmly holding to a religion, his ideas will be profoundly shaped by it, and since politicians' ideas have impact on their politics, it follows that Abbott's politics is shaped by his religion. Likewise, for someone irreligious like Roxon, she also will have her own ''ideas'' which shape her politics, and such ideas obviously come from 'somewhere' (just not religion). So the bottom line is, all politicians will receive ideological inspiration from a variety of sources, and will project such ideas in their political outlook and vision for society.

However, this where Roxon emerges as the blatant hypocrite that she is. She says that because Abbott receives ideological inspiration from his religion, it follows he should not 'impose' this on his politics. However, she too receives ideological inspiration from her own sources, and for some arbitrary reason (in fact, she does not give a reason), it is perfectly okay in her case, but unacceptable in Abbott's case. It is a case of arbitrary discrimination. However, is not democracy meant to be about different politicians putting different ideas on the table? And since Catholicism is (statistically, at least) the majority religion in Australia, is it that inconceivable that Catholic ideas can help shape the political realm (meant to be representative of the people)? Roxon even is at odds with Rudd in some ways, who once said:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed [not arbitrarily discounted], together with other arguments...^1

Her attempt to arbitrarily silence an opposing position is ironic for someone against ''lecturing''. She does that very thing to Abbott, and what is worse, she gives no reasons to back her lecturing. Additionally, she criticises the pregnancy helpline for being "pro-life'' and ''Catholic'' in its approach. Whereas, she claims her alternative involves "provid[ing]" impartial "non-judgmental" "help and information" to women. Inevitably, her alternative is not impartial, but is based on her ideology on the issue (that abortion is a right and is a morally acceptable option). Even on her supposedly impartial alternative, women will be ''lectured'' by being counseled in terms of her "pro-choice'' ideological framework. So once again, she is a hypocrite for criticising Abbott's approach on the grounds it is not impartial.

I'm not sure what world Abbott is in, but I doubt it can be a more illogical world than Roxon's.

^1 ^{a b} Rudd, Kevin (October 2006). "Faith in Politics". The Monthly: pp. 22–30 --- as cited on wikipedia

Tolerance... or talk no more?

'Tolerance' is a buzz word all have confronted. It is an all-pervasive notion that dominates all debate on meaningful questions. However, its domination tends not to aid the fruitfulness of meaningful discussion. To the contrary, it ever so often is the trump card that stifles truth from being seen and recognized.

"Shutup! Don't try and impose your views on everyone!"

"Look, that's just one perspective, but don't push it. Tolerate others!"

"Look you're not 'right' - because we all have different opinions!"

...We are all familiar with such attempts at justification. However, what is really going on is no justification. The call to 'tolerance' is simply a way of attempting to silence a contrary (and oftentimes more reasonable) position. And we can conclude the contrary position is often more reasonable precisely because there are appeals to reasons to back it up. Whereas, the side that resorts to the 'tolerance card' is displaying an inability to offer reasons - instead, there is the sly attempt to shut the discussion down. Deep down, it is none other than a refusal to be confronted with the truth. It is none other than an attempt to tighten the blindfold or push one's head deeper in the sand.

Even proponents of clearly recognisable heinous views - i.e.: it is okay to rape, or murder - could back up their case by appealing for 'tolerance' and 'respect' to their 'personal view'. And if 'tolerance' is sufficient for making an opinion worthy of respect, then such views also must be given respect. However, it is more reasonable to suppose that the reasons making such things wrong are what counts. Whereas the appeal to 'tolerance' is simply not relevant.

It is most often those taking a 'progressive' or 'liberal' stance on vital questions that use 'tolerance' as a 'trump card'. And so it seems, on the outset, that such stances tend to be plagued by falsehoods, and the consequent unwillingness to be confronted with truth.

However, the ultimate insanity of the 'tolerance card' is this. Such appeals to 'tolerance' are by their nature utterly intolerant. This is because they all involve a direct command (and so, the contrary of the command being intolerable in some sense) to act (or not act) in a certain way. That is, for the other side to refrain from highlighting (what is often) a more logical outlook on things. And so, the audacious appeal to 'tolerate', is based on intolerance for the actions (and views) of those putting forth (and sticking to) a more reasonable position.


The one trying to point out reality is intolerant towards destructive falsehoods. The one who puts their head in the sand is intolerant to reality. There is no such thing as 'pure tolerance'; because any assertion implies favouring that assertion (and consequently, not having equal tolerance to the other assertion). Therefore, no one can ever truly assert 'tolerance', because the very assertion implies its opposite (intolerance). And so the fact is: all will be 'intolerant' in their own way; the only question is whether the intolerance is in the service of sanity or not.

Friend or foe?

To be a friend, or to be an enemy, is it always easy to distinguish between the two? How obvious it seems to tell one apart from the other. After all, is not clear to see those who are our friends, as opposed to the other end of the spectrum, who are our enemies? Cannot hot be distinguished from cold, and light from darkness?

True friendship, above all, involves desiring the others utmost good. It does not entail acting in a way that is destructive to the others good. Those who act in such a way are either a) willfully malicious, for they know full well they are no true friend, but nevertheless, make the other think they are, all the while doing the opposite of what a true friend does. Or b) enslaved by ignorance, thinking they are a good friend, with the other thinking the same, whilst, in point of fact, their influence is destructive to the others' good.

If people become blind as to what their true good consists in, they will readily mistake enemies for friends, and friends for enemies.

They will consider as friends who are in fact taking advantage of them. Or else, they will consider as friends only those people who are 'yes men (or women!)'. That is, those who help prop up the facade of their fantasy world. Hence, hollow reassurance that they know what their true good consists it, when it fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

Meanwhile, true friends, those truly concerned for what their true good is (and trying to point it out, as a result of such concern) will seem to be enemies. Those who say ''Wake up! Take your head out of the sand. Please, start to see things clearly, I'm here to help you! Please open your eyes and see me for who I am, one who cares more for your good than even for your perception of me!".

When a friend is mistaken for an enemy, the true test begins. Will he remain a friend, or give in and give hollow reassurance to what the other wants to hear (what is in fact destructive to their true good), for the sake of being perceived by them as a friend? Or will he stay the course of actually being a friend, despite false perceptions to the contrary? Of course, such true friends should not be discouraged even when their attempt at being a friend seems futile, due to the other being stubbornly non-receptive to what their true good consists in. The true friend should take heart that at least he has not become an enemy (in actively promoting the other's demise). He should take heart because he has done his part, and be at peace. For even in apparently hopeless situations, the other may well wake up to reality someday and recognise friend for friend, and foe for foe. To put it in terms of Lord of the Rings, the Riders of Rohan stood to true loyalty, and were expelled by their King for it; but miraculously he came to his senses eventually. Moreover, it was those unwavering friends who were then to play an indispensable part in helping secure his good and the good of his kingdom.

It is the battle between the counterfeit and the real. Ultimately, it comes down to the question of truth: friendship is friendship only if it is true. If it is not, then call it for what it is; hint: it is not friendship.

Recognised, not invented

To suppose something is recognised, involves that something already existing. Whereas, the invention of something does not presuppose of its existence; rather, it is made to be, via the act of inventing.

As has been outlined, elementary sanity consists in the recognition that truth exists. Hence, fundamentally, truth is something that is already in existence that the sane mind is forced to recognise it. The mind conforms itself to the reality of objective truth, which exists independently of the mind. Hence the mind does not invent 'truth', no matter what some may claim.

For example, 1+1= 2 : this is a necessary fact that is not invented. Rather, it remains true, even if no one were to recognise it. It would be absurd to suppose its truth is 'invented'. For to claim this, is to suppose that it is not necessarily true in the first place. We do not make it true; it is already true; and all we can do is to submit our minds to its truth, and to the liberating rule of sanity. It is indeed necessary to consider it true if sanity is to be maintained; and claims to the contrary display deep-rooted insanity.

But, how often do we hear basic sanity called into question, by claims such as : "I'll decide what the truth is, and you have no right to point it out!". Whereas, in point of fact, no one can decide what the truth is! They can decide what they would want to be the case, but since when does an insane want amount to that want being true? And whereas, the one pointing things out could simply trying to awaken his dear friend from delirium. Picture a drug-addict who thinks he has life under control etc, whereas, in point of fact, he is clueless, and his friend is simply trying to point the truth out to him, for his own good.

Or "what is true for you is not necessarily true for me". Again, a fatal misunderstanding about the nature of truth, and a fatal demonstration of an insanity lurking beneath. 1 + 1 = 2 irrespective of what one subjectively may wish or hope for. Or to be less mathematical (but nevertheless, just as real), for example, the torture of an innocent child remains wrong, irrespective of what an insane person may think. Even if a deluded person does not recognise it as wrong, it is still true that it is wrong. His deluded thinking that it is right, does not make it so.

Of course, it must be conceded, that some things are true in reference to some, but not, in reference to others. One may like chocolate ice cream, another may not. Hence, concerning 'likes' as such, truth is centered on the unique individual. Nevertheless, on questions that concern the objective reality which exists independently of likes and dislikes, then truth is not determined by likes and dislikes. To use the example above, it may true that one has the absurd idea of 1+1= 3, and it may be true that this idea is held. One may like the idea that 1+1=3; one may want it to be the case. Be all this as it may, it does not make the claim itself true.

Bow in recognition of the basic truths of reality, do not distort them, or refuse to recognise them. Or much worse, don't pretend to invent them, or make their reality contingent on what you think. For if your thinking becomes deluded, the basic truths of reality in fact do not change - they remain forever real.

Elementary Sanity

Presumably, sanity is to be preferred to insanity. As such, if sanity is to be maintained, its most elementary aspects must also be maintained. But suffice to say, whilst most will be forced to recognise the elementary truths which underpin reality - the recognition of which constitutes basic sanity - they will disparage them in practice. And from this, it follows, that in practice, the most pernicious form of insanity can take hold.

The most elementary principle consists simply in the recognition of the existence of truth. Upon its recognition, all sanity is derived; upon its denial, insanity. Indeed, who can deny that reality is real simply because it is? Truth is real because reality is real. It pertains to the essence of reality to be real, and consequently true.

Any attempt to deny this will only serve to illustrate the fact of the existence of truth. For the one who audaciously claims "there is no such thing as truth!" is himself making a claim he purports to be true. And so, such a statement is self-refuting.

But how many times do we hear this attitude, that there is nothing at all set in concrete, eternally true, for all places and all times (which implies the very existence of truth can be doubted)? Tragically, such an attitude exhibits a deep insanity, against which even schizophrenia will appear sane!

There is no more futile and insane exercise than to cast doubt on the reality of truth. The more one attempts to do so, there more it stares one in the face (as denying truth is continually self-refuting).