THE PROBLEM OF ABSOLUTE FREEDOM
(Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society; Dr. Gordon Carkner)
“Complete freedom is absurd; it seeks to escape all historical-cultural situation and narrative. Pure freedom without limits is nothing; it has no context; it is chaos, destructive; it is no place, a void in which nothing would be worth doing. It is often abused. Foucault’s view
of freedom, although attractive for its pioneering spirit and some of its tools for creative self-articulation, is quite vulnerable to manipulation (a precarious autonomy); it is both exhilarating and dangerous. This empty freedom hollows out the self and can be filled with almost any moral trajectory or motive, whether constructive or destructive.”
Further, Taylor sees four dangers with this stance:
a. Self-trivialization and lack of depth
b. The Dionysian danger:
If free activity cannot be defined in opposition to our nature and situation, on pain of vacuity, it cannot simply be identified with following our strongest, or most persistent, or most all-embracing desire either. That would make it impossible to say that our freedom was ever thwarted by our own compulsions, fears, or obsessions. One needs to be able to separate compulsions, fears, addictions from higher more authentic aspirations.... We have to be able to distinguish between compulsions, fears, addictions from those aspirations which we endorse with our whole soul. (Taylor, 1979, p. 157, 158)
c. Problem of despair:
This type of freedom can be a ruse to trap one inside one’s self, as Kierkegaard wrote—with the risk of nihilism and the death of meaning
d. Lost potential in relationships:
It rejects the possibility of human complementarity through a quest for an uncolonized, suspicious self. It is a key insight that absolute freedom misses the point about the distortions of inauthentic (suspect) and malevolent desires, and how they can lead to a life of mediocrity, self-indulgence, or even self-destruction. We see here the contrast of freedom as an escape from responsibility to community (Foucault) and freedom as calling within community (Taylor) grounded in the acceptance of one’s defining situation, together with its opportunities and responsibilities. Freedom that limits itself to discussion of new possibilities of thinking and action, but heroically and ironically refuses to provide any evaluative orientation as to which possibilities and changes are desirable, is in danger of becoming empty or worse, predatory and malevolent. This is the darker side of radical freedom, rendering it a dangerous first principle. We need a more full-blooded conception of freedom and individuality.
It is clear that, for Plato, the very definition of justice requires a higher and a lower and distinguishes our love of one from our love of the other. Christian faith could take this idea over while giving it a different content, and so Augustine speaks explicitly of “two loves”. Recognition that there is a difference in us between higher and lower, straight and crooked, or loving and self-absorbed desires opens an intellectual space in which philosophy has a crucial role—as the attempt to articulate and define the deepest and most general features of some subject matter—here moral being. (Taylor, 1999, pp. 120-21)
Thus, we are arguing that radical freedom and individualism needs to be redeemed or recovered. One wants to win through to a freedom that includes limitations, admission of finitude and responsibility for the Other.
The redemption of freedom is liberation from freedom for freedom, from the destructive consequences of absolute self-constituted freedom and for the exercise of redeemed and created human freedom which is called to find fulfilment in communion with God ... Redeemed freedom is ... essentially finite, relative freedom, freedom which is dependent on finding its orientation in the disclosure of the truth of the gospel ... freedom as created, as the freedom of creatures whose freedom is not constituted by them but for them. (C. Schwöbel, 1995, p. 78)
(Charles Taylor, Hegel and Modern Society; Dr. Gordon Carkner)
“Complete freedom is absurd; it seeks to escape all historical-cultural situation and narrative. Pure freedom without limits is nothing; it has no context; it is chaos, destructive; it is no place, a void in which nothing would be worth doing. It is often abused. Foucault’s view
of freedom, although attractive for its pioneering spirit and some of its tools for creative self-articulation, is quite vulnerable to manipulation (a precarious autonomy); it is both exhilarating and dangerous. This empty freedom hollows out the self and can be filled with almost any moral trajectory or motive, whether constructive or destructive.”
Further, Taylor sees four dangers with this stance:
a. Self-trivialization and lack of depth
b. The Dionysian danger:
If free activity cannot be defined in opposition to our nature and situation, on pain of vacuity, it cannot simply be identified with following our strongest, or most persistent, or most all-embracing desire either. That would make it impossible to say that our freedom was ever thwarted by our own compulsions, fears, or obsessions. One needs to be able to separate compulsions, fears, addictions from higher more authentic aspirations.... We have to be able to distinguish between compulsions, fears, addictions from those aspirations which we endorse with our whole soul. (Taylor, 1979, p. 157, 158)
c. Problem of despair:
This type of freedom can be a ruse to trap one inside one’s self, as Kierkegaard wrote—with the risk of nihilism and the death of meaning
d. Lost potential in relationships:
It rejects the possibility of human complementarity through a quest for an uncolonized, suspicious self. It is a key insight that absolute freedom misses the point about the distortions of inauthentic (suspect) and malevolent desires, and how they can lead to a life of mediocrity, self-indulgence, or even self-destruction. We see here the contrast of freedom as an escape from responsibility to community (Foucault) and freedom as calling within community (Taylor) grounded in the acceptance of one’s defining situation, together with its opportunities and responsibilities. Freedom that limits itself to discussion of new possibilities of thinking and action, but heroically and ironically refuses to provide any evaluative orientation as to which possibilities and changes are desirable, is in danger of becoming empty or worse, predatory and malevolent. This is the darker side of radical freedom, rendering it a dangerous first principle. We need a more full-blooded conception of freedom and individuality.
It is clear that, for Plato, the very definition of justice requires a higher and a lower and distinguishes our love of one from our love of the other. Christian faith could take this idea over while giving it a different content, and so Augustine speaks explicitly of “two loves”. Recognition that there is a difference in us between higher and lower, straight and crooked, or loving and self-absorbed desires opens an intellectual space in which philosophy has a crucial role—as the attempt to articulate and define the deepest and most general features of some subject matter—here moral being. (Taylor, 1999, pp. 120-21)
Thus, we are arguing that radical freedom and individualism needs to be redeemed or recovered. One wants to win through to a freedom that includes limitations, admission of finitude and responsibility for the Other.
The redemption of freedom is liberation from freedom for freedom, from the destructive consequences of absolute self-constituted freedom and for the exercise of redeemed and created human freedom which is called to find fulfilment in communion with God ... Redeemed freedom is ... essentially finite, relative freedom, freedom which is dependent on finding its orientation in the disclosure of the truth of the gospel ... freedom as created, as the freedom of creatures whose freedom is not constituted by them but for them. (C. Schwöbel, 1995, p. 78)
One can often imagine that the best growth occurs on one’s own, even during one’s greatest rebellion, but in fact one can only grow as a person while in direct and significant relationships, complementary partnerships with others. A person (Evola) finds one’s true and soulful being in mutual love and communion. Some intellectuals believe that love is more basic to our identity than reason, although not against reason. One can attempt to be an individual alone but will fail to become a person on one’s own.
Redeemed freedom by definition takes on a distinctively communal character; it is contextualized within a conversation, within relationships between fellow interlocutors, against the backdrop of larger narrative that makes sense of self. This is the deep structure of self. Individual freedom gives up sovereignty ground to community and makes space for the Other in order to avoid some of the pitfalls and deficits of radical autonomy. As one gains a stronger identity as a social being, one reaps the benefits. The move is towards a deeper, more complex, communal character of self, a thick self. Foucault articulates freedom as flight from one’s neighbour; the aesthetic self is part fugitive, part manipulator; its context is reduced to a life of contest with the Other (agonisme), manipulating power relations and truth games to one’s own advantage. There is a certain validity to these concerns, but from the perspective of Taylor’s comments (and those of other key thinkers), they lack vision for relationships that are other than a manipulative contest of wills, that is, relations informed by love, compassion and cooperation. Prominent social thinker J. Habermas, in response to Foucault’s ethics as aesthetics argues that the preoccupation with the autonomy or self-mastery is simply a moment in the process of social interaction, which has been artificially isolated or privileged:
Both cognitive-instrumental mastery of an objective nature (and society) and a narcissistically overinflated autonomy (in the sense of purposively rational self-assertion) are derivative moments that have been rendered independent from the communicative structures of the lifeworld, that is, from the intersubjectivity of relationships of mutual understanding and relationships of reciprocal recognition. (Habermas, 1987, p. 315)
In the light of this critical investigation, it is suggested that there is a need to rethink individuality in terms of a reconciliation between self and the Other, self and society, to put it metaphorically, in terms of self and one’s neighbour. The direction of reformulation is the recovery of a social horizon, including a stronger concept of the social body, and the common good; one needs the courage and determination to face the neighbour as a good. A radical pursuit of private self-interest, to the exclusion of the presence and the needs of the Other, is rendered untenable and dysfunctional after this critical dialogue.
Redeemed freedom by definition takes on a distinctively communal character; it is contextualized within a conversation, within relationships between fellow interlocutors, against the backdrop of larger narrative that makes sense of self. This is the deep structure of self. Individual freedom gives up sovereignty ground to community and makes space for the Other in order to avoid some of the pitfalls and deficits of radical autonomy. As one gains a stronger identity as a social being, one reaps the benefits. The move is towards a deeper, more complex, communal character of self, a thick self. Foucault articulates freedom as flight from one’s neighbour; the aesthetic self is part fugitive, part manipulator; its context is reduced to a life of contest with the Other (agonisme), manipulating power relations and truth games to one’s own advantage. There is a certain validity to these concerns, but from the perspective of Taylor’s comments (and those of other key thinkers), they lack vision for relationships that are other than a manipulative contest of wills, that is, relations informed by love, compassion and cooperation. Prominent social thinker J. Habermas, in response to Foucault’s ethics as aesthetics argues that the preoccupation with the autonomy or self-mastery is simply a moment in the process of social interaction, which has been artificially isolated or privileged:
Both cognitive-instrumental mastery of an objective nature (and society) and a narcissistically overinflated autonomy (in the sense of purposively rational self-assertion) are derivative moments that have been rendered independent from the communicative structures of the lifeworld, that is, from the intersubjectivity of relationships of mutual understanding and relationships of reciprocal recognition. (Habermas, 1987, p. 315)
In the light of this critical investigation, it is suggested that there is a need to rethink individuality in terms of a reconciliation between self and the Other, self and society, to put it metaphorically, in terms of self and one’s neighbour. The direction of reformulation is the recovery of a social horizon, including a stronger concept of the social body, and the common good; one needs the courage and determination to face the neighbour as a good. A radical pursuit of private self-interest, to the exclusion of the presence and the needs of the Other, is rendered untenable and dysfunctional after this critical dialogue.
Foucault, among many other radical individualists who have shaped the soul of Western identity, holds to a faulty assumption of chronic distrust, that is, that the Other will always try to control and manipulate my behaviour for his own purposes. Although such manipulation occurs, this is a jaded and cynical Hobbesian (all against all) perspective on human sociality.
The autonomy that modernity cannot do without (a famous Foucauldian phrase) needs a dialectical relationship with community as a balance to one’s self-reflexive relationship to oneself. The nature of autonomy cannot be confined to a radical self-determination but must involve the possibility of recognition by and dependence upon other people within a larger horizon of significance. Flight is by far the easier (although sometimes necessary for safety) and least complex default option; it is always easier to cease speaking with a difficult neighbour or to opt out of a relationship that is painful; it is more challenging and painful to take other selves seriously in terms of the good that they are, and the good that they can offer, or to work towards reconciliation. Redeemed freedom can emerge through a wiser discernment and exploration of the communal dimensions of subjectivity, as freedom to cooperate with, and freedom to serve the Other. Trust building is a tentative but necessary exercise for the moral health of the self.
Without community, humans cannot find full emotional and psychological health. Within community, they can live out of their truest selves, not apart from other people but in the midst of them: at work, in love, during learning. Psychiatrists confirm that there is tremendous personal health to be discovered in long term commitment to other people, Jesus of Nazareth affirmed this insight that when we lose self (sacrifice self) in serving the Other, we actually find a deeper, more durable self. (Matthew 10:39).
This newly discovered type of freedom and accountable individuality is destined to find its fulfilment, not in a self-justifying control, but in seeking out a communion of love, similar to the relations within the Christian Trinity. Here lives a healthy vulnerability, interdependency and mutuality (complementarity), with an ear tuned in to the voice and needs of the Other. It promotes the relocation of the dislocated self into a new narrative, a new drama that involves us, within the relational order of creation. Others can help discern the self, in order for it to find its own space for freedom and calling with responsibility. One of the basic tenets of ecology, as articulated so well by Stephen Bouma-Prediger in his book For the Beauty of the Earth, is the need to look at the larger and richer context of where we are, rather than the current myopia or compartmentalization. He encourages us to assess and discern our home amidst the whole of human and non-human creation.
Individualism is in denial of that larger, richer picture in the quest for individual fulfilment and enlightened self-interest.
The autonomy that modernity cannot do without (a famous Foucauldian phrase) needs a dialectical relationship with community as a balance to one’s self-reflexive relationship to oneself. The nature of autonomy cannot be confined to a radical self-determination but must involve the possibility of recognition by and dependence upon other people within a larger horizon of significance. Flight is by far the easier (although sometimes necessary for safety) and least complex default option; it is always easier to cease speaking with a difficult neighbour or to opt out of a relationship that is painful; it is more challenging and painful to take other selves seriously in terms of the good that they are, and the good that they can offer, or to work towards reconciliation. Redeemed freedom can emerge through a wiser discernment and exploration of the communal dimensions of subjectivity, as freedom to cooperate with, and freedom to serve the Other. Trust building is a tentative but necessary exercise for the moral health of the self.
Without community, humans cannot find full emotional and psychological health. Within community, they can live out of their truest selves, not apart from other people but in the midst of them: at work, in love, during learning. Psychiatrists confirm that there is tremendous personal health to be discovered in long term commitment to other people, Jesus of Nazareth affirmed this insight that when we lose self (sacrifice self) in serving the Other, we actually find a deeper, more durable self. (Matthew 10:39).
This newly discovered type of freedom and accountable individuality is destined to find its fulfilment, not in a self-justifying control, but in seeking out a communion of love, similar to the relations within the Christian Trinity. Here lives a healthy vulnerability, interdependency and mutuality (complementarity), with an ear tuned in to the voice and needs of the Other. It promotes the relocation of the dislocated self into a new narrative, a new drama that involves us, within the relational order of creation. Others can help discern the self, in order for it to find its own space for freedom and calling with responsibility. One of the basic tenets of ecology, as articulated so well by Stephen Bouma-Prediger in his book For the Beauty of the Earth, is the need to look at the larger and richer context of where we are, rather than the current myopia or compartmentalization. He encourages us to assess and discern our home amidst the whole of human and non-human creation.
Individualism is in denial of that larger, richer picture in the quest for individual fulfilment and enlightened self-interest.
Foucault highly values individual creativity but he lacks appreciation for how this relates to communal creativity of interdependencies and complementarity. His ethics is choice-focused and will-focused just like Descartes. Fulfilment in the right kind of community prevents the self from the most extreme forms of self-interest, narcissism.
In this anatomy of community, involving a recontextualized freedom with a sense of responsibility for the Other, the good can be both mediated and carried more robustly. One’s individual relationship to the good can be strongly enhanced by involvement with a group that allows the good to shape identity; the right community environment can provide a positive school of the good.
Mirrored through others, the good can offer both accountability and real empowerment of the self. Group covenant and commitment to one another sustains the self in its agency; the younger self especially is released from the burden to invent his whole moral universe, and to be the complete person with all the strengths that he needs to flourish. Moreover, communal discernment advocates for the weak and challenges the strong and wealthy with the moral strength and maturity to give back to society, reducing societal injustice and reigning in excessive greed. Moral self-constitution of this thicker, weightier, and more complex sort exceeds the capacity of the individual self; it requires a robust sense of community.
According to Christian biblical teaching, individuals are created by God with the purpose of serving other human beings (Genesis 1: 26, 27). Humans are not self-created or created for self alone or for maximal autonomy. Psalm 139 gives insight into how intimately God knows and cares about them. In fact, the two greatest principles in the entire Bible are: First discern the love of God with the true and complete self. The second is to love the Other (human and animal) deeply: to watch out for and be there for the Other, to treat with respect and dignity. This is the foundation for community where individuality is respected, and where trust, honour and virtue are emphasized. Motivated by stepping into God's love (agape), individuals thereby recover freedom to do good in the world (I John 4:7). Taylor has captured the true dimensionality of this possibility.
“Our being in the image of God is also our standing among others in the stream of love, which is that facet of God’s life we try to grasp, very inadequately, in speaking of the Trinity. Now it makes a whole lot of difference whether you think this kind of love is a possibility for us humans. I think it is, but only to the extent that we open ourselves up to God, which means in fact, overstepping the limits set by Nietzsche and Foucault.” (Taylor, 1999, p. 35)
In this anatomy of community, involving a recontextualized freedom with a sense of responsibility for the Other, the good can be both mediated and carried more robustly. One’s individual relationship to the good can be strongly enhanced by involvement with a group that allows the good to shape identity; the right community environment can provide a positive school of the good.
Mirrored through others, the good can offer both accountability and real empowerment of the self. Group covenant and commitment to one another sustains the self in its agency; the younger self especially is released from the burden to invent his whole moral universe, and to be the complete person with all the strengths that he needs to flourish. Moreover, communal discernment advocates for the weak and challenges the strong and wealthy with the moral strength and maturity to give back to society, reducing societal injustice and reigning in excessive greed. Moral self-constitution of this thicker, weightier, and more complex sort exceeds the capacity of the individual self; it requires a robust sense of community.
According to Christian biblical teaching, individuals are created by God with the purpose of serving other human beings (Genesis 1: 26, 27). Humans are not self-created or created for self alone or for maximal autonomy. Psalm 139 gives insight into how intimately God knows and cares about them. In fact, the two greatest principles in the entire Bible are: First discern the love of God with the true and complete self. The second is to love the Other (human and animal) deeply: to watch out for and be there for the Other, to treat with respect and dignity. This is the foundation for community where individuality is respected, and where trust, honour and virtue are emphasized. Motivated by stepping into God's love (agape), individuals thereby recover freedom to do good in the world (I John 4:7). Taylor has captured the true dimensionality of this possibility.
“Our being in the image of God is also our standing among others in the stream of love, which is that facet of God’s life we try to grasp, very inadequately, in speaking of the Trinity. Now it makes a whole lot of difference whether you think this kind of love is a possibility for us humans. I think it is, but only to the extent that we open ourselves up to God, which means in fact, overstepping the limits set by Nietzsche and Foucault.” (Taylor, 1999, p. 35)
Community offers a context in which to develop character. Character, integrity, and virtue seem to be marginalized in our fast-paced, mobile society. But real character can only be developed in a supportive community where a person is both accepted and challenged toward nobility and personal excellence, where there is good mentorship and natural accountability. At the same time, negative attitudes such an arrogance, bitterness and vengeance can be recycled within community; there can be healing from a false self or a broken emotional-relational background. Taylor extends that thought.
“The original Christian notion of agape love is of a love that God has for humans which is connected with their goodness as creatures (though we don’t have to decide whether they are loved because good or good because loved). Human beings participate through grace in this love. There is a divine affirmation of the creature, which is captured in the repeated phrase in Genesis 1 about each stage of the creation, ‘and God saw that it was good’. Agape is inseparable from such ‘seeing-good.’” (Taylor, 1989, p. 516)
Utilitarian individualism encourages us to use other people for our own prestige, wealth or progress. The Christian faith, by contrast, challenges us to make other people an end in themselves, to nurture and care for them. Such commitments have an enriching effect. Bonds develop and affirm the worth, identity and potential of individuals. Genuine community is a space to contribute, to invest spiritually, and to find both security and significance.
“The original Christian notion of agape love is of a love that God has for humans which is connected with their goodness as creatures (though we don’t have to decide whether they are loved because good or good because loved). Human beings participate through grace in this love. There is a divine affirmation of the creature, which is captured in the repeated phrase in Genesis 1 about each stage of the creation, ‘and God saw that it was good’. Agape is inseparable from such ‘seeing-good.’” (Taylor, 1989, p. 516)
Utilitarian individualism encourages us to use other people for our own prestige, wealth or progress. The Christian faith, by contrast, challenges us to make other people an end in themselves, to nurture and care for them. Such commitments have an enriching effect. Bonds develop and affirm the worth, identity and potential of individuals. Genuine community is a space to contribute, to invest spiritually, and to find both security and significance.
“The true measure of freedom is love as the relationship which makes the flourishing of the other the condition of self-fulfilment. Human freedom becomes the icon of divine freedom where the freedom of divine grace constitutes the grace of human freedom ... That most poignant image of hope, the Kingdom of God, expresses the relation of free divine love and loving human freedom together in depicting the ultimate purpose of God’s action as the perfected community of love with his creation. The fulfilment of God’s reign and the salvation of creation are actualized together in the community of the love of God.” (C. Schwobel, 1995, pp. 80-81)
Western culture has paid a high price for its championship of radical individualism. There is a profound sense in realizing that “we did not know what we were doing.” This has produced deficit, ignorance, and extremism of character and lifestyle.
“Made for spirituality we wallow in introspection. Made for joy, we settle for pleasure. Made for justice, we clamor for vengeance. Made for relationship, we insist on our own way. Made for beauty, we are satisfied with sentiment. But new creation has already begun. The sun has begun to rise. Christians are called to leave behind in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our full human role as agents, heralds, and stewards of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what is means to be Christian: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God’s new world, which he has thrown open before us.”
Western culture has paid a high price for its championship of radical individualism. There is a profound sense in realizing that “we did not know what we were doing.” This has produced deficit, ignorance, and extremism of character and lifestyle.
“Made for spirituality we wallow in introspection. Made for joy, we settle for pleasure. Made for justice, we clamor for vengeance. Made for relationship, we insist on our own way. Made for beauty, we are satisfied with sentiment. But new creation has already begun. The sun has begun to rise. Christians are called to leave behind in the tomb of Jesus Christ, all that belongs to the brokenness and incompleteness of the present world. It is time, in the power of the Spirit, to take up our proper role, our full human role as agents, heralds, and stewards of the new day that is dawning. That, quite simply, is what is means to be Christian: to follow Jesus Christ into the new world, God’s new world, which he has thrown open before us.”
Forwarded from Fighting for Christendom
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Please do not worry for the cares of the world. Worry for the sake of your soul.
“Luther is just as far from the true aristocratic German essence as is the ‘socialism’ of the Jew Karl Marx.” -Julius Evola
The effects of Luther’s revolt went far beyond the domain of Christianity, for through it, the modern spirit seemingly acquired higher justification. As such, the divine institutions of the Church and the Empire were both rejected for merely human constructions. Without the sacred element, these were doomed to failure, which we have seen through their continual regression and fragmentation. Only that sanctioned by the divine can endure.
The effects of Luther’s revolt went far beyond the domain of Christianity, for through it, the modern spirit seemingly acquired higher justification. As such, the divine institutions of the Church and the Empire were both rejected for merely human constructions. Without the sacred element, these were doomed to failure, which we have seen through their continual regression and fragmentation. Only that sanctioned by the divine can endure.
“The true State incarnates those principles, those powers, those functions that in man correspond to the central and sovereign element, destined to give a higher meaning to life, to direct the purely naturalistic and physical sphere toward transcendent ends, experiences, and tensions. If one denies to the State the autonomy proper to a super-elevated power and authority, one negates its very essence, and nothing will remain of it but a caricature, something mechanic, disanimate, opaque, superimposed on a collective existence which is itself no less empty.” -Julius Evola
We live in such a time that only caricatures of the true State exist. Because of this, many are led to believe that the deviations and perversions characteristic of this epoch are all that the State can be. The Traditional understanding of State and nation have been so far removed that every remedy we come up with is just as corrupt as the original perversion. In reality, the State is an organic structure which establishes authentic order and directs those beneath it toward the divine. As this is the State’s true function, it does not necessarily have a violent origin; instead, those who have not eliminated the higher potential within themselves are inexorably drawn to the State and those who embody it.
We live in such a time that only caricatures of the true State exist. Because of this, many are led to believe that the deviations and perversions characteristic of this epoch are all that the State can be. The Traditional understanding of State and nation have been so far removed that every remedy we come up with is just as corrupt as the original perversion. In reality, the State is an organic structure which establishes authentic order and directs those beneath it toward the divine. As this is the State’s true function, it does not necessarily have a violent origin; instead, those who have not eliminated the higher potential within themselves are inexorably drawn to the State and those who embody it.
Forwarded from Right Wing Study Squad
Objective morality does exist, but there is also a practical reason why people should want to legislate morality. The prosperity that westerners achieve is predicated in part on being free of parasites who ride along and weigh us down. Harsh natural conditions naturally filtered out parasites in the past because they either conformed to the appropriate standard of conduct or starved and died. In the modern west, parasites have been able to fester and grow, and they have turned their heathen behaviors into interest groups that elites use to take political power for themselves by adopting them as constituents—which they feed through theft of the wealth created by the capable. There has to be a standard to prevent the accumulation of that dead weight because success will ultimately allow for its generation, and elites have an interest in its existence.
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Fr. Hewko on the matter of religious liberty. Nobody has a right to promote error, to hold a heretical belief, or to be indifferent toward doctrines which go against Christ and the Church.
Many in their material fascination of Tradition will echo this quote without grasping its implications. They will admit a change in the winds must come to pass yet gripe about the tacking. They will dismiss the attention given to seemingly trivial things as needless pedantry. They will hurl insults such as “extremist”, “rad trad”, or “radicalist” as if they’re pejoratives.
They fail to see why “majoring in the minors” is appropriate. We must become cognizant of just how meticulously applied the universal egalitarian precepts are, and how they sew together every social domain to their glaring repulsiveness like patchwork. Only then will we understand why extreme measures are necessary, why a perdurable zeal emanating from our souls must guide every step of our journey, every decision we make, every element of our lives, no matter how insignificant we might think them to be.
We must extract every ingredient of the liberal ethos. Whether their flames be ablaze over a Church, or a home, or a shrub, we must extinguish them. We must repudiate and wash our hands of anything that smacks of the Judeo-Masonic egalitarian spirit. Our mission is not simply to defend ourselves against these evil forces, but to take the offensive, to create a society on which the social reign of Christ the King is established. We must forswear the utilitarianism of mass-produced commodities for the sake of preserving more immaterial values. We must be strict about what fashions we choose to display, which customs we partake in.
It is far less convenient to escape the modern spirit, to do away with the labor-saving practices that diminish our lifestyle, our spiritual and physical health. To be radical requires struggle, to be extreme requires sacrificing your temporary comfort in pursuit of something eternal. We who understand this are dangerous to those who are unwilling to sacrifice their bed of roses, and that is why they disavow us. Their principles are superficial, likely to change throughout the course of their life. We must remain steadfast, and never relinquish the opportunity we are given to struggle, to be exceptional among the mediocre.
They fail to see why “majoring in the minors” is appropriate. We must become cognizant of just how meticulously applied the universal egalitarian precepts are, and how they sew together every social domain to their glaring repulsiveness like patchwork. Only then will we understand why extreme measures are necessary, why a perdurable zeal emanating from our souls must guide every step of our journey, every decision we make, every element of our lives, no matter how insignificant we might think them to be.
We must extract every ingredient of the liberal ethos. Whether their flames be ablaze over a Church, or a home, or a shrub, we must extinguish them. We must repudiate and wash our hands of anything that smacks of the Judeo-Masonic egalitarian spirit. Our mission is not simply to defend ourselves against these evil forces, but to take the offensive, to create a society on which the social reign of Christ the King is established. We must forswear the utilitarianism of mass-produced commodities for the sake of preserving more immaterial values. We must be strict about what fashions we choose to display, which customs we partake in.
It is far less convenient to escape the modern spirit, to do away with the labor-saving practices that diminish our lifestyle, our spiritual and physical health. To be radical requires struggle, to be extreme requires sacrificing your temporary comfort in pursuit of something eternal. We who understand this are dangerous to those who are unwilling to sacrifice their bed of roses, and that is why they disavow us. Their principles are superficial, likely to change throughout the course of their life. We must remain steadfast, and never relinquish the opportunity we are given to struggle, to be exceptional among the mediocre.
Those bearing the light of eternity within them are the only ones capable of bringing order, stability, and glory to the land, yet it was these who were struck down by those singing the songs of modernism in their myriad forms. These slaves to darkness not only sought to vanquish their legitimate rulers, but also sought to douse the flame within them entirely, for so long as such a flame persists, their doom is inevitable. This is why the new “elites”, these usurpers continue to hinder those who possess even a partial knowledge of Truth from exerting any influence, even when it requires infiltrating or manipulating the leadership of such opposition. We children of Tradition thus find ourselves facing a twofold death from above.
The rise of, the recognition of, and the unconditional submission to those few superior individuals who remain, to those who bear the light of Tradition within themselves, is necessary of us. Without these individuals at the fore, no victory is possible. The death we face from above is so only relatively; make no mistake, victory must come from the heights where no impurity remains.
The rise of, the recognition of, and the unconditional submission to those few superior individuals who remain, to those who bear the light of Tradition within themselves, is necessary of us. Without these individuals at the fore, no victory is possible. The death we face from above is so only relatively; make no mistake, victory must come from the heights where no impurity remains.
FEAST OF GLORY AND PEACE
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will”
(Lk. 2:14)
“Glory.” How many effulgent moral values were seen in the meaning of this word in Antiquity.
It was to have glory that so many kings strived to spread their dominion, so many armies faced death, so many scholars dedicated themselves to arduous studies, so many trailblazers plunged into the most terrible solitudes, so many poets created lofty works, and so many musicians plucked from their very depths their most vibrant notes...
Yes, even in the quest for richness, there are not just factors of money, comfort and safety, but also power, prestige, and - in a word - glory.
But what elements compose this notion of glory? Some were inherent to the person: an elevated mind, great virtue and outstanding actions. Others were linked to what is today called public opinion; fame, a far-reaching recognition of one’s eminent qualities.
And what is glory worth? In what sense does the desire for glory elevate the soul?
There is no doubt that material goods were created for our use and that in proper measure man may desire these goods. But, when one raises them up to be the supreme values of existence, he reveals a low, egotistic and narrow spirit. In a word, one belonging to that category Holy Scripture strongly denounces: those for whom God is their belly (cf. Phil 3:19).
We remember all this because in the imponderable aspects of Khrushchev’s visit to the United States in 1959 and the many favorable comments subsequently published worldwide, what is insinuated is precisely this worldview. That is, the sole authentic aim of human society would be to promote a profitable and pleasant life. All religious, philosophical, and artistic questions would only have a minor importance or none at all.
In terms of material advantages, what matters most is avoiding a war - even if the world must implicitly resign itself to gradual bolshevization. Thus, what the West must preserve above all is a peaceful coexistence of peoples. Peace must be attained at all costs, because the price of war is incalculable.
Such an attitude reduces us to a life of ignominy. We will be slaves to the omnipotent State, lost an immense mass of anonymous people, disfigured by a “culture” that seeks to eliminate personalities and standardize men. A society that denies morality, the existence of the soul and even of God: all this is of little import.
Herein lies, however, for millions of souls, the supreme temptation because the word “glory” has become almost meaningless. It still exists in dictionaries, it may be used at times in familiar language. Other than this, it could almost be said the word is dead. And, with its disuse, comes the disappearance of other words related to it: honor, prestige, decorum..
In the face of this world that has deliriously hypertrophied the importance of the material life, on the occasion of Holy Christmas Our Lord gives us, fully and soundly, a most opportune double lesson.
First, let us consider the way of life of the Holy Family. A dynasty that lost the throne and its wealth has in St. Joseph a sapling that lives in poverty. The Blessed Virgin accepts the situation with perfect peace. Both strive to maintain an orderly and composed existence in this poverty, but their minds are not filled with plans of rising economically, comfort and pleasures, but rather with cogitations concerning God Our Lord.
How much poverty... and how much glory! True glory because it is not “cost estimate” made by the utilitarian and Pharisaic men of Jerusalem who appreciate others according to the measure of their riches. Rather, it is a glory that is a reflection of the true glory: that of God in the highest heavens.
It is often said that the poverty of the Holy Family in Bethlehem teaches us detachment from the goods of the earth, and this is true.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will”
(Lk. 2:14)
“Glory.” How many effulgent moral values were seen in the meaning of this word in Antiquity.
It was to have glory that so many kings strived to spread their dominion, so many armies faced death, so many scholars dedicated themselves to arduous studies, so many trailblazers plunged into the most terrible solitudes, so many poets created lofty works, and so many musicians plucked from their very depths their most vibrant notes...
Yes, even in the quest for richness, there are not just factors of money, comfort and safety, but also power, prestige, and - in a word - glory.
But what elements compose this notion of glory? Some were inherent to the person: an elevated mind, great virtue and outstanding actions. Others were linked to what is today called public opinion; fame, a far-reaching recognition of one’s eminent qualities.
And what is glory worth? In what sense does the desire for glory elevate the soul?
There is no doubt that material goods were created for our use and that in proper measure man may desire these goods. But, when one raises them up to be the supreme values of existence, he reveals a low, egotistic and narrow spirit. In a word, one belonging to that category Holy Scripture strongly denounces: those for whom God is their belly (cf. Phil 3:19).
We remember all this because in the imponderable aspects of Khrushchev’s visit to the United States in 1959 and the many favorable comments subsequently published worldwide, what is insinuated is precisely this worldview. That is, the sole authentic aim of human society would be to promote a profitable and pleasant life. All religious, philosophical, and artistic questions would only have a minor importance or none at all.
In terms of material advantages, what matters most is avoiding a war - even if the world must implicitly resign itself to gradual bolshevization. Thus, what the West must preserve above all is a peaceful coexistence of peoples. Peace must be attained at all costs, because the price of war is incalculable.
Such an attitude reduces us to a life of ignominy. We will be slaves to the omnipotent State, lost an immense mass of anonymous people, disfigured by a “culture” that seeks to eliminate personalities and standardize men. A society that denies morality, the existence of the soul and even of God: all this is of little import.
Herein lies, however, for millions of souls, the supreme temptation because the word “glory” has become almost meaningless. It still exists in dictionaries, it may be used at times in familiar language. Other than this, it could almost be said the word is dead. And, with its disuse, comes the disappearance of other words related to it: honor, prestige, decorum..
In the face of this world that has deliriously hypertrophied the importance of the material life, on the occasion of Holy Christmas Our Lord gives us, fully and soundly, a most opportune double lesson.
First, let us consider the way of life of the Holy Family. A dynasty that lost the throne and its wealth has in St. Joseph a sapling that lives in poverty. The Blessed Virgin accepts the situation with perfect peace. Both strive to maintain an orderly and composed existence in this poverty, but their minds are not filled with plans of rising economically, comfort and pleasures, but rather with cogitations concerning God Our Lord.
How much poverty... and how much glory! True glory because it is not “cost estimate” made by the utilitarian and Pharisaic men of Jerusalem who appreciate others according to the measure of their riches. Rather, it is a glory that is a reflection of the true glory: that of God in the highest heavens.
It is often said that the poverty of the Holy Family in Bethlehem teaches us detachment from the goods of the earth, and this is true.
It should be added, however, that there is, beyond this, a high and lucid teaching at Holy Christmas on the value of the goods of Heaven and the moral goods on earth that stand as a figure of the heavenly ones. In this respect, there is perhaps some further clarification needed.
God created the universe for His extrinsic glory. Thus, all irrational creatures tend wholly to the glorification of God. And man, endowed with intelligence and free will, has an obligation to employ the potentialities of his soul - and his whole being - for the same purpose. His ultimate purpose is not to live a happy, easy and carefree life, but to give glory to God.
Now then, man achieves this by disposing all his interior and exterior acts toward recognizing and proclaiming the infinite perfections and sovereign power of the Creator. Created in the image of God, man gives glory to Him, seeking to imitate him as much as possible in his nature as a mere creature. Thus, our comprehension of God and our love for Him, to the measure it makes us similar to Him, also makes us participants in His glory.
This explains the immense respect the saints have always awakened, even by those who persecuted them. A simple cook, like Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, walking the streets of Rome impressed passersby with her respectability. In the apparitions of Our Lady, she manifests herself as extremely maternal, amiable and condescending, but at the same time indescribably dignified, respectable and refulgent in royal majesty. And what can be said of Our Lord, the source of all holiness? He was so condescending that he even washed the feet of the apostles. But, so infinitely majestic that a word from Him made all the soldiers who came to arrest Him fall to the ground (cf. John 18:6).
Now then, Jesus Christ is our model. The Saints, who imitated him magnificently, are also models. Thus, every true Catholic must strive for a high respectability, gravity, firmness and elevation that must distinguish him from the vulgarity, dirtiness and extravagance of everything that falls under the dominion of Satan.
This, then, is not just the splendor that comes from the practice of virtue. All power comes from God (Rom 13:1) - that of the King as well as that of the nobleman, the father, the patron or the teacher. In some way the holder of a position must be for his subjects like an image of God. There is an intrinsic dignity in all power, which is a reflection of the divine majesty.
Thus, in a Catholic society, one who holds any relevant position must respect himself because of this situation. He must convey that respect to those with whom he deals. In this way, Catholic temporal society shines with the glory of God. It sings His glory in its own particular way, just as spiritual society, which is the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, also sings with her ineffable tones. Here on earth the life of a man becomes a harbinger of that song of glory that is intoned in Heaven for the endless ages.
Someone may protest, “isn’t the love of one’s own glory a type of pride?”
The answer is no, if the matter is understood well.
If anyone loves his own glory and not the glory of God, there is pride in this. If one loves his own glory not because it is a reflection of the glory of God but only because it is a way to receive homage, exercise dominion over others or control events, in this there is pride. But, if a man desires to merit the respect of his neighbor only so that God may be glorified, he shows grandeur of soul and true humility.
And what about good will? Doesn’t it consist of “democratizing” ourselves, putting ourselves on the same level as everyone else to attract their love?
One of the most fatal errors of our time is to imagine that respect and love exclude one another, and that the less respected a King, a father, or a teacher is, the more loved he will be. The truth is the opposite. High respectability, whenever it is steeped in a true love of God, can only attract the esteem and confidence of righteous men.
God created the universe for His extrinsic glory. Thus, all irrational creatures tend wholly to the glorification of God. And man, endowed with intelligence and free will, has an obligation to employ the potentialities of his soul - and his whole being - for the same purpose. His ultimate purpose is not to live a happy, easy and carefree life, but to give glory to God.
Now then, man achieves this by disposing all his interior and exterior acts toward recognizing and proclaiming the infinite perfections and sovereign power of the Creator. Created in the image of God, man gives glory to Him, seeking to imitate him as much as possible in his nature as a mere creature. Thus, our comprehension of God and our love for Him, to the measure it makes us similar to Him, also makes us participants in His glory.
This explains the immense respect the saints have always awakened, even by those who persecuted them. A simple cook, like Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, walking the streets of Rome impressed passersby with her respectability. In the apparitions of Our Lady, she manifests herself as extremely maternal, amiable and condescending, but at the same time indescribably dignified, respectable and refulgent in royal majesty. And what can be said of Our Lord, the source of all holiness? He was so condescending that he even washed the feet of the apostles. But, so infinitely majestic that a word from Him made all the soldiers who came to arrest Him fall to the ground (cf. John 18:6).
Now then, Jesus Christ is our model. The Saints, who imitated him magnificently, are also models. Thus, every true Catholic must strive for a high respectability, gravity, firmness and elevation that must distinguish him from the vulgarity, dirtiness and extravagance of everything that falls under the dominion of Satan.
This, then, is not just the splendor that comes from the practice of virtue. All power comes from God (Rom 13:1) - that of the King as well as that of the nobleman, the father, the patron or the teacher. In some way the holder of a position must be for his subjects like an image of God. There is an intrinsic dignity in all power, which is a reflection of the divine majesty.
Thus, in a Catholic society, one who holds any relevant position must respect himself because of this situation. He must convey that respect to those with whom he deals. In this way, Catholic temporal society shines with the glory of God. It sings His glory in its own particular way, just as spiritual society, which is the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, also sings with her ineffable tones. Here on earth the life of a man becomes a harbinger of that song of glory that is intoned in Heaven for the endless ages.
Someone may protest, “isn’t the love of one’s own glory a type of pride?”
The answer is no, if the matter is understood well.
If anyone loves his own glory and not the glory of God, there is pride in this. If one loves his own glory not because it is a reflection of the glory of God but only because it is a way to receive homage, exercise dominion over others or control events, in this there is pride. But, if a man desires to merit the respect of his neighbor only so that God may be glorified, he shows grandeur of soul and true humility.
And what about good will? Doesn’t it consist of “democratizing” ourselves, putting ourselves on the same level as everyone else to attract their love?
One of the most fatal errors of our time is to imagine that respect and love exclude one another, and that the less respected a King, a father, or a teacher is, the more loved he will be. The truth is the opposite. High respectability, whenever it is steeped in a true love of God, can only attract the esteem and confidence of righteous men.
When this is not the case, it is not because respectability is so high, but because its foundation is not in the love of God.
The solution is not to lower oneself, but to invite the supernatural to dwell within you. A true supernatural dignity can abase itself without being abased. On the other hand, an egotistic and vain dignity neither desires nor knows how to condescend itself while remaining fully itself. When it feels strong, it debases others. When it feels weak, from fear it debases itself.
Imagine, then, a temporal society impregnated with this high, majestic and strong nobility, a reflection of the sublimity of God. A society where a great elevation was indissolubly linked to an immense goodness, in such a way that the more strength and majesty increased, the more commiseration and goodness would grow alongside it.
The result is great Order and great Peace.
For what is peace but tranquility in order (St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ch. 13)?
Stagnation in error and evil, concord with the followers of Satan, an apparent conciliation between light and darkness that, thus, confers citizenship to evil, only bring disorder and generate a tranquility that is the caricature of true peace.
True peace exists only among men of good will, who seek the glory of God with all their hearts.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will” (Lk. 2:14).
~Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The solution is not to lower oneself, but to invite the supernatural to dwell within you. A true supernatural dignity can abase itself without being abased. On the other hand, an egotistic and vain dignity neither desires nor knows how to condescend itself while remaining fully itself. When it feels strong, it debases others. When it feels weak, from fear it debases itself.
Imagine, then, a temporal society impregnated with this high, majestic and strong nobility, a reflection of the sublimity of God. A society where a great elevation was indissolubly linked to an immense goodness, in such a way that the more strength and majesty increased, the more commiseration and goodness would grow alongside it.
The result is great Order and great Peace.
For what is peace but tranquility in order (St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, ch. 13)?
Stagnation in error and evil, concord with the followers of Satan, an apparent conciliation between light and darkness that, thus, confers citizenship to evil, only bring disorder and generate a tranquility that is the caricature of true peace.
True peace exists only among men of good will, who seek the glory of God with all their hearts.
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will” (Lk. 2:14).
~Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira