Why did the West go to Hell by Virapala
[Why did the West go to Hell attempts to be a logical and historical explanation of the genesis of today’s Absurdistan: a world where you are evil if you say that pigs cannot fly. You can contact the author on virapala.merdeta.com]
Part I.b.: The two religions
Introduction
We saw in the previous installment that the modern Western civilization is founded on a relativistic religion. This ideology is:
- relativistic in theory with respect to the truth and morality, which are claimed to be relative (different for each person).
- relativistic in practice because it uses concepts like freedom, equality and rights. These concepts are claimed to be absolute (the same for each person) but they are relative, because the freedom/equality/right of a person is, in reality, the lack of freedom/equality/right of another person.
We have seen that the relativism of Western civilization causes societal problems like anarchy, tyranny and atomized societies. For a better explanation, please read the previous installment.
However, the main problem of the relativism in Western civilization is the one will be explained in next.
Political systems cannot be based on relativism
The main problem of relativism is that it is impossible to implement in a society.
It is well known that the different relativistic concepts contradict each other. As Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said: «Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free».
But there is something deeper than that. Each relativistic concept contradicts itself. Relativism is impossible to scale.
Every man can adopt relativism in an individual manner (and, as we saw, this produces conflict, which causes anarchy, tyranny and atomized societies). But it is impossible to apply relativism in a collective manner.
To be more specific, it is impossible for a political system to be based on relativism.
This is because each political system is based on laws. The law should allow some things and forbid other things. Which things should the law allow or forbid? It should allow things that are considered good and forbid things that are considered evil. Therefore, it needs a concept of good and evil that is publicly shared by the elite and authorities and, even better, by the entire population (even if they don’t feel this way in private, see Timur Kuran’s Private Truths, Public Lies).
This concept of the good and the evil upon which the law is based is the official ideology of the society, that is, its official religion, because we define religion as a moral system that distinguishes good from evil. In this sense, every country is a theocracy.
(Some of you will object to my use of the R word but, please, bear with me. This will be explained in another text and let’s not quarrel about names. If you have problems with this word, please replace it with moralistic ideology).
This official religion cannot be relativistic in theory (if there is no absolute truth and no absolute good, there is no reason to have laws that allow and forbid behaviors).
This official religion cannot be relativistic in practice either. For example the law cannot be founded on «freedom». It is common for politicians to say: «Our political system is founded on freedom», as if the relative concept of freedom was an absolute concept (the same for everybody). But there is no such thing as a political system founded on freedom because the freedom of somebody is the lack of freedom of somebody else.
My freedom to have private property is the lack of freedom of everybody else to use my property without my consent. Capitalist countries will allow the first freedom and will forbid the second one. Communist countries will do the opposite (in theory). But you cannot allow both freedoms at once. So there is not a political system based on freedom, the same way you cannot have a coin with one side.
In short, a political system cannot be founded on relativist concepts, because the law is absolutist and not relativistic.
But we have said that the Western civilization is based on a relativistic ideology. So how is this possible? Are we contradicting ourselves?
The paradox of Western civilization
It is possible because relativism is the theoretical official religion of the Western civilization but it is never put into practice in the political systems of this civilization. It is only used by the powers that be in a rhetorical, official and theoretical way (in speeches, official documents and, more importantly, as a way of justifying policies and laws). But, as explained above, it cannot be applied in practice so it is not applied.
For example, in theory, all people in Western countries are free, equal and have the same rights. This statement is completely relativistic and completely theoretical.
But, in practice, some people are freer than others, some people are more equal than others and some people have more rights than others. So, for example, in a divorce, the person who wants out of the marriage has freedom and rights to divorce, but, the person who wants to remain in the marriage and his kids have no freedom or rights at all. In an abortion, the woman is free to kill her child (it is her right) while the man and the fetus have no freedom or rights and nothing to say. And so on and so forth.
As we have seen, it would be impossible for a society to be based on freedom, because the freedom of a person is the lack of freedom of another person (the freedom to divorce of a woman is the lack of freedom of a man to see how their kids grow). So in the Western civilization, like in any other countries, some freedoms are guaranteed while other freedoms are restricted. In a Muslim country, the woman has no freedom to divorce but the man has the freedom to see his kids grow. The late blogger Zippy Catholic used to hammer this point home once and again (we miss you, Mark).
Muslim countries don’t have less freedoms than Western countries. They have different freedoms. However, Muslim countries are coherent because they don’t claim to be based on freedom while Western countries do.
In short. relativisim is not workable and is completely absurd. It cannot be put into practice in a society.
Therefore, in fact, Western civilization has two official religions:
1. A relativistic religion in theory, for rhetorical uses. I will call this «liberalism». Its relative concepts (liberty, equality and rights) are presented as if they were absolute concepts and they are claimed to be the foundation of the society.
Of course, this is only a rhetorical trick (for speeches and, more importantly, to justify policies and laws). Relativism cannot be put into practice so liberalism is only a rhetorical ploy.
Liberalism is a very simple ideology (it only consists of some few words: liberty, equality, progress, rights, etc.) and has not substantially changed for the last 200 years.
2. There is a real official religion, which is codified in the laws and it is the base of public discourse and policies. I will call it «leftism».
This is an absolute religion with absolute goods and evils. For example, absolute evils are racism, sexism, homophobia, white nationalism. Absolute goods are the legalization of divorce and abortion, secularization, uncontrolled immigration, etc. These are absolute concepts and must be enforced as absolute by the law, the government and society in general.
Leftism is constantly changing and incorporating new absolute goods and evils (transphobia is the latest evil so far, but it won’t be the last).
Go to a workplace and say that you don’t think the new LGBTI program is a good idea, because everybody should have their opinion and freedom of thought, and you will see how long liberalism (relativism) goes (I did this and I was fired). You will see what the ideology being enforced in society is leftism, not liberalism.
Liberalism is only a rhetorical ploy to justify leftism. It took me a lot to see this distinction and this article by Bonald was useful so I decided to use his terminology.
That article explains how both religions are used to justify leftism, for example, in a debate of gay marriage. You attack the ideas of ideologies other than leftism by using liberalism («Christian marriage is a cultural construct that does not allow freedom and equality to gay couples. Live and let live») and you defend your own ideas by using leftism («You should bake the cake for a gay wedding, you bigot, you homophobe»). There is no freedom or live and let live for this last case.
In short, your ideas are relative (liberalism), my ideas are absolute (leftism). It is «relativism for thee but not for me»., which is a phenomenon constantly seen in the history of relativism, since its introduction in the Western civilization in the 16th century.
In short, Western civilization is based on what I call «a false relativism». Relativism (liberalism) is used in a rhetorical way as if it were the foundation of society but society is based on leftism, on an absolutist religion (like any other society is because it is impossible to do it another way).
How other societies work with ultimate justification
If Western society is really based on an absolutist ideology like other societies, why is so harmful that it uses relativism in a rhetorical function?
The problem is that relativism is used as an ultimate justification of changes in the culture and in the law. And relativism can justify anything, no matter how insane it is.
If we start asking: «Why is A true/false?», this will have an answer along the lines of «A is true/false because it is derived from B, which is true/false». Then we can repeat the question with B: «Why is B true/false». This will produce a C being true/false. We cannot go on infinitely with this chain of justification. This chain stops with Z being true/false, full stop. Z is an ultimate justification and we can call it «a reality dogma».
This is regarding the IS part of Hume’s IS-OUGHT distinction. But it is the same about the OUGHT part. That is, morality works the same way. If we start asking: «Why is A good/evil?», this will have an answer along the lines of «A is good/evil because it produces B, which is good/evil». Then we can repeat the question with B: «Why is B good/evil». This will produce a C being good/evil. We cannot go on infinitely with this chain of justification. This chain stops with Z being good/evil, full stop. Z is an ultimate justification and we can call it «a morality dogma».
All civilizations have dogmas, which are the foundation of the civilization. In ancient societies, dogmas were collected in holy traditions or holy texts such as the Bible, the Qur’an or the Talmud, which were used as the ultimate justification in these other societies. Each chain of justification ended with «the Bible/Qur’an/Talmud says it so».
However, these holy texts are extensions of obvious reality («men are women are different») and of the natural law («don’t steal»), that is, the universal moral law that all sane societies follow, because it is biologically wired in humans and it is the only way to organize a society. The natural law has dogmas like «don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t murder, respect your neighbor’s wife, etc.».
All traditional holy texts include the dogmas of obvious reality («men are women are different») and the natural law («don’t steal») with some exceptions. They also include some other dogmas in addition («the Trinity», «the obligation to pray», «Mohammed being the last prophet»). So the traditional holy texts can be seen as extensions of obvious reality and the natural law. See the appendix of The Abolition of Men by C.S.Lewis to see how all civilizations agree on the dogmas of the natural law (called «the Tao» by C.S.Lewis).
(The mechanism that makes all the holy texts to agree on obvious reality and the natural law is that societies that are not based on the natural law don’t survive long term , because the natural law is the minimum set of rules needed for a society to function, so the holy traditions of these societies die with them. This will be explored in another text)
Having the dogmas of a society derived from holy texts has as a benefit that its culture is not completely free. The culture is constantly changing but it does not get very far away from the dogmas of the holy texts, so it does not get very far away from obvious reality and the natural law. I imagine these cultures as a dog tied to a stick with a chain. The stick is obvious reality and the natural law. The dog (the culture) can move somewhat but he is not completely free, he must be somewhat close to the stick, even if the chain is long.
This seems outrageous to modern Western people, raised in a diet of false rationalism. How can you limit your freedom of thought? You should be able to question anything! Follow your reason when it leads you!.
In fact, human reason (aided by convincing fallacies and social pressure) can justify absolutely anything, The modern West is a society that prides itself in its rationalism and it has rationally justified that a man is a woman (see «the social construction of gender» and other sophistries).
The dogmas of the holy texts mean that ancient cultures are protected from insanity. They cannot say that there are 26 genders because «God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27). Or, if you are a Muslim, «O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women.» (Qur’an 4:1)
How the modern West works with ultimate justification
As we have said, the modern West has leftism as his real religion, but liberalism is his ultimate justification. Unlike ancient societies, whose dogmas were written in long texts, the dogmas of the modern West are surprisingly short: they are limited to a series of relativistic liberal concepts: freedom, equality, rights, and progress (with an additional implicit concept: tabula rasa or blank slate). In the modern West, these concepts of liberalism play the same role than the Bible, the Qur’an or the Talmud in other societies, which are used as the ultimate justification in these societies.
Every ultimate justification of the leftist religion in Western society is done starting from liberalism (which is the rhetorical religion) and not from leftism (which is the real religion). So why is homophobia evil? Because it goes against the freedom, equality and rights of homosexual people. Why is secularization good? Because it goes in favor of the freedom and equality of people of non-Christian religions, and so on and so forth.
So why is having liberalism as justification so bad? And how it is possible than an absolutist ideology (leftism) is justified starting from a relativistic ideology (liberalism), when this is logically impossible?
It is bad because the dogmas of Western civilization (freedom, equality, rights) are completely relativistic. When applied to the collective, they are false dogmas that don’t mean anything. They are words to conceal the fact that the Western civilization has no dogmas at all. This means that this civilization is a free dog, with no chain. The civilization can move in any direction and there is no limit to the insanity it can accept.
Any direction the Western civilization moves can be justified as a new right, freedom or equality. Do we want to legalize divorce? We can say we are protecting the rights and freedoms of people unhappy in their marriage. Do we want to forbid divorce? We can say we are protecting the rights and freedoms of kids to have a stable family.
Do we want to enforce the identification of trannies as women? We can say we are protecting the rights of people trapped in the wrong body or are wanting the equality of these «women» with other women. Do we want to forbid identification of trannies as a women? We want to protect the rights of women to have private spaces (like restrooms) or the equality of women to have the same reward as men with the same effort in sports.
The sacred relativistic concepts (freedom, equality, rights) of our civilization are able to justify ANYTHING, no matter what. These are no dogmas when applied to collective but a series of empty words than don’t mean anything. They can justify anything and its opposite.
That is, there is no insanity big enough that cannot be justified by using relativistic concepts. And this is why our society has reached these levels of insanity: liberalism (relativism) as an ultimate justification allows it, while other societies are restricted by their holy texts, their absolute religions based on the natural law.
Liberalism for me but not for thee
But this produces another question. If liberalism can justify anything, why is it only used to justify leftism? Why isn’t liberalism used to justify the freedom of people not to bake a cake for a so-called «gay marriage»? Or the rights of kids to have a stable family?
More specifically, the fact that the relativistic liberalism allows insanity does not mean that it forces insanity. If liberalism concepts mean nothing, if liberal concepts give freedom to the society (to the dog) to go in any direction (because they are relativistic), we would expect for the Western society to go in random directions, but the direction is always the same: towards insanity and towards the opposite direction of obvious reality and the natural law.
In fact, if we speak accurately, liberalism is not properly an ultimate justification of leftism. It is an ultimate rationalization.
Leftism has its own dynamics and evolves in an completely independent way from liberalism. It has mechanisms in place that make leftism evolve in one direction. As Mencius Moldbug said “Cthulhu may swim slowly. But he only swims left. Isn’t that interesting?”
Once leftism has produced a cultural change because its own internal dynamics, liberalism is called to justify it, to rationalize it. A liberal justification is created which justifies the novelty as derived from the freedom/equality/right of someone (let’s say the freedom and right to be called by your favorite pronouns). The fact that the freedom/equality/rights of other people is restricted is completely omitted (the freedom/right of everybody to free expression).
That is, leftism is rationalized starting from liberalism using a fallacy of omission («stack the deck» fallacy). This is the only way to derive an absolute ideology (leftism) from a relativistic ideology (liberalism).
In other words, it is liberalism for me but not for thee. Relativism is never applied in a complete manner. It is applied in a partial way that justifies leftism and, when it contradicts leftism, it is not applied. Liberalism justifies leftist rights but other rights are never discussed. We constantly see this in the history of the modern West.
And this is all I wanted to say about the relativistic ideology of liberalism. However, the absolutist religion of leftism merits an additional explanation. More specifically, what are the mechanisms that make leftism always evolve in the same direction (the opposite direction from obvious reality and natural law)? This will be seen in the next installment of this text.