Center for Fundamental Rights

Five Principles of the Libtard

Five Principles of the Libtard

Their bloated egos float unmoored to reality

Yes, the subtitle describes the libtards of our times perfectly. Their “free spirited” decadence advertises itself with such arrogance, awesome acoustics and informational architecture that some people are prone to accept their insinuations, and thus we might arrive at the point where trash does become the standard. However, if we wash off the excess make-up, what we find is that the cool hip-hop band is transformed into a bunch of frustrated social justice warriors, spreading the dogma of an intolerant tolerance. As a cautionary tale, let us take five principles of the libtard:

Rejecting the transcendental. As Ferenc Koszorús, who did much to protect the Jewish residents of Budapest in 1944, once said “We find the root of troubles there when and where they dared to reject God, and the troubles turned into debauched corruption and a headlong rush into the destruction of humanity when and where they institutionalized the rejection of God.” The acceptance of and respect for the existence of the transcendental, who is the master of our fates and our Creator, does not merely mean that we know: there is something beyond death, and heaven is not found or brought about on this earth. It also means that we accept that there is someone above us, someone we follow, whose commands we treat as absolute and eternal, who defines what is “good” and “bad” – that hierarchy is an essential element of life. However, liberalism, in the name of the ideal of individual freedom, rejects such hierarchical order. And by rejecting the word of God, it rejects the notion that anyone beyond us could tell us, or that any measure or wisdom could presuppose what is “right” and “wrong”. But, just as there is no salvation without faith, there cannot be order, safety and happiness without a respect for authority and the true measure of “good” and “bad”.

The absolutization of equality. The basic principle of liberalism departing from the ideas of individual freedom and the relativization of the universe arrives at the conclusion that every system of values and every socio-cultural behavior is equal. Following the demands of valueless neutrality, we cannot discriminate against or in favor of anything. Indeed, if we reject authority and a hierarchical order of values, what could any concept of “good” or “bad” be grounded in? We sacrifice truth at the altar of appeasement, honesty at the altar of political correctness – as we must accept the other’s opinion (even at the expense of the public good) even when we have moral truth on our side, because in every situation we must remain sensitive to the other’s lived experience, subjective reality. Egalitarianism devoid of the concept of God, due to its secular nature, suffers from rejecting Creation, and thus the paradigm of the original sin: man is imperfect and erring because we are born with the original sin. Our various errors and imperfections naturally create heterogeneity and inequality. That is good because that is the nature of the created world. Liberals are frustrated because they do not think it should be this way – as a result they want to shape the world in their own image even if that requires violence and social engineering.

Immediate satisfaction of desire. The “Live as you please!” approach to social interactions and to (human) rights leads to the interpretation that if anybody should desire or require anything, he ought to be allowed to satisfy this need right now – and he has the right to force such satisfaction. This desire for freedom does not mean the pursuit of happiness, but a right to be happy, rejecting all wisdom and the need for restraint and forbearance understood through careful retrospection.  It states that the immediate satisfaction of desires is the true meaning of freedom, while in reality the most basic requirement for human interaction is self-discipline. It is our ability to show restraint that allows us to live together and form communities, not the overrated notion of sensitivity. This drive to satisfy desire is a never-ending expedition, as one is always expected to supersede whatever has already been achieved. As liberals explicitly believe that the world progresses in every possible sense of the word, something more advanced must supplant whatever was in the past or is in the present. But in reality, the times that we live in are more advanced than previous ages in two respects alone: we are more technologically developed and more vulgar.

The rejection of history. Demonization of the Past arises from the fact that according to progressives it is always something sinful. It is a horrible thing, devoid of progress – History is a dead weight that must be forgotten and abandoned. In modernity, the wisdom of the ages is obsolete anyway, because “our age” is more progressive than any preceding one. “We must be better than our ancestors”, and thus, our understanding today, not the experiences of the generations that came before us, must form the basis of any judgment. This approach believes in the end of history, because in the eyes of the liberal the current age is the “best” that has ever been, and the ancient values, rooted in tradition must be consigned to the dustbin of history. The above is particularly true for to the lay apostles of the intelligentsia, who treat the history of Western Civilization as a fountainhead of sin, whose power must break when it comes into conflict with the sensitivities of other cultures. Naturally, such rejection of history results in the eradication of our own identity. But that is desirable in the eyes of progress, as the stereotypes of the past prevent the flowering of creativity, wisdom based in experience and the understanding of past events constrains “the flight of free thought”. However, a better reading of history will convince us every single day that “what our grandparents said is true”. Current political debate points to the end of “the end of history” – that the past lives with us, and that the answers to questions of identity are found in our history.

The fetishization of reason. In the false narrative of progressivism, the power of reason and rationality is the foundation upon which they base a fake concept of neutral truth. This approach strips Man of his humanity and reduces him to a mere “rational actor”. It presupposes that humans are sufficiently “divine” to tackle every social or moral issue through reason. At the foundation of this view there lies a concept that states: “if there is a problem, it can be resolved by giving the individual more information, more knowledge”. The pathologists of society accuse conservativism of “belittling the mind, an uncritical admiration of intuition, the rejection of socio-historical progress and creating myths”. Well, they are right! Man is an irrational being who is motivated by communal knowledge, traditions that carry the wisdom of previous generations, prejudice and emotions ever since his creation. Thus, the paradigm based on the power of reason cannot understand the human mind and generally “capitulates in concrete situations”.  (Naturally, the consequence we draw from this is not self-recrimination, but the universal aspiration to change the world and others.)

Given the above, the ways in which progressivism conflicts with life and reality are quite evident. And yet its onward march is often met with dispirited silence. Many will simply shrug and take the ever newer and ever more corrupt tendencies to be fleeting fashions of overaged juveniles. But they are wrong, and what we have here is a tendentious attempt to undermine the immune system of our society, it is the institutionalization of the libtard approach to life. Let us not be further sensitized: this is a slippery slope and we could only retreat towards our graves. Which is really not what we want.

The author of this article is Miklós Szánthó, the director of the Center for Fundamental Rights. 

It was previously published in Magyar Nemzet. 

Öt libernyákság