Last year I wrote an article on the Roderic O’Gorman controversy.
The what I remember most about the those events was the confrontation between nationalist protestors and Sinn-Féin affiliated counter-protestors outside of Leinster House. The latter group chanted their tried-and-true yet tired slogan of “Nazi scum, off our streets!” The nationalists then responded “Pedo scum, off our streets!”
This isn’t the first time that a confrontation between people who broadly identify themselves with the “Right” and people who identify themselves with the “Left” has jumped to the issue of paedophilia, in fact it seems to happen quite commonly. I have spent some time since wondering why this keeps happening. Surely it’s bizarre that the Right so-frequently pushes the political debate into this topic, and treats it as a small victory when it hears people condemn an issue which, we all assume, should be near-universal condemnation by everyone.
Yet here I think that paedophilia is not the issue, but that it is an inchoate attempt to express a much deeper-level problem that is at large in the world. In beginning to express what this problem is, I believe the best starting point is a simple question, “Can we say no?”
The answer to this question is the litmus test of an ideology (here I’m using the term in the broadest sense and its strength)
An Islamist can demand that usury is abolished, or that the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol is banned. A Japanese nationalist or Shintoist, even if they aren’t particularly extreme, can demand that the person of the Emperor is revered and respected, and that mockery of him is prohibited and punished.
The extent to which they are successful in realising or enforcing their demands, in preventing the things to which they say no, is only then a question of their numbers in society or how effective they are as political actors. They ability of an ideology to say no is effectively the strength of its adherents to exercise command in their society.
This leads us to another question; What can we, living in the Liberal West, say no to? Effectively, and in principle, nothing.
Liberalism, here encompassing its various strands such as neoliberalism, social democracy, and libertarianism for example, is defined by its terminal permissiveness. By basing itself on the concept of the individual, and by holding the individual and his or her rights to be sacrosanct, the only real imperative or drive Liberalism has is to maximise the individual’s freedom against any restraints God or society may impose.
Liberalism only concerns itself with society in so far as it believes that society can facilitate individual freedom. As such Liberalism has no mandate, save one, to eliminate all other mandates that stand in its and the individual’s path. Under the banner of the individual’s freedoms Liberalism becomes an engine for constant subversion.
For those of us with a Nationalist, Traditionalist, or Rightist perspective it is clear enough that there is plenty that we must say no to. For instance, we have the mass proliferation of a harmful and scientifically-baseless transgender ideology, and the perpetual pride months that become pride years replete with near-omnipresent displays of sexual degradation that no self-respecting public can tolerate.
We have our national history which, when it isn’t either retconned to fit Liberal narratives or denigrated for not doing so, is usually consigned to be neglected and forgotten.
We have the constant demands that we all alter our familiar ways of speech, ways that we have inherited from our communities, families, and nation, for the benefit of some new trending “identity” fad.
Yet Liberalism has no basis on which to say no to all these absurdities. In fact it drives them on, these are just new expression of the individual’s freedoms, and norms for the sexes or even just decent behaviour are all just constraints to be eliminated. As things stand, Liberalism is currently not even able to tell a fat person to lose weight and go for run!
This dynamic isn’t restricted to the questions of society, culture, or sexual mores either. The economic questions are part and parcel of this process too. Immigration is a prime example of the overlap. “Why shouldn’t an individual be allowed to move where he wants, or to work where he wants?”
And conversely; “Why shouldn’t an employer be allowed hire whoever he wants? Why should he be made to hire his own countrymen?” Especially beneficial to the Oligarchic – Bourgeois class is that the profit or money-making motive is in total compatibility with Liberalism’s imperative for individual freedoms; “Why shouldn’t an individual be allowed to do whatever he wants or needs to do to make money?” And then later; “Why shouldn’t an individual be allowed to own as much wealth as he or she can make?”
Ultimately we begin to see that in practice Liberalism isn’t so much an ideology, as it is a process of entropy. It is a process where everything is set to devolve into pure chaos. Trying to find the root of moral authority and truth in Liberal ideology, or trying to find the root of power in a Liberal society is like looking for the trunk in bramble bush.
How can we say no? As we see, when we accept the Liberal frame we can’t really.
However, it is clear that we must. Here we come back to the question of paedophilia. If we step back from the Roderic O’Gorman controversy and look more broadly at the debates the dissident Right has been engaged in we can see that the question comes up again and again. The “bloodsports” or “E-celeb” debates may be a pain, but it is worth noting how many times Anarchist or Left-Liberal “debaters” are forced to justify why paedophilia is wrong using their Liberal individualist framework and how many times they simply can’t.
Yet anyone who has a conscience knows at a gut level that not only is it wrong, but that it is downright evil. And when the Liberal fails to explain why this is in Liberal terms, it calls for an entire reassessment and overhaul of the whole belief system. The paedophilia question is an inflection point because it is question where any decent man or woman instinctually feels the need for an immediate strong answer which condemns it unequivocally, yet it is a question where individualism begins to fall short and fall apart.
However, we cannot allow the debate to always devolve to that point. We need a new frame that allows us condemn, that gives us a mandate to say no to the innumerable evils that precede paedophilia. It is clear that such a new frame, that this new set of beliefs, has to depart radically from the imperative of “individual freedoms”. It must take its imperative from a new conception that accounts for our common good, an imperative which is qualitative and not quantitative. For when we think of the society as a quantity, as a “bunch of individuals”, we think in utilitarian terms of “what does the most good for the most individuals”, and then we are immediately on the back foot. Instead we must adhere, perhaps almost unquestioningly, to a higher ideal that grants us the mandate to say no (and in this way ironically, even paradoxically, we are more likely to achieve that utilitarian aim).
Immanuel Kant once wrote that all things either have a Price or a Dignity. Things which have a Price are quantitative, they can be exchanged, swapped, or replaced for each other, all that matters about them is how much and how many. Things which have a Dignity by contrast are qualitative, they are irreplaceable, they have their own inherent worth and can’t be swapped out for something else. The ideas of the Nation, of the revival and continuation of Tradition, or even of adhering to God’s Will or to a Divine Law, all of these are ideas which give us an unshakeable imperative, an immovable mandate to say no. Unshakeable because they are ideas with a Dignity, and can’t just be swapped out for anything else. In essence, the great political and spiritual struggle of our age is the struggle between Price and Dignity.
Here in the Liberal West, we in the Dissident Right are the final men and women standing who, drawing on our heartfelt convictions, can claim such a mandate. This is both our strength but it is also that which paints a target on our backs. Earlier “Rightists” tried to evade this burden by capitulating to Liberalism, thinking they could beat Liberalism at its own game by claiming that they were somehow “the real Liberals”. I ask you where are such notional “nationalists” today? And for the ones still standing I ask you to watch them, and to see where they are in another year.
For those of us with real conviction, conviction in our mission to ensure the survival of the Irish Nation, we must stand firm. We are few, and the days we will be able to demonstrate in streets will also be few. For the other days we must stay below the radar, engaged in guerrilla politics, and most importantly we must always stay together. Just as the debates I’ve mentioned keep devolving to the evil question of paedophilia, so too will Liberalism continue to slowly but surely keep devolving into both total absurdity and evil.
When it does, as it does, it will become clear to all good men and women that we and our beliefs, the beliefs which give us the right to say no to the evils of Liberalism’s total freedom, chaos, and entropy, are the only viable alternatives and the only true futures. Until then we must go by the narrow gate and path, and stay the most difficult course.
We have no other choice and we embrace it.