Viscous Liberals

I never now these days how to maneuver through forums and public sites. I posted recently on my blog To Reach the Invisible God Through Our Own Visible Means about a recent entry at the Orthosphere Becoming a reactionary is only the beginning of thought.

Here is what I wrote regarding Kristor's comment (and further down I correct a typo (actually it was my spellcheck) at the Orthosphere:

[confrontation on principles]...makes liberal elites especially vicious when confronted or pressed to define, or to declare, their principles.

And there is a Brian D. Finch who picks up on my "error," where used "viscous" instead of "vicious."

He writes:

I find the liberal elites especially viscous when smarmingly smothering all opposition on the mainstream media.

I should have kept the original!

---

One of the attractive things about a liberal/nominalist/naturalist/materialist take on things is that it feels as though it resolves all sorts of thorny (interesting, important, and pressing) philosophical perplexities by simply eliminating the entities involved by means of a reduction not just improper, but – in retrospect, from the richer reactionary position – positively brutal, and certainly vicious.

Consciousness is the best example I can think of. If you can convince yourself that eliminativism is true, you never have to wonder about consciousness again. Likewise, if you can convince yourself that Ricardo is the last word on trade, you never have to think about it again. Or if there is nothing but matter, you can just stop worrying about forms, teloi, and so forth. If only liberal democracy is morally tolerable, then hey, monarchy and aristocracy, together with all their attendant complexities, are simply off the table. And, obviously, if there are no moral absolutes, then there’s no reason to fret about sex, at all, one way or the other. Which is cool.

Reclaiming Beauty Kidist | September 19, 2018 at 12:10 PM

I disagree with Kristor here. Liberal elites understand that their “elimination” processeses are a form of camouflage. For example, they are aware that they are eliminating monarchy and its inherent hierarchy, but replacing it with other forms of “necessary” hierarchical systems. Politicians (for the good of the people), journalists (to tell “the story”), intellectuals (to discover “truth”), artists (to create beauty – or a superior form of ugliness) all believe in the hierarchy of their positions, and that they are the elites who can do this.

But they all disagree with the hierarchy that comes with Western, Christian tradition, as their contention is with the “Christian” part, the Godly part. Theirs is afterall a “free-for-all” hierarchy, based in some way on arbitrary, or man-made rules and definitions (e.g. what is truth and how does one tell the truth, what is beauty, etc.) and they know that they stand on fragile ground of wavering principles that are ready to crumble, which makes them especially viscous when confronted or pressed to define, or to declare, their principles.

Reclaiming Beauty Kidist | September 19, 2018 at 12:23 PM
T

he last phrase should read:
which makes liberal elites especially vicious when confronted or pressed to define, or to declare, their principles.