The left holds reality against a utopian vision, and thereby finds our existence as lacking in some way for which we must act to modify the very terms of our existence, and alter our reality. The perversely moralizing right, however, contrast ethics against the gentleness of Eden – holding assertiveness (even of goodness) as unbecoming – and in doing they rebel in a familiar manner against reality. With this utopian sensibility of ethics they become infuriated with their own kin as these should-be brothers-in-arms assert rights to liberty, and to life.
It is not merely that they demand losses be handled in an honorable fashion. Such preening moralizers first demand the loss itself, as a fight never fought. It is the essence of both moral nihilism and pacifism applied, as per Marcuse, only to their own side. To these right utopians such kin that raise their voices, or their fists, are betrayers of an ethic that does not, and cannot apply on this side of the second coming: an ethic of extending one’s neck – as poultry to the harvest – upon every introduction, and in every circumstance (there is a reason that the handshake, and not this, became the preferred method of men greeting other men).
They demand the laying down of arms, both real and metaphorical, and the raising of the white flag, as if to create the opportunity to peacock about their “honorable” nature at all times (as if a perverse spirit of masochistic fetishization is at play also). This right-utopian moralist strut is often then a learned way of creating for themselves a sort of victimhood they believe will be received by the left as legal tender, and in such a way as to count them as allies, and to pat them on their heads “attaboy.”
This behavior must stop, and those displaying it must be deeply polarized, and excised from traditionalist circles, and particularly from leadership. The need to satiate one’s own perverted sense of fairness above all other countervailing considerations, and the demanded extension of the benefit of the doubt to those who’ve proven themselves, time and again, undue such benefit, is a matter of selfish pride, and betrays a belief that they are a more perfect creature than those they represent. They watch the tide wash over their constituents with a smug satisfaction that these lessers are due punishment.
Such moralizers do this cognizant to the evil at play from the utopian left, but rather than rejecting evil outright, and standing with their brothers against it, they cravenly desire to wield it against those they view as worse than the totalitarians: the unwashed deplorables; those with IQs both low enough to “not get it,” and those high enough that they might tell them the same, but most importantly those who would raise their flag, in their name, and even in the face of severe adversity, but might do so perceptibly out of step with the procession of Taps, thereby frustrating their sense of the aesthetic of the thing – an aesthetic they hold as higher than the thing itself. In this manner they manifest the lesson of Dante’s Inferno in reserving the deepest levels of their scorn for those who they perceive as betrayers of their utopian ethic: their own kin, and, as do left utopians, they become ever-more hysterical over ever-smaller infringements of this ethic.
Like so much of what we see today this right utopianism, too, is the result of demoralization. It is the result of being conditioned to believe that your freedom is selfish, that life is forfeit to the collective good at will, and that violence is always wrong. It is the result of Repressive Tolerance: the toleration of all movements from the left up to and including violence, and the repression of all movements from the right with up to and including violence. It is the result of the institution of a rulebook that reads like a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy: if blue go to page 7, if red go to page 86.
This elevation of the perfect, gentle, harmless victim to dogmatic heights results in a clique of perverted “rightists” dedicated to the oversight of the destruction of people deemed morally imperfect in their methods of resisting evil, and thereby violative of that holy image of the perfect victim. This is rather obviously a replacement, and projection of the redemptive, willing death of the perfect Christ on the Cross, but a fatally flawed one in, first, the failure to recognize that the sacrifice has already occurred (and salvation is but for the taking), second, that man could never be the perfect, redemptive sacrifice, and third, the vision of Christ as harmless, and lacking the capacity for righteous anger in exercising the wicked. The deprivation of our ability to exercise such righteous anger in the world is the tool by which the enemy wins battles. It is this enemy whispering in our ear that beckons we sacrifice each other to bring about this impossible new, earthly Eden.
Succinctly put by John Stewart Mills, “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” To choose to do nothing is an action unto itself, and in the face of evil it is an action of aid and comfort to the enemy.
Leaders, stop letting the enemy crush the skulls of those in your charge under-foot over false, paramoral assertions of victimhood by the left, and false assertions of a violated utopian ethic by the controlled right. Doing so makes you complicit in evil, and not a detached, uninvolved spectator. Doing nothing in a position of authority is the same as if you’d done the evil thing yourself. As an authority you have equal station with God to all other authorities, from the President on down to Alderman, from which to protect your people, and their rights, by any necessary actions, and you will be held accountable to this standard one day when you face judgement.