Author: Andras Laszlo
Man’s relationship to freedom is determined by the relationship between the person and the subject. This means that the more it is the spirit that dominates a person’s being, in other words the subject in action, “subiectum in actu”, the higher and more complete the level of freedom is; if the subject is fully in himself, then freedom is absolute and infinite. All other states depend on the intensity of the spirit and on the intensity of consciousness. It follows from this that whatever in a person is not conscious as subject-support, it eo ipso can’t be free and whatever is determined by the unconscious in the sense of contra-regulation, essentially stands in opposition to freedom; it is different from it, it is far from it and it opposes it.
Opinions about freedom therefore mostly don’t stand on the right foundation since they consider the freedom of people in connection with the limitations of movement or with the freedom of movement or the acting of the generally known human being. Thus the point is not and cannot be whether an individual or even a committee or a human collective can do or does what in his consciousness becomes actual from a certain direction and in a certain sense.
What appears in consciousness as intention is in the majority of cases an inferior, unenlightened, heteron force; a force that is to a large degree foreign and that is not being experienced by its naked self and which is experienced only through its results and when it’s already run its course. Whoever lives according to these, without limitation, without assumed limitations is still not nearly free since the heteron, thateron in man that he’s not conscious of is what paralyzes and arrests him the most. Within the sphere of these regulating and contra-regulating restrictions it moves people who, due to an eventual spiritual blindness, confuse these restrictions with freedom.
Liberalism is a philosophical or a philosophically definable view that builds its tenets on the freedom of man but is not aware of what human freedom actually is and sees freedom fundamentally in the freedom of ideals and in the free manifestation of ideals. First we have to examine this as a view with goodwill. Freedom, as I mentioned is fundamentally spiritual and beyond the scope of spiritual freedom, beyond the freedom of the spirit, freedom doesn’t make sense.
The essence of freedom is autonomy; the autonomy of consciousness; the autonomy of the consciousness of the subject when the subject determines itself according to its own principles, when the subject determines its existence and the mode of its actions according to its own fundamental principles and it can perform these freely, without limitations, since it possesses all the powers to do so. Generally, this kind of freedom doesn’t manifest itself this way in the concrete human form of existence, so freedom is not full freedom, but freedom never means the lack of slavery; it always rises above that, thus freedom by itself always has sense, validity and existence even if freedom is not fully manifest. Theoretically, freedom always means more than merely the absence of restrictions and of being constrained.
Liberalism as an ideal is based on the affirmation of freedom and on the enforced affirmation of freedom, but doesn’t consider according to what kind of triggers a person or more people define, understand, feel and determine their own freedom. If freedom is meant as giving free rein for the instincts we must know that this is not and can’t be about freedom.
It can’t be about freedom because what is instinct today used to be will in archaic, prehistoric times, even beyond the frames of the dimensions of historical times; autonomous will. The loss of autonomous will and its degradation to instinct means that the role of the subject is led and moved by a different power that is already distant from the subject and that is according to its primary and ultimate essence is itself an auton, but an unrecognized auton; the unrecognized auton as heteron-reality, as reality with power, becomes a trigger as a pseudo-subject, channeling impulses and forces towards the soul, in the direction of the soul that is illuminated by the spirit. These manifest themselves in the spirit, in the spiritual space of consciousness illuminated by the spirit and thus they are able to move the person.
It is fundamentally wrong to think that when a human being without any external or so called internal restriction satisfies his instincts, is free. It is fundamentally wrong because freedom, non-freedom and restriction may not only be determined by such criterion if some kind of restriction is or is not in effect, but we must know that all heteron-controlled internal processes without any kind of restrictions, restrict the subject itself, subjective existence and the existence of man as the supporter or “carrier” of the subject; in fact the more unrestricted these are, the more so.
No yoke is heavier and more paralyzing than the yoke of unknown powers. So if we don’t interpret and define freedom and we don’t put it on the pedestal from the side of the spirit, then we are acting against freedom. Defining a certain freedom for man and then positing it with force without defining the fundamental criterion for freedom is comparable to humanism which only tries to solve man’s problems within the confines of strictly human boundaries, or tolerantism that, beyond the absolutely necessary and crucial tolerance gives way and tolerates everything in all possible domains and orientations, or pacifism that doesn’t only welcome peace that stems from the victory of light, but is also prepared to accept peace even if it follows the victory of darkness, thus thriving to complete something by all means, without clarifying from what direction what he wants to achieve will come to fruition .
This kind of liberalism as philosophical, and, derived from this, as socio-political view may not be accepted because it disregards the actual foundation of freedom, namely what it means and what determines it, from what direction freedom arrives and what exactly it sets free. The pure and actual self-ascertion of the subject, the spiritual freedom of the auton or the break-in of some foreign power into the consciousness of the soul illuminated by the spirit. In the Dark Age that is becoming increasingly dominant, it is obvious that the lower and external, foreign, corrupting and leveling versions can always better ascertain themselves than the higher, the more superior and more innate versions that stem from the center, thus philosophical liberalism currently specifically favors the awakening of dark powers. In other words: freedom by all means, but this in reality will be favorable for the dark powers.
We may add to this that liberalism that manifests itself on the political plane is not even this, because here it is about a supposedly benign liberalism that nevertheless still stands predominantly in the service of dark powers. In concreto, liberalism, when it appears on a political-social level, is not benign but specifically ill-willed and malicious. It wants to set everything free – in the sense of a freedom that represents darkness and that was specifically defined by certain powers and circles – that is suitable for these circles and for the circles that are controlled by these dark powers, but it doesn’t intend to set anything free that may manifests itself as unfavorable for the circles that are controlled by such dark impulses. So on top of it all it is also malicious, it restricts freedom, it complies to and corresponds with those we have just outlined; it liberates the inferior and calls this freedom and then subjugates them to various interests.
Thus what liberalisms primarily stands against is freedom itself. The reason I’ve given the title līberālismus contrā lībertātem to today’s lecture is because liberalism acts first of all against freedom. It acts against human freedom, preventing the subject that manifests itself in the person from being able to lead himself back to his own pure subjectivity (to his own pure subjective self). This is the meaning of the metaphysically determined līberālismus – libertās relationship in context of a supra-philosophical realization. And then these mean and have historically always meant, since these were first addressed, in all the derivatives, should they refer to the freedom of the spirit or to the freedom of world-views, that opinions should freely be stated and this have never meant anything other than the free manifestation of contra-spiritual and destructive opinions. Only this, nothing else. It can be proven historically that whenever this came up, it meant only this.
Free opinion used to mean that people may state in front of everybody that there is no God, that there is no immortal spirit, there is no spiritual superiority, that there is no true, valid, dignified order. These comprised the big, free ideologies.
It is highly typical of our era that a darkening process is called enlightenment because, in an enlightened way, it may be stated that there is no immortal spirit, that my own being, my existence, my life has no foundation and purpose that precedes and transcends it, and, based on a consensus we may relate all this to enlightenment. Not only does this era ascertain darkness, but it calls darkness light and it calls the light darkness; and it calls slavery, the liberation of ideals censured by inferior interests and the free affirmation of these ideals, freedom. But this liberalism which is of course also tolerantist, doesn’t tolerate it at all if somebody, according to the spirit and on the side of the spirit and order aims at and posits a world that corresponds to a divine, hierarchical graduation; if it is about the affirmation of such a world there is no more tolerantism, no more tolerance in any shape or form, no more liberalism of any kind and such opinions are not allowed to be manifested. These opinions must be opposed and acted against. The dark age manipulates with darkness, as well by switching these terms and values; for example, when it talks about the dark middle ages. The middle ages were perhaps dim in comparison to the antiquity but in comparison to modernity and especially to post modernity it was an incomparably bright era. What is referred to as renaissance, as rebirth, is in fact the beginning of decay. What is referred to as reformation is related to the loss of true and original forms and what is referred to as humanism tries to solve man’s problems and ultimate questions with tools that don’t transcend the human domain and does all this against man. This is what humanism means in our era.
The highest degree of darkening is when man becomes estranged from his own essence. It’s not about refuting an external God, but about denying the divine foundations of his own existence, of his own being; it’s about denying his own possibilities. He denies his own restricted but still existing possibilities – and this era is called the enlightened age, the era of the light.
The most important task for man is to reevaluate absolutely everything in the world that surrounds him, to reevaluate everything he has heard from the time of birth at home, in schools and at work, in his environment; everything that he hears that determine his views; the task is to liquidate these views. There is hardly anything left that should not be eliminated or liquidated in a sense of destruction. Almost nothing.
The real principles are, almost without exception, those against which the whole world is currently working and the ideals of darkness are those, according to which the current world is getting defined in general in this era saturated with a malicious liberalism. Seemingly everything is allowed, in practice however this is absolutely not the case; spiritual principles are, theoretically not banned (although occasionally they are proven to be banned, too), but the ideals that are being pushed and promoted at every opportunity, with all possible means – sometimes indirectly, but typically directly, sometimes subtly, but typically with more and more force – are decidedly those in the service of darkness.
We must revise everything and almost everything must be rejected that spiritually, but essentially anti-spiritually, surrounds us. We completely and infinitely stand on the side of freedom; we stand for the positing and affirmation of infinite and absolute freedom and only this do we consider to be acceptable but this has nothing to do with the distorted and degenerate perception of freedom proclaimed by philosophical and mainly political liberalism. What we are positing are true principles of freedom, but they have nothing to do with liberalism.
By the way, liberalism, that’s applied on the political social plane, to further underscore its malicious nature, is a view that stands decidedly for oppression and repression and intends to function in the sense of oppression and repression; it stands strongly on the side of oppression, disablement and suppression. It wants to suppress everything that in any way diverts from the ideals maliciously defined as the criterion for liberalism by the supporters of liberalism, driven by sinister intentions. So it is an oppressing and anti-liberal orientation not only from very high perspectives, but also in the most vulgar, most concrete and most general sense.
Traditionalism is radically anti-liberal because because traditionalism radically stands on the side of freedom. On the side of freedom, but not on the side of setting the darkness free, but it intends to be free in the sense of the universal and spiritual liberation of the soul to lead it back to the absolute; this is what it considers to be freedom, this is the freedom it accepts and it manifests itself on this side.
Yes, freedom, libertās must be lifted above all – freedom, consciousness, will, spiritual power, the supremacy and dominion of the subject above all; order and orderliness which is the condition of the realization of freedom.
The chance of realization in the vortex of dark powers is approximately zero. The forces that manifest themselves in the human domain and which currently give shape to the world and to the human condition don’t operate in the interest of people; these forces are anti-human. They are anti-human, anti-consciusness, anti-spiritual and anti-liberal. All freedom ideals that are generally proposed always and fundamentally, by their very nature, act against true freedom.
We’ve discussed many times how pathetic and ridiculous it is when somebody says that he does whatever he wants. What this means is that he considers the uninhibited satisfaction of unconscious forces that dominate him, to be what he wants. What he truly wants doesn’t even appear in all this. To want something freely and to act freely: this is possible only from the center, from the subiectum in actu, from the subject in action that affirms himself, in other words from the spirit; this spirit realizes his own freedom through maximally being himself and this, to understand it appropriately, must be conceived in the first case singular: if I am fully myself, then I am infinitely free in the absolute sense. But if there is a foreign power acting in me, then I’ll be noticeably dominated by unconscious energies, powers and triggers; in such cases, within the terrains where these dominate, we can’t speak about freedom. This applies both to the individual and to the community; freedom is on the side of the spirit, the spirit is on the side of freedom and these two are inseparable – we can’t speak about a spirit that’s not free and we also can’t speak about freedom that is not realized in a spiritual sense.
The spirit is not an infinitely subtle matter, but subiectum in actu, subject in action, subject in self-affirmation and the more he affirms himself and the more he is subject and the more he appears like this, the more he is spirit; this is the essence and the meaning of the spirit. From another aspect spirit is light which enlightens consciousness that it creates; spiritual space.
Spiritual space is created by the spirit from himself; this is what he enlightens and either everything stems from the spirit and then freedom is complete, or not everything, in which case freedom is still reality, but in the areas where it is not experienced, some foreign power is at work; the freedom to liberate foreign powers is not freedom and the liberation of foreign powers always acts against freedom, creating a tie that is stronger than any other internal or external tie.
Precisely because liberalism, both philosophically and in an benign sense, is a view that pushes for freedom by all means and disregards where freedom may come from, and because the chances for the liberation of darkness in the age of darkness is infinitely higher than the free reign of the dominance of light, liberalism must be rejected on all levels: both in a philosophical sense and in its benign perception, but also in its political, social and of course in its malicious versions, too.
The refusal of liberalism organically belongs to a world-view that’s based on metaphysical tradition; without this we can’t speak either about traditionality in the strict sense of the word or about metaphysical tradition, or about the affirmation of light; not, if in the same time we want to liberate darkness or if we don’t want to liberate it but make concessions towards such attempts.
Spiritual order means restriction; but the spiritual order acts for the sake of realizing absolute freedom and it is for this sake that it restricts. This restriction doesn’t originate from the powers of darkness but from the opposite: it is the restrain of these very powers.
The man who, following an inner path, a true sacred asceticism, is working on his own transmutation, does what he does for freedom; for leading himself back to himself; for Himself. During this, as ascetic acts, he definitely restricts himself, but also restrains the foreign, the heteron powers that are active in him. In order to realize freedom he restricts these powers, restrains them, gives them boundaries, reduces them and ultimately eliminates them.
This is the essence of freedom and the realization of freedom.
In terms of freedom and the destruction of chains, the traditional view also considers symbolical connections when defining its position. There are two types of slaves. One is sui generis a slave; by his essence, in a genuine way; if this one revolts and breaks his chains, this revolt is illegitimate. If somebody is not a slave but is by his essence free and represents the mentality of a ruler, this person must revolt and must break his chains; in this case the revolt is legitimate and may be approved spiritually.
The more spiritual somebody is the more he has to do legitimately with true freedom. Representing and liberating the dark powers is comparable to destroying a dam, to enabling the unrestrained flow of sewage. These make no sense from the point of view of freedom. Freedom assumes autonomy, but it is not the heteronomy of instincts; what we call autonomy is the autonomy of the spirit, the autonomy of the auton. The heteronomy of darkness could be called autonomy but this, besides acting against freedom, both in terms of terminology and, especially, as practice, acts against intelligence and logonom autonomia.
Because autonomia is also logonomia, the dominance of the logos, the dominance of the auton, the dominance of the spirit, the dominance of supra-rational intelligence. The dominance of intelligence above the sub-intelligent. All these notions, values and value systems may be raised in relation to freedom.
We will always stand by freedom, but always and exclusively by true freedom, by true lībertās. We want to protect this lībertās from liberalism, from pseudo-freedom, from “freedom ideals” that set the darkness free; we want to protect it from the offensive of heteron, the dark heteron, the heteron that originates from darkness. We want to protect Freedom, Ourselves, the (my) Self, the Subject.