Keyword ‣ freedom
67 references

It risks turning into a ghost, to the point of merging into a new form, no less insidious than the previous ones, of totalitarianism, where "harsh" methods (physical coercion, terror, elimination of dissidents, explicit prohibitions on thinking, speaking, associating, acting) are replaced by seduction, remote control, the progressive abolition of non-conforming ideas. It is the boiled frog method, the slow and steady shrinking of concrete freedoms, withdrawn one by one, always justified by noble motives: security, protection, defense of minorities, inclusion, hate speech, etc. We have not yet moved into pure totalitarianism, but the premises are there.

The title of this reflection contains two words (freedom and totalitarianism) whose meaning is not universally shared. The third category - the West - has long since lost all geographical connotation to become the name of the civilization articulated around political liberalism and economic liberalism, led by the United States, and composed of Western Europe, Israel and satellites of the former British Empire, with increasingly unruly offshoots in Central and South America. The West is a system of hegemony over humanity in the name of an illegitimate international oligarchy. He is the opposite of Europe, whose culture, roots and traditions he destroyed. Having achieved "imperial" power, he reversed Lord Acton's 19th century prediction: power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Margaret Thatcher was a consistent exponent of this trend, for whom there is no alternative to the Western world model. The acronym TINA, there is no alternative, has become one of the mantras of an increasingly oppressive system in the name of the economic and financial freedom of a few giants. The denial of the possibility of alternatives is in itself a totalitarian concept.

The most significant definition of totalitarianism is that of Hannah Arendt. For the German Jewish thinker, contemporary totalitarianism is a political model distinct from historically known forms of authoritarian power such as despotism, tyranny and dictatorship. Where it seized power, it destroyed political traditions, crushed the previous social order, and pushed to the extreme the characteristics of mass society, such as the isolation and interchangeability of individuals.

Neo-totalitarianism not only demands political subordination, it also invades and controls the private and intimate sphere. Its objective is to replace the existing society with a radically different society, building over time another humanity. In this sense, there is no doubt that the globalist liberalism which triumphed after the defeat of communism and the discrediting of any other form of political, economic, social organization and values ​​presents totalitarian features. Notably because of his alliance with the technological and scientific apparatus of which he is the engine and owner. The accusation made against state collectivism by Friedrich von Hayek, an ultra-liberal economist, turns against liberalism - which has emerged from itself to become globalism -: he who possesses all the means, determines all the ends. His own, of course. Another sign of totalitarianism.

With the same argumentative force, we can maintain that a society based on "rights" cannot be totalitarian, that economic freedom has never been greater, and that the individual, in this corner of the world, has never been so great. is the West, has benefited from so many opportunities which have become "rights". Both theses are valid. The author of these lines loves freedom and is wary of rights. Firstly because proclaiming rights without establishing corresponding duties breeds cynicism, social indifference, resentful individualism, withdrawal into a capricious, tyrannical “me” like a spoiled child. Then, the nature of the rights: social and community rights are erased, subjective rights are highlighted, in particular those linked to the instinctual and sexual sphere. Folded into radical individualism, pulverizing the community, the West also destroys society, the order which regulates principles, values, distinct but not incompatible interests.

The rights proposed always concern the subjective sphere and consider freedom as the absence of constraints (freedom 'from'), that is to say liberation. Of family, of authority, of natural affiliations, even of the most intimate identity. The model is the "trans", a fluid, changing, provisional subject, detached from everything that exceeds his will, his pleasure, his preference, which have become incontestable. The right to no longer be something defined while making it a flag. Renounce all inheritance (except material; money and means become ends "there is no alternative"), consider happiness - the pursuit of which is a right - as the immediate satisfaction of impulses, desires , whims.

Consumption, permanent change of tastes, ideas, fashions, partners, profession, gender, "sexual orientation" and existentiality. Fragile weather vanes without sovereignty over themselves, pushed in the direction of the wind. Temporality as a life project. A logical absurdity that produces discomfort, tension, dissatisfaction to the point of schizophrenia and permanent dissatisfaction, the remedy for which is just as provisional: compulsive pleasure, the consumption of life - transformed into a commodity - to be restarted constantly. Good and evil, just and unjust? The concept of Calderón de la Barca applies, in the mouth of the fickle Sigismund: nada me parece justo, en siendo contra mi gusto. Nothing feels right to me if it's against my taste or preference.

Without realizing it, we have drawn the definition of addiction. The freedom of moderns is the result of addictions made just, to which it is not permitted to oppose ethical limits, legislative brakes, social reprobations, negative judgments. The outcome can only be equivalence, indifference to any common element in favor of selfish subjectivism. The resulting relativism becomes an absolute, with weak thinking prohibiting strong thinking. According to Benjamin Constant, the freedom of the elders was a narrow political autonomy experienced in the right-duty of participation in the polis. That of the moderns is individual private freedom, including the right to social indifference. Result: dissolution of limits and links, replaced in fact by the imperium of the strongest, the one who blows on the weather vane, giving it the desired direction.

“Whenever you find yourself thinking like most people, pause, and think…”

Mark Twain

read the article