As we have detailed on ZNN before, the extent to which the Jesuit Order has promulgated the vast majority of “modern” misconceptions about the nature of the world is so vast that no investigation into the methodical suppression of truth and reality is complete without its mention. In my last article I examine the pseudoscientific musings of Athanasius Kircher regarding the cause of disease in his Scrutinium Pestis and how his erroneous suppositions about the external origin of disease were highly influential in the formation of Germ Theory later championed by another arch-catholic sophist, Louis Pasteur. This power of suggestion that disease was due to the “communicability” of sub-cellular pests (later dubbed viruses) was imparted by Kircher.
The consequences of this mistaken model of disease continues to escalate in its severity seemingly by the day as is evidenced by the paper tiger, trojan horse, false flag, big pharma totalitarian putsch called Covid-19–which is nothing more than pseudoscientific charlatanry matrix composed of an amalgamation of creative accounting tricks via a duplicitous non-diagnostic test, fictitious chartism and unprecedented statistical fraud masquerading as a foreign boogeybug from China. All of which is designed for the purposes of the continuous mass administration of sordid, conflict-of-interest-ridden injection and an ongoing campaign of technocratic digital catalogue regimes designed to indiscriminately cull, damage, enslave or excommunicate large swaths of the population under the guise of a perpetual public health emergency.
A crucial supplement to this tyrannical model of biological disease is the similarly totalitarian formula for discerning the remedy for eradicating perceived injustices within the body politique; the parallels between the subversive concept of “social justice” and the erroneous classification of illness as a purely external infestation of foreign entities that are hostile to the host body is not only alarming from a theoretical point of view but is of the utmost importance from a practical point of view. The term “social justice” conjures a rosy, seemingly perfect pretense used to describe that which purports to be the most noble pursuit of eradicating the ills of society’s injustices much in the same way that the term “public health” is designed to be a no-brainer goal that everyone should uphold.
How could anyone possibly raise a qualm against such a term or its implied aims except those who want injustice to continue in society? This kind of subtle casuistry employed by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli is the exact methodology whereby seemingly good intentions, lofty values or noble aspirations are weaponized into a blind fealty to a hidden creed of thanatoid misanthropy that mesmerizes its adherents into a form of vicious authoritarian zealotry, whose result is a flock of virtue signalling pseudo-moral automatons awaiting instruction from on high on who to castigate, marginalize, scapegoat and stigmatize so as the purge from society the pathogen that causes evil to manifest.
Taparelli is considered by most historians and theologians to be of a “conservative” religious persuasion and, like most of the freshly re-activated Jesuit church scholars and clergy of his day, was concerned with the rise of laissezz-faire liberalism and capitalism in conjunction with the industrial revolution. However, when you really excavate Taparelli’s writings, his chief concern is the establishment of a renewed sense of cooperation with authoritarian decree for the purposes of curtailing the excesses of what he called in his work “Tyrannous Liberty” (Orwell anybody?). Taparelli’s contention throughout his work was to create a “Catholic Economy” and to reignite a kind of Thomistic theocratic communism whereby everyone in society knew their “proper” place.
Here in a few words is the theory of social existence based upon the facts of history, and likewise confirmed by those facts. The existence of associations of men united by nature, equal to one another in their nature, unequal in their persons, free in their power of choice and therefore in need of a principle of unity: these are the chief facts of history to which we have applied the universal principle of duty. The results of this application are that man needs always to be governed, and so he is, in point of fact; that he who governs is stronger and at the same time possesses authority, and so he actually is; that subjects are not sovereigns, and in point of fact they are not. . . . Compare this theory of the facts of history with the hypotheses of the social contract where man is by nature free but in fact is in chains; by right is sovereign but in fact is a subject; creates the society, but in fact is created by it; confers authority, but in fact has no part of that authority; has made a pact, but did no negotiating; did it to secure all his rights, and meanwhile gave them away; believes every state to be a republic, yet sees there are monarchies; believes all men are equal, yet sees everywhere a hierarchy of classes; believes it gives consent, yet sees things happen despite it; believes it gives laws, yet sees that it receives them. . . . Compare these two doctrines, I say, and judge which of them is true!
The obvious casuistry being employed here is to obliterate the notion that ALL individuals are intrinsically endowed with inalienable dignity that is categorically tied to the reality of each person’s respective individuality. By over-personalizing the various differences between people, Taparelli sought to use qualitative differentiation among persons (that’s-differentism) as a basis to diminish the importance of individual as a category and thus the respect for the protection of individual rights. By lumping everyone together as equals only in accordance with a shared “species-nature” he is insinuating that real authoritarian power necessitates that the church/state appeals to everyone as having the same needs that must be provided for so that “order” can be the norm in society rather than disparity and chaos.
But slow. Where is this abstract man, this replicated humanity, the notion of which has suggested to me the first lineaments of social justice? If there exist men associated with other men, they always exist in the concrete, always individuated, always endowed with forces possessing definite qualities. But when I consider men from this new perspective, where is the equality? Compare age with age, intelligence with intelligence, strength with strength, etc.; everything is disparity between men: a disparity, furthermore, that derives from nature, since it is nature that forms the individual as it does the species; or rather, let us say nature forms individuals, man perceives species. I conclude correctly, then, that all individual human beings are naturally unequal among themselves in everything that pertains to their individuality, just as they are naturally equal in all that pertains to the species. And so the activity of man will be just when it is appropriate to the different rights of those with whom one is dealing. Everything in individuals is inequality, even though the likeness of their natures be total.
This individual inequality does not contradict their equality of speciesnature, for the qualities of the individual in relation to those of the species are an addition, and if you add unequal quantities to equal ones, are not the sums unequal? For example, add to the species-property of man the individuality of son, and you will find it in regard to the father in a relationship of debtor. For to be a son means to have received one’s existence, and to be a father means to have given it. Now if the giver and the receiver considered themselves only as endowed with humanity, they would be equal and they would not owe one another anything reciprocally; but if their accounts are to be in balance in light of the fact that one of the two in becoming an individual has received from the other, this other has a right to a repayment. Justice demands, then, that the son render to the father an equivalent of the existence he has received from him.
Here we see the potential for an unending oppressive paternalism by an all-encompassing state trying to enshrine equality as a basis for social order rearing its totalitarian head long before Marx. And while the character of Taparelli’s social justice prescriptions are more formal rather than material, the underlying philosophical similarity with the derivative, secular varieties of social justice can’t be made more clear here. In today’s “social justice” configurations, individualism/capitalism/colonialism is scorned as a vehicle for bigotry, supremacist attitudes, wealth disparities and microaggressions and the perfectibilist standard that “none of us are free until we are all free” dominates the attitudes of basically every SJW community there is. Indeed, modern day iterations of social justice from Rawls onward invariably conclude that a large, overarching state is required to “right the wrongs of the past” and that “individualism is to blame” for the perpetuation of the evils of inequality in society and that anyone who doesn’t worship at the altar of this corrective state is an advocate for the problems that need to be solved.
These notions, so common among bleeding heart Marxist types, however “hyperliberal” they may sound today, are actually derived from a “conservative” authoritarian Jesuit theocrat who, prior to Marx, wanted to do away with individual rights, freedom of association and economic competition in favor of an assignment-based economy where everyone was tasked with upholding the common needs of the species-nature of all who occupy society. We can see the ubiquitous weaponization of this “social justice” dogma in the rise of anti-white racialism, corporate environmentalism, LGBTQ abominationism and the broader clown world, globohomo regime that is literally front and center on nearly every commercial, public broadcast, academic curriculum, film, and on the posts of those who regurgitate this toxic, exterminist collectivism all over social media. The irony is so rich, it rivals the stores of the Vatican bank.
