*
Most people who have thought about it (actually, that isn't many people) would agree that Leftism (or 'liberalism') is self-destroying.
Therefore Leftism is an ideology which is transitional between what went before and what comes after Leftism.
In other words, Leftism is destructive of what went before, and supportive of what comes after.
Well, Christianity is what came before - so, is Leftism fundamentally destructive of Christianity, or only accidentally (and non-essentially) so?
While there was some space for disagreement about which until about 40 years ago, it is now as clear as anything ever is that Leftism is anti-Christian in its root and motivation.
The strength of Leftism's anti-Christianity is that it is consistently and coherently anti-Christian without even being consciously aware of the fact! Even (or especially) when denying the fact.
Let us learn from this. Let us not look to what Leftism says about itself - because Leftism's self-knowledge is, ahem, very limited - but to what Leftism does coherently and strategically.
The penny drops.
Leftism imagines it is anti-religion and in favour of stuff like sexual equality, sexual freedom, peace, prosperity, comfort and so on - but does nothing at all to safeguard these supposed values, indeed destroys them; using them merely as clubs with which to beat Christianity. But only Christianity.
But Christianity is not the only world religion, ideology, or political system; and is not one which has grown manyfold its share of the world's population in a century plus under Leftism; nor has Christianity made great gains in power and territory and influence around the world, sponsored by Leftist nations. Nor has the Christian way of life been supported within all Leftist nations. Nor have large numbers of devout Christians migrated to Leftist nations. And Christianity is experiencing near total suppression, destruction and displacement from its historic heartlands.
Never mind what Leftists say or believe about themselves and their motivations; they are liars who do not even believe in the reality of reality; and insofar as they acknowledge the good it is only to invert truth, beauty and virtue.
Don't listen to them - look at what they do consistently, coherently, both tactically and strategically - and you may understand Leftism as being in its essence transitional, a temporary stage between the Christianity which it destroys and en route to something else which it encourages, and will take-over whatever remains after Leftists have done their work.
Of course, it would be ridiculous to imagine that any such plan was human in origin.
*
7 comments:
"The strength of Leftism's anti-Christianity is that it is consistently and coherently anti-Christian without even being consciously aware of the fact."
Most Leftists are pretty open about their hate.
"it would be ridiculous to imagine that any such plan was human in origin"
It is logical enough for Leftists, who aim for power and material pleasure here on Earth, to attack Christianity, which emphasizes non-worldly things.
@JP "It is logical enough for Leftists, who aim for power and material pleasure here on Earth, to attack Christianity, which emphasizes non-worldly things."
Yes, *that* is logical; but it is not logic but because Leftism is a psychotic instrument of evil that it paves the way for a regime which would irreversibly exclude them from power and material pleasure.
I would think it logical that people who actually aim for power and material pleasure here on Earth would prefer there to be a large number of Christians who emphasize non-wordly things. There would be more power and material pleasure for those who want them, as Christians usually are productive citizens. This would be close to the "neoconservative" position that sees the importance of "Christian values" for the success of the American empire.
I believe the Chinese communist party has decided to tolerate Christians because they usually make little trouble and are productive.
This is just to say that Leftist anti-Christianity is not very logical, unless the point of Leftism is to destroy Christianity.
@JP "Most Leftists are pretty open about their hate."
But they don't describe it as hate.
In my experience they're not actually open about their hate, but they are openly hateful.
Bruce is correct: most leftists' self-knowledge is either non-existent or extremely shallow.
They've made a virtue of rationalizing excuses. They prefer to watch they say and not what they do, because it's what allows them to maintain the illusion that they're the "good guys."
I suppose leftism is a transitional state from a civilization based on a good-versus-evil religion which treats all souls as equally redeemable, to a post-civilization based on a hodge-podge of religions overlain on a caste system.
It is as if a caste of Brahmins decided to create a caste of Pariahs, all in order to make the Parsis sad. I'm not trying to be funny here, and I know I'm not treating Indian groups very accurately, but that really is the analogy that leaps out at me.
Philip Rieff devastatingly documents the work of these 'therapeutics'
" "The systematic hunting down of all settled convictions represents the anti-cultural predicate upon which modern personality is being reorganized. . . . Our cultural revolution does not aim, like its predecessors, at victory for some rival commitment, but rather at a way of using all commitments, which amounts to loyalty toward none."
He recognised nothing was proposed to replace sacred order and the culture built up around it. Therapeutics propose . . . the nothing.
Christopher Dawson and George Orwell came to slightly different conclusions about what was being built - Dawson thought the nihilism at the centre of an omnicompetent technocratic state was unstable and would collapse into itself, Orwell thought it possible. Tolkien knew 'The Triumph of the Therapeutic' means domination of the atomised 'i' by the great 'I'.
We see it 'drawing all evil to itself' as we speak in plain sight - the demons are nothing if not vain.
-M
"Of course, it would be ridiculous to imagine that any such plan was human in origin."
And yet, given the liberal paradigm, "Liberalism" does originate with man. But even further, its human origin is spiritually and intellectually void per liberal beliefs. So "Liberalism," according to liberals, must have human "biological" origins. "Liberalism" in its human "biological" origin is the transgression of the homosexual "nature," i.e., the self-annihilating "nature."
"Liberalism," like Islam, must relentlessly expand because it is self-annihilating. This self-annihilation can be seen as the flip side to Mark Richardson's "autonomy theory" and the idea that the liberal is one who can self-create. Liberal self-creation necessitates liberal self-annihilation. This perpetual change is evidence of one's absolute autonomy. Of course, it is much more difficult to be something in particular (like a genuine Christian) as opposed to being nothing in particular (a radical autonomist)and so most liberals are constantly in the act of destroying their last created self. Sometimes, permanently.
Post a Comment