Saturday 10 October 2020

In 2020 you are objectively Leftist/ anti-Christian if you support any of the following three...

Currently, as of 2020, the ideological-religious Litmus Tests - i.e. the three major planks of acute, 'emergency' Leftism - are, in order: 

1. To believe in the deadliness of the birdemic and the need for societal lock-down-social-conditioning-masking-etc; which schema justified the Leftist totalitarian global coup, and the consequent near-annihilation of Church Christianity, across all denominations.

2. To assert the antiracist ('MLB') agenda. Indeed, not explicitly to repudiate this ideology is (in practice) sufficient evidence of Leftism.

3. To believe the Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Climate change ideology - which is the basis of the UN Agenda 2030 and the 'Great Reset'. These are intended to lock-into-place the New Normal.

If you support any of all of these; you are objectively on-the-side of mainstream, global, totalitarian Leftist Establishment: which is the side of Satan and against God. And obviously, therefore, you are anti-Christian - despite whatever you may believe or assert. 


See also This follow-up

Note added: William Wildblood has very helpfully expanded on the spiritual meaning of these Litmus Tests in a blog post that I would recommend reading



William Wildblood said...

It is strange because all these seem to have supporting evidence in their favour, at least insofar as that evidence is publicly presented, but the, what I would call, rightly orientated person knows (underlined) they are wrong and not just wrong but pushed by powers of evil, and such a person knows it on a level beyond supporting evidence as conventionally understood. It is, just as you say, a Litmus test.

TonguelessYoungMan said...

At this point, I would go so far as to say if you are not Christian you are Anti-Christian. The few who are not Christian but don't quite fall into the category of Anti-Christian will become either Christian or explicitly anti-Christian soon.

I converted this year, after years of indecision. I saw the writing on the wall, so to speak. I suspect this will be a common story among new converts.

Bruce Charlton said...

@TLM - "if you are not Christian you are Anti-Christian" - That's true, but a lot of "Christians" aren't really - e.g. they fail a Litmus test, and are thus revealed.

Doug said...

It seems to me that the stance "insufficient enthusiasm for 'this' means that one is anti-'this'/insufficient hatred for 'that' means one is anti-(not-'that')", imported from leftists, is a Litmus Test of something entirely as pernicious as leftism ever could be.

TonguelessYoungMan said...

That is a very sad truth, but when I say Christian I mean Christian of course, not people who merely claim to be Christian.

It was those CHINOs who were the main reason I was left in indecision for those years. I believed whatever Christianity may have been, I didn't want to be a part of a religion of spineless, self-defeating fools.

It took Bruce Charlton and William Wildblood, CS Lewis (among a few others) and my understanding of history that finally brought me around.

If I have ever met another actual Christian in person, I didn't know it.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Doug. You will need to think it through for yourself to be convinced. It is a discernment about reality, not a standard part of mainstream culture.

Bonald said...

This is a fascinating list because none of the three directly address Christian truth claims, and only the second even has a direct connection to political Leftism. And yet, it does seem that if one joins in on any of their moral panics, one comes to find it very difficult to disagree with them on anything, or at least to recognize that the point of disagreement is one of central importance.

Any of these three causes condition their followers to give presumptive moral authority to the Leftist establishment. On each of the three issues, part of the position favored by the Left is that opponents all have evil motives. Thus, followers are conditioned to presume the moral illegitimacy of the establishment's critics. This is strange, because in each case there are very clearly trade-offs between various goods that we are being asked to make, and some groups' interests will be advanced while others' will suffer. This is obvious, and one can imagine an alternate universe in which respectful and responsible discussions could be had about how to balance the goods and interests in play. However, when the Left takes up a cause, it declares opposition to be evil, and interests not served by its desired policy to be "selfish". Once you accept that Leftist frame, you're theirs.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Bonald - Yes, that's it.

Although it is a banal platitude that there is no pure and unmixed evil, and that all great evils succeed only because they contain some significant good as a part of their appeal; the actuality is still difficult for people to grasp.

I personally have found this business of Good and evil to be primarily about 'taking sides', to be very clarifying and helpful. And I think you have worked to some similar ideas about the requirements for a strong church: the need for group loyalty etc.

But that puts the discernment a step further - because a strong church is only a good-thing if that church is indeed on the side of Good.

My belief is that we cannot escape the requirement for at least One act of discernment. No matter how much obedience and loyalty are valued, and how vital they may be; there must be (at least) that One decision about where (if anywhere) to place one's O&L. And this may include a choice of a 'unit of loyalty and obedience' which differs from the old choice of units - e.g. a sub-division or selection-from what used-to-be The Unit.

One good thing about these times is that the decision, the discernment, has become more obvious and conscicous - less automatic and unconscious - and for Christians (tho' not necessarily for others) this must count as a Good Thing (so far as it goes).

(What is Not a Good Thing (from a Christian perspective) is the actual choice made by what *seems* to be a large majority of people.)

Avro G said...

Whew! I’m good!

Eaton Rapids Joe said...

Critical Race Theory is a perversion of the Doctrine of Original Sin. Unlike Original Sin, only some men are subject to the stain of CRT. Also unlike Original Sin, there is no path for redemption.

Once again proving the wisdom of add-nothing-subtract-nothing.

Bruce Charlton said...

@ERJ - "Critical Race Theory is a perversion of the Doctrine of Original Sin."

I get your point, but I don't think that is true. OS has a different structure, and I don't believe that CRT developed from OS as a matter of history.

CRT is not a *theory* at all - it has no structure, nor any positive coherent - it is merely oppositional like all evil; merely one of many (demonic) ways of encouraging and enforcing sins such as resentment/ spite/ pride, fear and dishonesty.