So-called "AI" is a world of virtual virtuality: a copy of a copy...

Edited from a sharply-insightful Comment by NLR at Francis Berger's blog: 

A common claim is that (So-called) "AI will usher in an endless frontier of creativity". 

There's plenty of reasons to disagree with this, but I want to discuss the assumptions associated with this view of creativity. The core distinction is that the assumptions of mechanistic creativity are false at a fundamental level.

The idea that the virtual world would become a world unto itself has been presented over and over again for decades, in both fiction and nonfiction. 

And yet how can that be true when the virtual world takes everything it has from the real world? 

What actually happened is that the virtual world has shrunk more and more over the years and so-called AI is just increasing this. 

Since AI works by copying what's on the Internet, its products are a copy of a copy, creating a world of virtual virtuality. 

Power and corruption - Is the evil of power an amplification, a temptation, or the fundamental nature of things?

In ancient times, it seems that power was regarded as A Good Thing - the only problem was getting it! The assumption was that gaining power simply enabled good people to do good things. 

Power was wanted for Us, and Our power was good. The evil of power was when They had it, and exercised it on Us. 

When someone with power did evil, then the ancient assumption was that power simply revealed their real nature - which had previously been thwarted of expression. 

Power for the ancients was thus an amplifier. 

It was as if goodness and evil were innate qualities; "a good man" given more power would, by his nature, do more good; and vice versa. 

The best society was therefore one such as King Arthur's Camelot; in which there was a good and powerful ruler. 

The era of power-as-amplifier also includes the assumption that the goodness of the ruler's power would permeate the people (as if the people would inevitably absorb the goodness of power, like a sponge). So, a good and powerful ruler, would lead to a better people. 

The idea that power corrupts, was a product of the modern era; and became socially dominant especially in the middle 20th century. 

We see it in literature such as the depiction of the Emperors and their courts in Robert Graves's I Claudius and Claudius the God - when many basically-decent individuals such as Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius himself, become corrupted by their power. (And those who are not corrupted get eliminated.) 

The corrupting effect of power was supposed to work such that a normal, or even good, person who got enough power, would strongly tend to be corrupted by it. So that a powerful monarch, or in the 20th century a secular dictator, might start out doing overall good; but would tend to become worse, get more selfish and paranoid, and do increasing harm...

The more power someone had, and the longer he wielded that power - the more corrupted he would become. 

Thus, in contrast with the ancients; the "power corrupts" idea was that power would itself tend make individuals evils: power was understood as a temptation. 

The more power, the longer the power was wielded: the greater the temptation.

From the late twentieth century the idea began to emerge that power was intrinsically corrupt: power just is corruption. 

While it is true that power amplifies innate evil, and also corrupts; in this most recent era there is more to power. It is not just a question of power bringing-out evil, plus tempting people to evil; on top of (and underpinning) these: power always is evil in its fundamental nature. 

This analysis asserts that power cannot be good, that power always is evil - because of what power is. 

Such an idea can be seen emerging in the depiction of the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings - where the temptation of power is, in practice, unstoppable in its corruption- such that even the most good and pure of people (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragorn) know they they would be unable to resist it.  

Here we may see hints of the current concept that the very nature and operation of power is evil (yet not quite fully in place, because the legitimate monarchical power of Aragorn is regarded as unproblematically good). 

Yet now, the situation is that power is regarded as coercion; as operating by compulsion of one by another; or of the masses by the minority rulers; or of people by the totalitarian System or "machine". 

A literary exponent of this vision of fundamentally evil power is Philip K Dick; with the depictions of future (and present day) dystopias as the Black Iron Prison; in which the whole structure of societal power is regarded as evil incarnate, set against each individual - who is a victim of power regardless of his position within The System. 

The operations of power are therefore such as to spread evil; in that power compels. Power propagandizes, coaxes, and forces behaviour - power deploys punishment for failure to obey; and power allocates rewards for compliance.  

In other words: power is all about bribes and sanctions and the like - these are not means to an end; but propaganda, bribes and sanctions, and brute force are what power is. 

The corruption spreads; because power is about getting others to behave in accordance with fear and greed, and the lust for power. 

This development in the understanding of power is, I believe, a consequence of the changing nature of human consciousness - the development by which human behaviour began as spontaneously and unconsciously immersed in the group-mind; and then (via transitional stages) became a alienated modern situation, in which each human experiences himself as cut-off from other people, from reality - even from his inmost self.

Whereas ancient power was diffused among the group mind - so that it was intrinsically shared-between the members; now power is experienced as external compulsion of one upon others.

Power makes everybody worse - the powerful, and those upon whom power is exercised! 

This is why the making of structures of power - power to shape, destroy and compel the world (as its people) - has been so much the focus of demonic strategy through most of the modern era. 

This has many and deep consequences; such that whereas the ancients could do good by power; we moderns cannot - power only does evil in the modern world, and can only do evil because of its nature. 

This applies to all humans with power - all are evil; and to all institutions with power, including Christian churches. 

Insofar as a Christian church is powerful, it is evil - it can only be evil. Whatever Christian churches do to increase their power is based on the false argument that power will enable them to do more good... The reality is that more-power simply makes churches more-evil. 

Because power is evil by its nature in the context of modern consciousness; institutional activity to "do good" that was normal in the past, is impossible in the present. 

Even when the intent to do good with power is genuine; insofar as power is attained, evil will in fact be done. 

This corruption of power is not just a temptation that might (in theory) be eschewed; the corruption of power is unavoidable, because it is in the fundamental nature of power. 

**

Note: What of the future? Well, it seems clear to me that, when power is known as innately evil; Christians need to lose their past keenness on getting and wielding power via - whether personally, or via institutions. The antidote to a world of power, is a world of love - and that is Heaven; and the mortal realities of Heavenly love that we may experience on earth. But even our idea of Heaven needs to be purged of past infatuations with power. We should also distinguish between the zero-sum games of power, which is all about arranging what is already created; and our potential for adding (eternally) to the sum and varieties of divine creation - through our own divine freedom, in harmony with ongoing creation. Of course, in our mortal lives in this mixed world, permeated by entropy and evil; we cannot eschew power, and necessarily participate in it - but we can and should recognize and repent the necessity. 

Further Note: Lest I be misunderstood - the situation is Not symmetrical. Although power is evil, power-less-ness does not mean good-ness. To be wholly good, power must not be operative. To put matters positively - goodness works by love, not power. Power is the destruction of loving relationship. 

However; in this mortal earthly life, love and power are always mixed in actual Men and their actual relationships, in a manner analogous to the inevitable mixture of good and evil in the hearts of each Man. Only after we have been remade and transformed by resurrection can Men (and other Beings) become wholly-loving. So, the situation in this earthly mortal life is that we cannot Be goos and loving (except partially and intermittently) but we can , and should, to affiliate to the side of love, just as we can/should affiliate to the side of God. It is not a matter of total reform and purification (which is impossible in this world) - what matter is a matter of taking sides; and, when it comes to values and matter of taking the right side.   

Acknowledgement: My awareness of the changing understanding of power originated from Tom Shippey's discussion of the One Ring in his magisterial The Road to Middle Earth, and some further discussion in the essays Roots and Branches.  

Optimism or Boosterism?

It is surely pleasanter to expect things to get better in the future, than to expect the opposite. 

Yet, if we are honest, such predictions ought to be rooted in honest realism rather than what happens to make us feel more cheerful at the moment. 

But aside from this, optimism is often tainted by Boosterism - which is often regarded as a distinctively American trait, but (since the US came to dominate global culture) is now seen almost everywhere. 

The idea of Boosterism is that optimistic prognostications are self-fulfilling: that if people believe something is going to be successful, to get-better; then this will happen. 

Boosterism seems to derive from people "talking-up" their town or business; exaggerating and boasting about its past and present success, in order to attract belief and investment - leading (it is hoped) to a more prosperous future.

Boosterism also applies to people as well as institutions; and, in England, has gone from a disapproved rarity in my early adult life, to something insisted upon by bureaucratic procedures - hence almost universal. 

For instance; UK scientists in the 1980s were self-deprecating and affected humility. But from around the millennium, scientists were required to construct and publish elaborate deniable-dishonesties concerning the great importance and influence of their work; as part of local and national bureaucratic research evaluation schemes. 

Since appointments, promotions, and funding depended on successful Boosterism; scientists soon believed these inflated self-narratives; and their scientific researches incrementally detached from reality, transforming into status-seeking fantasies.  

Such calculated untruthfulness, in a domain which was tasked with absolute truth-seeking; was self-justified in terms of all the "good work" that could be accomplished; "if only" I had that appointment/ promotion/ funding/ award or whatever...

In the end, those who embarked on this path simply became ever-more focused on satisfying the (ever-fluctuating) bureaucratic criteria of success - which were not merely irrelevant to, but actually opposed, the conduct of real science.   

On-line discourse has also become rampant with Boosterism; as can be seen by the self-presentation of most people engaged in social media, blogs, videos etc; including the frequency with which analysis and opinion is linked to monetization.  

This happens because the promotion of a place, or a business or other group activity, so easily becomes conflated with self-promotion; and self-promotion is justified in terms of its (supposedly) leading to benefits for the place, business or group. 

This can be seen in the absurd (but universal) practice whereby people who are awarded some prize, award or honour; claim that "I didn't want it for myself, but accepted it for the benefit of the team"... This! after grinding and grovelling in pursuit of just such a prize/ award/ honour, for perhaps several decades!

Anyway; our natural inclination to want to believe things are getting better may synergize with Boosterism in a spiritually-undesirable fashion. 

Typically, this is obvious to everyone except the person doing it; who is being gratified by (what seems to him) asserting success and its achievement, as if by magic!

Pretty rapidly; the process detaches from reality, and gets sustained by dishonest fantasy. The spiritual is subjective, and therefore genuine spirituality soon gets displaced by the observable and measurable objectivities of the material. 

Successful expansion becomes both outcome and goal - so that motives are re-orientated towards... wherever "success" leads. Expanding monetization rapidly shapes and drives evaluations and opinions.   

This form of corruption can be seen operating (in real time) with respect to individual people, with churches, businesses; and in institutions such as schools, colleges and departments of bureaucracy.  

Boosterism is perhaps especially dominant at present, when honest realism seems to lead to pessimism. An increasingly desperate desire to be optimistic at any price then joins with self-promotion - leading to the self-gratifying contention that Things Really Are Getting Better... 

Instead of recognizing that we have temporarily adapted to the demands of a fundamentally evil totalitarian system - and thereby become corrupted; Booster-people instead claim to have "bucked the trend".

The Boosters assert that a corner has been turned, the pendulum has swung - and they are merely riding a new wave of betterment.

And all that other people need to do to make the world a better place is... To believe the Boosters and do what they say! 

And anyone who disagrees with the Boosters' self-aggrandizing assertions - is a Bad Person who wants to stop all the good stuff from happening! 

**

Note: This was stimulated by reflections at Francis Berger's blog.  

The individual spiritually-transcends the group, yet our material society depends on categories - A sign of the End Times?

I have often discussed the change in human consciousness by which our original state of near-complete (albeit largely unconscious and spontaneous) immersion in a group identity; has transformed to the modern experience of - on the one hand - alienation, cut offness from community and indeed the world; and - on the other hand - freedom, agency, the autonomy of the individual. 

We modern Western people need to be conscious of our understandings, and to choose our affiliations and motivations, in a way that was impossible in the past - but unavoidable in this present. 

Hence we are responsible, in a ultimate way, for our beliefs. Including the primary assumptions we make concerning the fundamental nature of reality (i.e. we are responsible for choosing out metaphysical system). 

We Just Are responsible - although, at present, this responsibility s largely shirked... 

Instead; people prefer to take refuge in assertions that they have no choice, or that their understanding is compelled upon them by facts and reason. Yet what counts as facts and reasons are, in actuality, themselves a consequence of prior metaphysical choices. 

What this means is that the individual is the primary unit of spiritual discourse, in a way that undercuts not only such groupings as nations, races, sexes, and the like; but also church institutions of all kinds. When the individual is primary, the group must be secondary - and derived. 

Yet our society is based in groups. 

All of our social institutions already (and, in some ways, increasingly) regard individuals in terms of their group identity; and this applies to laws, rules, procedures, mandatory-"guidelines", economic formulae, and the like. 

This seems both practically and conceptually inevitable in political terms; such that we cannot even imagine how a human society, in this world could possibly function - on the basis of consciously-chosen relationships between individual persons!  

In sum: The group collapses, and is transcended - spiritually. 

But, at the same time; materially, the group has not been transcended - and there seems no sign that it shall be. 

We are materially ruled on the basis of categories and algorithms; even as spiritually we are free and responsible agents of our own salvation, learning, loving, and creating in this world.

The spirit and the material now pull us in opposite directions. 

To satisfy the one, we must subvert, weaken, and perhaps destroy, the other. 

Perhaps this is another indication that we are in the End Times? 

 

Explaining contradictions: The paradoxical expressions of Christian mysticism

It strikes me that the way in which (what I might call) mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology tries to explain its inbuilt contradictions, is by the assertion of contraries, in a paradoxical and mystical way.

The contradictions arise from monism - by which I mean that the starting assumption is of the unity of God who is assumed to be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. This means that everything is God, including all of creation, and every possible derivative and consequence of creation. 

So that God is good, and God is also everything we regard as evil. And the world, which seems to be a mixture of good and evil, is actually (by assumption) absolutely unified. All that exists is one kind-of-thing - because that thing is God, because there is nothing else that it could be. 

The appearance of the world seems to include many distinct people, animals, plants, minerals etc; but at root all must (by assumptions) come from God; and everything about them comes from God. All all apparent differentness is ultimately one. 

For Christians there must be freedom, agency, autonomy; and therefore life unrolls unpredictably. And yet, everything that seems independent is actually just "a thought in the mind of God" (who is time-less), and everything that happens is foreknown to God - because for God there is no time; and all that was, is, and shall-be is "simultaneous". 

How does mainstream Christian theology explain such contradictions? Ultimately it does not explain them - ultimately, these contradictions are asserted in sequence, one after another, and both sides of the contradiction are then said to be true.

For instance: 1: We are creatures wholly of-God - everything of us was made, from nothing, by God. 2: We are also free agents, capable of genuine choice, from our-selves. Both at once, 1&2... Q: But how exactly? A: Just Because.   

Two contradictory statements are made, one after the other, and asserted both necessarily to be true - and that is the (mystical) explanation of the contradiction.   

Therefore, when an enquirer digs deep into Christian theology to ask how it fits-together; he meets with mysticism: and that mysticism entails the sequential assertion of contraries as simultaneous truths. Christian mysticism is the realization that all apparent contradictions are compatible within the unity of Omni-God. 

For mainstream/ orthodox/ traditional Christian theology; contradictions are fundamental and unavoidable - therefore paradoxical mysticism is necessarily the bottom-line "explanation" when it comes to reconciling The World with Ultimate Reality. 

**

The question for each Christian is whether or not he is happy with having his religion rooted in paradoxical mysticism? 

It seems that in the past, in many times and places, people were happy with a religion rooted in contradictions. 

However, I am not happy with such a situation here-and-now; and indeed regard it as a fundamental and fatally-weakening flaw...

Which is why I have needed to develop a qualitatively distinct explanation for Christianity, rooted in different primary assumptions regarding the nature of God and reality. 

The content of visions is non-objective, clearly - and yet...

I had missed this very interesting post by William James Tychonievich - Visions as irruptions of dreaming consciousness into waking life - when it came-out some six months ago. 

I agree with his remark that dreaming goes on all the time, but only sometimes emerges into awareness; and some of these times may include visions. 

Such considerations open-up a very important theme, about which I have often been confused. 

The thing about visions is that they can be very compelling, in an overall sense. They may feel very important: which probably means they do have genuine significance. Yet at the same time the content of visions is non-objective. 

I conclude this not only from my personal experiences - in which the objective content of some very compelling, highly convincing, dreams and visions has turned-out to be untrue - factually false, informationally wrong - wrong in various ways and degrees. 

But also, I have noticed this factual/ informational falseness/ wrongness in others.... From having read and pondered large numbers of accounts of visions from all sorts of people... From some famous founders of religions and denominations and societies. And in more recent reading in the works of 20th century people who were Christian mystics, in the Western tradition of ritual/ ceremonial magic, and from "New Age" and Western practitioners of Eastern religions. 

Of course, among all these reports are plenty of people who I judge to be dishonest (pretending to experiences in order to manipulate other people), and others who seem self-deluded and dominated by wishful-thinking. 

Most self-styled visionaries are indeed of these kinds, and are spiritually interesting only in a pathological sense. 

However; there are also plenty of visionary experiences described by people whose honesty I believe, and whose competence I respect. 

There is, therefore, truth of some sort in their visions. 

And yet: the objective content of their images I usually believe to be wrong. 

Furthermore, there are stark contradictions between information reported by the various trustworthy people, even among those who I most respect. 

They cannot all be correct - at least not correct in the kind of straightforward and literal ways in which so many of the individuals themselves seemed to accept the content of their visions.    

This is not at all surprising if, as WmJas says, visions are (mostly) waking dreams - because dreams are, notoriously, often incoherent; and "factually impossible" dream material is frequent. 

It would seem like an obviously futile project to try and build some kind of objective "system" of spiritual knowledge from the material of dreams... Yet, exactly this has been (and still is being) often attempted. 

My conclusion is that we should not be trying to use visions (or, indeed, other "paranormal" kinds of experience) as a method for gaining factual understanding. 

Although this is exactly how visions often have been used; the actual results are idiosyncratic to individuals (and potentially unstable, in that future visions may contradict those of the past). 

In the case of formal religions (or systems such as Steiner's Anthroposophy); such intrinsic idiosyncrasy is controlled, and a quasi-objectivity is externally imposed, by privileging particular visions by particular persons. Usually the founder's visions are regarded as factually true, eternally objective; such that they cannot be refuted by anyone else's visions. 

To this end; there is a frequent practice of either forbidding, or ignoring, contradictory visions by other and later persons (as when Steiner's legacy Anthroposophical Society expelled the occultist-mystic Valentine Tomberg, for doing what Steiner had done). Or (as with the CJCLDS Mormons) doctrinally limiting the significance of later visions and personal revelations to minor and individual matters. 

Or, within mainstream Christianity, when there have been times and places when it was insisted that revelation ended with Jesus, or the Apostles, or the Bible, or particular Ecumenical Councils - and later claims of revelation were assumed necessarily to be subordinate, or false. 

But this seems, pretty obviously, merely an expedient exercise of top-down power, designed to maintain an institution or system. 

If a religion or other institution is founded-upon and derives-from visions (and other supernatural experiences); then there is something very dubious about later generations suppressing or limiting the significance and scope of visionary experiences. 

But such negative and sceptical evaluation of visionary experiences is not the whole truth of the matter - because it would seem to point to the rejection of this kind of experience as intrinsically false, or impossible to evaluate. 

(And if visions really are impossible to evaluate, then most religions have cut away their own foundations.) 

Even though having the quality of waking dreams; visionary experiences are (I believe) potentially very important, and rightly regarded as (in some way) significant. 

Because our dreams themselves are potentially important - and this was a fact recognized in nearly all times and places except the modern West.  

My own attitude is to try and get away from the idea of visions (and dreams) as a source of factual, objective, information or knowledge - and instead to seek the significance at another level. 

In line with my general attitude, with respect to theology and Christianity; I think it probable that the true and important facts of our mortal life are few and simple; graspable-by and innate-to young children. 

In essence, visions ought not to be used such as to increase the volume, complexity and difficulty of information; and should instead be understood as leading us towards clarity and simplicity. 

What we might reasonably expect from dreams may be of this kind: simple affirmations or refutations of simple and basic understandings; pointers towards or away-from broad aspects of our mortal lives.

I would add that it has usually been recognized that most dreams, and probably most waking visions, are essentially trivial. And only some, maybe few, and maybe rare - dreams impress themselves upon us as significant: those numinous dreams and visions, ones having a mystical feel and a sense of personal importance. 

It is these numinous/ mythic/ significant-feeling dreams to which I refer.

For instance; when I awake from a dream of a particular place having a magical quality, and this dream lingers; such a dream is not likely to be indicative or confirmation of specific information about a specific place. Perhaps, instead, it may be a very general affirmation of the potentially magical reality underlying my mortal existence - and the specifics of the dream are just a means to that end.

I have had an occasional lucid and realistic dream of Jesus Christ in his mortal life, and in one such dream he gave some specific information, which I later became sure was wrong information. Yet even when all the details are false or dubious; the dream had a lasting inner significance as a subjective confirmation of the simple reality of Jesus, as a personage. 

Broadly; that is now how I try to "interpret" my dreams, visions, or any other supernatural-type experiences that happen from tie to time. 

I try not to become focused upon specific detail and facts; and instead to reflect upon my own simple responses as a guide to what was "really" being communicated. 

Another way of thinking about it, is that visions (like dreams) are not about telling us something new; but are about the simple discernments involved in sorting-out our already-existing and most basic assumptions concerning our lives, and how they relate to reality. 

Visions are therefore about discernment, not knowledge. 

Is it possible to be A Christian, and to practice another religion?

Q: Is it possible for be A Christian, and to practice another religion? 

A: Yes it is possible, here-and-now.... 

But it was not always possible. 

In the past (and even today, in other places) someone who recited a creed would believe that creed. More exactly, he could not say it unless he believed it; because saying was believing. 

In earlier forms of human consciousness; thoughts were words, words were thoughts; and words were things. 

But now, words are not things: words can mean other than they say, or mean nothing. 

Now; thoughts are distinguishable from words, and words are distinguishable from actions. 

This is, indeed, normal - and indeed required. Therefore...

Modern Men can do Christianity, but not be a Christian; and can be a Christian but not do it.  

So it is here-and-now possible to practice any other religion, or none; and yet be A Christian...

And/or be a Christian and/yet practice some other religion, or none. 

Which is, if you think about it, when you look around at The World, very much for-the-best; which is, presumably, why God has made things thus. 

JD Salinger - the contradictions of his Westernized Hindu spirituality

In Zooey by JD Salinger, which is one of my favourite stories - reinforced by the preceding and following stories of Raise High the Roofbeam, Carpenters, and Seymour: an introduction - the young adult protagonists (Franny and Zooey Glass) are acutely motivated by a hatred of egotism: in themselves, as well as in others. 

This hatred of "ego" - of The Self and its aggrandisement - is so powerful as to become the prime motivation - the most important thing for them both. 

This leads to a double-negative spirituality; with the usual problem of double-negations, which is incoherence. 

Incoherence because we can (and most people do) incoherently oppose and reject multiple things; but lacking a positive motivation there is nothing (not even in principle) that can or should harmonize such rejections. 

In Zooey and the other stories (as, apparently, in Salinger's own life) this loathing of ego led to oneness spirituality, which in Salinger's case was an inevitably-Western form of Vedanta Hinduism. 

 

In Zooey; we therefore get two opposite attempts to negate ego, and attain oneness. 

The first is to reject every-thing, so as to regard this mortal life as unimportant. Unimportant because an illusion (maya). 

We should thus strive to live by asceticism, without any attachment to the people and things of this world. 

The other, substantially opposite, response is to cease discernment among the things of this world (because they are all, ultimately, one); and then to conclude from this that everything is valuable, and equally valuable. 

In other words; we should embrace every-thing: every person, every thing, every event or non-event - all just the same. 

The idea is that the whole world is (equally-) Holy, and that (as F & Z's elder brother Seymour supposedly said: "all we do our whole lives is go from one little piece of Holy Ground to the next."  

So which is it to be? 

Do we reject the ego by rejecting the world, and ceasing to care about anything? Or do we reject ego by trying to recognize and experience that everything in the world is holy and equally holy?

It seems that F & N oscillate between the two.   

Also in practice; Franny and Zooey, and their brothers Buddy and the late Seymour, are very keen on practising a kind of micro-discernment; that discovers ultimate meaning in tiny, unnoticed, neglected yet wonderful epiphanic moments of life. 

The result is an inconsistency of belief and practice which is (apparently) intensely frustrating, and indeed despair-inducing (to the point of suicide in the most rigorous among the Glass siblings: Seymour). 

Yet this inconsistency is baked-into oneness spirituality, from its very foundations. 

And this incoherence works as a kind of proof that the double-negation of "rejection of ego" cannot, and should not, be the highest value. 

We should instead seek a positive value as our highest and deepest motivator. 

A precise geopolitical prediction (for what very-little it's worth)

My prediction: Before this April* (i.e. within less than a month of the new DT administration) there will be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - de facto in support of CHOAM. 

There will be some kind of state of National Emergency in the major Western military powers with dictatorship powers resumed bypassing normal legislative procedures (as happened in 2020). 

There will be plans for a large and rapid military deployment to the Middle Eastern region - and I think there may well be an attempt to introduce military conscription under some misleading conceptualization.  

This is, I believe The Plan - but of course, in a world of Free Agency, and where there is a hot civil war among the Western/ Globalist leadership class; it may not work-out as planned.

The best thing about this prediction is that if I am wrong (as I hope will be the case) - then the prediction will easily and quickly be refuted; and will not, therefore, hang-around for ages, causing trouble!

*Note added 9th February 2025 - For "April" read "March". 

Robert Graves writing total bollix - with superb conviction

No poet can hope to understand the nature of poetry unless he has had a vision of the Naked King crucified to the lopped oak, and watched the dancers, red-eyed from the acrid smoke of the sacrificial fires, stamping out the measure of the dance, their bodies bent uncouthly forward, with a monotonous chant of "Kill! kill! kill!" and "Blood! blood! blood!

From The White Goddess by Robert Graves

**

The above is a prime example of what I mean by Graves's "superb" (i.e. impressively splendid) prose style; so strong, self-confident and vivid that it is easy to be convinced. 

And thereby fail to notice that what he is actually describing as the basis for Mankind's ideal and proper religion is not only completely-made-up factual nonsense, but also horribly, invertedly, wrong; grossly  undesirable, and an actively evil state of affairs.  

Just in case the reader is doubtful of having understood him aright as proposing this kind of society as A Good Thing; then Graves provided us with an illustrative a novel of this supposed "utopia": Seven Days in New Crete. 

   

Yet, while actually reading the passage... Well, it's hard not to believe him, for a moment or two!

Secret Christians and the secret doctrine

It seems possible, and perhaps likely, that Jesus Christ's work was at a cosmic and creational level primarily and essentially. 

Jesus changed reality, and set-up a new possibility. 

The religion of Christianity would therefore be something secondary and optional - a means to the end of being A Christian, that might well be or become an obstacle or deterrent to achieving that end.

If Secret Christians are indeed, and by intent, the main thing; then this is not really "a religion"; because, by usual definitions and practices, a religion is a social-level phenomenon. 

Christianity certainly can exist at a social level - but if that reality is love based, then it will be rooted in family and close personal relationships; therefore not in institutional forms; and its reality will not be well represented by such categorical and formal structures as rules and laws. 

Thus... Maybe the original assumption of Jesus was that Christianity would be a secret doctrine - "secret" in the sense of potentially private and personal, hence invisible to external perception. 

A doctrine so simple that it could be known by direct personal revelation (communicated by the divinity directly to the hearts of Men); and which could be inferred sufficiently just from innate knowledge and attitudes, and common sense reasoning.  

It is even possible that such a secret form of being-a-Christian would work best when unspoken and generally uncommunicated -- perhaps being kept separate-from (and unconfused by) religion, reduces the chance of distortion?

After all; the main-thing about being a Christian is Heaven, which is not of this world. 

To be born again in resurrection happens on the other side of death. 

Following Jesus during this mortal life is bound-up with contingencies; but what absolutely defines our destiny is whether or not we follow Jesus after we have died biologically. 

Whether we are Secret Christians or not; the essence of the matter is outwith public discourse - between our-selves and the living Jesus Christ. 

 

Why is value-inversion so convincing and popular nowadays?

My basic understanding is that in the process by which Jesus's work and teaching became "Christianity" - something simple and inner, became something complex and outer. 

With Christianity; Jesus's teachings became an "outer" set of laws/ rules embedded in a structure of government, with "the Christian's" duty being, primarily, obedience. 

Christianity defined being-a-Christian as obedience to the rules and laws of The Church (and/or of the Christian State). 

As part of this, Christianity became a "system" of dos and don'ts - a system of rules that were - overall and on average - Good...

Yet, at the same time, external rules (no matter how many, and how perfectly obeyed) can never, in principle, capture the essence of being a follower of Jesus Christ... Which is ultimately an inner matter - a matter of motivations. 

This has always been obvious enough to thoughtful Christians - obedience to the structure is never enough; and the rules can only (at most and at best) serve as "pointers" towards being-a-Christian. 

Furthermore, the rules - by their nature - are incomplete, to some extent incoherent, and have exceptions. 

Even the best rules do harm, as well as good. For instance; rules that benefit the majority, in the long term; will often harm a minority (which may be a large minority) in the short term. And the harms may be immediate and certain, while benefits are delayed, and somewhat conjectural.  

In other words, the essence of Christianity is personal, and private; and always has been. 

In a strict sense, therefore; all real Christians are "Secret Christians" - Christians in their hearts; and this subjective reality cannot possibly be "captured" by even the best sets of Good rules; even when these rules/laws are most ideally administered and obeyed. 

But in practice; the rules were very much more imperfect than ideal, there was corruption in their administration; and plenty of people were hypocrites - who exploited the letter of the law to subvert the Christian spirit behind the law. 

Yet it was usually asserted that the real and true Christianity was its laws and institutions. Or, that this must be the case in practice. 

What happened in private was therefore down-rated to merely subjective - and the objective fact of the actual religion was made the observable, the measurable, the societal. 

Secret Christians were relegated to an idea realm of fantasy; ignored, regarded (often accurately) as an excuse for apostasy - and so forth. 

So Real Christianity was in practice reduced to what was public, what was legal, what was political... 

  

And thereby Christianity was made ripe for destruction! 

The situation was that real Christianity was said (implicitly and in practice, even when officially denied) to be the rules, laws and institutions. 

Yet exactly this actuality of Christianity was very imperfect - even in theory, and even at its best it was incomplete and probabilistic; and Christian rules and laws did significant harm, even when they did overall Good. 

Over several generations, over the past couple of centuries; the rules and laws of external Christianity were analysed, dissected, subverted - and they were significantly discredited as Not Good Enough. 

Having been proved inadequate -- at least, proved to be incoherent, incomplete, and significantly harmful to the satisfaction of the ruling and dominant classes; these "Christian rules" were increasingly confidently seen as A Problem (indeed seen as The Problem), not as an answer. 

Christian rules and laws were seen as not reformable; but as something we would be better rid of. 

And once the rules and institutions of Christianity evil were seen as a problem; then the stage was set for the incremental inversion of these rules, and the take-over or destruction of the church institutions by the governing ideology of hedonic materialism. 

For instance; the rules of patriarchy were inverted to feminism; laws encouraging and enforcing chastity was inverted to "free love", and so forth. 

My point here is that - in the space of about 150 years - The West has gone from a set of net-Good but imperfect and partly-harmful "Christian" rules; via a stage of critique and subversion of these rules; to the current situation in which there has been a value-inversion. 

The current ideology is one that is orientated against the rules, laws and institutions of what was defined as "Christianity"; and which came to be regarded as intrinsically limited, hypocritically administered, and actually harmful - albeit usually harmful in a minority (whether large or small) of applications and instances. 

With this behind us; we cannot, and indeed should not try to, return to the pre-current-ideology System of rules/ laws/ institutions... 

Even though the rules and laws of Christendom were indeed better than the present situation overall and on average. 

The traditional externally-defined Christianity of rules/ laws/ institution has been discredited - discredited in theory, as well as in practice. 

The problems of the past are just too obvious, and too well-known, for sufficient (and sufficiently widespread) motivation to restore it (even if that were possible). 

But the Secret Christianity, of which we can read in the Fourth Gospel, remains as ever it has. 

This is and was a personal and private Christianity (or following of Jesus) that existed without (and before) there was church, scriptures, theology, or traditions.

Secret Christianity is still the real thing, un-capturable by any set or rules and laws; and immune to any institution - and attainable whether the system is for net-Good, or against it...

Just as it was during the ministry of Jesus Christ.  

"Fear and Trembling"? Certainly Not!

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." 

Philippians 2:12 (written by the Apostle Paul.)

This seems fundamentally wrong for these days and times, in terms of how a Christian ought to approach life. 

Of course, this mortal life is tragic - as well as joyous; and we ourselves are weak, and prone to fear, resentment, dishonesty and many other sins - as well as blessed by divine freedom and the capacity for love.

But I am sure that Christians are not intended by Jesus Christ to regard our salvation with fear and trembling; and that - indeed - to do so is a sin akin to despair. 

F&T is a sin because it is evidence of a lack of faith in God's goodness and power. 

On the contrary; salvation is in our own hands; as is evident throughout the Fourth Gospel - which (to simplify) means that if we want salvation, we can have it. 

We get it by following Jesus Christ - and that "following" means after this mortal life; and following analogously to a lost sheep following a Good Shepherd. 

For us (here, now) the great thing, the great problem - is Not-at-all about the difficulties of navigating salvation; but much more fundamentally and lethally Not Wanting Salvation.

It is therefore misguided and counter-productive to emphasize the uncertainty of salvation, to make it a matter properly approached in a spirit of F&T. 

(As if God was a stern monarch and Judge - rather than God being our loving parent/s.)

What we need and ought to be doing, is not inculcating an attitude of fear and trembling; but instead helping people to want salvation...

Firstly by clarifying what salvation is; secondly by clarifying what are the alternatives.

And then (hardest of all) getting people to think about this matter sufficiently deeply and consecutively, to decide what they really hope-for, for themselves - on a timescale of eternity. 

Why are "Anonymous" comments reliably worthless?

Q: Why are "Anonymous" comments reliably worthless? 

A: Because of their provenance...

That is to say; Anonymous comments are worthless because of the kind of people who comment Anonymously. 

Which is why this blog is set-up to delete Anonymous comments unread. 

Example: Just yesterday I noticed that there was an Anonymous comment in the deleted files of my blog  - intended for a short post, which I ended by writing: 

"If you want to comment (but not anonymously!)"

Furthermore, at the top of the sidebar of this blog, the first paragraph opens with the statement, or warning: 

"Anonymous comments are deleted without being read."  

On top of which, as part of the actual form used for submitting each specific comment for moderation, is the phrase: 

"Comments are moderated. "Anonymous" comments are deleted without being read."

Just think about it - someone who commented Anonymously on yesterday's post had to ignore three statements Not to comment Anonymously - two of which made clear that to do so was futile.  

Consider that despite All This, someone commented Anonymously. 

This example says a great deal about the people (or entities) which comment Anonymously; and why it is that Anonymous comments are deleted without being read. 

What is our civilization's transitional situation, by analogy with Middle Earth - commentary on an essay by Tree of Woe

Over at the Notion Club Papers blog, I have discussed an interesting essay from the Tree of Woe website, in which the author draws analogies, and inspiration, from the example of Elendil in rebuilding Arnor and Gondor from the remains of Numenor. 

If you want to comment (but not anonymously!) - it is probably better to leave socio-political comments here, and Tolkien-related comments over at the Notion Club Papers. 

"The internet is no longer meaningfully searchable" - True: but does it "really" matter, when we can't do anything about it?

WmJas Tychonievich:

The exact figures will vary depending on what you search for, but on average Google delivers 0.0001% search results and 99.9999% censorship. You think those numbers are exaggerated, but they’re not. The Internet is no longer meaningfully searchable. It’s time to start relying more on serendipity and word of mouth.

I began to realize the extent of global totalitarianism when I realized that, despite that Google's 30 year old search engine had objectively gotten much much worse in functionality over the past 20 years - G. is still the best search engine (overall), by some margin. 

Our choice as of 2025 is between a crap, and getting ever crappier, search engine - or something even worse. 

Somehow, apparently, from what the masses are allowed to access; nobody in the world has been able to do better than a three decades old search algorithm, despite that the functionality of that algorithm has been deliberately all-but destroyed. 

This is impossible - if the world of technological development and market competition is truly anything like it is supposed to be, as it is portrayed in public discourse. 

Therefore, the catastrophic decline of Google Search and the failure to develop/ make available anything better; is conclusive  evidence of the top-down political power of The System to control global usage of one of the most important single pieces of modern technology. 

And if The Establishment controls this - then it must also control many other things. 

Any yet, and yet... the vast majority are oblivious/ indifferent to all this!

Fatalism "we can't do anything about it" - leads on to nihilism "it doesn't really matter anyway" - then to a kind of denialism that refuses even to think about such things. 

The reason is obvious, and the reason is atheistic materialism; which has it that whatever we (you and I) understand and know is of zero significance to the world; because understanding and knowing are (of themselves) merely subjective things, going on privately inside our skulls. Confined to brains; where the thoughts do nothing, and make no difference to "the world". 

And the mainstream majority conclusion is that understanding and knowing does no good. In fact, they do harm, by making us miserable. (And in a finite material mortal life - there is literally nothing worse than "my" misery, now.)

The conclusion is therefore: best to go-with-the-flow, don't even try to understand; and make the best of... whatever is the current situation.

But if we inhabit a Christian divine creation; and if our personal understanding really makes a difference to objective spiritual reality --- Well, then it is well worth noticing, thinking, and trying to understand stuff.  

So does it matter that the internet is no longer meaningfully searchable? 

Yes it matters! Even though you and I can do "nothing" about it in a material/ political sense.

Because there is a life-lesson concerning the nature of this, our reality; there is some-thing that we ought to learn, and which it is good to understand. 

Asking/ Giving "advice" - the example of Newcastle upon Tyne

Dog Leap Stairs, running up from the Quayside towards the Norman "New Castle". Evocative of Newcastle as The Raven King's magical capital city, in Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell.   

Some of the people who ask for advice do not intend to take it - they may even be intending to react against it. 

Or they may be seeking to avoid responsibility by saying (to themselves, if not to others) that they are only doing what they have been told -- although this doesn't make sense; since the advice was sought, and the decision to follow it was made. 

Some people (especially immature ones) are keen to give advice - and some of these actually expect others to follow it! 

So there is potential for some pretty pathological interactions here. 

It can be flattering to the inexperienced to be approached for advice; and this approach "for advice" may therefore be a method of manipulation. 

The whole business of advice assumes a generalizability from the individual to the group - the assumption that what is the case for me-her-now, is (or ought to be) the case for somebody/everybody else, in other circumstances. 

It was only in my middle twenties that I (finally!) began to realize that I was apparently highly atypical - such that most other people saw the world very differently, and wanted very different things. Until then I had assumed that such differences were due to other people not knowing about stuff - and if they knew what I did then they would think like I did. 

But eventually the reality dawned that this was not the case. I was, indeed, an extremely unusual person; and therefore what worked for me, would not necessarily work for others - because others wanted something very different, and were gratified by (and found aversive) very different places and people and situations. 

I can only talk about the past, because things will surely change in the future; but I have realized that the place for me has been Newcastle upon Tyne. I assume that this is somewhat due to family history, personal history and stuff like that - and therefore I have not assumed that what suited me and what I was up to, would suit other people. 

I would not be likely to advise people to live here; just because it suits me. (And not just me; also my family - which is, of course, decisive.) 

After all, I dis-like a great deal about this place and its people, and indeed I don't like very much of Newcastle. Probably most of the city and people I find aversive, and avoid. 

Other aspects I love in a way that goes very deep and has provided an unique sustenance. Nonetheless, I'm always a bit surprised when other people want to live here; and by the gravitational pull that some other people feel towards it. 

I think one great advantage of Newcastle is that it has been more real and coherent than most places. I felt this in contrast to the city of my schooldays - Bristol*. 

That reality may be unpleasant or simply alien to some people, and it is always dissolving in response to the depredations of totalitarian materialism. And there may come a time when I feel a need to move elsewhere. 

But, for me, it is important that the place I live has an objective kind of solidity, to which I personally am connected. No matter how pleasant some other places may be for most people with their different natures and goals; if that place feels not-real to me, or I am not inwardly-connected; then life feels arbitrary - and that is (for me) so bad - that it seems to spoil everything else. 

Or, to put matters positively; I have been very fortunate to find and (mostly) live somewhere about which I feel "romantic" and in which participation has been attainable for much of the time. 

But still, I would not be likely to advise anybody else to live here. 

*I spent my school years in Somerset near Bristol, and am still very fond of visiting that area (although I have gone-off Bristol itself since the millennium); but I did not find it difficult to leave the area. This may be attributable to having been born in Devon, and experiencing an alienating dislocation when we moved (from several understandable causes in combination - plus the facts of loss and strangeness). For several years afterwards, Devon felt magical, safe and natural; while Somerset was comparatively seedy, dull (because of long days at school, mostly) - and somewhat threatening. But I have very seldom been to Devon in the past 50 years, and not at all for more than thirty.  

What is the meaning of "Romantic" in Romantic Christianity - and how does it differ from "pleasure-seeking" or psychotherapy"?

We need clearly to distinguish between, on the one hand, the "psychotherapeutic" aspects of spirituality and religion; and, on the other hand, participation. 

Romantic Christianity is primarily and essentially about participation, not pleasure or therapy. 

(Although Romanticism without Christianity usually devolves into pleasure-seeking and/or therapy.) 

Therapy focuses on emotions and feelings; while participation is a fact about reality. 

Participation is the fact that we are involved-with reality; including that our "inner life" is involved with reality. 

In other words; we are not separate from reality, we are not cut-off from reality, even in our innermost thinking and feeling - even though most modern people feel that they are cut-off; even though we wrongly believe that we are observers rather than participants in "the universe". 

So, participation means that we Just-Are (like it or not, know it or not, want it or not) participants in divine creation. 

The felt-need of Romanticism is to be aware that we are participants in reality. 

Thus, Romanticism is a good impulse for Christians - it is spiritually positive - because it is the aspiration to become more spiritually-developed, more God-like in our consciousness of reality. 

**

Psychotherapy is not only distinguishable from Romanticism, but also the two can be separated and dissociated; so that we can have one without the other: we can have therapy without participation, and participation without therapy. 

Obviously, there can be therapy without participation - and this is the normal, mainstream and dominant form of therapy in modern Western civilization. 

(It is also what historically happened to Romanticism when it rejected Christianity - we got the pleasure-seeking of Byron instead of the participation-seeking of Coleridge; and a century later, we got the therapeutic intent of Jung instead of the participation-seeking of Steiner and Barfield.)

For instance, people can be made to feel happier or less-miserable, by distraction from reality (as by the mass and social media), or by suppression of awareness (by inner-materialism and bureaucracy). 

Distraction-from and suppression-of awareness of the fact of participation both diminish participation and are anti-Romantic. 

And there can be participation without therapy. 

This happens when recognition of our involvement with reality makes us feel more miserable here-and-now. 

This might be through a recognition of evil in our situation; or by recognizing the tragic quality of a life that ends with death (tragic even when death has "lost its sting" from resurrection); and of a mortal earthly world of endemic degeneration, disease, and loss.

In sum; Romanticism is not some form of pleasure-seeking; but is instead a recognition of the benefits, indeed I would say necessity, of consciously recognizing the fact of our continuing-participation in God's created reality.  

 

"Good Intentions" - Yes, but...

In a world where there are too many interacting and unknown causes for effects to be predictable from actions; then Good Intentions are crucial... So long, that is, as the intentions are Real (not merely excuses for self-interest or spiteful destruction), and are really-Good (and not double-negations, for instance).

Because genuinely Good Intentions, is a way of describing being consciously on the side of God and Divine Creation... 

And because it is only GIs that will take into account how things are working out in practice (which may be very different from what was hoped) and can made adjustments, and will (because genuinely Good in Intent) continue monitoring the developing situation. 

(That this is so rare, is indicative of the rarity of genuinely Good Intentions.)

So, real Good Intentions are vital - they are, in this meaning, the only way of doing-good in this world. 

Yet if intentions are good only when God-aligned; then genuine GIs are pretty-much restricted to situations when love is the motivator - actual, real love, between particular persons (or beings), and therefore not some generalized abstraction of love. 

General but vague benign-attitudes towards individuals or groups, or the favouring of abstract causes - do not suffice. 

Which analysis wipes-out almost all (but not all) of what passes for Good Intentions in public discourse. 

What is the relevance? Well, it is intended to explain the wrong-headedness of a good deal of the kind of thing that "groups of spiritual people" (whether in a church, or some other society, whether Christian or not) get up to. 

For mainstream Christians, this refers to group-prayer, when it it directed to specific personas and worldly outcomes - but when those persons and outcomes are not loved - for instance when they are remote and abstract. 

Group prayers can and may avoid such things - but there is a prevalent idea that a group of people can, by pooling their "good intentions" in prayer (or indeed some other form of ritual activity), achieve positive results in the world-at-large - for instance in praying for peace, or relief of some current sufferings. 

This is part of a generally "therapeutic" and this-worldly tendency of current religion and spirituality - the basis of which is that suffering is the worst thing, and the best thing is to relieve or (better) prevent suffering...

At the end of which goal, lies a nightmare dystopia of consciousness obliteration, including suicide and murder; done with a "compassionate" rationale. Western civilization is approaching this situation with considerable rapidity. 

I think it is worth remembering that thoughts are actions, and thoughts therefore have consequences; so such ideas as group interventions by prayer are not absurd. However, it is not true that groups are more powerful than individuals, nor is it true that the intentions of groups are usually genuinely good.

The point to remember is responsibility. 

Who is spiritually responsible for the outcome? The big problem is that groups almost never accept, or even consider, this matter - and (in this modern era) there is apparently no genuine way by which most groups can learn from what happens as a consequence of group intentions and actions. 

As usual, the conclusion seems to be that the individual is primary when it comes to genuinely Good Intentions - and (here-and-now) truly loving groups are rare outside of the family situation. As of 2024 in The West; it is nigh impossible for an institution (including a church) to be Good.  

And that part of goodness is a continued and responsible engagement with "the loved" - so that what we supposed to be Good does not, instead, turn-out to emanate in evil. We need to love, and continue to love - if we want to do good. 

Good Intentions cannot be plucked from the branches of external public discourse - but need, instead, to be derived from our own capacity and direction of love. Only that kind of Good Intention will align us with divine creation, and have the best chance of doing actual Good. 

My "top posts" of 2024 prove only that bots rule Blogger Views stats

According to the data provided, the most-viewed post of 2024, with c 259,000 views, was this: which is a short and obscurely titled musing from 2015 that attracted no comments. Presumably the bots liked it for some unknowable bot-reason...

The other highest ranked posts are more plausible, being on socio-political (i.e. not religious/ philosophical) themes, and having attracted some comments - but the number of total views (i.e. for the whole blog, not any particular post) last year was 1,780,000. 

This would average about 4,500 views per day - which seems too high to be real, although maybe a few people re-viewing a selection of the c 8,000 old posts might be able to reach that level (one or two views of an old post here, half a dozen views there, multiplied by a few hundred old posts viewed that day...?). 

And people looking at old posts would be unlikely to comment, so I would not know about it. 

I have no idea what the real numbers of views by human beings of the blog as a whole would be for each day but modal average day's blog post accumulate between 200-500 views - mostly within the first couple of days. 

But the fact that the first of October last year is listed as the peak day, having 316,790 views (!) must surely be those bots at work again, somewhere in the backlog of old posts - rather than sudden massive enthusiasm for the post of that day. 

 

How the Establishment have become both rulers and victims in the New Left era (post-middle-1960s)

Not many people realize that the Left underwent a major re-orientation through the 1950s and 60s, which was largely completed in the USA by the late 1960s - spreading from there (via the mass media, finance and the economy, and the mass media) to include the Anglosphere, Western Europe, and the globalist/ multi-national institutions. 

This was the re-orientation away-from Old Left socialism - with its focus upon class, with the Proletariat/ Working Class (of native-born men) as its core virtue-group; and towards ruling class personnel who are defined in terms of membership in a variety of virtue groups. 

The New Left was what has come to rule the world; and the new orientation was based on a proliferating collection of virtue groups; based upon not economic divisions but instead race, sex, and sexuality. 

This had the great advantage that the "oppressed", "victim", virtue-group could now be members of part of the upper class, the ruling class. 

It had been a disadvantage of Old Left socialism that the ruling class - who managed the whole thing - were always under pressure to favour and incorporate lower class people into the "elite"; where the New Left routinely framed ultra-privileged, ultra-wealthy Establishment figures as their new deserving class - to be accorded legal protection and promotion.

So we have, by now, become used to the idea that the exemplary assumed-intrinsically-virtuous persons of the modern Left, are drawn from ruling class backgrounds. 

Many have wealthy and powerful parents, and a high proportion have experienced grooming via Establishment educational establishments. 

Others are from among the very wealthy and powerful ruling families.

In sum: the New Left virtue-group are mostly extremely privileged individuals, locked into Establishment power structure - who are nonetheless defined as victims simply by categories relating to race, sex, or sexuality - or some other national, social or ethnic feature*.

The old socialist virtue group (native-born working men)  have indeed been demoted so low, that the situation is inverted. The privileged classes are a non-working benefits-dependent client underclass, any immigrant from anywhere-else, any race other than those native to The West, any religion other than Christianity, and any sex/uality other than men with families. 

To this has been added "environmentalism" - which favours some conceptualization of "planetary benefit" (currently almost exclusively the atmospheric concentration of CO2) to replace human beings as the proper focus of concern. It is important to recognize that what is defined as "good for" "the environment" is now conceptually controlled entirely by the ruling class - via ruling-class controlled social institutions.  

Of course, New Leftism is oppositional hence incoherent by it very nature; so that there is still "lip service" paid to Old Leftism - but that is all it is - there are words, but never actions, to help the Proletariat.

In actuality; the New Left is an expandable collection of double-negative imperatives; which are focused upon in rotation; and according to expediencies. 

Where is this going? There is no imaginable utopia; and public attention is instead focused upon the avoidance of an expanding range of projected dystopias.        

 

The difference between Old and New Left is therefore profound. 

The Old Left was based on coherent but untrue positive assertions about class and economics, and aimed for a describable (albeit in-practice impossible) socialist utopia.

The New Left now functions almost-entirely using ruling class personnel - who are also designated victims. 

And it had made itself the only recognized spokesman and representative for those other virtuous entities that are not included in the ruling class - such as those human individuals and groups that are incapable of leadership; as well as animals, plants, and The Planet. 

The great triumph of New Leftism has been to create a socially dominant morality by which the ruling class are encapsulated as both uniquely virtuous, and uniquely powerful. 

This explains A Lot...

 

*This always makes me think of a comment made by an old friend, the author Frank Kuppner, who was reading some feminist journalist in The Guardian (someone like Polly Toynbee) - one who had been born to rich and famous parents, with all the advantages of nepotism, top status boarding school, Oxbridge  etc - raging about the oppression of "women"... Frank quietly summarized her rant as: "Suffering? I'll show you suffering!".