Tuesday 4 August 2015

The Left has evolved, continues to evolve, to defeat Christianity

It is important to know what the Left is, and that it has evolved.

(See references below)

The Left is now mainstream, and almost universal, in the West - e.g. in 2010 Britain had a Leftist 'Labour Party' government replaced by a Leftist 'Conservative Party' - and there is absolutely no difference between them in terms of Leftism - indeed, in legally-'redefining' marriage - it was the Conservative government which forced into legislation the biggest piece of extreme Leftist legislation in recent decades.

So, at present in the West; the Left is essentially everyone with power in public life - the only non-Leftist groups are relatively-small traditional religious denominations.

The Left is, in its origin, the reaction against Western Christianity. Which means that Leftism is not a specific set of doctrines or beliefs, but a reaction against a religion - and therefore the Left has changed, and evolved - and become a very different thing at different times and places in history.  

But many people are confused by the fact that the Left has changed. For example, it is said that the US or the UK are 'communist' countries... This is true in one sense, but completely false in another - because modern Leftism in the West is up-front very different from Soviet, or Chinese Communism.

The fact is that throughout the success of Leftism in the West, Leftism has evolved; and this is no accident, but is in fact the primary reason for its success. The Left responds to the situation, and as it succeeds in defeating Christianity it changes its strategy in order to eradicate the latest problem.

Leftism was initially very clearly anti-Christian (often anti- the established church). The biggest change in the Left happened in the mid 1960s. (But of course there is a grey area, and change was gradual - even though it was swift.) Up to the sixties, Leftism was about 'rational' economics - nationalization, planning, meritocratic equality of opportunity etc; but after the sixties the Left was about culture - and in particular the sexual revolution - equality of outcome, and the fluid agenda of antiracism, feminism, and more recently the multi-culti/ diversity/ inclusive agenda.

This was a massive change in doctrine - and a change from a revolution to establish an eternal utopia; to establishing a state of permanent revolution with no end-point.

My point is that the Left has evolved and transformed - but there is continuity, and that continuity is that the Left is an opposition, a reaction - the Left is 'against' not for. And the main thing the Left is against is Christianity (real traditionalist Christianity, of any type); and against everything to do with Christianity.

Why else is the redefinition of marriage regarded by both sides as such a major victory for the Left? It is a major victory because it represents a massive blow against Christian morality - more exactly it all but completes the elimination of Christian morality from the legal systems of the West.

(Of course, another strategy of the Left has been to subvert the Christian churches, to make them non-Christian, indeed anti-Christian. Most mainstream self-identified Christian churches have been reconstructed - as evidenced by their support for the sexual revolution and redefinition of marriage. Indeed one of the greatest triumphs of the Left has been thereby to discredit Christianity as being the original source of the Left! So that in some secular circles - among those who imagine themselves to be opposed to Leftism - Christianity is damned when it succeeds and damned when it fails! Damned for being a cause of Leftism, damned for weakly capitulating to Leftism!)

But if the Left are currently obsessed by redefining marriage then who else in The West would care about traditional marriage (i.e. real marriage) except Christians? The Old Left, pre 1965 - would have considered a focus on sexuality and identity politics trivial and immature - they were focused on rationally restructuring society, encouraging and exploiting technological breakthroughs, efficiency and effectiveness...

The modern emphasis on this issue and other sexual issues is revealing of the covert and often unconscious agenda of the 'New' Left, which reveals what it shares with Old Left - that the Left is not for anything in particular, but it was, and still is, orientated against Christianity, especially Christian morality - and that is why and how the Left has evolved.

The Left becomes whatever is effective against Christianity, even when that Christianity is residual. Over the decades, the Left has evolved to defeat one defense of Christianity after another. And it has been able to do this precisely because the Left is indifferent to what kind of society it creates, and is indifferent to what level of chaos and destruction it engenders - it simply changes its attack until it finds something effective against Christianity, and if the attack fails the Left will change again.

There Left has no consistency or coherence, and no need for consistency or coherence - consistency and coherence just get in the way of attacking Christianity by any and every means.

The Left evolves, and Christianity is what the Left evolves around.





Bruce B said...

Bruce, the new left is often called “Cultural Marxism.” I think a better term is “comprehensive Marxism.” They still care about the things that classical Marxists care about but have greatly expanded their area of focus.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Bruce B - Well, no not really. That is the perspective I am trying to refute here.

The Left do *not* care about the same things as they used to! I was brought up as an Old Leftist and as a youth read extensively in the literature of Trades Unionism, English Fabian Socialism, Ethical Socialism and William Morrisite Socialism - it was extremely different from; and it mostly uninfluenced by, Marxism - although it converged on much the same end point as Marxism by a different route.

The Old Left aimed at a secular socialist utopia - they oly differed over the means to that end, and the type of socialism (most were modernist industrial, a few were rural agrarian utopias.)

Indeed, the word socialism is hardly used nowadays - although naturally there is a residuum of Old Leftism, and Old Leftists mostly support political correctness (although I have known several who viscerally opposed it - such as the my friend the late Norman Dennis.


It is much clearer and more accurate and less prone to mislead to regard Leftism as having mutated, changed form, in the mid-1960s - as economics receded in importance (and poverty - in the sense of starvation to death, fatal disease, extreme overwork, high child mortality - was abolished) and sexual and racial politics came to the fore.

(Racial politics in the UK had to be manufactured from whole cloth, and entailed creating a previously non-existent problem by firs imposing mass immigration of hostile people - but, since that was what was required to create a situation for the New Left to thrive-in, that was indeed exactly what was done.)

Nathaniel said...

If most leftists at one time considered themselves Christian, and even attended regular service, prayed, etc. - where or how did they become totally anti-Christian? Was it just a gradual being led by evil to give up this or that, or to disbelieve this or that, until eventually they effectively no longer believed in the power of God?

Bruce Charlton said...

@Nathaniel - Good question.

One answer is that people seldom change their primary allegiances, even in the face of institutions utterly transforming. For example, English socialists often say things like "I would *never* vote Conservative" - which in practice means that they can be led anywhere by their Leftist leadership - and indeed have been.

Loyalty is, of course, a virtue - but it is not the only, nor the most important virtue.

Within the churches, something similar has occurred - loyalty to the structure of authority (the bureaucracy), or the bricks and mortar, or the group of local friends, or the history of the institution; has meant that - incrementally and a bit at a time, by pandering and selective emphasis - the laity have been led into apostasy.

Many Christians believe that salvation is limited to church members, and that there is no salvation outside their denomination - which means that they must accept whatever changes the leadership imposes on them, and try to believe it is for the best.

(of course this may be correct in the long term of several generations and at the end times - even despite massive corruption - so long as there is a remnant or minority somewhere who are faithful and from whom the future church might re-grow.)

But to see things as I do, I think one must believe that behind the long slow march of Leftism there is a supernatural intelligence of evil intent and strategy - moving and manipulating (some more, some less, culpable) humans by every means possible.

No human group could be capable of such devious and diabolical long-termism; and no human lives long enough to do what has been done.

Desert Rat said...

Over the last 5-6 years I have come to an increasing understanding of Paul's admonition about how we don't strive against flesh and blood but against principalities and dominions. The real war is, and always has been, against the spiritual adversary. I am coming to dislike that "spiritual" adjective as it is becoming more and more obvious to me that the reality of that enemy is far more solid and lasting than the transitory human agents he uses to help impose evil on the world.

This essay you have published here is very astute. The pronouncements and machinations of the "left" make no sense rationally or logically outside this context of a war with Christianity. The constant morphing of positions taken is spot on. The evolution, as you put it, has one aim only and that is to destroy Christian faith, Christian morals, Christian cohesion. The enemy started very early on to divide the faithful and then set them at each other's throats. It took centuries to inculcate sectarian strafe and raise it to a pitch where widespread war and destruction came about but he managed to do it. Then the so-called "enlightenment" and the gradual and accelerating deconstruction and invalidating of the basic tenets of the faith. And now we get this narcissistic nihilism that is fragmenting and alienating the culture to the point where it really is becoming a case of "every man a law unto himself". And the results are horrifying. But looking back one can discern quite deliberate strategies being implemented over the centuries all aimed at arriving at the situation we see unfolding today. A very large aspect of damnation is that damnation is to be completely and utterly alone.

The true disciples of Christ must come together in the face of this onslaught. Denominational squabbles need to be subordinated to survival of the faith. The heart of the faith is Jesus Christ, His atoning sacrifice and resurrection and the truth that to gain salvation one must accept Him as Savior and King. Those who agree on this must come together and hold the line against the enemy. Let the Lord judge the truth or falsity of supporting doctrine and have faith in His ability to so judge in perfect righteousness.

I am coming to appreciate your efforts more and more. You are likely more intelligent than I am and certainly better educated. Please don't stop.

P.S. - I am a Mormon, which I suspect is not all that difficult to discern. I have read some of your essays on the church and the revelations transmitted through Joseph Smith. Are you planning to transition from "dry" to "wet"? The church needs all the good men and women it can get. You don't have to answer this if you don't want to. I will read you either way.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Sean - Thanks for your encouragement!

No I don't have any current plans to become a church member, although I hope that at some point it will happen.

At present I would not be eligible, mostly since, as a convert, I could not promise to fulfil the necessary requirements to be 'active'. If I was already a member I would be delighted; but I fully acknowledge without reservation the truth of the CJCLDS and have a personal testimony of this. I also agree to the rightness and the necessity of the rules that currently keep me out! And I regard the President and General Authorities as my guide in life.

I presume you know that I also blog at Junior Ganymede? - for which privilege I am grateful:


Bruce B. said...

Wasn’t it always just an alliance between proles and a few elites which was really cynical power-grabbing by the elite intelligentsia? The idea was to crush the normal people in the middle. It seems like it’s still that but the intelligentsia are all westerners who matter and the proles are cultural/moral deviants, racial minorities. women in some contexts etc. The proles saw through their hypocrisy on economics and social class so that had to reinvent themselves. They still occasionally pay a bit of lip service to economics and social class but the wide variety of victim groups they’ve created is much more easily manipulated. After all the proles voted for Hitler, etc.

141 said...

I view the new Left as rebellious teenagers. The little fools get to college with moralizing emotions and little intellectual ability and they grasp at straws (causes) that are long in supply (as they are supplied by their own definitions and strawmen(e.g. patriarchy)) and short in sight.

Yes, they are primarily against Christianity, because Christianity is the moral paradigm of their parents that restrained and restricted them.

Their views are often remarked by our side to be incoherent and inconsistant, but when you realize they are simply rebelling with whatever ammo they can muster, they are perfectly coherent and logical.

The Right attempts honest dialogue, the children fling rocks about wildly.

Bruce Charlton said...

@BB and 141 - True, as far as it goes, but that would not account for the long term strategy or long term success/ victory.

Bruce B. said...

Bruce C.,
I guess what I’m thinking of is the idea that they’ve expanded the proletariat (with new and varied victim classes) and the elite/intelligenisa. And there’s blending too – many elites can be part of victim groups – e.g. elite homosexuals, racial minorities, women, etc. . A lot of their success has come as a result of expanding the victim groups and the elite/intelligensia (upper class leftists that get to look down on the middle and working class rubes clinging to their Bibles.)
And of course, much of their success is a result of controlling the media – the left’s center of gravity – as I think you’ve indicated the media is the left and the left is the media.

Bruce Charlton said...

@BB - I certainly agree that all this has happened, 'a series of unfortunate events' (and I also think that there is biological change going-on) - but it depends whether or not you regard this as sufficient to explain what looks to me like a very long term, strategic, and evolving attack on Christianity; in which each Christian revival or successful defence is, after a while, counter-attacked by some other means, and defeated. It looks teleological to me.

Bruce Charlton said...

Comment from Albrecht - "You think that the Left (and the secular culture it has spawned) is not aware of its anti-Christ bias. I disagree. An anecdote: I know a woman who identifies herself as "libertarian," opposes big government and generally falls into what, in the U.S., would be the center right, politically. She recently regaled a group (of which I, a known Christian, was one) with the hilarious bumper sticker she saw: "Jesus may love you but everyone else thinks you're an a**h***." She didn't mean to offend. She was just telling a funny story. I think she is not untypical and she's not even a real Leftist... Other examples of explicit Leftist anti-Christ expression abound.

"When you catch them off guard Leftists are very candid about their anti-Christ attitudes. Whatever reticence they still display (which might be mistaken for self-deluded non-hostility) is only out of fear of the residual political power Christians (at least in the U.S.) still possess or of offending certain ostensibly Christian elements of their own power block (e.g., some Black people).

"Christ is the Left's real enemy. I think most of the cadres know this."

Fair points - I am partly arguing from my own experience before I was a Christian. I did not consider myself at all anti-Christian, indeed I felt sympathetic to may aspects of Christianity (the literature, the architecture etc) - but I now realize I was seeking truth everywhere except Christianity. I was not sure what the answers would be, I was just sure that they were not Christian.

Bruce Charlton said...

@Plague Doctor - wrt the video links: Evil, sophomoric nonsense. Elaborate rationalizations of selfish hedonism.