One of the tools of totalitarian bureaucracy is that fundamental decisions of principle (mission statements, aims and objective etc) arise from the Black Box that is committees voting; and after that is simply implemented through the levels of hierarchy down to the individual.
The assumptions are taken as 'given'. It is never the 'right time and place' to raise objections...
Where, for example, do the current missions, our social principles come from? I mean such principles as diversity/ inclusion, the feminist and antiracist agenda, the 'anti-carbon' agenda, the pro-sexual revolution agenda?
Just exactly by whom, where and when was it decided that these are to be primary organisational principles of our entire society? By what right were these things made social priorities?
And then, just exactly where, when and by whom is it regarded as an appropriate venue to challenge these and their like?
It is a great advantage of Globalism that such decisions are ultimately located at such remote levels as the United Nations and the European Union; so that by the time they reach you and me, they are untouchable - our job is always merely to implement them and never, ever, under any circumstances is it legitimate for us to challenge them.
We are simply required to 'trust' that - somewhere and somehow, wise and impartial and well-motivated people have established that these are morally correct and coherent ideals.
Thus the real locus of conflict in this modern world is precisely the time and place in which the vast and unitary edifice that is the Global bureaucracy meets with the individual person: where we are each told what is our role in implementing these organising principles.
Wemust obey. But our personal job is not merely to obey, but to embrace these organising-principles. We must not merely Do them but we must Love them. Our personal moral system must become these principles; if if they do not then we are some species of 'denialist'.
(Denialist is the new term for what used to be called dissident in the days of the Eastern Bloc; but while, in The West in the 1980s, it was regarded as cool and courageous to be a dissident; nowadays it is regarded as dumb and evil to be a denialist of any agenda principle of the Global bureaucracy.)
So, it is not an accident that - somehow - there never is an 'appropriate' time or place for you personally to discuss the rights and wrongs, the desirability, of the strategically-evil organising principles that dominate the world.
So there is no choice for us but to resist at that time and place where the totalitarian bureaucracy impacts upon each of us personally. We are each on our own.
We are each confronted with By-Far the largest and most powerful apparatus of evil that has ever existed.
We either resist at that point, or we capitulate.
It is quite simple, the choices are crystal clear; although extremely difficult.
Note: Resistance is primarily, and most importantly, in thinking, not in doing. Because thinking is not isolated, but connected; and it is thinking that totalitarianism aims to control - in order that we personally actively-choose damnation. The evil of our modern world is an evil of thinking, evident as an evil of motivation - of understanding and intent. This is not reducible to action, because action is intrinsically constrained and may be compelled. Thought, however, is free; and that freedom guaranteed by the creator. That is our personal responsibility, and if we elude that responsibility - we personally will take the consequences.
A great risk in all this is that we capitulate because why resist? It doesn't really matter and it's easier to go along with the agenda than fight it and risk losing our status in the world and perhaps our material comforts too. We don't have to actively support the new regime but we accept it anyway. But this is when we are already corrupted. You can see it in people's faces.
@William - "We don't have to actively support the new regime but we accept it anyway. But this is when we are already corrupted. You can see it in people's faces."
I quite agree. It is because the thoughts are corrupted, people have changed sides in their minds, in their motivations, in who they want to win.
If Christians cannot resist by their actions (for whatever reason) they must be absolutely sure to remain uncorrupted in their thoughts. This seems to be difficult, but it is possible - in the sense that you can also see in some people's faces (in their eyes - rightly called windows of the soul) that they are Not corrupted.
In theory, They might be able to tell (from face and eyes) whether a person was uncorrupted 'on the inside' - but in practice I believe that They cannot make this discernment, which is why they rely on judging actions (including words).
Post a Comment