The Left is winning, where it matters: Right triumphalism misunderstands the very nature of the Left

People who regard themselves as of the Right are displaying an insane and blinkered optimism that they are winning, and rolling-back Leftism. 

This is because they do not understand what the Left is, in its fundamental nature. 

If they did understand, those who proclaim themselves of the Right would realize that they are merely functioning as a subtype of the Left. 

The political Right supposes that the Left is an ideology rooted in some principles. They believe that the Left IS these policies that I call the Litmus Tests: I mean things like socialism, feminism, antiracism, anti-antisemitism, the Climate Agenda. 

In general terms, the self-identified Right define the Left in terms of Political Correctness, SJWs, Wokeness - and their manifestations in the mass media, law, employment regulations etc. 

Because they suppose that the Left is an ideology of "Wokeness" the Right imagine that reversals of specific social practices and regulations represent a rolling-back of Leftism in their nation, or in the world.

When the Right sees such laws, fundings, rhetoric being undone; they think the Left is being defeated. 

But this is completely wrong; because the Left is a negative ideology, an ideology of opposition, and none of the Litmus Tests are core features of Leftism - they might all, in principle, be undone and the Left still be as strong as ever.    

All the Left ideologies are negative in form: the Left is (in various times and places) against many things (capitalism, the bourgeoisie, inequality, patriarchy, European people, Christians) - but is not in favour of any state of affairs as an ultimate and real goal.  

In other words the Left is protean in nature, fluid, adapting - it is continually discarding old ideologies and taking up new ones. 

The Left used to be in favour of economic communism - but not any more; in favour of native-born male industrial workers  (the working class) - but not any more; in favour of equality of opportunities and unequal outcomes - but not any more. 

Leftism can and does discard anything that is currently inexpedient; because there are an endless number of alternatives.

And there is in fact no coherent thing as "the Right"; because the Right is merely opposition to the various Leftist oppositions. 

Leftist ideology is double-negative (i.e. against what they currently regard as bad things), the "the Right" is a triple negation (i.e. against those who are against what the Left currently calls bad things).

No wonder those endless essays striving to define the Right never gets anywhere!  

This is why the Right is so wrong about the rolling back of Leftism. It supposes that the Left abandoning some of its recent woke agenda represents some kind of a defeat, but it is just the usual slippery shape-shifting of Leftism; which now has other priorities - especially war. 

Since Leftism is fundamentally oppositional and negative - Leftism is essentially destructive. 

War is very destructive; hence world war is perhaps an ultimate expression of Leftism. 

(And it matters nothing that pacifism, anti-war, anti-violence; was one of the original roots of Leftism - from more than 200 years ago.) 

War can give Leftism everything and more of whatever losses it may suffer from dropping a few strands of political correctness.  

Just look at what the Leaders of Western nations are actually doing, where they are putting most of their effort - they are in practice (not in what they say, but in what they do over time) angling for more war. 

Not to win a war, but for the maximizing the destruction of war: destruction of economies, societies, trade, positive national identities, of nature (aka "the environment") - expansion of such negations as lies, resentment, and despair. 

We are - and have been for a few years - seeing more and more wars, and what war brings. expanding and escalating the already existing World War with its multiple fronts - but especially in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

We can see the globalist totalitarian leadership class at work engineering wars all over the place; recently on the Asian Subcontinent. This isn't easy to do, there are plenty of people who don't want war - for obvious reasons. But that is what "They" are serious about.  

Ultimately, of course, politics is downstream of the spiritual war of this world; Leftism is a tool of evil in its opposition to God and Divine Creation.

Yes, the sexual revolution was and is a deadly tool of corruption; but a self-righteous and hate-driven war of each against all would be deadlier still. 

When the Right celebrates a few small "victories" (many of which turn out to mere words, and no substantive change; they miss that the Left now has bigger fish to fry, and other things it care much more about. 

The woke agenda might be "forgotten" as thoroughly as the days (a century ago) when white European men were the Left's heroes! - but the Left is continuing to win, and win where it matters most. 

And this will continue until those on the Right recognize that they are part of the problem, and repent. 

  

How Jungian psychology became the spirituality of mainstream global Leftism

There is a deep structural similarity between the psychology of CG Jung on the one hand and mainstream New Leftism (post-sixties Leftism) on the other; which has led the two into a symbiotic relationship. Nowadays it is the broadly-Jungian New Age that provides spiritual depth and a therapeutic rationale to the project of Leftism. 

The structural similarity is that Jung and the Left are both therapeutic in structure - they diagnose problems and prescribe solutions to alleviate and remove the problems. Jungian psychology takes its therapeutic stance towards the individual; Leftism to society. 

Thus, both diagnose a negative disharmony and state of disintegration and conflict as baseline. This negative is the situation in which all individuals and all societies are assumed to exist: already and inevitably. 

Then, both Jungian psychology/ spirituality and Leftism both claim to cure this pre-existing negative situation with therapeutic interventions intended to lead to integrated cooperativeness, wholeness, unity... 

Since the 1960s, the 'New' (post-Marxist) Leftism has 'diagnosed' society (all societies) as suffering from various psychological disorders - such as racism, misogyny and 'phobias' - e.g. of sexual identities or religions. 

Modern environmentalism projects this disorder onto the planetary ecosystem - as a sickness of Gaia ultimately caused by wrongness in the minds of Men. Environmental sickness therefore needs to be treated by the same kind of psychological and therapeutic interventions and restructuring as do the disorders of racism, homo/trans-phobias, misogyny etc.  

The recent birdemic-peck phenomenon has also been assimilated to the Jungian therapeutic model; which is why it has been treated primarily by essentially 'psychological' forms of restructuring at the social level - i.e. by changing human attitudes, understandings, relationships and behaviours - all at a global scale.   

  

Thus we get to the basic assumption of all politics today: That all Men and all Societies are sick and in absolute need of urgent therapy. 

Therapy... but from whom? From, implicitly, an elite of Global Healers. 

Hence the 'need' for a World Government with total powers. Anything less than this; dooms the planet and all its people to terminal disorder and death. 

And since early 2020; an elite of all-powerful Global Healers is exactly what we have got.

Left-politics (which, nowadays, is just all of mainstream, global 'politics' - everywhere in the world) presents itself as a societal therapy by which the innate sicknesses - i.e. the irrational prejudices and hatreds, phobias, delusional beliefs (i.e. the sub-types of 'denialism') etc - will all be cured by a kind of social-level 'psychotherapy'.

This Left-therapy starts with therapeutic 'consciousness-raising'; the intent to replace pathological motivations by the encouragement of 'healing' attitudes and beliefs. 

Such 'encouragement' of positivity is what lies behind the enforcement of correct - i.e. therapeutic - attitudes throughout all mass and social media discourse, and in private life. 

Because the whole of society is seen as sick; the Leftist project sees itself as (in effect) transforming our sick society by rebuilding it into a 'therapeutic community'. 

That is, a community which embodies only examples of healing attitudes, beliefs and behaviours; a community which excludes all attitudes/ beliefs/ behaviours that tend to sustain 'sicknesses' such as racism and other irrational hates, phobias and delusions.

This process is not seen as censorship, manipulation or political propaganda; but is regarded as a common-sense 'medical' intervention to cure disease and restore health in all people, groups and places.  

So much for the theory and claims of Leftism. But Leftism is unmasked to serious Christians as a demonic strategy; rooted in lies. Its basic analysis is false, negative and arbitrary. And its supposed cures and therapies lead to not to healing - but to endemic sickness and accelerating dis-integration. 

Leftism's global 'therapeutic community' turns-out to be variants on a literal prison: with more of the same promised. 

Its Global Elite of self-styled healers and harmonizers lead to results indistinguishable from the activities of parasites and wreckers. 

Its 'consciousness raising' has been the conversion of public discourse into a realm of value inversion, honesty and goodness excluded; instead a tissue of lies and the insidious advocacy of sin and evil.  

Such is our situation. The 'facts' are there: the word-wide triumph of Jungian-Leftism; the totalitarian global governance; the convergence of all public discourse in all social systems. 

What is at issue is whether the current and developing situation is a constructive, therapeutic and existentially necessary response to the innate sickness of this planet and global population and the crises that assail it? Or the stepwise, strategic, deliberate destruction of all that is Good; because it is Good? 

Are we on broadly the right lines, and being led by persons of basically good-intent and will? Or are we being led - deliberately - towards a demonic anti-world?

One or the other. 

Leftism is not really a religion - but it is a metaphysical system

*
Metaphysics is the theoretical frame within-which everything is explained.

Leftism, political correctness is not really a religion (it has so few features of a religion, that such a description is misleading) - but it is a metaphysical system.

The word ideology is a partial, confused, incoherent synonym for metaphysics - indeed ideology is metaphysics for those who do not wish to acknowledge the vital role of metaphysics; who want to conceal that they are preaching metaphysics- who want their metaphysical system to be invulnerable because its existence is denied.

*

For example the Left used Science against all religious metaphysical systems, but science itself had depended on a metaphysical system which (for example) regards truth as a virtue (i.e. Christianity or Judaism) - so by using science against religion, Leftism was destroying science: indeed, Leftism was destroying even the possibility of science.

http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk/

Specifically, the theory of evolution by natural selection was used to destroy Christianity; claiming that natural selection was empirically-validated science; when in reality natural selection is formally a metaphysical system: that is, an explanatory framework within which science may be done, but not itself a science.

(That is why the theory of evolution by natural selection formally cannot be refuted. Nor can it be supported.)

Leftism has used (and then discarded) various ethical principles to break-down Christian metaphysics - for instance Equality, or Justice, or Economics, or Freedom, or Democracy.

These are deployed as frameworks within-which reality is to be understood, explained, manipulated - therefore they are functioning as metaphysical systems (albeit small, feeble, partial, incoherent, fuzzy, ludicrous metaphysical systems) - but their real nature is denied, and it is asserted that these principles are derived from experience, knowledge, effectiveness... 

*

When a new metaphysical system has been implemented, when a person or a culture is inside a new metaphysical system - then everything else is constrained by that system - what counts as knowledge, truth, beauty, virtue is defined; the possibility of motivation and purpose; almost everything is constrained by metaphysics.

There is no argument against a new metaphysics from observation, from experience, from logic - which is why the Left never learn.

(Metaphysics does not learn - it is that within-which learning is defined.)

They never learn because they are inside a metaphysical system while denying the reality of metaphysical systems.The fly in the bottle.

Once the new metaphysics is in place - reality is framed by it, evaluations are constrained by it,the battle is won. 

*

Probably, Satan's greatest triumph has been the destruction of real metaphysics: purely free; but with profound and universal consequences.

Satan's greatest triumph has therefore been metaphysical - he is the most successful career philosopher in history (certainly, the most highly-cited).

And the triumph has been made possible by the mass media: the modern metaphysical system derives-from and is propagated-by and enforced-by the mass media.

http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/

*

How should the modern metaphysical system be evaluated? The answer is - only from the basis of another metaphysical system.

All possible evaluations, criticisms, are based on metaphysical assumptions. So if we point-out that modern Leftism is incoherent, that assumes that incoherence is a problem - while for Leftist metaphysics, its own incoherence is not a problem.

If we point-out that Leftist metaphysics is unfit for use: leads to despair, has destroyed science and the arts and education, that it cannot motivate or provide meaning - then such critique is based on the metaphysical assumption that these are bad things; which Leftist metaphysics will not accept.

If, indeed, we point-out that Leftist metaphysics is almost-wholly negative and oppositional - and therefore must lead to a human life and society which is almost-wholly negative and oppositional; then Leftism merely responds that (from where Leftism is standing, which is implicitly inside its own metaphysic) that is just the way that things are - and Leftism is merely honestly reporting on the inevitable reality of the situation. 

*

So Satan has the West in his grip, inside his metaphysics; and part of Satan's metaphysics is to cloak its own metaphysical nature - and to derive its (pseudo-) validity from what were previously regarded as sub-metaphysical domains such as science, politics, economics - even 'ethics' regarded as a free-standing discourse (i.e. 'ethics' when discussed without even an implicit reference to life's nature, purpose, meaning!).

The answer? A different metaphysics.

One can only fight metaphysics with metaphysics.

*

But which metaphysics can beat the Left? Not a made-up thing, for sure. Satanic Leftism cannot be defeated at the level of philosophical discourse - of course not!

It can be beaten and will only be beaten by a metaphysics based on a realer, deeper, more motivated, more meaningful basis... 

In other words, Leftism can be beaten, and can only be beaten, by a religion.

And that is our choice - Leftism or Religion.

*

If not Leftism, then CHOOSE YOUR RELIGION.

Simple as that. 

thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk

*

Note added: The mantra 'choose your religion' is predicated on the fact that only a religion will work, only a religion is capable. Many have noticed that the traditional Western religion of Christianity is substantially a fake among those who profess it (i.e. self-identified Christians are mostly first Leftists, and only secondarily Christian). Others have noted that - as a matter of fact - the West is not re-adopting Christianity, and as a matter of probability there seems little chance that the West will re-adopt Christianity.  However, these facts and probabilities do not affect the argument that only a religion can combat Leftism - they merely suggest that there is little evidence for, and little prospect of, the defeat of Leftism by religion in the West. I is very simple: if people choose to reject religion, then they simply will not defeat Leftism.

Why does being a Leftist now mean that you are not a real Christian?

*

While in the past it was always emphasized that political views had no relevance to Christianity - and therefore that there was a symmetry about politics and Christianity - with problems distributed on both sides: that is no longer the case.

The situation is no longer symmetrical.

Now being a Leftist entails not being Christian - and Christianity lies on the Right, indeed very far to the Right (while, of course, most of those on the political Right certainly are not Christian - although some seek to use Christianity as an instrument in their politics).

*

Why? Because although honest confusion was possible in the past, Leftism is now old and much developed and multi-national and much repeated; and its is now a certain fact that Leftism is built on and around atheism, that Leftism is intrinsically anti-Christian.

This is now apparent in a way that was not clear and obvious until about half a century ago (excepting to some of the most devout 19th century Russians who immediately perceived the atheist and anti-Christian nature of the Left from the very start of its influence).

Yet to be a Leftist nowadays, in the West, adhering to the New Left in its form of Political Correctness - this is incompatible with Christianity, and there are no longer any innocent Leftists: Leftism denies the reality of reality, has an utterly different model of the world than Christianity - with different aims, meanings, and a different scheme of evaluation - and Leftism creates and enforces the inversion of Good.

*

Whatever kind of Christian you are, Leftism will force you to deny the fundamental grounds of faith.

This can be seen by considering John Wesley's 'quadrilateral' of evidences for Christianity: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience:

*

1. Scripture: the Left treats scripture as if it was just like any other sort of writing - having no special quality or authority. Scripture is dissected with secular historical scholarship, language studies, re-translated and re-interpreted and rewritten; put under a microscope on the one hand and on the other hand mixed-in and compared-with other religious texts from other religions. At the end of all this, scripture has become a problem, not the gateway to a new life. At the end of this, plain scriptural information, instruction or statements can be denied, inverted or ignored.

*

2. Tradition is exactly what Leftism is against. Leftism is rebellion against Tradition, progress away from Tradition, dwelling on the negative aspects of Tradition, discarding and transcending of Tradition, seeking of evidence conclusively to support every aspect of Tradition, characterizing of the past by its abuses and horrors: Leftism is the built-in assumption that Tradition is wrong. 

*

3. Reason. The Left (with its heart in the mass media) has reduced Reason to whatever fits into emotive soundbites; and no substantive challenge can be fitted into a soundbite because hostile brief communications are deliberately misrepresented. Reason is thwarted by ever-changing taboos, by the sentence by sentence need to self-excuse, to express proper sympathies and distance oneself from designated-badness. Under Leftism Reason has become one-sided and subordinated to already-existing Leftism: and reason is never  allowed to compel re-evaluation since when it reaches unwelcome conclusions Reason is relativized - as being just one type of reason among several, and Reason hostile to Leftism is labelled as repressive.

*

4.  Experience. Christian converts often have experiences which convince them of the rightness of Christianity - which assure them of their forgiveness and salvation, that they are being watched and helped. Leftism, however, denies the validity of experience; relabels experience as intrinsically self-serving, repressive, a mass of stereotypes and prejudice. For Leftism, experience is not primary but secondary;  wholly a product of culture, education, propaganda: Leftism sees personal experience as something to be shaped towards a better society, not a basis for knowledge.

*

So, we see that whatever kind of Christian you may be, Leftism will corrode, subvert and (if persisted-with) overthrow every possible basis of Christianity.

What remains from Christianity in a Leftist, is whatever shrinking, dying, ineffectual residue that Leftism has not yet gotten round to destroying.

* 

More on the false concept of 'Holiness Spirals'

Not only do Leftists Not engage in Holiness Spirals - HSs don't exist as a phenomenon; assuming (as Christians do) there is a such a real-thing as spiritual Holiness.

There is no tendency (or, at least, it is extremely rare) for Holiness to spiral out of control. Holiness is too difficult to spiral!

The tendency goes in the opposite direction - to spiral into worldliness, not Holiness.


Of course, if Holiness is equated with hypocrisy; i.e. if all possible examples of Holiness are interpreted as being necessarily hypocritical 'virtue signalling' - then that does indeed spiral out of control, in order to cover for itself.

But if Holiness is a real and spiritual thing; then this is not so.


'Spiral' implies an innate tendency towards positive feedback; the idea that when once something has started, it will not tend to revert to the starting point (negative feedback) nor will it go to the opposite extreme (like a pendulum swing) - but will instead become more extreme with accelerating rapidity.

And indeed there is this quality about Leftism: it feeds-off-itself until...

Well what exactly?


Positive feedback mechanisms can only end by destroying themselves. Does Leftism destroy itself? In a material sense - yes; but for a Christian, the essence is spiritual. And in this spiritual sense, Leftism is a type of evil; indeed the dominant mode of evil in the modern world.

In this spiritual sense, Leftism leads to more Leftism without any necessary end-point - just as evil can always become more evil.

Neither Leftism nor evil more generally can continue to completion - because evil is purposive, and purpose has an ineradicable element of divine creation. A parasite kills itself when it consumes its host - but in the case of evil, the parasite is part of the same creation as the host. But evil can always become more evil, like an asymptotic curve.


So, Leftism may well (almost certainly will) destroy our civilisation, with the death of many billions worldwide who depend on this civilisation to sustain the seven-fold global population growth since the industrial revolution.
  
However, the spiritual harm of Leftism - the value inversion, the self-chosen damnation - could in principle just keep increasing and increasing: as evil feeds upon evil.


In sum, from a Christian (hence spiritual) perspective; Holiness is the wrong term, Spiral is actually a negative attribute; and the common assumption that Holiness Spirals are self-limiting is not necessarily true.

If there is a spiritual limit to the harm of Leftism, it comes not from intrinsic properties of Leftism; but from that which is Not Leftism: that which is Good.

God is the only antidote to Leftism.
  

The double-negative morality of Leftism

The actuality of Leftist morality - and that it is inversion of the true, beautiful and virtuous - is revealed by describing the double-negative reality concealed by the pseudo-positive moral 'principles' used to justify Leftist evil. 

Here is the way it works:

To be a 'racist' is = not to be anti-white

To be a sexist = not to be anti-men...

You see the way it works? Leftism is oppositional, being defined as 'against' various 'evils'. Most of the Leftist 'evils' (often expressed as '-ist' or '-phobic') can accurately be described in a similar double-negative fashion:

Not to be anti-native inhabitants of a country...

Not to be opposed to biologically real, reproductively-adaptive sexuality...

Not to be anti-Christian... etc.

The double-negative formulation is a necessity for Leftism, since Leftism is indeed ultimately oppositional (opposing God and divine creation; opposing the true, beautiful and virtuous); thus its 'positive' content (i.e. what Leftists want) is protean and labile, self-contradicting and incoherent. 

After all, there are an 'infinite' number of ways of opposing The Good. 

To be morally excoriated by the Left, all that is required is to be against opposing the Good, in any particular respect.  

Added - Double-negative denialism

For the sake of completeness, and to include two of the biggest recent double-negative global crusades. What do accusations of denialism amount to? 

Climate denialism: Hatred of those people who do not regard carbon as the greatest threat to life on earth

Birdemic denialism: Terror of those who are not afraid of close proximity to human beings

 

Note: This idea was triggered by a post by William Wildblood, where he give a double negative definition of 'racist'. 

Why is Leftist metaphysics always self-destroying?

This is an interesting question - and the supposed answers I have encountered are unsatisfactory.

The fact that needs to be explained is that the metaphysics, that is the fundamental foundational beliefs of 'Leftism' are not only incoherent (which they are) but incoherent in a way that leads the system to consume-itself.

This self-destroying quality of Leftist metaphysics is apparent in the history of the political Left, and it is also apparent in the personal history of many Left-adherents.

*
(Note: Leftism here includes not just communism, socialism, nationalism, national socialism, liberalism etc - but also all mainstream forms of conservatism, republicanism, libertarianism etc. The true polarity is between Leftism and Religion; and the commonly-asserted Left-Right polarity is interpreted here as merely different varieties of secularism, therefore different varieties of Leftism. In other words, the only way of being non-Left is to be religious. Various religions are possible. To be non-Left is necessarily to advocate that the state be primarily religious with all other activities and functions subordinated to religion.)

*
The temptation, which leads nowhere, is to try and construct a Leftist metaphysical system from some specific attributes - and in contrast with the pre-ceding and rival metaphysical systems of religion (different systems for various religions and denominations).

But this doesn't work, because the Left keeps changing. At one time it was plausible to assert that the Left was about equality, but that clearly is not the situation now. At another time - say 30-40 years ago - it was suggested that the Left was focused on reducing suffering and humiliation -  but again that can now be seen to be merely a temporary phase.

And an historical consideration shows that the root of Leftism is not some positive doctrine, but a negative subtraction.

*
If we suppose that natural, spontaneous human metaphysics is religious and (sufficiently for life) coherent and systematic - then Leftism comes into the life of a person or a culture by subtracting something from this religious metaphysics. What might that be?

The first suggestion might be God or the gods - but I don't think that is necessarily correct: God/s may be allowed to retain their place (for a while) but certainly the definition and scope of God/s is the thing that is change.

I think the specific change is related to the subtraction of purpose - or to 'teleology'. Leftism removes ultimate, objective purpose from the metaphysical system.

In consequence, because we cannot live without purpose, instead of a unity and reality of purpose we get several or many purposes, that are not unified, and are not objectively real or relevant and compelling.

*
The earliest defined form of Leftism, setting itself up as rival to religion, was Marxism - and in that early Leftism there was a kind-of residual purpose that was was taken from the idealistic philosophy of Hegel in the form of an abstraction related to the direction of history. History had an inevitability of progression - and if someone wanted to be on the same side as history - that is, the 'winning side' - then he should be a communist. However, there was a major hole in the system in that there was no ultimate reason why it was good or necessary to be on the winning side - especially in the short term it may well be 'better' (yielding more pleasure and/or less suffering) for someone personally to oppose history.

So, even in its earliest and most 'religious' phase, Leftism did not provide an individual purpose - although it did provide a goal and direction.

*
It seems to be that it is this subtraction of purpose from our underlying metaphysical system characterizes Leftism - but the question arises of why anybody, or any culture or civilization, would want to subtract purpose from their foundational beliefs?

Since we have, most of us, experienced this for ourselves at some point in our lives, I think the answer is available to introspection (after which is can be checked against experience and evidence) - and that answer is liberation, freedom, escape from aspects of purpose that we find thwarting, oppressive, or in some way aversive.

This is the reason why sexual revolution is so often integral to Leftism - a fact difficult to explain otherwise. Because there are few people who do not feel, in some way and to some significant extent, constrained by the sexual rules and exclusions of religion. Likewise, people feel constrained by their social position, class or status; by actual or relative material insufficiency; by their nation of origin or residence; by their appearance or by some deficit... there are many possible reasons.

Leftism offers a liberation from the necessity of such constraints and others by its removal of purpose from ultimate understanding - there can be no ultimate reason for constraint if there is no ultimate and unifying purpose: so that particular problem is solved, whatever the problem may be. Constraint is removed, or else there is hope for this - and there is liberation.

*
Thus Leftism has a universal message and a universal appeal.

Whatever your personal grievance against Life, Leftism offers actual or potential liberation from it by means of the removal of ultimate purpose and removal of our ultimate obligations to that purpose. 

And this seems to explain why Leftism is always unstable, always moves from one liberation/ destruction to another, is always - sooner or later - hostile to any religion; and always ends-up in approaching nihilism.

Because nihilism (which is the conviction that nothing is really-real) is necessarily the end-point of any world view that lacks 1. ultimate purpose and 2. an ultimate rationale for each person to subscribe to that purpose.

Leftists do Not engage in "Holiness Spirals" and Leftism is Not a religion

There is a lot of misleading stuff which tries to say that Leftism is 'a religion' (usually, implicitly meaning that religion is A Bad Thing) - and there are a bunch of political theorists who like to explain the increasingly anti-Good destructiveness and inversion of Leftism in terms of 'Holiness Spirals' - as if Leftism was a religion, in which there was such a thing as Holiness.

(And as if Holiness was a good thing only 'up to a point', beyond which we would be 'too Holy'?... In Christianity, this is nonsense - and the Holier we are, the better, without limit.)

Such rhetoric is either deliberately or ignorantly subversive of Christianity.

Serious Christians would not be keen on trying to prove that the very obviously demonic ideology of modern Western Leftism is 'A Religion'; nor would real Christians want to call the increasing evil of the Left a kind of 'Holiness'.


Christianity and Leftism are in essence opposites; religion and ideology are opposites, increasing-holiness and increasing-evil are opposites.

(This is surely obvious, yes? Not rocket science!)

A real Christian wants society to be organised on Christian principles (everything else fitted-around); but a Leftist wants society organised on political, economic, sexual, racial, environmental or some other Not-Christian principles.


Now, it is trivially-true that there are resemblances between almost any two things or people or groups - but so what? It is by ultimates that we discern: and between Christianity and Leftism there is opposition of metaphysics, motivation, ideals - they are as different as things can be (despite that there is Good and evil in every person and group, and that there is deception and error in all    understanding).

They are different because Christianity and Leftism are on opposite sides, because Leftism is demonic.

There is no overlap between the view that God is real, and that of materialism; that Jesus was divine versus that he was an ordinary human (and probably did not exist) (and that there is indeed nothing divine); that death is a transformation versus that death is annihilation; that those who follow Jesus will live eternally and resurrected in Heaven with the divine family versus that everybody who dies will merely burn or rot. And so on...

Why then go to such lengths to use religious terminology, concepts, analogies for what is in essence and reality the ultimate anti-religion?


For the modern Christian; we are in a spiritual war, a war between Heaven and Hell, between God and Satan; and this war is hotting-up by the month. The two sides are becoming more clearly differentiated, and more easily detected. The gloves are coming-off...

The Christian side is in favour of God, Good, and Creation - the demonic side is against all of these and not in favour of anything specifically, except what helps (here-and-now) in the strategy of destroying GG&C.

The evil of Leftism (as it exists here and now in The West) is Not about creating some alternative-Heaven; it is not about making a utopia, a Heaven on Earth. That is a lie.

Instead evil is defined negatively; evil is about the subversion and destruction of Good, and ultimately it is about the inversion of Good.


Consider the sexual revolution. The post-middle-sixties developing agenda of divorce, promiscuity, perversion, homosexuality, trans, paedophilia and whatever comes after... is not aiming-at any specific ultimate alternative form of human sex and sexuality.

There is no Leftist utopia of sex/ ulaity towards-which Leftism is moving us. Instead there is merely a series of dishonest, expediently subversive, incoherent stances: adopted tactically, then set-aside when convenient.

The sexual revolution (like Leftism in general) it is a negative program. Any positive elements are merely expedient, temporary, discarded when the next stage of destruction is ready to proceed; just as 60s style 'free love' (heterosexual extramarital promiscuity) was discarded in favour of feminism; and feminism discarded in favour of trans.

The sexual revolution is directed against Christian Goods such as celibacy, marriage, and family. Leftism in general is directed against real Christianity and real Christians ('real' regardless of denomination, church or no-church).

Leftism is opposed to holiness and real Christian religion. So, to deploy religious language and concepts to analyse Leftism is to serve the agenda of evil; to take the wrong side in the ongoing spiritual war*.


*Of course - we all err and sin, and we can find ourselves fighting on the wrong side. I certainly have found this to be the case, more than once. But then the situation is remediable. Any Christian can repent at any time - it is never too late (this side of death).  

Why modern Man's ideologies (and religion) have become more truly negative

It is very striking to me, how negative are people's ideals now; compared with even fifty or a hundred years ago. 

And I mean negative in practice - not just in theory; because there have been negative religious theories for at least a couple of thousand years - yet in practice Christians had strong positive motivations. 

Negative Theology (Via Negativa) was prominent in Christianity (substantially inherited from pagan Romans and Greeks) in the early centuries AD. I mean the ascetic path of opposition to the world, elimination of temptation, and repudiation of "the flesh", which was taken to the greatest extreme by the hermit Desert Fathers. 

The Neo-Platonic theology (e.g. associated with Dionysius the Aeropagite) was one of explicit negation; that asserted we cannot know God except by knowing what God is Not, are dragged down by our instincts and desires. This in general down-rated or rejected marriage, family, creativity as paths to God; due to their excessive risk of temptation by fleshly pleasures - binding us to mortal life, its pleasures and pains. 

These desires were to be overcome by prolonged disciplines of deprivation and chosen suffering; so that we may learn control of them, and ultimately independence from them. 

Yet, in practice, there was at this time also a very powerful yet implicit positive desire for communion with God, to emulate (their idea of) Jesus Christ, and to dwell spiritually in Heaven even while on earth.

Therefore, the true situation was one in which there was strong positive desires that were unconscious and implicit; which were disciplined and shaped by the explicit rituals and practices of a negative nature. 

Through human history, these unconscious and implicit positive instincts have dwindled, until many modern people are hardly aware of them, deny their validity, and often altogether deny their presence. People (especially in The West) are no longer guided by positive implicit instincts towards God, the spirit, higher consciousness... 

Instead we are guided by external human-originated ideals - especially the dominant ideology of 'secular-leftist-materialism' that underpins all of social and political discourse and institutions in The West. 

If an individual rejects the dominant ideology, he must (as a rule) do so by an explicit and consciously chosen act of will. 

Interestingly, even the ideology of left-materialism itself has been subject to the same trends in consciousness. It has gone from containing a considerable largely-unconscious and implicit positive element; to being almost wholly negative in its ideals, and oppositional in its practices. 

When it began to emerge a couple of hundred years ago, leftism often shared in the (mostly unconscious) positive goals of Christianity; so that there were many "Christian socialists" in the UK (from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, as well as Nonconformist churches), who (albeit misguidedly) saw socialism as a means to the end of a more Christian society. These were a significant cultural phenomenon into the middle 20th century. 

Even among the explicitly materialist-atheist leftists of the late nineteenth century - such as the revolutionary communist William Morris and the gradualist Fabian George Bernard Shaw - there was strong (albeit un-theorized, un-grounded) positive assumption concerning the goals of leftism. 

Such Men would argue that socialism was a necessary/ the best means to achieve the kind of society that was 'common-sensically' (by appeal to universal evaluations) regarded as a good environment for positive virtues. 

For Morris that was a quasi-Medieval agrarian society in which the arts and crafts thrived, and were universal - a world of craftsmen and artists, for whom labour was an altruistic joy. 

For Shaw it was a modern industrial society where all were allocated an equal income that made accessible all the higher things in life (arts, sciences etc). The purpose of universal and equal prosperity was to enable Men to pursue 'mystical' goals; such as attaining higher consciousness - en route to a somewhat Platonic world of pure intelligences whose gratification was contemplation, and untrammeled creativity.

For the likes of Morris, Shaw and other early socialists; the desirability of such a society was self-evident; but it is no longer self-evident in 2022. Indeed, such utopian schemes are all-but off the map, seldom mentioned; and so weakly believed (if at all) that such ideals are unable significantly sustain a life or even (noticeably) to influence behaviour.  

What I mean is that - diminishing, but evident until about the middle-20th century - the underlying, even if unstated, belief even on the Left was that if the obstacles to a better and higher life could be removed by socialism (or feminism, antiracism, an economy of common ownership etc) - then a better and higher life would spontaneously emerge - because that (it was assumed) was what Men wanted.

And it was that better/ higher life that was the ultimate justification of leftism. 

 

Well, that concept has become meaningless, and since the 1960s, as the New Left has focused on negative aims, without any positive sense of where this is going, or what state of society it is trying to achieve, or what people are supposed to do and live-by in a future society. Contra Morris; the arts and crafts, guilds and professions, small villages and farming as a vocation; have all declined catastrophically. And, contra Shaw; Men are more, not less, focused on materialism, consumption and shallow pleasures and dissipating distractions.  

Underlying such changes in both Christianity and Leftism is this waning of the unconscious and implicit, ultimately spiritual and self-justifying, ideal of The Good Life.  

Now we must consciously choose God, Jesus Christ, and to live by the transcendental values of divine creation. These are not longer spontaneously generated from within ourselves. 

On the one hand; we are free-er than Men used to be; because we are no longer subject to uncontrollable drives from unconscious motivations. 

On the other hand; if we do not choose correctly; then we are prone to purposelessness, meaninglessness and therefore despair - in a way that used to be extremely rare, even among the explicit atheists and nihilists of 100-plus years ago. 

The supposed 'New Religion' of Leftism is actually an *anti*-religion - aka Satanism

The non-Christians who are insightful enough to see the fake and lies of the mainstream System (the 'secular Right') are tying themselves in knots trying to describe and characterize the nature of the ideology that oppresses the world. 

They have nothing positive and motivating to suggest - but they routinely denigrate Christianity... and other religions too - but the focus is naturally on Christianity as the only potentially viable Western religion. 

They persist in describing the Global Establishment ideology of atheist, materialist Leftism as a New Religion - and persistently use religious analogies as a slur against Leftism - on the assumption that because faith, rituals, observances, prayer etc. are religious, that means they are dumb, irrational and/or manipulative.

So they are calling totalitarian Leftism a New Religion because Religion means bad. Yet this is a supposed religion that has - in the past year - closed down, taken-over and thereby utterly discredited not just the Christian churches, but all plausible pretense to spiritual authority of all the large and organized churches. So this 'New Religion' has destroyed spiritual authority... What kind of 'religion' destroys spiritual authority? 

Secular Leftism is also a supposed religion that does not believe in God: it is atheist in its avowed beliefs, and God is excluded as a significant factor from all areas of public discourse. What kind of a 'religion' does not believe in God, any gods, and any abstract deity?

This supposed 'religion' also disbelieves in any positive purpose or meaning to human life; and instead insists that reality is merely a combination of random and rigidly-determined 'physics'; just processes, grinding-on and with no point for humans.  

It insists that there is no soul, no life after death - that all human behaviour is reducible to 'psychology' and that the only kind of morality is based on 'feelings'.  

In what sense is this New Religion actually any kind of 'religion'? Well, only by superficial analogies and not by any deep beliefs or assumptions. 

This idea of Leftism as a New Religion is thus an analysis which makes worse the problem it tries to cure: it exacerbates the belief and harm of Leftism by tarring all religion with the same brush - and implicitly arguing from a standpoint of such total disbelief that religions go down in flames with Leftism because even the feeble negative and oppositional beliefs of Leftism are regarded as of the same nature as the powerful positive motivations of real religion. 

The problem is that the atheist "right" can't help themselves - so long as they remain atheist, for so long they must believe (by assumption) that all religions are false, and therefore all the beliefs, rites, rituals and other 'religious practices can only be made-up for the purpose of population manipulation. And are now being used by the 'New Religion' for the same purposes as they were used by 'old' religions. 

Yet the reality which explains the 'New Religion' is very simple - it is an anti-religion to Christianity; it is in essence the opposite of a real religion (Christianity, specifically) and the rites and rituals of Leftism have the same nature as those of explicit Satanism - they are a subversion or inversion of the Christian truth and reality. 

History teaches us that Real Religion is capable of motivating man more strongly than anything else - nothing else is able to sustain courage and social cohesion like a real religion. 

By contrast, modern Leftism is demotivating; it presides over a society of unprincipled cowards who cannot even oppose the secular authorities in the privacy of their own thoughts and are intimidated into craven obedience by the mere threat of stern looks and harsh words so that actual oppression is not needed. 

Against this, the secular Right have nothing positive to offer. 

Negatively; they are perfectly correct that our civilization is being actively-destroyed; and that all social functionality is being actively-destroyed - and that we are headed for the collapse of modern living and cooperative society; for severe mass human suffering from famine, violence and (real) disease. But negatively not-wanting this to happen is grossly inadequate - it is not a positive motivation.  

No civilization was ever built or sustained by the fear of losing a comfortable and convenient life. To grow and defend a civilization needs that courage and cohesion that only religion can give. 

We are the first and only thoroughly post-religious society, ever. 

By continually pretending we have a 'New Religion' and using religious language as a slur; by sniping at even the possibility of a real religion, by equating the literally Satanic anti-religion of Leftism with real Christianity - the secular Right are de facto fighting on the same side as the Leftism they so much despise. 

Why leftists affiliate with each other, and with supernatural purposive evil

The only unity to leftism - which now rules the world - is based upon negation, rejection, opposition; and this is what brings leftism (over time) into cooperation with the agenda of the devil.  

Leftism is 'the party' of those whose bottom-line ideology is oppositional - because pacifism, abolition, socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, healthism and all the rest, are oppositional in nature: none aim at any particular state-of-being or -society. 

Of-a-piece is the usual leftist conviction that one is a victim, and/or works on-behalf-of victims: victimhood is just another negation. 

But the ultimate negation of leftism is the rejection of all that is divine, spiritual, eternal... Leftism is rooted in atheism, denial of the reality of the spiritual and the soul, denial that reality is created, denial of any purpose to creation. 

Therefore leftism is necessarily incoherent - because to deny all these is to deny any possibility of meaning and purpose, to deny any possibility of coherence and understanding. For leftist materialists; reality is understood to be merely an outcome of material causes and/or randomness. 

And for conscious allies of Satan; 'reality' is an arbitrary and exploitative construct of a deceptive, manipulative, selfish deity. Evil is therefore, of its nature, (like leftism) also oppositional. 

But the (Christian) truth is that this world is in spiritual war between God and those who ally with God on the one hand - and who desire the salvation of Men's souls; and on the other, those who oppose God's aims, plans and hopes for whatever reason - and who desire something-other-than salvation.

God's party has eternal purpose and meaning; the devil's party does not - but is a (temporary) alliance of expedience between those who oppose God. 

Each human or demon of the devil's party is ultimately 'in it for himself' (as he personally understands and values his self-interest) - and all alliances are therefore understood as contingent means to that end.  

The alliance for-God is (by contrast) ultimately coherent, because it has purpose - and meaning derives from purpose. 

'The opposition party' includes a multitude of heterogeneous motives against God - disbelief, belief but rejection, dislike, hatred, inversion... 

Leftism grows by fomenting opposition, and by collecting-together those who oppose on the basis that it will (for now) aid their personal goals.

The many materialist (ideological) 'leftisms' tend, over time, to develop alliance with supernatural purposive evil; because both are oppositional and materialist leftism is thereby strengthened with a (typically unconscious) spiritual power and purpose. Individual selfish motivation is also strengthened by hope for power over others, and the desire to be part of a large and strong allied-bloc.  

Thus the world of 2020 is dominated by a vast, heterogenous and incoherent party of leftism = evil-affiliation. That is, a party that defines itself by what it opposes - and what it opposes is ultimately traceable to that which is of-God. 

Such a party cannot construct, create or even conserve: it can only lie, subvert, manipulate, torment, invert etc. because it has no ultimate positive purpose, and because the left-alliance is based only on shared-opposition. 

Purpose is impossible in a senseless-meaningless determined-random universe... 

And such a party as the left will therefore necessarily be negative and destructive in its operations and outcomes: such a party will always tend to converge with supernatural evil, and will tend towards more purely-evil forms of evil. 

2016 - year of reckoning - unfolds its choices...

From what I perceive, 2016 is indeed unfolding to be the year of reckoning which some have predicted - perhaps best understood as the year of choice; and more exactly the year of branching choices.

Starting from the triumphant domination of secular Leftism, it looks as if looks as if more and more of the Establishment are defecting from the programme - or are on the verge of doing-so, and as if the ruling cabal is afraid - very afraid - of a major backlash. Hence the global conspiracy of evil is trying to strike prematurely with their long-prepared plan of a mega-destructive World War III (starting in the Middle East); before the lower-level Establishment and the population of the West have been brought behind the idea.

The choices of 2016 can be seen as a branching system. Early choices are worth having - but only if the choices follow through (reasonably swiftly) will they do any more than somewhat delay the plan for comprehensive destruction of Good.

The first choice is:

Secular Leftism versus Not-secular Leftism

This is about as far as we have currently reached - a negative reaction against the prevailing trends.

Then there is a choice between:

Cynical nihilism versus Spiritual Awakening

Cynical nihilism is negative - and the Cynical Nihilist decides merely to operate on the basis of his gut-feelings, which he regards as subjective - so it is merely a kind of systematic selfishness. This is better than secular Leftism, because not actively suicidal - but CN is unstable and severely suboptimal. Spiritual awakening is therefore the way forward.

But spiritual awakening has happened before - eg. in the mid 1960s - and it is likely to be poisoned at source by the (Leftist) Sexual Revolution unless it leads to religion. So the next choice is either to retain the sexual revolution - leading to New Age spirituality or to reject the sexual revolution, which leads to religion (of one sort or another):

New Age Spirituality versus Religion

We know from experience the New Age spirituality leads nowhere, so Religion is the way forward. The next step is to 'choose your religion'. For Westerners this means Christianity of something-else:

Not-Christianity versus Christianity

If Christianity is chosen, at this point it refers to real Christianity, not Liberal Christianity - which is merely secular Leftism with some Christian top-dressing.

The re-adoption of Christianity by the West would be a major step in the right direction - but it would essentially be a 'rewind'; hence the question arises: would it be enough to prevent secular Leftism returning, just as it did in the past? I don't think so.

The next step is the most controversial - because there is a choice between one or many churches of Actually Existing Christianity - which is the world of the existing denominations, each of which claims (more-or-less) exclusivity and New Christianity - which does not exist and never has existed even conceptually except among a few specific individuals.

Traditional Christianity versus Evolution of a New Christianity

The evolution of a New Christianity would probably evolve from one or more of the existing churches - but not be exactly the same as any of them currently are; nor would it be any kind of Liberalisation or assimilation to secular norms.

New Christianity would be (would need to be) a correction of those flaws in past Christianity which were exploited by secular Leftism - and would indeed be a restoration of a Christianity closer to the intention of Christ and more in-line with the nature and purposes of God.

That, I believe, is the destined way ahead - that is what Christianity was supposed to do way back around 1800 at the start of the Industrial Revolution and the first outburst of Romanticism - the kind envisaged by the likes of the poets Blake, Wordsworth and Coleridge.

So, with New Christianity I am talking about Romantic Christianity.

So the final destination of 2016 would need to be

Romantic Christianity 

Which comes at the end of a many branched path of choices - so the chances of us getting to that destination seem remote; and anything less will - I believe - fail to suffice.

Nonetheless, any steps along that path would be very welcome - and we are currently seeing the first step being taken by ever more people.

We therefore now have a real chance; albeit a slim chance.

Resentment is almost unavoidable as a motivation - unless there is a stronger positive goal

I have often written about our age's besetting-sin or "master sin" of resentment; including how negative resentment is the basis of the mainstream dominating socio-political ideology of "leftism". 

(Where leftism is understood to include all types of secular materialism with some variant of an hedonic ethical basis - including conservatism, Republicans, libertarians, nationalists etc.) 

Thus the pseudo-goals of leftism (taken up and discarded expediently) such as equality, feminism, antiracism, anti-anti-semitism, climate environmentalism - are all negative, all oppositional in their nature, all against some-thing. 

...With the purported "utilitarian" justification that this negation will lead to greater human "happiness" of some group or all people - in which happiness is (in recent generations) equated, bottom line, with diminished-suffering. 

(And where suffering is itself conceptualized as a departure-from some implicit and imagined state of not-suffering.)  

The negations are indeed multiple, since to be against some presumed cause of suffering is already a triple-negation - or is it quadruple!... At any rate, in modern leftism there is no serious or would-be-coherent vision of an utopian, happy-state, of society. 

Thus we have the negative ideology of diminishing suffering; while lacking any reference state of a happy world and people. 

How did this happen? Because surely Man cannot and should-not live by negations alone? 

Not by accident; but not wholly imposed top-down either. 

Of course, nowadays the top-down structural political encouragements and inducements (the propaganda in education systems and the mass media, the subsidies and legal exemptions, the careerism) are all very evident. 

But there is another side to things - which is that, after the decline and end of spontaneous religiosity; there were no sufficiently-strong positive motivators.  

Nationalism is a good example; since in several societies it was the first attempted replacement for religion as a basis for social cohesion. Typically, nationalist movements start with considerable emphasis on positive national characteristics and "spirit", and national destiny... 

But always this proves to be too feeble to motivate, and the positive national destiny turns-out either to be a minority aspiration - and/or generally inadequate to provide a basis for national cohesion and direction. 

The nationalism invariably degenerates into double-negativity: into opposition to some source of presumed (or real) harm. For instance; the nationalism of resentment of some particular other-nation or group becomes the main theme, the main source of cohesion, the main basis of the main policies. 

This has been the fate of every nationalist movement of which I am aware: such Germany, Ireland, Scotland and... fill-in the gaps. 

A similar tale could be told of socialism degenerating into class war; feminism into sex war, pro-natural world environmentalism into a negative and destructive crusade against "carbon", antiracism into racism etc. 

The dominance of resentment is therefore a secondary consequence of the feebleness of positive motivators in a post-religious world. 

Resentment provides (at least in the short term) a basis for cohesion against a common "enemy"; and a basis for strategies to deal with this threat. 

But in the long-term, all these negations purposively destroy society - and this is inevitable unless resentment is superseded.  

  

What about individual persons? Why are we (nearly all of us) so helplessly vulnerable to pro-resentment propaganda that strives to turn us, each-and-all, into a self-perceived victim of somebody or something; a seething cauldron of entitlement, fears, anger, spitefulness? 

The ultimate cause is the same - which is the feebleness of our positive motivations. 

Of course it is facile to spout positive slogans, or pretend to be driven by positive goals about some future of enhanced achievement, creation, beauty, love... 

But actual behaviour (e.g. what people think, speak and write about; media and bureaucratic productions; laws, policies and behaviours) suggests that these are gross exaggerations that serve merely as dishonest excuses to hide the endemic negativity of core motivators. And we get the observable socio-cultural-psychological dominance of resentment as a core motivator. 

The only good answer; the only spiritual solution to the sin, is to recognize and repent it. 

This is an essential first step. 

Yet, if we desire to defeat a particular resentment in ourselves that is dominating and distorting our lives - and if we do not want simply to replace one sin by another: such as resentment replaced by self-aggrandisement (a common sight on the internet)...

Then we need to discover a genuinely positive and strong positive motivator that can press-down-upon and net-over-ride resentment; and this motivator must be religious. 

Because only religion is a stronger long-term motivator with sufficient potential for coherence and direction. 

And so we circle back to the problem of discovering a positive and personally-motivating and good religion in the 21st century - which is our only hope for genuine betterment. 

Transcending (not deleting) Leftism

The diagnosis is that Leftism is (almost) everywhere by now, such that it is the water in which we swim - not least because its basis is in the modern mass media which is everywhere and is the water in which we swim.

A few years ago I wrote Thought Prison which analyzed political correctness (or the New Left, the post-sixties Left of identity politics, group preferences and quotas and the sexual revolution); and traced it back at least to the Great Schism when catholic Christianity divided between East and West.

My interpretation was that the only way to be rid of this cancer was to revert to the pre-modern condition. Another interpretation is that this cannot be done, so the West is doomed.


A further possibility, which has been creeping-up on me for two years or more, is that Leftism is so pervasive that it cannot (even in principle) be deleted, there can be no re-set, because since Leftism is by now almost everywhere and what is more deeply interwoven (including into much of the best and most effective art and thought) so that to try and delete it would be like trying to excise a cancer which has already metastasised all over the body.

If we successfully cut out the Leftism/ cancer- what remained would probably not be viable and would certainly not be desirable.

Is there some other possibility? Maybe.


My idea came from the Mormon Restoration in relation to preceding Christianity. The basis of this is the Mormon belief that from about 100 AD onwards, Christianity underwent a 'Great Apostasy'. As a term, this sounds a lot more negative and damning than it is actually interpreted by Mormons.

The way the idea works in practice, is the assumption that Christianity took a wrong turn after the death or disappearance of the Apostles. For example, it lost some vital doctrines (such as pre-mortal existence) and gained some false emphases and unhelpful metaphysics.

This was not self-correcting; so there needed to be a new prophet chosen by God (i.e. Joseph Smith) who would lead a Restoration that provided recovered/ new scriptures (e.g. The Book of Mormon) and doctrinal clarification (e.g. the Doctrines and Covenants); together with a re-booted priesthood and a church organization suited to the needs of these 'latter days'.


But Mormonism does not reject the previous 1700 years of Christianity - is not hostile to pre-Mormon Christians - does not try to delete it from consciousness or usage - does not try to restart Christianity on the basis of the 'primitive church': quite the opposite.

Of all the serious Christian denominations of which I am aware, Mormons are by far the most positive about other denominations; and up to the very highest level will quote and learn from and revere good counsel from any source and any point in Christian history (and, indeed, from outside of Christianity). This has always been the case from Joseph Smith onwards, and is not a matter of theory - this is a very warm-hearted and spontaneous thing.


In sum, from a Mormon perspective, the Restoration was necessary, but that does not mean that everything which went before could or should be discarded - rather pre-Mormon Christianity (and other modern Christian churches) is subject to addition, subtraction and a different emphasis: but it is not by any means deleted, rather it is willingly, actively and happily used - but selectively.

In a word pre-Mormon Christianity is transcended; or in another word re-framed; or re-interpreted and built-upon what went before.


By analogy, I think it may and should be possible to do the same with Leftism.

Perhaps it is possible not to fight Leftism head-on, in an 'us or them', all or nothing battle unto death; but for Leftism to repent; and for post-Leftism to re-frame, re-interpret, transcend and build-upon Leftism - pick it up and take it in a very different direction (recognizing that it was in error).

After all, this is what we personally do as individuals when we become Christians. No matter how deeply sinful or misguided our lives have been; we do not try to delete our pre-Christian lives; instead we repent what needs repenting, and start from where we happen to be.

That this is possible is core Christian doctrine. Christ came to save sinners; and takes us exactly as we are now: we are saved by accepting Christ; not post-dated until after some micro-surgical process of totally-deleting all our many and deep and ramifying sins.

From that point, we are Christians,but the creative and joyful work begins of embarking on a life of becoming more Christ-like, a life of theosis: striving to become ever-better Sons and Daughters of God. 


Where we in the West happen to be, is inside a state of extremely comprehensive and multi-generational Leftism - which is anti-Good (that is: evil), deeply sin-full.

We need to repent, and start afresh; but this will be by building-upon the good of the past,starting immediately, and without supposing that we can first extirpate the evils of the past.  

We must, in The secular Leftist West culture, acknowledge that we were wrong; we must start living as best we can in light of what is right - but this is (or should be) an essentially positive and creative agenda: just like becoming a new Christian.

What evidence for the evolutionary-development of consciousness in Western Man?

On the face of it, there seems little evidence for anything like a divinely destined evolution of consciousness in Western Man. Looking around in the public realm, or even in direct and personal experience; there seems little to suggest anything of the kind. Nothing that looks like 'progress'.

This is because of two things: 1. Materialism and 2. Negativity.

The materialism which absolutely monopolises modern public life means that consciousness appears only in an indirect way. We only see the indirect effect, the consequences, of consciousness change - and we see only its material - this worldly - manifestations.

Abstraction - including the reduction of qualities to the pseudo-materialism of number - is a major aspect of materialism.Indeed, it is more extreme: qualities are denied reality (because qualities are material) yet simultaneously these non-existent qualities are given numbers and used for calculation of decisions. This is the basis of such managerial technologies of quality managements, racial and sexual monitoring etc. 

The negativity means that the change is expressed by criticism, and not by positive assertion. We get some (materialist) version of what people do Not want; but don't get an expression of their goals.

So, the evolution of consciousness can be seen in the dominant aspects of the dominant ideology of Leftism - but reduced and one-sidely.


Take feminism. The positive spiritual ideals of feminism are related to the positive aspiration of a permanent, literally-divine spiritual and creative marriage relation between a man and woman after death and in the life everlasting as Children of God.

But modern feminism has reject the ideal along with the eternal; and the true spiritual impulse has been concretised to this-worldly economics and power differences. The imperfections of mortal marriage means that marriage itself is rejected as oppressive. What remains is only the negative side of anti-Man aggression- and this is implemented materially in laws and regulations. The deterioration in relationships between men and women is then celebrated.


Another aspect of the evolution of consciousness is an awareness of the uniqueness of each individual, and the knowledge that we have a divine seed within each of us - so that we may grow to become a distinct creative deity - each contributing to God's work of creation.

But of this modern culture expresses only the material aspect: we take into account only that which is measurable and mortal - even while refusing to allow the validity of any measure.

There is a negative refusal at accept any rationale for any economic differences - but without any positive desire for actual equality. We reject actual equality, because we demand that differences in individual circumstances be taken into account; but reject any actual method of doing this.

There is a rejection of legal and cultural impartiality, as a sham and a mask for prejudice; but reject individual judgement as also obviously prejudiced.


More generally; modern Leftism generally regards any reference to to the ideals of post-mortal life as merely an excuse for injustices during mortal life ('pie in the sky', 'jam tomorrow').

Another instance: Leftism celebrates racial and ethnic differences, yet refuses to tolerate racial inequalities; and (negatively) there is no acceptable, objective categorisation of race, ethnicity, culture or economics... Race is simultaneously deconstructed and its reality denied - because race is not material; and abstracted into numbers, so as to be implemented in the material processes of modern government.

The same applies to sex and sexual ientity. Modern negativism denies the reality of these categories because they are not material and do not have hard edges; modern materialism simultaneously creates abstract and hard-edged sexual categories for monitoring and control purposes.


In sum; the ideology of Leftism is implicitly trying, but of course failing, to build a positive system from a host of negative rejections. It is always appealing to morality while its materialism erodes the validity of all moral systems.

So Modern Man does indeed show evidence of the development of underlying positive impulses; but because of (covert, denied) metaphysical assumptions these are systematically distorted such that there is not even the possibility of good outcomes, and we get that moral inversion by which bad consequences are regarded as evidence of virtuous motives.

This is why anti-spiritual, mortal-life-focused Leftism has been the main tool of the dark forces; since a system of inevitable, irreconcilable, competing negativities is the perfect seedbed for evil. 

In inducing modern Western Man to accept materialism and reject all spiritual things as impossible; and in making these beliefs a matter of deep, metaphysical assumption - woven invisibly into the enitre realm of public discourse; the demonic powers have created a machine by which even good and necessary impulses can only be manifested as evil.

Overcoming the double-negative conceptualizations of Jesus Christ

Over the past few years, since I spent a year or so multiply re-reading the Fourth Gospel ("of John") in isolation; I have often emphasized the covertly-deceptive way in which double-negative formulations have colonized and distorted our minds and motivations - both in Christianity and in mainstream modern secular 'leftism'.  

A double-negative is not the same as a positive; yet it seems obvious that most people fail to recognize the essentially negative conceptualizations of their own beliefs and ideals: they suppose themselves to be idealists, with some kind of positive agenda; yet they nearly-always are in thrall to some merely double-negation.

For instance, they believe that the double-negations of being against CO2 climate change, or protecting the environment, is the same thing as loving and cherishing our relation to this natural world. And the consequence is massive destruction of nature and the severing of Men from the natural. 

The supposedly 'ecological' doubled double-negative of "stopping climate change" and "protecting the environment" leads to an explicit (albeit deceptive) vision of humankind crammed into pods of '15 minute' mega-cities, eating processed bugs delivered by drones - and experiencing nature only virtually, via media. 

(The double-negative attitude towards nature leads inexorably to the negation of Man - i.e. his extinction.)

Unfortunately, this kind of double-negation applies to many Christian understandings of Jesus Christ.

This is evident from using the synonym the Saviour to describe what is regarded as the essence of what He did for us. And that essence of what Jesus did is summarized as the Atonement - which is another double-negation. The same could be said about calling Jesus the redeemer, and describing the crucifixion as a redemption; all terms betray the primacy of double-negative theology. Conceptualizing Jesus's goodness as primarily sin-less-ness is another such.  

I am sure that this is mistaken, and also stands as an obstacle to modern understanding of Jesus Christ. Partly because because it is obvious that modern Man feels no spontaneous need for saving, atonement or redemption. 

If modern man must first be convinced of his default damnation from sin; he cannot begin to understand what Jesus is supposed to have done for him - thus evangelism is crippled. 

Yet the Fourth Gospel seems to tell a different story - at least if read straightforwardly, as our primary source of knowledge of Jesus's life and teachings (by which I mean; trying to understand the IV Gospel without subordinating it to the other Gospels, other parts of the New Testament, and the Bible as a whole). 

Of course; the IV Gospel can be interpreted in a double-negative fashion - as about Jesus as Saviour - since all positives can be reframed in a double-negative form. 

But reformulating a positive as double-negation always and necessarily leaves-out that which is truly positive; because in real-life (unlike mathematics!) a positive cannot emerge from negations. 

Being "against sin", does not tell us what to do instead-of sinning; just as being against "Anthropogenic Global Warming by CO2" does not tell mankind anything about how to build a good relationship with the natural world. 

(The double-negation of Jesus's teaching and work, leads to a negation of this mortal life - such that 'goodness' becomes the negation of sin, life the avoidance of damnation - life itself a thing to be got-through without falling and failing.)   

Jesus in the IV Gospel is presented, perfectly straightforwardly, as the giver of life everlasting*. Which is presented as a positive addition to human possibility. 

Yes, this also means negatively that Jesus "overcomes death" (a double-negation) - but this is only half the story, and the least helpful part. What Jesus offers positively is resurrection to eternal life in Heaven. 

And what this means is set-out in many points of the Gospel, albeit in ways that we tend to regard as poetical or allegorical - but, at the time of Jesus this was very probably the ordinary way that language was used. 

(Ancient languages had, what seems to us 'moderns', multiple and simultaneous meanings; they did not have the narrowly and precise, 'technical' and specialized - but utterly un-poetic! - language systems that we know from sciences, law, and bureaucracy generally.)   

Double-negatively expressed Jesus "overcomes death" - and death meant something different in Jesus's time and place than it does for us; yet 'death', then and now, shared the core meaning of the ending of self, a situation caused by the death of our body. 

When we die, our self will cease to be. For the Jews of Jesus's time this probably meant that soul was severed from body such that we would become witless, demented ghosts in Sheol. 

For modern Man death means utter annihilation - body and mind - forever. But in both instances we, as unique selves, are finished. 

 

But positively understood Jesus adds-to the human situation as it is understood to exist. 

Instead of things happening as they do without Jesus; Jesus makes possible something new and extra. 

Essentially; Jesus is the Giver of Life Everlasting, not the Saviour; because a positive trumps the partiality of a double-negative; because a giver is greater than a saver. 

*I argue elsewhere that in the IV Gospel "sin" means something closely equivalent to "death" - so that references to Jesus taking-away or overcoming "sin" are intended to refer essentially to death. But it is also true that sin in the sense of disharmony with God's motivations and methods, dis-alignment from the ways of divine creation, must be overcome before life everlasting, resurrection to Heavenly life eternal, can happen.

Negative critique is worthless; unless it comes from a position of self-awareness concerning assumptions and motivations.

I think we are all prone to critique, ridicule and dismiss the ideas of others by arguing purely negatively and without being clear of the assumptions from-which we are arguing. 

I've often done this myself, and indeed tend to fall-into it as a kind of Journalistic" default - to the point that I try to catch and halt this tendency, before it gets too established. 

Of course; one cannot always (e.g. in every blog post!) be re-stating one's assumptions; on the other hand:

1. It is obvious that most people do not even know what are their own assumptions; and

2. Even fewer people have subjected their own assumptions to the kind of critique that they so lavishly bestow upon other people. And

3. Even fewer people - having become aware of their own assumptions, and examined them critically - have found these assumptions to be solid to their own honest satisfaction over a prolonged self-critique*...

This is exactly why there is so much attacking of other people and their views in the modern world (including on the internet); and so little clarification of where that attack is coming from.

 When one's own views are unknown, incoherent, or feeble; and also if one's own person is very obviously flawed - then it makes sense to do everything possible to keep negative attention on the other chap and what the other chap is saying.  

But this is dishonest and incoherent. Therefore, unworthy of respect. 

*(This is, indeed, the entirety of the philosophical defense of modern mainstream ideology - the ideology shared by all people and institutions of wealth and power, all major participants in public discourse to the point that it does not even have a name for itself! I call it variously atheism-materialism-leftism-totalitarianism... but it-itself does not acknowledge any of these names, nor any other term, for what is By Far the most pervasive and enforced ideology in human history.)

 

So, I regard negative critique as so much blah blah - unless it is rooted in some, more or less explicitly known and acknowledged assumptions and motivations; some kind of evident self-awareness. 

This applies to critique emanating from what might be termed a Traditionalist Christian perspective, which can be almost any denomination or church - and indeed, almost the same negative critique may emanate from people/ institutions with very different assumptions - But this is not a strength!

After all, we get essentially the same "progressive" negative-critique of Christianity; coming-in from multi-national organizations such as the UN; from all Western Nations, and all the multi-national corporations and social institutions and the mass media - The Establishment. 

Negative critique is, mostly, merely negatively-motivated and ignorant-of-self; and even when it comes from multiple directions, it remains worthless. 

To be worth considering; negative critique must be in self-awareness of a coherent alternative and positive understanding. 

(Recalling that a double-negative is not a positive.) 

In short: we ought to demand (of ourselves, as well as others) If Not, Then What? 

A successful Christian strategy for revival will probably build from currently-successful types of Christianity

It is my contention that Christianity in the West has been all-but defeated by Leftism - and that Leftism is itself a thing which has evolved as an anti-Christian ideology.

This means that modern Leftism has evolved in what was originally a Christian context to damage, subvert, destroy and invert Christianity. Because Leftism evolved in a Christian context, Leftism is pre-adapted to thwart most of the historical strategies of Christianity. 


In other words, when considering strategies to promote the future of Christianity, if a strategy has been tried and failed in the past, if a type of Christianity has been defeated by Leftism; then it is unlikely to work in the future.

(So long as the Leftist West stands. If any type of Christianity survives until after the West collapses, then it may well be in a position to exploit and thrive in the very different post-collapse situation.)

In other words, an attempt at straightforward revival of some past type of Christianity which is currently failing is not likely to work as a strategy for Christian revival in the current context.

How can we evaluate success or failure?

Biologically, any potentially successful and robust religious group needs to have a viable demographic structure: above replacement fertility, an age profile less than forty, a sex profile with about half men (or higher).

If a type of Christianity clearly lacks these (i.e. if it has significantly below replacement fertility, and age structure dominated by the elderly, and is composed mostly of women), I suggest that this is a sign that it has been defeated by Leftism, Leftism has the better of it; and we cannot hope realistically for a Christian revival from such denominations or churches.

Spiritually, since we cannot look into Men's souls we are forced to rely upon objective indicators. So, the viable type of Christianity will demonstrate evidence of devoutness - adherence to a demanding lifestyle, high levels of tithing, church service, missionary activity, strength in the face of persecution etc.

Such criteria could serve as a basis, as a beginning at least, for understanding of what might work (best to pursue several lines of strategy), and perhaps what ought to be done - to trigger and build a Christian revival.


Note: I also think that success is more likely from scaling-up a small but successful group, than from trying to reform a large group that is mostly a failure but contains minority pockets of success. At least, this is what happens with other human institutions. When the successful parts of an organization are in a small minority, it can be very difficult or impossible to reform the organization - unless there are first massive, majority 'cuts' to get rid of the negative, destructive influence of the failing majority. On the other hand, small successful institutions and businesses can often be up-scaled ten, a hundredfold within a very short timescale.  

Freedom is negative - it is Not Enough to be "anti"-evil

Freedom is, at best, a means to an end - and freedom is only good when the end is good. 

By contrast, totalitarian tyranny (such as now rules the world) is intrinsically and necessarily evil - of its nature it opposes God and creation - so totalitarian tyranny always ought to be opposed. 

But opposed in the name of what? 

That makes a big difference. 

If totalitarian evil is opposed in the name of freedom, that is only to oppose the greater by the lesser evil. 

It is - in fact - to oppose an extreme version of the leftist ideology with a more moderate leftism. 

Therefore... a 2022 protest or movement based on freedom merely aims to return to the world to what it was a few years ago...

Yet that world of a few years ago was already the most evil society in human history. 

Modern Leftism is an ideology of opposition - it is self-identified only by what it opposes - and these 'isms' are many and contradictory. 

Therefore Leftism cannot be fought by adding further negative values - such as freedom. These will, indeed, only serve to reinforce Left ideology as the only available option. 

Ideology is the perspective that the this-worldly, the material - are the only truths and the the ultimate values. 

When ideology is pitted against ideology - then ideology is always the winner - and all ideology is of-the-Left. 

Ideology cannot be opposed by ideology but only by religion. The negative and opposition can only be defeated by the positive and transcendental. 

Negative protest is of value Only when it is the first-step towards awakening a positive and motivating religious, specifically Christian, world view among individual persons. 

Otherwise - as with the Tea Party, Brexit, Trump, and current freedom protests - there will be no lasting and positive social transformation: no reversal of the many decades-long adverse trends in The West. 

So, while I naturally prefer the lesser evil to the greater; I would only actively-support an explicitly* religious and Christian movement - that is, one whose value-basis was explicitly divine, and whose stated aims were directed beyond this-mortal-world. 

*A movement's goals must nowadays be explicit and upfront if they are to be Good; since all inexplicit goals must be assumed evil as of 2022. Where evil is pervasive, incentivized and mandatory; whatever is unconscious, passive and spontaneous will be assimilated to evil. 

The instinctual roots of "Leftism" are more like resentment of anyone-else having more than me, than any positive desire for equality

Since Leftism is the dominant ideology in the world today, and Leftism often appeals to some principle of "equality" (however vague or incoherent) as the rationale for its actions; the instinctual basis for "equality" is a subject that warrants closer examination. 

This examination is something I attempted, from the perspective of evolution by natural selection, in an oft-cited theoretical paper I wrote many years ago.

[The inequity of inequality: egalitarian instincts and evolutionary psychology. BG Charlton Journal of Health Psychology. 1997; 2: 413-425.] 

My conclusion was that evidence from anthropological studies of "simple", nomadic hunter-gatherer societies - i.e. the most economically-equal societies ever known - was that their culture of equal-sharing (among those of equivalent sex and age) is not due to a positive valuation of "equality". 

Instead, the sharing was a consequence of what I would now term a double-negative ethical reasoning - for which I used the term "counter-dominance":  

...Equal sharing is enforced upon high status individuals by spontaneously-arising counter-dominant coalitions of lower status individuals (Boehm, 1991; Erdal & Whiten, 1994). Sharing may be a way of encouraging co-operation and preventing conflict (Franks, 1988); it would compensate low status males for their reduced access to females of high reproductive potential and can be seen as a way of "buying off" potentially hostile rivals who might otherwise refuse to cooperate or take hostile action...

"Counter-dominant" instincts (Erdal and Whiten, 1994 and in the press) operate in two ways: firstly to enforce equal sharing of resources, and secondly to be satisfied with an equal distribution of resources. 

In support of this idea, primatologists such as Byrne (1995), Kummer (1995) and De Waal (1996) have traced the evolutionary history of food sharing (and of other counter-dominant - and proto-moral - behaviours) through monkeys and apes to reach the highest (non-human) intensity and sophistication among the chimpanzees. 

Egalitarian human societies are therefore not without their social conflicts: their harmony is of the nature of a dynamic equilibrium between dominance and counter-dominance, both of which sets of instincts continue to operate, the equilibrium between which can be altered by a change of circumstance. 

In all human societies, even in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, the persistence of dominance instincts leads to recurrent attempts by high status individuals to dominate, take more than an equal share of resources, or hoard (Knauft, 1991; Erdal & Whiten, in the press). 

However, in immediate-return economies attempts by high status individuals to breach the egalitarian distribution and attain coercive power will readily be detected, and can be met by counter-dominant community alliances of lower status individuals (Woodburn, 1982; Boehm, 1993). 

Counter-dominant alliances may employ a wide range of tactics for mobilizing concerted opposition from the rest of the community in such forms as public complaint, ridicule, threat, ignoring the would-be dominant individual"s orders, or actual group violence against dominant individuals. 

Homicide is not uncommon (and difficult to prevent) in hunter-gatherer societies. Other alternatives include expulsion of recalcitrant individuals, or mass emigration to another band to escape domination. 

Such strategies are possible due to the lack of sustained power differentials underwritten by resource differentials - in immediate-return economies no one person can become so powerful as to be immune to counter-dominant strategies. 

But when - as in delayed-return economies - high status individuals can appropriate a greater than equal share of resources, they are able to sustain this inequality by building alliances among high status individuals; and by enlisting supporters (eg. a "gang" or "bodyguard") to create larger and more powerful alliances, trading the stored resources as payment for cooperation (Barkow, 1992; Gellner, 1988).

In sum - the distribution of valued resources, such as food, tends to be equal, not because equality-of-everybody is positively valued; but instead because me-having-less than anyone-else is negatively valued. And those who have less, immediately gang-up on anyone who has more then them; and compel him to share it out.  

If counter-dominance is an approximately-correct explanation of the instinctual basis for "equality"; then it readily explains the observed structure and behaviour of modern Leftist ideology.

A close synonym for counter-dominance could be a spontaneous resentment at others having more than oneself; coupled with a tendency to form alliances with others having similar grievances against those who have more. 

Insofar as this is instinctual, it operates on people and situations in a person's perceived environment - which nowadays includes (and is perhaps dominated by) the "virtual" environment of mass and social media - reinforced by the "real life" social world of gossip and interaction, that so often takes up and amplifies themes from mass/ social media. 

For me, this idea of a double-negative, and resentment-based instinct helps explain the incoherence of Leftism - in that "The Left" is a collection of people with a collection of grievances, each rooted in the belief that anyone else having anything more of what I want is an "unjust" state of affairs. 

It is this instinct which leads to the supposed ethical principle of "egalitarianism" - that is manipulated by political leaders, in order to control (and weaken) the masses. 

Because, in a mass modern society, with multiple valued resources, there are many overlapping (hence incompatible) demands for equal sharing among many overlapping groups. There is never any greater equality in modern societies, and indeed this state is logically impossible because incoherent; but a there is instead a continual state of resentful complaint about inequality - as predicted by counter-dominance being at the root of it. 

And this continual state of resentful complaint is positively encouraged and reinforced by (and as) the value-system of Leftism.  

From a Christian perspective, we can see that resentment is a sin, indeed the master sin of modernity; and therefore that (insofar as the basis of equality really is counter-dominance) Leftism is rooted in evil motivation.

An evil motivation that is spontaneous and instinctive, hence powerful... 

Nonetheless, no matter how natural it may be (all sins are "natural", after all!); resentment is an evil that ought to be repented and minimized - not celebrated and encouraged.