Not a war to win, but a war to destroy

Long-term (six year plus) readers will know of my recurrent "obsession" with the subject of evil; and the nature and definition of evil. 

This is because I believe that the nigh-universal lack of understanding of evil has rendered almost-everybody helpless in the face of a very powerful class of persons who have successfully engaged the hearts and minds of a very high proportion of the population of The West, and many other places. 

Bluntly; lack of understanding of evil has led many hundreds of millions of people (at least) into supporting strategic evil - and with a clear conscience, because they regard that evil as actually "good".

In other words, the inability to understand the nature of evil has led to moral inversion: what is really and intentionally evil is regarded as good, and vice versa.  

And people are not (as they may once have been) merely victims of manipulation - because it is of the nature of evil that once embraced it increases (evil feeds-upon itself).   

Thus we find that the nicest people are, on average, the most deluded; the most likely to be most powerfully supportive of the strategies of evil. 

This is particularly stark when the strategy being supported is a deliberately maximally-destructive war. 

And a war intended to embrace in destruction its supporters - themselves, their families and friends, their homeland, their ideology and passionate convictions - all that they superficially suppose that that they hold most dear. 

A world war is openly being planned - with full public declaration, before our eyes, in the mass media - in the West: in the UK and Commonwealth, EU nations, the USA, and beyond. 

Indeed this war is becoming the only game in town: as a long term strategy war is displacing all the other evil-motivated plans/ "good causes" such as I term the Litmus Tests: socialism/ leftism, CO2 climate environmentalism, birdemic-healthism, antiracism and feminism, the sexual revolution etc. 

All are being wound-down, and preparations for war are building-up.  

What is worse - or rather worst - is that this war (which is, in part, intended to be an expansion of the war that has been going in Eastern Europe over the past four-plus years, and in the Middle East more recently, and incipiently in East Asia) is not a war to win; but a war intended to destroy.

What is already afoot and expanding in Europe, is war of a kind seldom or never seen before in human history. In this actual and coming war; although one side does indeed want to win, and wants an end to the war (or begins that way); those who control the the other side want this war to continue, to expand, to increase in intensity - without end-point.

This happens because those who control one side are not of that side, but are instead (successfully and without being detected) using that side primarily and ultimately to pursue all-round destructive purposes.

This is happening, the strategy is working; things are much worse than almost anyone - including the experts - realize; exactly because almost nobody in the West understands evil; and especially they do not understand the sheer negativity of evil.

War analysts (of all sides) consistently assume that war is about seeking benefit, a negative means towards positive goals; and will end when that benefit has been attained. 

But when a war has been created, and is being sustained and expanded, in order to destroy; and ultimately in order that the participants come to support that goal of destruction - then this is a very different matter. 

The developing war situation is one that cannot necessarily be stopped or reversed - even if there was a general and effective will to stop it - which there is not. 

Evil has such an easy time in the modern world because there are so very few people (and none with power) who are strongly on the side of God and Good.

The mass of people cannot and do not support Good because they do not believe Good exists, or has any objective meaning. Their vague notion of good is something that exists (temporarily) only psychologically; as culturally-contingent notions in the heads of themselves, and people like them. 

The idea that The Good is a part of Reality, or The Universe; is literally meaningless to mainstream modern people - it is not so much denied as something that simply does not make sense. 

But we need to recall that the war of this world is always and ultimately a spiritual war; so this is no exception. 

This is a ultimately war to induce people - as many as possible people, on all sides - to align with spiteful destruction as a spiritual goal.

And this happens by value-inversion; by inducing people to regard evil as good and vice versa; and this is easiest when evil is not understood. 

And this failure to understand evil becomes inevitable when people do not believe-in or understand Good. 

And this failure to understand goodness is inevitable because so many people have assimilated the official and culturally-mainstream fundamental assumptions - e.g. that there is no God, no spirit, no salvation: no possibility of external and objective purpose and meaning in the universe.  

The ongoing and accelerating war of destruction is a consequence of these deep and multi-generational cultural trends. 

This stuff is not some hypothetical future scenario; on the contrary this state of deep incomprehension and value-inversion describes where we are now, culturally. 

And where we are stuck; because it can be seen that the problems run very deep, and have many layers. 

Which is presumably why we are all marching blandly and blindly towards a vastly destructive and intentionally-endless war that nearly-everyone supports indirectly with sadistic vehemence. 

Note: those who publicly oppose the ongoing-upcoming war are also (very nearly always) part of the fundamental problem that has led to the war, and share the same war-generating fundamental assumptions. They do not oppose the war for Good reasons. 

Western religious-motivated wars - Now? Ridiculous, nonsense, PSYOPS!

In the past - including in Western nations - there were religious wars, because religion was the primary motivator in many people's lives. 

For example in the 16th and 17th century in the British Isles there were religious inter-national and civil wars between Christians. It is very evident that - whatever other reasons there were to start and sustain wars - religion was primary. 

Back then and there; plenty of people - individually, as well as collectively, were strongly motivated, risked greatly, suffered greatly for their religion. 

But that was then; this is now. 

Things now are very different in modern, developed Western societies such as the USA and its vassal nations of UK, Europe etc. 

All Western and West-affiliated/ dominated states are secular - without any exceptions. 

And this secular perspective goes far deeper than constitutional factors: non-religious assumptions are fundamental and functional. Bureaucracy and mass media - which are everywhere in all modern states - are not just areligious, but are innately (and increasingly) anti-religious.   

Nowadays people are evidently-not primarily motivated by religion. Indeed (think of 2020) their religious practice almost invariably follows and reflects their atheist-materialist ideology.

The mainstream churches of all denominations and factions; are just "a lifestyle option" located within the all-pervading secular-leftism  

Ideology - not religion - drives motivation; and ideology is a product of the totalitarian state and its apparatus of bureaucracy, media, law, education, science, arts, military etc. 

This hegemonic Western ideology is negatively motivated (by sins such as fear, resentment, despair); the ideology is therefore both incoherent and destructive in its ultimate basis, as well as its proximate effects. 

This is reflected in the nature of modern drone and missile distance warfare; in which attack is much easier than defence - indeed, in which effective defence is all-but impossible to sustain.

By its technical nature, such warfare is primarily destructive; and the destructive effect is enormously amplified by the ultra-complex and unavoidable inter-dependencies of modern developed societies.  

In one word: modern warfare is primary spiteful in motivation. 

It is mainly concerned with the infliction of destruction of social and economic systems; with deliberate environmental destruction; with infliction of suffering and death on humans, animals, plants. 

Modern warfare is the material expression of our spiritual nihilism.  

Religions and churches in the West 2026 are almost-entirely assimilated as components of a top-down global totalitarian state; which for more than half a century has propagated a negative/ inverted ideology and morality of opposition. 

And this is so grossly obvious, so widely observed and measured, so wearisomely-often discussed and analysed; that it ought-to-be instantly obvious that the currently-circulating notion of the present war being religiously motivated is ridiculous nonsense.

Indeed, the idea that modern West-initiated wars are religiously-motivated - the idea that modern Americans would go to war for their religion is crazy! 

And that these fanatical "Christian" (or Judeo-Christian) religionists are actually imposing religious geopolitical priorities... 

Well... such beliefs are so utterly idiotic that they should be immediately be recognized as PSYOPS of those Agents of Chaos who increasingly dominate within the Global Establishment. 

But on the contrary - such tactics work... 

There are those not-Christians who simply accept the evil-nonsense because it confirms their own biases against Christians. 

There are those Christians who accept the evil-nonsense because it confirms their own biases against evangelicals.

There are those religionists who accept the evil-nonsense because it creates an excuse for indulging their spiteful and destructive biases against other religions, ethnicities, nations. 

(Religion is convenient excuse and religious motivation - although too feeble to overcome secualr ideology - is nonetheless  

There are those who expend thousands of words on analysing the extent to which the PSYOP is true, and the extent to which it is not; the extent to which all this is a product of deficits in theology; and then making complex, nuanced recommendations concerning what to do next about things (which will of course be ignored).  

This in itself is evidence of the way in which - in this innately entropic world, that is also in 2026 dominated and pervaded by the powers of purposive evil - destruction is much easier than creation. 

A small effort by intel-ops who (presumably) constructed and placed the concept of a modern Western religious war - has led to a very large socially destructive, psychologically negative, consequence. 

Things now are just all too easy for the powers of evil, because of the extent and consequences of spiritual corruption in the world mass populations.

"They" merely need to pull at a string; and en masse "we" reliably panic, rant, dance... and destroy. 

   

Why are the totalitarian Establishment spreading predictions of "C.W." (= INAC: intra-national aggressive-conflict)

Some very high-up members of the totalitarian Establishment have recently been seeding the mainstream mass media with predictions and warnings of "C.W." - in the UK, especially.

(I will here term C.W. as INAC - meaning intra-national aggressive conflict; if you know what I am getting-at.) 

Clearly, INAC predictions coming from the Establishment are not the consequence of truth-seeking analysis or altruistic concern; but are instead some kind of an incitement and manipulation. 

So, what's going-on? 

My best guess is that this is part of the leadership-struggle and C.W. afoot within and among the Establishment - that between servants of two-kinds of evil agenda*. 

...The C.W between the bureaucratic totalitarians, who want a world of omni-survelliance and micro-control (and who reached the peak of their power globally, in early 2020); and the rising "Agents of Chaos (AOC)" - who are motivated by a spiteful desire to induce suffering and destruction.

I regard recent INAC predictions and "warnings" as a signal from the totalitarians to the Agents of Chaos, that the Establishment is ready, willing and keen to crush the AoC (and their minions) by coordinated force. 

In other words; that the "soft" totalitarianism of propaganda, bribery and demoralization (which has grown over the past half century to dominate the West; is preparing (if "necessary") to revert to old style, "hard", mid-20th century, coercive dictatorship. 

At least I think that is the intent. 

But materialist-atheistic-Leftism cannot force their genie of hedonic-despair back into its bottle. 

The actuality is that the 20th century dictatorship is no possible anymore, due to major changes in (especially Western) nations and their peoples; and the attempt to re-introduce it will instead play directly into the agenda of the Agents of Chaos. 

In other words, any approach towards INAC will fail to restore totalitarian-order; but will instead do the opposite - by fuelling the motivations of spiteful destructiveness on a widening scale. 

The totalitarian era is past - because of the nature of materialist-atheist-Leftism; which has been undermining and degrading its basis for many decades; so that our societies are not just deeply dysfunctional in multiple domains...

But also, at the level of individual people - as well as institutionally, have destroyed the basis for coordinated and long-termist action.

Instead; the mood in the West is one of self-hatred and civilizational suicide - and the strongest motivations are immediate-term, oppositional and negative - and this equally applies to whatever agencies (including military and police, law and administrative) by which it is indented that order be restored.  

Unfortunately, the masses (you and me, and those we care about) will as always be the primary victims of any intra-Establishment C.W. 

Yet, after all, that was an implicit inevitability, after Western civilization chose to reject and deny all possibility of purpose and meaning in life - in order to pursue our dreams of short-term material and sexual gratifications without being trammelled by divine considerations. 

My take home message is that we all ought to remember that the Establishment (both sides) and its mainstream media are not providing honest information or wise guidance for our benefit - but are trying to manipulate our psychology for their own ends. 

*Note added: The fracture lines interestingly revealed by the location of proposed violent conflict - intra-national or inter-national. Thus, the totalitarians are playing with the idea of INAC; while the AoCs have been pushing to expand and escalate WWIII on multiple fronts - especially since 2022. I guess that each side hopes that their favoured conflict will act to prevent the other - i.e. that inter-national conflict will be too urgent and demanding, to allow INAC on one side; or that intra-national conflict will weaken countries too much for them to engage in significant and long-term external combat. 

Whatever happened to the power of Public Opinion? The dwindling of the Group Mind

It has often been noticed in recent years - since the 1960s at least, and ever-increasingly - that the ruling class of Britain (and other Western nations) almost-completely ignore mass public opinion. 

There are many instances, of rulers completely ignoring what the public think - indeed it is so normal that any exceptions are astonishing and short-lived. A couple of big examples are that the death penalty was abolished despite large majority support; while mass immigration was introduced, escalated hugely, and still continues to grow - despite large majority opposition. 

As a strong generalization - it doesn't matter what ordinary people think: the ruling class do whatever they want to do; and when met by any significant disagreement - mass opposition is strategically and rapidly neutralized (indeed demonized) by media propaganda; and coordinated totalitarian action of all major organizations, corporations and other social institutions.  

But reading sources from the past it is clear that Public Opinion was a used to be (eg. in the 18th and 19th centuries) real and strong factor in government; to the point that the ruling class took it into account in their governance. 

They apparently felt that they had to. 

Public Opinion was indeed a much stronger factor in government before mass voting (aka "democracy") than since. 

My explanation is that this is a consequence of the change in human consciousness - i.e. the transformation from a groupish mode of consciousness, in which there existed a "group mind" - diminishing towards the alienated separation of consciousness of people today. 

In other worlds, Public Opinion was referencing the Group Mind of the nation; and the leadership class, to some significant degree, in the past themselves participated in this Group Mind. 

This meant that the governance of Britain was influenced by the Group Mind, in ways that were spontaneous and often unconscious. 

Nowadays, after the Group Mind has withered to feebleness or indeed absence, the masses are no longer unconsciously united; and the ruling class are psychologically (and spiritually) completely detached from Public Opinion...

To the extent that they either regard it as unreal nonsense - or else they understand Public Opinion merely to be a product of the ruling classes own totalitarian psychological manipulations. 

What I think has happened is that Public Opinion has ceased to be spontaneous and unconscious; but a Group Mind can (in principle) be recreated consciously, voluntarily and by choice. 

The Ruling Class have, indeed, done this by means of their ideology of atheist/ materialist/ leftism - which is to say; by the ruling class having united in taking the side of purposive spiritual evil in this world...

Which is a negative agenda of destruction: of persons, nations, nature, and ultimately the aimed-at destruction of divine creation in all its manifestations. 

This choice of evil provides a "spiritual linkage" between individuals of the ruling class - that lends them cohesion and strength of motivation. 

A significant source of the strength of the Ruling Class is indeed this Group Mind on the side of supernatural evil. 

If the masses are to oppose this Group Mind of evil; they (we) need consciously, voluntarily and by choice to choose the side of Good, of Divine Creation: of God and the salvation of Jesus Christ. 

Insofar as this can be done - even by as few as "two or three" (who do not even need to be geographically "gathered together") - then the ruling class Group Mind in service to Satan may effectively and spiritually be opposed by both individual and group minds who are committed to the side of God and Creation. 

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. 

"AI" is strategically about destruction, not control - Francis Berger's post, Laeth's comment

Following an insightful post on "AI" by Francis Berger; in the comments, Laeth produced a simple and convincing re-conceptualization of what lies behind this global strategy 

I have edited this excerpt. 

Ahrimanic refers to a type of totalitarian/ bureaucratic/ systemic evil, that is materialistic in assumptions and seeks omni-surveillance and thought control. Sorathic refers to a more advanced, negative, and purely-destructive evil; that is motivated a spiteful hatred of humans, life, and all manifestations of divine creation.

**

(Laeth's comment, edited)...

When all this started my intuition was that the diabolic element here was mostly Ahrimanic, that is, the objective was pure control. 

But more and more I think I was wrong about this (even if Ahrimanic forces were channelled to bring it to fruition). 

It seems more likely to me now that 'AI' is actually pure Sorathic envious evil. A big fraud at all levels that won't really even be useful for control, only to debase and destroy everything - from its enormous consumption of earthly energy for its functioning to the consumption of human energy from the engagement of people. An all consuming strategy, really. 

I try to avoid even seeing anything of AI or about it. I even try to avoid speaking too much against it, because I fear that too is me being sucked into its web. But it's now impossible to not find it: it's everywhere. Even normal, (and older) people, have started to talk about it (and in the exact terms the system wants them to). 

Yet even my tangential acquaintance with AI is enough to see that it's terrible at its purported higher objectives. It will just jumble up things with no direction, no purpose and no coherence - and any minimally intelligent person can understand that it's all nonsense. it cannot 'manage' anything. 

If given any power to manage a system, AI will just run it to the ground'; and I see now that that it its goal. To destroy any possibility of management, while consuming every possible resource that could be used to correct it. 

I think Ahriman was tricked too, in other words. Full Sorathic destruction is its only route and possibility of it.

**

My Comment: This immediately struck me as correct. 

The globalist totalitarian Establishment who sustain "The System" is being lied-to and tricked-into the Trillions-Dollar-Project of AI, by demonic beings whose purpose includes the destruction of The System. 

Once pointed-out (but it needed pointing out!), the strategy seems clear. 

Because (given the actuality of AI, of what it is, of how it works) this is the only possible outcome of widespread usage of, and therefore inevitable dependence upon, so-called AI. 

AI is a kind of mind virus that has been introduced into the consciousness of managers, at almost every level - from national and multi-national leaders down to the multitudes of middling-myrmidons. 

In the immediate short-term, all the institutional incentives are lined-up to focus upon introducing and developing and expanding AI - regardless of its effect on institutional functionality. 

But in the medium to long term; AI will destroy management itself, in a very direct fashion; along with institutional functionality. 

So the mind virus of AI functions like an addictive drug that rewards its user by short-term euphoria, at the cost of actively killing the user. 

My reading of Western social trends is that the Sorathic agenda has been gaining ground since the summer of 2020; when the Ahrimanic-totalitarian global triumph of the Birdemic coup (with its international lockdowns); began to yield to the intrinsically socially destructive policies of combining multivalent institutional antiracism with a renewal and acceleration of mass immigration. 

Since 2020; the Sorathic destructive agenda has been doubled-down-on by those who control the Western leadership class. Especially, it has caused/ sustained/ escalated war in Eastern Europe; then rolled-out to the Middle East; now (being attempted) in South Asia (also elsewhere). 

All this gratuitous and self-annihilating destruction (eg "sanctions" that damage the sanctioner more than the sanctioned!) is "sold" to the managerial classes of the world as assisting their globalist totalitarian goals (Great Reset, Agenda 2030 etc.). 

They are told that inducing societal chaos will create a desire for order, and thereby facilitate a further coup (on-top-of the successful early-2020 Birdemic coup) to enable a stable and lasting dictatorship of the Left.

Yet this was never possible; because the materialist Leftist ideology of the totalitarians is intrinsically negative, oppositional, hence destructive. 

Even in its earliest and partly-good manifestations; Leftism always had Sorathic evil as its Secret Master. This canker of the heart was evident in that, whenever totalitarian control was (briefly) established, it was inevitably followed by accelerating disorder and destruction.      

 

While there is an almost irresistible Schadenfreude induced by watching the managerial state enthusiastically implementing that self-destruct button which is AI; observers need to be mindful that evil does not cancel-out. 

As totalitarianism is destroyed by spiteful sadism, the process yields no increase in net-good in the world. 

Good comes from recognizing what is going on in the spiritual war of this world; rejecting it inwardly (i.e. repenting our complicity); and then spiritually affiliating to God and divine creation - by following Jesus Christ to that salvation which is resurrected eternal Heavenly Life. 

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. 

  

Systemic social problems - the implicit utopianism of the Left and the implicit selfishness of the Right

In any possible and realistically-imaginable society in this mortal life on earth, there will be situations and people who are having an absolutely and/or relatively miserable time of it. 

This may be due to the necessity for "dirty work" - or it may be due to all manner of negative aspects of any system. Because no matter how overall-optimal a system of society may be, it will be imperfect; it will include groups and/or individuals who are less favoured at least - and usually groups/ individuals who are systematically dis-favoured. 

By my understanding, Leftism began in the late 1700s with movements such as abolition and pacifism; and gathered strength through the 1800s with many varieties of socialism; before developing the current New Left-ism - sexual politics such as feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, transhumanism etc - to dominate from the later 1960s. 

Early Leftism was often explicitly utopian - positing an ideal society that was sometimes claiming to be a possible paradise; even if not quite "Heaven on earth". 

In recent decades Leftism has abandoned explicit utopianism, but retains a wholly-implicit, never stated, assumption of the perfectibility of human society; from which stance proceeds its critique of any degree of absolute or relative inequality, or suffering. 

In other words, Leftism is rooted in a denial of the systematic imperfection of all possible human societies; which is why Leftism is insatiable, and leads to the state of "permanent revolution" that has prevailed over the past six decades.

All problems that the Left focuses upon are always regarded as systemic and requiring systemic change; then, because all possible systems have problems - the Left  

To take racism in the USA as an example; at first the focus was upon laws and practices that excluded or disadvantaged, so that opposite "affirmative action" laws were introduced. The focus then shifted to unequal outcomes; so that quotas were introduced. Then the focus shifted to individuals' subjective feelings of oppression, disrespect, neglect etc ("micro-aggressions"). Then to a requirement for positive acts of group affirmation, admiration, celebration. 

And so forth. 

What all of these imply without ever stating; is than any degree of imperfection in a social system is intolerable and ought to lead to system change - with the unstated assumption that this will lead towards a perfect system where no such problems will occur. 

This strong assumption of perfectibility would probably be denied; yet there is always an assumption that things can and will be improved overall by each proposed or actual system change; and that there is no limit to such improvability. 

Such assumptions and denials inevitably lead to systematic dishonesty, which has been such a major feature of Western social development over the past several decades; until here-and-now those with power think and behave wholly manipulatively with respect to their implicit Left-agenda; and are "not even trying" to be honest about anything.   

I regard this implicit assumption of societal perfectibility as an almost inevitable consequence of the atheistic this-worldly materialism of Western Societies; in certain personality types. I am thinking of those people who regard suffering as the main human problem; or who judge a society on how it treats what they regard as its most "disadvantaged" members. These are the Leftists, and are in practice systematically dishonest. 

Other atheistic this-worldly materialists are less concerned about suffering; and more interested in optimizing peace, prosperity, comfort, convenience, and gratification. These are those who regard themselves as on "the Right". They accept the inevitability of imperfection and the necessity for compromise in systems - but disagree among themselves on what social system is optimal, and/or how to attain it. In practice, Rightists are systematically selfish - i.e. favouring a social system that they believe favours themselves (+/- favouring people like themselves). 

As I see it; the only alternative is to adopt a Christian not atheist, spiritual not materialist, and Heaven-focused not this-world-focused, perspective on all possible social systems. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The difference between Old and New Left is therefore profound. 

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

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

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

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

This explains A Lot...

 

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

This is a faithless age: the Big Problem is the apostates, not the religious

However it may have been in earlier eras, nowadays and for several generations the problem of evil is one of apostates, not the religious. 

This seems so obvious that I am surprised it needs saying, let alone arguing - but it does. 

Both atheists and the traditionalist-orthodox Christians are very keen to pin the blame for "the world, now" on religion: 

The atheists blame religion-per-se - as when they say that the cause of most wars, or cruelty, is "religion". 

While among the religious the blame is fixed upon some-other-religion (usually one or both of the major monotheisms), or else on heretics of their own denomination (e.g. for Roman Catholics - Protestantism, and vice versa - or some particular variant such as Mormonism).  

But a little thought and attention would reveal that nearly always the grouping who support and promote evil are apostates - either those who have explicitly abandoned their religion, those en route to abandonment; or those whose religion is superficial and feeble, and whose affiliation is essentially non-religious (i.e. to race, ethnicity, nation etc).  

I am not-at-all saying that "religion" (in general or particular) is blameless for evil in the world today; but that this is a faithless age in which the religious conviction, hence impulse, is weaker than at any point in world history.   

Religious explanations of the present evil are therefore secondary and relatively superficial.  

NOTE: I do not regard Satanism as A Religion, since it is opposition to God and divine creation. To take the side of the devil and demons is very common, and near-universal among the Western/ Globalist ruling classes - but this is a negative definition. Evil is ultimately opposed to all religion, although evil will expediently use any religion - as it will use any ideology but especially that of Leftism - to oppose God and creation. 

Evil is a preference: a choice - and so is Good (contra- or pro-creation)

Many Christians have for many centuries wanted to be able to argue that evil was an insane unjustifiable irrationality. That it made no sense. That the only thing which did make sense was to live in obedience, and conform to the single reality that is God's creation - in the strongest possible sense that there is nothing else but God's creation. So, to be evil is to reject the only reality. 

One important half-truth behind the "relativistic" ideology of the dominant West-Globalist secular Leftism, relates to its rejection of this traditional "objective" Western Christian conceptualization of good and evil as reality versus anti-reality. 

For traditional Christianity - as (I understand) for Judaism and Islam - Good was theologically conceptualized as bound-up with God as the sole source of creation (God created everything from nothing); therefore Evil was conceptualized as objectively irrational, because it is against everything. 

Good was therefore conceptualized primarily in terms of conformity to God. 

With this scheme, there was no positive role for Man's freedom and agency except to submit to the divine order; because there is nothing except the divine order. 

There is only one coherent choice for each Man, for each Beings, in such a scheme - which is to choose allegiance to God - thus all evil is necessarily incoherent and insane*. 

Against this the false-half-truth ideology of secular Leftism proposes some version of "relativism", of the non-objectivity of values -- which is calibrated against the bottom line "hedonic" assumption that mortal life is the only life, and that the values of mortal life are therefore (merely) means towards the end of maximizing happiness and/or minimizing suffering. 

In other words, by this account, truth is whatever happens to make me most happy (or those I care about) over some timescale that I prefer - whether immediate happiness, or some kind of predictive happiness ranged over some future span. 

The more recent conceptualization that swaps happiness for the double negative-freedom-from-suffering , works the same way. Truth is just expediency with respect to minimizing suffering on a timescale from now, to some variably longer span. 

But relativism is itself incoherent for many reasons, as has been known since antiquity. It has no basis for asserting its own validity. 

And, after all, why is it assumed to be better to experience happiness and avoid suffering? Supposing I, or somebody else, says the opposite - then that is as true or untrue; and the choice between inverses depends on some utilitarian prediction of the consequences. In practice it is facile to argue that suffering now leads to happiness later - or the opposite; and the wrangling never stops unless coercively imposed!

If there are no objective values and all opinions are equally valid; then this assumption, and all other values, can be inverted - for any reason, or for no reason.

Yet relativism - in a soft and short-termist sense - clearly has some kind of powerful and lasting appeal when measured (as it is) against the "traditional Christian" version of values as objective, impersonal, and therefore a matter of submissive obedience to what is asserted to be the nature of reality. 

I think the element of truth in relativism is embedded in an individual intuition that a moral system which utterly downgrades "my" individual conscious human to (near-) irrelevance, cannot be right. 

When morality is made utterly objective, nothing to do with me - it becomes simple tyranny. 

Surely real, spiritually-compelling, mortality must be something that is in each of us, from each of us - and not just a thing "out there"? 

Surely we must be able to choose our values, or else they aren't values? 

And surely our choice depends on what each of us is by nature and wants most; on what each of us regards as good - and surely this is the primary moral act? 

We are confronted by reality - and (on the basis of our specific personal nature) we must and shall choose what will be our overall attitude to that reality?  

From this perspective, good does not feel like a wholly external reality, and evil does not feel irrational or incoherent; but both and either a choice rooted in what we personally most want among various possibilities. 

Then; whether we want it here-and-now, or want it in the long-term (a long-term that potentially might extend to eternity).  

So - In mainstream culture, we are apparently confronted with two incoherent and therefore false alternatives: the "Christian" supposedly being an objective and impersonal morality in which individual discernment has no positive function. 

Or there is a nihilistic fatalism where there are no values, but only an unbounded choices between arbitrary individual preferences - presumably based on the fluctuations of current feelings and emotions. In practice, the choice between-relativistic moralities seems to hinge on relative differences in the power to coerce and deceive, desire to belong to particular groups, and the like.    

My conclusion is that both alternatives should be rejected because incoherent hence false; and the truth needs to be sought in some other scheme of things. 

The truth embedded in relativism is that it is possible, rational and coherent that some people (and other beings) can and would choose to reject God and divine creation; would choose Not to affiliate to God's hopes and plans. 

And that rejection is the essence of evil. 

This rejection is a choice rooted in the fact that although we all are created Beings, are indeed Children of God; we are not entirely so - and we each and all "contain" aspects of that primordial self from-which we were created - and these primordial selves are each unique. 

Some primordial selves are less able (or perhaps unable) to love, or maybe the love is present but very weak and a low priority compared with other desires. 

Therefore, when confronted by God's creation which is rooted in love and aims at a reality of love; there are some beings who reject that vision - and who are therefore evil.

(So, I am defining good and evil by either affiliation to God's creative will and plans - rooted in love - or else the active rejection of that, for any reason. 

(There is also, I believe, a theoretical possibility of a wholly passive and personal declining to join the work of creation - a simple opting-out; without any attack on creation or any attempt to persuade others to reject God. Just a cosmic "no thanks" and a reversion to unconscious unawareness in isolation. If this happened, we would not know anything about it except that a being would "disappear" from creation.) 

As I said, some Christians (and others) want to be able to state that this rejection is incoherent, irrational, illogical - and that evil is objectively-impersonally wrong. 

They want to say that evil is: Just wrong without reference to any consciousness of any Being. 

But I would say that the objectivity of the wrongness of evil derives from the fact that by rejecting actual divine creation rooted in love, an evil Being ultimately places itself against creation as such. 

To be against creation is not relativistic; it is an objective fact about a Being's relationship with God and divine creation. 

Thus values are not subjective, nor are they objective - values are about a relationship. 

Evil is not a "mistake" of itself; but is a choice. There may be a mistake in terms of an evil Being wrongly predicting the consequences of rejecting God, rejecting love, rejecting creation...

But the error is not a logical one. Its more a matter of getting what you asked for, but not liking it when you've got it. 

*(Why it is possible for Men, or anything, to reject the divine order? If the theology says that such a choice is incomprehensibly insane, then where could this desire comes from in the first place except from God Himself?  This logical incoherence has never been clearly explained; and indeed it cannot be made coherent. Because because if God created absolutely everything that exists, then the desire to resist God must ultimately have been created by God Himself - as must all evil. Saying that God gave men Free Will does not answer this - because agency can only operate using the materials provided by God, which must mean that God made the evil in the first place, for evil to be choose-able. Yet for Christians, specifically, God is known and said to be wholly Good - so how (for a Christian) could a wholly good God provide evil for free will to be choose-able? My answer (in brief) is that God is wholly Good, and did not make evil - because God did Not make everything from nothing; but instead created using pre-existent Beings; some/most/ all of whom were capable of evil by their primordial nature. Thus evil has always been present in reality - and God is creatively working towards Goodness.) 

The weakening power of ritual; means that rituals can nowadays reliably induce evil, but not good

In the past, say High Medieval times, the performance of a ritual had an "objective" effect: that is, the participation in a ritual powerfully (and uniformly) made the participants think alike, be motivated alike etc. 

Participants would conform to ritual.

The external passed into the internal. 

Nowadays human consciousness has changed, such that the power of ritual has weakened greatly, or even ceased to operate; and ritual no longer works in an objective (almost irresistible) manner. 

What matters most now (at least in a positive sense, see below) is the internal - and the external is secondary.

Thus; an outward ritual may help, or may hinder, an intended internal state; but the ritual does not "compel" the mind, in the strong way it used to. 

One implication is that, because of the greater ease of destruction than creation, ritual continues to be pretty effective in a destructive way - but not in a positive, Christian way. 

So, while church rituals are feeble in effect; the rituals of leftism (e.g. the "training" in feminism, antiracism, diversity etc.), which employees are compelled to participate-in, do have some reliable negative and destructive effect on the participants. 

This; simply because it is much easier to encourage sin than virtue: even rather feeble external stimuli (images, songs, slogans) can objectively encourage sin. 

Likewise the coerced rituals of the birdemic succeeded in creating (the sin of) fear at a mass level; but it would not be possible to use these same propaganda and manipulation methods to en-courage people; that is, propaganda cannot, anymore, fill people with courage, or other virtues.

H/T A comment by Skarp-hedin. 

Explaining the intractable stupidity of the masses

There is a meaning of stupid that refers to the inability to take-in and understand what is happening; and that is the way in which the masses are stupid in the modern Western world. Intractably stupid. Their inability to learn from repeated experience is apparently infinite. 

The correct explanation for intractable stupidity is not what is usually put forward: the relevant stupidity has almost nothing to do with propaganda and censorship of information. 

People can have access to sufficient relevant facts, and true-enough theories to explain them - but remain utterly stupid; because they cannot generalize from one situation to another, from one day to the next. 

Anybody who needs every specific situation, every time something happens, re-explaining - is stupid; or, at any rate, stupid in the meaning I'm using here.  

People, ordinary people, The Masses - even servants, serfs and slaves - were not stupid in the past like they are stupid now; despite that they were uneducated, illiterate, and had very little information or explanation. 

(Indeed, their ignorance was an indomitable last line of defence.) 

One difference is that they (in the past) were able and willing to think for themselves - and no matter how ignorant and uneducated they were, this set a limit to how much and how often they could be deceived. There was a very basic, survival-orientated "peasant cunning" or common sense that stood in the path of the masses accepting anything and everything, when it impinged directly upon their lives and immediate surroundings. 

And in the past (almost-) everybody was religious; which meant they had a larger, more coherent and more extended understanding of reality than the modern masses. The meaning of life in the past extended beyond emotions to the divine; whereas for Modern Man feelings are the bottom-line of what we acknowledge to be reality. 

(Including "facts" - because it is our feelings about a fact that actually decide whether or not a fact is real.) 

As so often, mass stupidity cannot be ameliorated by double-negative methods. 

In other words; because error is infinitely expansible, we cannot solve the problem of error by correcting an ever-increasing multiplicity of errors. 

Falsifying errors (negating negations) is a mug's game - although it provides permanent employment for pundits. 

The answer is, and must be; simple, positive, coherent. 

If each among the masses had a positive and coherent idea of what his life was about, where his life was aimed-at: if he knew what he positively desired in a permanent, eternal sense - then all possible deceptions would (in principle) sooner or later be detectable in terms of their interference with this life goal.

Learning would be possible, because someone who knows where he wants to go and how, can recognize (without needing to be told) who and when others are trying to push him off-course. 

In sum; the modern masses are intractably stupid because they are suffering the mental sickness that is mainstream ideology - those ruling assumptions that include atheism/ materialism/ leftism. 

The good news is that this mental sickness is self-chosen - in the sense of being passively consented-to and then actively defended against refutation. 

And that is also the bad news. 

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. 

  

Spite is all around us; invisible, dominant: the fruit of resentment, fuelled by despair

Spite, spitefulness is a strong candidate for The Worst Sin (I've blogged on this often). 

Another word for (aspects of) spite is Schadenfreude - but this is more often treated as an amusing foible, trivialized; than recognized as among the worst of evils. 

Surely we can all, if honest, recognize in ourselves (and infer in others) this most evil of evils: a desire to harm others, to make others suffer: a motivation that will, at extremes, risk or sacrifice even oneself? 

Surely we have all felt an arising impulse that responds to awareness of happiness, beauty, moral decency, honesty in other people or the world around us... with an impulse of hatred, the urge to destroy it, to smash it. 

We observe perfection; and then a stab of desire to mar that perfection. The urge may even be yielded to, when "harmless" - as when we see a perfect reflection cast by a still pool of water... And then respond by smashing it to smithereens by hurling a rock into it! 

"Harmless" fun, maybe - a tiny lapse, in the scheme of things; no lasting harm done... Yet if we examine the motivations for such everyday (trivial) destructions, we may (if honest) find spite at the root of it.

Likewise for our actions against others. These may be rationalized as necessary, or because "he deserves it"; but at root, the motivation may be spiteful: "I want to see him suffer".  

Most people, most of the time, squash such vile feelings in themselves (and certainly try to forget them) - but surely we have all experienced them? 

And - if we have any insight or capacity to reflect - seen this in other people (including the best people, at times; including those we love the most), and perhaps been at the receiving end of it? 

People who cause trouble among groups of friends - break-up friendships, relationships, even marriages; who spread malicious rumours, mislead, misreport, life; who engage in "he said, she said" betrayals. 

And surely we have at least thought about doing such things ourselves?  

Spite is ignoble, it is despicable - but it is real.

It is found to some degree in almost everybody, and it is the master sin ruling some people (and many demons). It is seen all through human history, and all around us - yet, spite is hardly acknowledged. 

(Except, maybe, in stories about youngish children! Enid Blyton often included spiteful characters, named as such, in her stories - which is how I first put a name to it.)

It is regarded as more sophisticated and pseudo-intelligent to analyse spite in terms of other motivations - especially disguised forms of self-interest. So, the harming of B by A is likely to be described in terms of how harming B benefits A (perhaps indirectly, or over the long-term). 

But the point is not whether spite can be explained-away - Of Course it can! 

The point is to to Ask The Question. Is this spite?

We absolutely need to know whether whether spite is the real motivator behind behaviour; because if it is, then such behaviour cannot be appeased by fulfilling self-interest. 

And, like most sins, spite feeds on its own gratification. When infliction of harm brings gratification, then the infliction of more harm to more targets will probably follow.    

Spite cannot be bought-off. Spite will not be satisfied by less than suffering and destruction. 

Thus when spite is explained-away - this merely allows for the undetected and more effective deployment of more spite. 

And spite is a natural product of the besetting modern sin of resentment - with the dominant ideology of The West being the creation, encouragement, subsidy and protection of ever-more "resentment groups" defined in terms of class, sex, race, sexuality or... whatever*. 

And (in the West, the developed world) this is a world of despair (whether actual or incipient). Because nearly everybody lives-by the assumptions that reality has no purpose or meaning, and that human life is followed by annihilation. 

With such assumptions; existential despair is normal and rational; such that self-distraction from this (supposed-) reality has become perhaps the primary life goal.    

When we have so many people who fundamentally assume themselves to be victims, and who despair; the ground is prepared for the operations of spite - first directed against those who are most resented (i.e. the supposed "oppressors"); but soon (as the sin takes grip) directed against pretty much anyone who in any way irritates us. 

When the most spite-dominated people are also among the most powerful, wealthy, high status, and influential in the world - then we have.... Well, we have exactly what we see around us in the world of geopolitics, global strategy, and the international and national leadership class. 

This world of "Sorathic evil".  

A world in which anything that is (or seems to be) of-God, or Good; anything apparently manifesting the transcendental values of Truth, Beauty or Virtue. Anything wholesome, innocent, natural, spontaneous, care-free... Any such becomes a prime target for spitefully-motivated attack. 

Yet, up to now, spite is invisible. Trivialized. Explained-away. 

By refusing to recognize the operations of spite in ourselves - failing thereby to acknowledge and to repent its sinful nature; we thereby fail to recognize spite in others. 

So spite can be everywhere, dominant, and increasing - yet we choose to be self-blinkered against perceiving it. 

And until we are aware of spite; the operations of spite cannot be resisted - either in ourselves, or others. 

* Leftism now rules the West and much of the world; and Leftism is a negative, oppositional ideology built upon resentment, and depending upon continuing expansion of resentment. The so-called political "Right" (of all types) is merely a variant of Leftism**. This can be seen in its domination by resentments, but of a different inflexion; typically inversions of mainstream Leftism: e.g. resenting women instead of the Leftist resentment of men, resenting the Left-approved races etc. Of course, such motivating resentment is rationalized and explained-away on quasi-objective grounds - yet the actuality of resentment as prime motivator is sometimes revealed when spite-driven desires or fantasies are expressed; as well as by the relentlessly negative and oppositional focus of Rightist discourse (against, against, AGAINST!). 

**The only alternative to the Left is religion. All secularism, all atheism, all materialism is ultimately Leftist. 

H/T - This was stimulated by a comment from Avro G. 

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? 

The Litmus Tests revisited - or, what do we need to know about some-one/ some-institution?

The Litmus Tests* may seem crude and formulaic as a way of discernment applied to a person or institutions; but in reality they are almost the opposite. 

The Litmus Tests include the birdemic-peck 'healthism' agenda; support of the opponents of the Fire Nation in the ongoing war; antiracism; pro-sexual revolution; CO2 Climate-change/ warming; and any other form of leftism such as socialism, environmentalism, equality, diversity, libertarianism etc. 

The Litmus Tests refer not so much to specific beliefs, but to the core agenda items of the global totalitarian System, which - properly understood, from a Christian perspective - is evil in its intent -- i.e. the dominant System ultimately seeks the damnation of souls; which requires that (in the end) each soul desires and chooses to be damned. 

Therefore, to fail a Litmus Test means to be subordinated - in at least one major aspect, although typically many or most of the tests are failed - to the external ideology of evil. 

When somebody, or some institution, supports one of the Litmus test agenda items; this is evidence of value-inversion; which is evidence that they are self-subordinated to the dominant external agenda. 

In a sense, from the perspective of making an overall evaluation of somebody's (or some organization's) affiliation in the spiritual war of this world; this affiliation tells us all we need to know: Are they on the side of God/ divine creation/ The Good -- or are they opposed? 

Anyone who accepts, defends, follows, actively advances any of the Litmus Tests - has placed his motivations, thinking and actions under external control from those powers who oppose The Good.

This matter of external control is very significant. 

Because the world (here, now) is so pervasively and top-down corrupted by evil; all powerful external influences are evil. 

Therefore; to be externally-motivated - including by any large or mainstream church, of any denomination) is to be a part of the agenda of evil.  

(This is evil. Evil is Not about niceness or good works or devoutness... Evil is about taking the side of Satan against God. Simple as that. One on-the-side-of Good is Good; no matter what his personal sins - because anyone on the side of Good will/ must have repented his sins; will know, acknowledge, and reject his sins. That is what it means to "be Good".)

Such is the nature of Litmus Tests: they function as an index of whether some person or group has chosen subordination to fundamental, ultimate, external control. 

As of here-and-now; only one who seriously seeks to detach himself from external control can be on the side of God, divine creation and The Good. 

Such a detached person may Not be on the Good side - because he might choose evil from his own inner motivations; but only a detached person can affiliate to Good. 

In our totalitarian and media-saturated world; only inner evaluation and motivation can be a source of commitment to the motivation of Goodness. 

We are Good as individuals - from our inner choices - or not-at-all. 

Affiliation to any external authority is to subscribe to one, more, or many of the negative, incoherent, and oppositional Litmus Tests; and this represents a decisive affiliation to the work of Satan. 

Note added: It should not really be necessary to say so; but maybe it needs saying anyway: that the state of someone's soul now - e.g. affiliation to the Satanic agenda, as evidenced by Litmus Test failure - does not mean that they will choose damnation at the last. Indeed; I think it almost certain that an individual person is only sustained alive for as long as he is judged capable of repentance; which means that where there is life there is hope. However; the same does not necessarily apply to institutions/ groups/ corporations - including churches. Whereas there are many (including recent) examples of individual persons (and, presumably, other Beings) who seem very likely to have repented and chosen salvation despite previous servitude to evil - and done so very late, very near to death; there seem to be none among recent institutions. This may be because the kind of corruption that afflicts most modern institutions is one that excludes the ultimacy of the kind of "presiding spiritual Being" that used-to stand-behind traditional institutions (variously conceptualized as patron saints, angels, and the like). I would guess that so long as there is a presiding spiritual Being, then repentance is possible. But when there has been a hollowing-out, bureaucritization, self-subordination of an institution to external influences, then there can be no basis for repentance. 

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.

When motivations are double-negative, the world cannot help but be a nasty place

I am sometimes astonished by people's blindness to the obvious fact that their whole lives are based on double-negative motivations; and that therefore they can only motivate themselves to get-through life, by maintaining a continuous state of frothing anger and seething resentment...

And then they develop a scheme of inverted values by-which this state of angry resentment is regarded as right, proper, praiseworthy!

Of course; in this totalitarian-secular world, where all major institutions are left-affiliated - double-negativity is inevitable, since that is the basis and nature of leftism. 

But, sadly, a great deal of Christianity (as well as other religions) is also mostly negative and oppositional in its theology, hence its motivations. 

So we are all surrounded by encouragements to base our lives on negativity, on oppositions; and to value only this...

What eventuates is a public, social, political, media world in a waxing-and-waning (but never-ending) frenzy of opposition to... something or another (mostly or wholly made-up, invented, manipulated)...

And this being resisted and opposed by Christians on a point-by-point basis; such that the end-result is a Christianity of triple-negation! 

(That is, group Christian life substantially consists of Christians opposing the secular-leftists, who are themselves motivated by one or many of the oppositional leftist ideologies such as socialism, feminism, racism, climate change, healthism, anti-Fire-Nationism...)

And public discourse is consequently oppositional in nature - consisting of ginning-up personal disputes, and escalating the interpersonal rhetoric; presumably in an attempt at avoiding self-awareness of the sheer flimsiness, feebleness and radical incoherence of one's own motivations.

This has been going-on for more than three decades even in science, and for more than sixty years in general culture; and so most people know nothing different. They apparently imagine that such spiteful scapegoating and schoolboy scrapping always has been the underlying nature of discourse on ideas, morality and the purpose of life. 

In such a world; a serious Christian who engages in public discourse will be corrupted by the process - one way or another: either by its becoming a demonstration of ritualized submission of Christianity to leftism; or else by him being dragged into the melee of name-calling, face-scratching and hair-pulling enacted as spectacle in front of a contrived media-cheerleading audience and its dopey addicts. 

Luckily for Christians, none of this is necessary. The powers of evil are very concerned to distract Christians from, or to deny, the spiritual power and effectiveness of the single soul. Very concerned to corral and corrupt the single soul, by insisting Christianity is only valid when engaged in group or corporate activity.  

Yet, on the contrary; any individual who achieves clarity in his thinking, clarifies thinking for Mankind. Any Man who is well-motivated, even for ten minutes!, creates a positive spiritual template for others. Someone that seeks and attains guidance from his real-divine self or from the Holy Ghost, makes it easier for this to be repeated by himself and others. 

All true thinking makes possibilities and alters the balance of powers. 

Why? Because although our experience is one of alienated consciousness and solitude, the fact is that all Men are spiritually 'linked' in vital respects - or, more exactly, Men share in a condition of inhabiting a "spiritual thought-world" - a world of mutual knowing and interactions.

Ancient tribal Men knew this innately - and lived by it; and we each personally spontaneously used-to know this as young children - we knew that some of our thoughts could be known by others, and that we could know the thinking of others; that we were never alone, that our dreams and thoughts potentially affected the world for better, or worse. 

CG Jung got it partly-right but distorted, with the Collective Unconscious - his basic point that we inhabit a kind of spiritual underworld was correct; and that this accounts for the very possibility of communication and knowledge.  

The personal is political; but not by material means (as leftists suppose) but because 'the spiritual' is public - potentially.  

In 'making the world a better place', or indeed in helping a neighbour; it is not just that we don't need to use the material mechanisms of human society - but that these mechanisms thwart betterment, and twist it to evil ends. 

The only proper reason for public discourse (like this!) is insofar as it contributes towards personal clarity and strengthens positive motivations. 

That work is done by the spiritual act of composition; as the benefit of thinking is done by the spiritual act of having right-thoughts. The achievement is at that point - and not by the later possibility of its physical spread and 'influence' of words, images, concepts...

We really do not need to worry about access to media or the levers of power; about accuracy or misrepresentation; about communication, about persuasion, about winning (fake) arguments! 

(Indeed we must not worry about such things - because such things work precisely by the corrosive effect of such worry. Worry about the material manifestation of communications is therefore a sin, that requires to be recognized and repented. Writers and other public discoursers need to be aware of this, or else the spiritual good of their activity will be undone, and they will be corrupted by their activities: as is so often evident.) 

We 'only' need to take care of our side of things! 

Anything we say that is right and Good will (insofar as it is helpful) be taken-up and woven into ongoing-creation by God. 

Anything we think right; any needful discernment, any repentance or other decision to reject an evil, will have its positive effect on the spiritual world. 

Since Modern man is blind and insensible; Our first and most important job is to become aware: to understand, become conscious, make the right choices and clarify our desire to follow Jesus Christ, for resurrection into Heaven, to live eternally and Sons and Daughter of God. 

Nothing is more important than this, nothing is more effective.

Everything we require for the job is supplied us; nothing else is needed that what we have and can get; and nothing external can stop us from doing the job.