"Everybody is a Leftist Now": Leftist theory is cumulative, because there is no end to the possibility and process of accumulating contradictory oppositions

Leftism is oppositional in its fundamental nature, and over the centuries it has accumulated many oppositions. 

And, once an opposition has become a part of the loose-leaf binder that comprises Leftist "theory" it is never discarded. 

Even when in practice Leftism actively persecutes that which it once had championed. 

Thus; some of the main oppositional themes of Leftism, going back to the late 1700s and up into the 1970s include Abolition of Slavery, Pacifism, Socialism/ Communism, Anti-marriage, Antiracism, Feminism, Environmentalism. 

We can see that in the early phases of each "ism" there was sometimes a genuine net effort to reduce or abolish that to which Leftism was opposed. 

So that the campaign for abolition of slavery began in Britain, and actually abolished slavery (formally defined) starting in Britain and its Empire, and then in more and more places of the world. 

But here and now, Leftism has presided over the re-introduction of slavery to Britain (officially estimated to be in the tens of thousands of slaves, presumably more); as a consequence of Antiracism and the strategy of mass immigration having become more powerful than Abolition within Leftism. 

Yet Leftism has never abandoned theoretical Abolition; even as it actively imports and subsidizes slavers, and protects them from scrutiny and prosecution. 

Or, when Leftism was dominated by Socialism/ Communism, it valorized native working-class men; and probably did something to improve the conditions of this group - or, at least, the mass-unionized sector of this group. 

Nowadays, with the waxing of Antiracism and mass immigration, this group has become perhaps the most demonized in society. 

Yet Leftism still takes a pro-working class stance and advocates Socialist/ Communist policies... in a purely theoretical and rhetorical way. 

A similar plotline could be detected for feminism, environmentalism, and the other oppositional policies. 

Leftism always accumulates in its portfolio, and does not discard. 

Ultimately, everybody has found a place within the always-expanding Big Tent of Leftism, because everybody is opposed to something or another. 

And if individuals or groups can be induced to make that opposition (or a handful of such) central to their motivation, they are brought within Leftism.

Until now Leftism embraces the entirety of official politics (including all conservative, reactionary, republican groupings). 

Including that Leftism contains the would-be anti-Leftist movements (fascism, national-socialism, libertarianism etc); all of which are actually, by their fundamentally oppositional nature, thereby forms-of-Leftism. 

Therefore; Leftism, through time, develops a "rainbow" of incompatible and mutually hostile "concerns" without ever resolving the contradictions - but instead promoting all of them, all of the time. 

Thus Leftism depends absolutely upon permanent dishonesty, total-hypocrisy, and a continual "Orwellian" rhetoric inversion - by which destruction is called creation. 

And all this was made possible, and eventually inevitable, because in a world that denies and excludes the reality of God the creator; then there can be no positive Good. Instead morality itself becomes oppositional; and morality is discussed and measured in utilitarian and psychological terms of gratification versus suffering. 

By ignoring divine purpose and meaning; all discourse and policy will trend to become oppositional to divine creation; all discourse in such a world will therefore be Leftist; and every body (including self-described anti-Leftists) will be a species of Leftist. 

So - Here We Are!

The West (the globalist totalitarian project) is Not "Marxist"

It embarrasses me when anti-Left bloggers use the word "Marxist" to describe modern Western governments and society. 

There are no Marxists in The West now, at least not in politics or public life; and have not been for several decades. 

Indeed; there are in practice no Marxists even among those who proudly embrace the term for themselves! This is evident from what they actually say and actually do: what they make their priorities, and it does not matter to what they merely pay occasional lip-service. 

(Leftism is in its essence incoherent, because oppositional in nature - therefore, in a rhetorical sense, any of its old manifestations may be re-activated at any time, in order to neutralize opposition or garner support for the dominant agenda. Leftists are quite happy to pretend that they still care about the proletariat and will do something effective to help native working men... So long as this does not interfere in any way with their current project - which may be directly opposed to the well-being of the Proletariat; whether this be antiracism, feminism, the Birdemic/ Peck, or currently "AI". Words and promises mean nothing to the ruling Establishment - except as means to manipulate.) 

Marxism was a form of Leftism that had the Economy as its focus; especially economic ownership, and the "distribution" of wealth and/or salaries. 

Economic organization (i.e. nationalization, public ownership) was of great, often central, importance to Marxism. 

And Class was its primary unit of analysis. 

Thus although Marxism was one of the formative ideologies of modern Leftism - so were Abolition, Pacifism, Trades Unionism, Womens' suffrage, and Nonconformist activism (including prohibition). 

However, ancestral influences are not present realities. Long-term incremental evolution eventually makes a qualitative difference.  

In fact: Marxism is long-since dead in The West.

The prevalent and hegemonic Leftism is a post-1960s New Leftism that includes but is not restricted to various mixtures of: antiracism; feminism (i.e. firstly pandering to women, however later favouring some other sexual identities); the sexual revolution (originally advocating promiscuity and divorce, but since continually developing); and CO2-climate-"environmentalism". 

The modern dominant Left is almost entirely uninterested by social class; except where class attitudes are, in practice, inverted: with the "native male proletariat" becoming probably the major demonized group in The West; and globalist finance-billionaires probably the most-influential and admired social grouping - whose strategy conceptualizations statements (especially United Nations Agenda 2030) are fundamental to all Western Establishment strategy. 

The New Left is profoundly uninterested by Nationalization, and indeed the Nation and the people. Indeed- quite the reverse; since international-money vampirizes and discards nations in pursuit of global strategies. 

Accusations of "Marxism" may be evidence of confusion or ignorance on the part of the user; or apparently may be an attempt to discredit a point-of-view,  or sow confusion and weaken opposition. 

But using the word does harm in clouding our understanding of the nature and scope of the Left-themed ideology of dominating globalist totalitarianism.  

Which is why the Marxism-accusation has (much like its inverse "Capitalism") become a hallmark of malign PSYOPS. 

The cause of Your church's destruction, is one manifestation of large-scale causes operating at a civilizational level

People are always trying to explain "the problem" of Christian churches (and indeed all types of church) in terms of some specific malign influence.

This specific problem varies (to the point of being opposite) among analysers. 

One pundit says his church's problem is infiltration by modern/ trendy pressures from "the left" (e.g. pacifism, socialism, feminism, antiracism, inclusivity)...

But another commenter says almost the opposite! That the specific problem with his Christian church is that it is reactionary, "right-wing", out-dated and has failed to adapt to modern cultural conditions. 

At this level of specific causes, opposite sides can both make a reasonable argued case; therefore it seems an endless pseudo-debate, hence futile, to persist with discourse at this specific level.

Furthermore; as well as falsely specific putative causes, analysis almost always focuses on some specific Christian church. 

This is a deeper difficulty, since every devout Christian church member (by definition) regards his own church as unique! So the fact that what afflicts his particular church also afflicts every other Christian church carries no weight with him. 

When a trend of combined mass apostasy, failure of recruitment, corruption of leaders, and non-religious emphasis in church activities is evident in his own church; the fact that the same pattern has been seen in every other denomination and over many decades is regarded as almost irrelevant by the devout church member. 

General experience is not-relevant because "they" are not "us": because all of "them" are wrong, and only "we" are right... 

But to my eye; the overwhelming fact of Christian decline is that all churches are affected in the same way, and in all Western nations, and this trend has been established and accelerating for at least seventy years.  

By seeking specific causes for particular churches, we are clearly missing the crucial point. 

My conclusion is that what is happening to destroy your church, is happening is at a very large scale, and is operating at a civilizational level - which is why no church and no religion is exempt. 

Anti-war pacifists... Then not

I have a low opinion of self-proclaimed anti-war pacifists - especially those who make a big thing of it: the Peace Studies type. 

Although I understand it, and from the inside; because I was that way myself as a young man (for obvious reasons). 

But what really gets me, is how fragile and evanescent is pacifism - no matter how established and entrenched by years of reading the relevant books and magazines, watching the relevant TV plays and movies. 

In 2022 nearly-all these anti-war pacifist upper-middle-class intellectuals, bureaucrats, managers; became fanatically pro-war activists overnight. 

And continuing.  

Why this 180 degrees, instant and effortless, change of "convictions"?  

Apparently, very simply, because they were told to become fanatically pro-war by their favourite politicians, newspapers and especially The BBC. 

That, in a nutshell, illustrates the depth and strength and moral seriousness of decades-long ideological anti-war pacifist convictions - in practice. 

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. 

  

The causes of gratuitous wars

It is fascinating (as well as alarming) to see the British political system, bureaucracy and mass media; combining forces to justify and escalate full war on behalf of a remote and disconnected not-ally - including explicit and repeated demands for re-armament, a war economy, and mass military conscription (something not seen here for some 70 years). 

The same is happening over most of Europe. 

And this has been building-up for nearly two decades; by lies upon lies gradually building-up the image of a necessary cartoon super-villain that "must" be fought - or else we shall all be doomed...

(Or rather, even more doomed than we already are by the nakedly evil plans of our national rulers.) 

There have been many gratuitous wars throughout history. One of the most famous is that described in Shakespeare's Henry V; which is depicted as having been due to an insulting gift of tennis balls! 

Much more likely, the war was proximately due to the multi-generational yearning of England's usurping Norman Kings to rule in their native France - a country they have always (and still do) prefer to what they regard as the uncouth English. 

The tennis ball incident was just an excuse to "justify" something Henry wanted to do - like happened again in WWI and WWII, with their pseudo-altruistic (but not actually done) excuses of saving Belgium, and Poland. 

Plus that the Normans were addicted to war as the supreme form of sport (and they were usually very good at it). 

That kind of motivation doesn't really persist in the West, now; yet the current leadership class of the UK and Europe are very keen to engage their nations in all-out gratuitous war. 

There are similarities between past European wars and this current one; but also there are enormous differences. 

One difference is that current national and regional leaders altogether lack the personal prowess, courage and decisiveness of an heroic character like Henry V. They are, indeed, both pathetic and despicable individuals - and collectively. 

The leadership class has for decades been marinated in a cultural soup of pacifism and suicidal altruism. 

Also the mass populations of the West nowadays are (to put it mildly!) not longer trained for war (no compulsory longbow practice! The military have low status, and do not appear in public in uniforms.) - and have been thoroughly demoralized by atheism, materialism and cultural destruction. 

The Western masses are by now docile, distracted, self-destructive - utterly repelled by the idea of war insofar as they even think about it (which is very little).   

Yet, as so often; the "justification" for such a war is gratuitous, profoundly unnecessary, without any possibility of average-overall national benefit; therefore the "need" for war must be built on long-term, systematic deception and untruthfulness - and lying misrepresentation of the actual purposes. 

What interests me is the different motivations that seem to be operating at different levels of The System. 

At the lower and middle levels (the managerial and intellectual classes); the push for war seems to be just another manifestation of their system of incentives - such people behave in ways that they believe will provide them with the greatest prosperity, security, and status among their kind.

When The System is set-up such that supporting war is advantageous to such persons, they will support war - in the usual way that they "support" any other System-priority such as sustainability, antiracism, "equality"; that is to say; they approve and develop and inhabit bureaucratic structures and processes; which are supposedly directed towards that end.   

At a higher level - say, that of national leadership of large institutions, organizations, corporations - there is need for individuals who will actively construct false narratives, suppress truths, engage in multiple immoral and illegal activities; so at this level the motivations need to be cruder, more personally corrupting, more consciously sinful. 

These middle-leadership-level people need (at some level of awareness) to give their allegiance, or at least their obedience, to the strategies of evil purpose. 

This is why we can observe their personal corruption; their strange emotions and reactions, their snake eyes or zombie eyes - all evidencing that they have-been through some kind of shock-and-awe, brain-washing, blackmailing, or spirit-breaking - that guarantees their allegiance. 

For such people; engineering gratuitous war is just "politics as usual". Plus, war has a direct personal appeal of providing for greater opportunities for power-grabbing, abuses with impunity, enacting revenges and torments, self-enrichment and self-gratification - and suchlike abuses, which are always made easier by war. 

Beyond this level of societal control and war-mongering, I am not aware of the identities of human personnel involved; and the spiritual powers (demons) become dominant. 

And because these are unembodied spirits, their motivations are different from those of humans. 

These spirits with direct affiliation to the side of evil are primarily engaged in a spiritual war. 

The realities of spiritual warfare are strategically focused on the damnation of Men in accordance with the motivation of their leader (i.e. Satan); but also are tactically motivated (more individually, in the shorter term) by a kind of vampirism of spiritual energy - an enjoyment in feeding-off the evils of the human condition, and from the destruction of souls.  

At this highest and more strategic level; the purpose of war is very different from that of national leaders. 

For instance; the strategists ideal is a war that is unwinnable, interminable, and constantly escalating into greater extremes of mutual destruction, resentment, lying - and despair. 

Such a war would be intended grow to include as many as possible of the national leadership class who engineered it; as well as the managerial/ intellectual class who justified it to the masses. 

Indeed these bureaucrats of war (i.e. the national institutional leaders etc.) provide greater spiritual energies to vampirize exactly because they have given their souls to evil; than would the unwilling, unenthusiastic, driven-masses who would experience the greatest sufferings and casualties.  

 

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. 

 

The Litmus Tests are really learning opportunities

The Litmus Tests to which I so often refer on this blog, are a mixture of old and new - they are continually being added-to. 

I first conceptualized them in 2020 in reference to the Birdemic and Peck, which were added onto much longer established Totalitarian Establishment strategies - such as pacifism, socialism, feminism and sexual revolution, antiracism, climate change etc. 

Since 2020 there have been further Litmus Tests, such as (especially in the UK) the war against the Fire Nation. And currently there is a Litmus Test with reference to taking sides in the civil war that is splitting the globalist materialists of the Totalitarian Establishment.

(Or apparently so - because the civil war may ultimately, at the highest level, be a faked show put-on to manipulate the masses.)   

It is pretty clear that the Litmus Tests never stop. As commenter Laeth has said; each new Test probes for different vulnerabilities among those people (and institutions) who had been able to hold-out against being assimilated into active support to the Totalitarian Agenda*. 

Thus the healthism of the Birdemic/ Peck led to the corruption of most of the the holdouts among mainstream Christian churches... Conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons that had resisted the sexual revolution; became wildly-enthusiastic about closing their churches and suspending activities until further notice; and imposing lockdown, atomistic social isolation, and habits of systematic interpersonal fear.  

Later; some of those who had successfully resisted the Birdemic manipulations, then joined with a nationally-orchestrated, media-constructed, Orwellian "two-minute hate session" against the Fire Nation - a two-minutes that has continued for three years, so far (and which is still actively attempting to create a self-annihilating all-out state of war, with the UK as prime target). 

The current situation wit hte new President in the USA is but the most recent Litmus Test. This has, like previous tests, been able to subvert and "turn" a significant proportion of those "holdouts" who had resisted the Birdemic and Fire Nation Tests. It seems that perhaps a majority of "based" online anti-woke, self-identified Christians; have gone all-in for an almost delirious combination of schadenfreude with this-worldly-optimism; the whole thing focused on various Antichrist-figures among the mainstream, totalitarian establishment. 

In one sense these Litmus Tests can be understood as an almost inevitable consequence of the increasing power of Satan and his demons and human servants within this-world - clearly, they will continue to win more-and-more souls to an more-certain (self-chosen) damnation. 

On the other hand they may perhaps be seen as tests allowed by God; because of the opportunities each one brings for a different kind of spiritual learning, and therefore spiritual development - an education in preparation for our post-mortal resurrected life. 

(Which education is, IMO, the purpose of our sustained mortal life. We each continue to live because we have more that it would be good - and perhaps essential - for us to learn.) 

However, I personally do not see the Litmus test as allowed by God nor as a divinely ordained method of spiritual education. Instead I see them as things that God cannot prevent, in this world as it actually is. 

My understanding is: The Litmus Tests originate variously, but become strategies due to their potential for evil and are sustained for that reason. 

They are not of-God; but God can and does (as always) make the best of the bad situations that result, because of his love for each of us, as His divine children. 

And we should take the same attitude of making the best spiritual use of the situations. We should regard the Litmus Tests as direct challenges - not to our peace/ prosperity/ comfort/ convenience; but challenges to our innermost spiritual freedom, the primacy of Christian love, and the requirement for absolute personal responsibility. 

The core part of this is realizing that, for all their geopolitical qualities, the Litmus Tests are Not primarily about material circumstances for large numbers of people in this-world - on the contrary; their true primary reality is directed at the free individual human soul; who always-can and needs-to discern reality in-and-for-himself; whatever the pressures and distractions of this material and social world.   

*Note: As I have previously said; the special significance of Litmus Tests, as with all temptations to sin, is that failure on even a single Test can be sufficient to induce a person to choose reject salvation and choose damnation. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to express satisfaction that some particular person or institution has passed one, or several, or a majority of the Litmus Tests. In principle and in practice; even when just a single Litmus Test is failed, then that may be a sufficient basis for corruption and inversion of values. And this is made much more likely because the Global Totalitarian Establishment will reward and amplify any such failure; to convert passive acquiesce into active support.     

Is there are permanent and complete cure for this mortal life on earth?

Is there are permanent and complete cure for this mortal life on earth? 

Or are there just temporary and partial alleviations of the problems of living? Are there merely palliations that leave the essential problems untouched - of which the primary problems can be summarized as evil and "entropy" (aka death). 

Most of modern discourse on values and policies proceeds under the lie (whether explicit, or more often by implication) that partial and temporary would-be improvements will solve The Problem under discussion. 

This is, indeed, the basis of the entirety of this-worldly, materialistic "leftism" as it emerged in the late 1700s, displaced and co-opted religion, and now exerts totalitarian control over much of the world. 

The lie is that leftist reforms make a fundamental difference, that their "answers" will fundamentally transform the nature of human life - but they never do, and cannot. 

Generations of waxing and enforced pacifism, socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism etc. have led to a world in which all of the problems these ideologies are supposed to address, are instead perceived - by those who are most leftist - to be in a state of crisis, or indeed emergency. 

e.g. Feminist rhetoric and discourse perceives the condition of women here-and-now, to be as essentially unjust and oppressed as they did in 1800, or 1900, or 2000. Nine generations of incremental feminist reform, the transformation of society, the inversion of legislation; and yet, for feminists, the fundamental problem is untouched. Two centuries of what Feminists regard as quantitative palliation and alleviation - yet the qualitative problem remains as-ever. 

Biologically speaking; many diseases have become curable; infant and child mortality has been reduced from about 60% to about 1%; and the average lifespan in The West has been extended about thirty years - yet the existential problems of disease, ageing and death are the same as ever. There are many new and effective means of medical palliation - yet "the problem of pain", of human suffering, is still present as always.   

In economics; prosperity/ comfort/ convenience has rocketed in The West since the Industrial Revolution, and "Biblical poverty" has been abolished; yet the profound civilizational problem of the rich versus poor remains - and is rapidly increasing. 

The nature of this mortal life is such that nothing material can be done from within to cure its core problems; and anything short of cure leaves the problems qualitatively untouched. No amount of justice eradicates our perception of injustice, no amount of egalitarianism dents our perception of inequality here-and-now, no amount of delaying mortality leads to a solution to disease, ageing, and death. 

It is a case of cure or nothing. 

Alleviation or palliation don't make a fundamental difference. Either evil and entropy are eradicated permanently, or things will be essentially the same. 

That is the problem of which Heaven is the solution. 

Resurrection to eternal life in Heaven is an everlasting answer to entropy and evil. 

Do You want it? Is it truly possible? 

These are (ahem) important questions - or, so it seems to me. 

So do not You be distracted by claims of what can only be partial and temporary palliations of this mortal life; that leave fundamental matters essentially unchanged...

Seek first The Answer. 

 

 

Stop the Presses! the Global Establishment are censoring and punishing True statements!

The Radical Left are outraged at the way that, since the current Arrakis conflict erupted, any-thing regarded as in-any-way critical of CHOAM or supportive of the Fremen is being (officially as well as informally; and via much of the Western bureaucracy and media) multi-valently demonized, blocked, and actively-punished. 

For the PC/ Woke/ Radical Leftists, this is something absolutely new, radical, terrifying. 

Meanwhile, back in the real world, this is a minuscule incremental progression of a nearly 60 year and exponential trend of thought policing. 

Yet it is indeed significant that the ultimate powers of the totalitarian system have decided (because this whole thing has been contrived and managed), to drive a expanding-wedge into and through the middle-of-the-road versus the radical wings of the Establishment. 

It is a decisive step away-from the unified global Establishment that was in-power following the international coup of early 2020 - and a step in the direction of global chaos - reinforcing the multi-front world war three schemes (including, in order, Eastern Europe, Middle East, Far East) that have split the nations of the world. 

So there is a global ideological (plus fighting) war between The West and The Rest; and within the West an ideological war that is (presumably) intended to become a fighting war. 

As usual, pacifism is neither a real option nor desirable; because it would avoid two-sided war only at the price of passive genocide by one side of the other (after all, it only takes one side to make a war).  

All of this is inevitable and unstoppable in a post-religious, materialist world rooted in an ideology of negative values; a world that lacks even a theoretical belief in purpose, meaning, or transcendence of mortal life -- and which is therefore (for lack of anything else) easily-led by (because it has zero grounds from which to resist) selfish, short-termist and emotional manipulations. 

Dystopias reinforce double-negative values

One reason that we are fed a relentless diet of dystopian books, movies and TV - i.e. why this theme is so lavishly funded by The Establishment; is that consuming dystopian fiction demonstrably has zero benefit in terms of prevention (but instead facilitates actual dystopias by psychological and spiritual means); while portrayal of dystopias reinforces the bottom-line double-negative value system that is destroying modern Man. 

By the depiction of horror and misery is inculcated the (mostly-unconscious) idea that if-only these horrors and miseries were removed (or, at least, greatly reduced) then everything would be fine. 

The news reports and analyses of ongoing wars have a similar role and effect: indirectly pushing the idea that if-only there was peace; then everything would be fine...

(It should be noted that the same people who believe this kind of pacifism, are in-real-life nearly-always active in support of whoever is the worst side in those foreign wars that have been promoted and escalated by The West.)

Of course this idea that everything would be fine without war is not made explicit, because it is obviously absurd; but it is implied; often in a disguised form where the double-negative is presented as a positive. 

For instance "peace" - which is really the mere absence of war - is talked-about (written and sung-about) as if it was a positive concept, a positive value, an end rather than a means. 

This should be tediously familiar to anyone who has sampled the late 1960s-early 1970s pop and academic culture - ranging from ubiquitous "Peace" signs and symbols, through songs about peace phrased as if it were a positive thing, to academics working in "peace studies"...

Because, in a society without positive values, it is not just a safe-bet - but the only possible stance - to oppose some or another form of suffering as-if this was the was self-evidently the best possible belief and activity; the highest human value, the reason for our being, the purpose of life...

(And it can easily be inferred, and observed, that when the prevention of suffering becomes the highest value, we have an ethic of unbirth, death and suicide.) 

Indeed; it can be hazardous nowadays to espouse any positive goal for one's own life - such as a religion, or nationalism. This is increasingly regarded as dangerous, and a form of terrorism; unless it is religion or nationalism for someone-else, in some other-place. 

That's allowable, because it is conceptualized either as just-another double-negation, such as freedom-from-oppression; and is "altruistic" hence conforms to the supreme modern Western values of self-hatred and -destruction. 

If one takes a step back and considers; it really is inevitable that our culture is so fixated upon dystopias, exactly because that we have no motivating utopias; in other words, we fixate upon hoping to avoid dystopia, exactly because the double-negation of avoiding-dystopia is the highest value we can conceive as real. 

Genuine utopias have become (literally) incredible to modern consciousness, and rightly so; because modern Men acknowledge only this-world and mortal-life, and this-world is characterized by evil and entropy such that no genuine and positive utopia can ever happen.

This-worldly pessimism about the possibility of u-topia, then turns into this-world fear of dys-topia - and here we are. 

The sequence is almost inescapable, unless there is a profound reorientation of metaphysics. Unless (that is) we personally, and then culturally, acknowledge and believe-in the reality of post-death personal existence; then we cannot even begin to escape from the futile paradoxes of double-negative values. And we will continue to obsess over dystopias and wars.  

The Arrakis war has galvanized Leftist radicalism and channeled it back into the mainstream

As I feared; it seems that the Arrakis war has been successfully used to enthuse and inspire the "idealistic" and self-identified radicals of the left, has provoked a resurgence of the evil error of pacifism; and through support for the Fremen has channeled this "youthful enthusiasm" safely into Establishment control. 

People who were perhaps "in danger of" awakening to the demonic evils of the Global Totalitarian Agenda, are now enthusiastically enlisted in a multitude of Establishment-controlled "protest" and "charitable" activities - just like the (Good Old...) 1960s - Yay!

Thus, the easily-awakening desire of Westerners (and others) to Do Something To Help (to help, that is, a situation of which they are aware only very indirectly and via the major mass media); has inevitably led to working-through and thereby re-validating already-existing Establishment-controlled channels - such as the UN. 

People who, three months ago, would have had nothing but disdain for the totalitarian globalist puppet-masters of the UN, are now pouring all hopes into it, and following its machinations with avidity. 

Geopolitics is sexy again! Pseudo-edgy, covertly-officially-approved Leftist radical protest is back in the mass media spotlight. 

Yet again; the desire to influence this world on a large scale - for whatever reason - is readily subverted and redirected into strategic support for the totalitarian agenda of evil. 

Yet again; Christians are being given a lesson that Christ's Kingdom is "not of this world"; and we are yet again being shown that we absolutely need to fix our hopes beyond mortal life and this earth, and gain a perspective that sees life from a context of eternity. 

Yet again; we are being shown what is our business in this world, and what is not our business: What we ought to be placing as our personal and real priority - and what we should not be misled into thinking we understand, can affect, and ought to be working to change.  

The current intra-left civil war is top-down created and manipulated - both "sides" being manifestations of one will; such that whichever side we "support" in this fight, we shall be supporting the overall totalitarian strategy: the agenda of evil. 

And people have fallen for it yet again.   

Residual Unresolved Collectivism (RUC)

Francis Berger: " I don't think speculating about consciousness development at the collective level is necessary or even helpful now."

My comment (edited): This articulates something that has been nagging at me for a while. In particular, I increasingly feel that the account of development of consciousness is valid for the past - and it is important to recognize that people have Not always been the same as now, nor are people the same everywhere at any particular time. 

But the Steiner/ Barfield theory of the Evolution of Consciousness went badly wrong in being used as a predictor. 

Thinking further about this exchange, I realize I have been guilty of significant Residual Unresolved Collectivism (RUC). 

In other words; while in-theory realizing that there is no legitimate optimism to be derived from expecting Good Leadership the The West or any of its constituent nations, institutions or churches; I still retain a residual expectation that there is a desirability hence need for some kind of communal or group-based spiritual awakening of the necessary kind. 

It is Residual because my habitual practice of thinking is different from what I believe (and even know) must be the case: the collectivism is left-over from an earlier set of assumptions and practices.  

And, to this extent, my habits sabotage my intentions. 

RUC is closely analogous-to, and indeed related-to, other left-over forms of wanting and thinking that I have previously described: Residual Unresolved Positivism (which I got from Owen Barfield), and Residual Unresolved Leftism. 

In other words; just as we have habits of considering the world as primarily material/ physical and abstract (e.g. as models) in terms of its reality and causes; and just as our values nowadays tend habitually to begin with leftist assumptions (such as equality, pacifism, antiracism) -- and just as these are difficult to eradicate even when that is our priority...

So, we tend to think about the human world primarily in terms of large human groupings; and understand the individual as a consequence of such groupings. 

The collective is how we analyze and understand problems; and the collective is where we seek for (or, at least hope-for) answers. 

Collective thinking is, indeed, woven-into Christianity from its historical basis; especially in the Old Testament where most things are conceptualized in terms of "a people": the nation (tribe) of Israel.

Even many relatively recent and current forms of Christianity (such as Mormonism) have usually adopted collective explanations of God's motivations, and tried to recreate collective dealings-with God - including envisaging salvation - and theosis - in collective terms of God's dealings with A People. 

As I have often explained on this blog over the past decade; this I regard as untrue for this time and place; and counter-productive in relation to what Christians (as the individuals we actually-are) ought to be doing here-and-now. 

I believe that we cannot, and should not attempt to, live collectively in terms of our relationship to God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost - but should take personal responsibility, and should act, now, from our-selves to do what is right and necessary (rather than waiting and hoping for some collective grouping to tell us what to do, and support us in the doing). 

I hope that now I have - with some help from Francis Berger! - been able to recognize and give a name to this tendency; I may begin to eradicate it more fully from my metaphysical assumptions and habits of thinking.  

Leftist trends are a materialist distortion of innate, spiritual motivations

There is an analytic idea, which I took and somewhat adapted from Rudolf Steiner; and which I have found useful. It is that the leftist trends of the past three centuries (e.g. pacifism, abolition, socialism, nationalism, feminism, vegetarianism, antiracism, environmentalism) are materialist distortions of underlying changes in men's emerging spiritual instincts and motivations. 

Leftism is the greatest evil in the world today, because it represents a vast, changing, expanding range of materializations of spiritual impulses. 

The reason that leftism is a novelty in human history, is because Men have changed. 

And Men have changed ultimately and necessarily for spiritual reasons, reasons that are (no matter how much distorted) originally in accordance with God's plans of creation. 

That is, Man's nature is meant to change through history; in part because different civilizations and societies provide different experiences that are valuable for different souls. God made the world, and God made this way, and he made a world that was meant to 'evolve'. 

But, for God, reality is that the spiritual is always primary. Because 'the material' (which is also always spiritual) is a sub-set of the spiritual. Modern Man has inverted this reality by making the material not just primary but the only reality: in modernity, the spiritual is denied reality. For so long as the spiritual is denied its reality and primacy; we will live in evil-times - since our ultimate values (i.e. the deepest metaphysical assumptions that rationalize our everyday values) are necessarily inverted. 

Leftism ultimately derives from the inevitable distortions that occur when Man's spiritual evolution is forced-into materialist models, and provided with fake materialist solutions.  

We can see this everywhere, all over the political spectrum. A spiritual value, which has some kind of spontaneous inner existence; can only enter public discourse by being 'modelled' materially. Thus human spiritual problems are inevitably re-cast as material problems. This is inevitable because - for our society - only the material is really-real. 

This material model them leads to - apparent - solutions to the original human problem; which are of course material solutions - that is, the solutions derived from the theory are always 'answers' to do with making, destroying, moving, reshaping physical things.  

And therefore leftism always, inevitably, fuels totalitarianism; because when the answers to real human problems are always conceptualized in material terms, then the obvious way - indeed, the imperative - is to impose these material pseudo-answers, by whatever means seems likely to be most effective. 

Therefore; leftism always reduces to the insatiable demand for power over Men; the need for power being rationalized by the imperative of coercively imposing pseudo-materialist solutions, to fake-materializations of genuine but spiritual problems.  

Thus society and civilization is colonized by leftism; colonized incrementally; by materialistic theories that falsely 'explain' spiritual motivations and spiritual phenomena; and by the consequent materialist solutions to the problems thus conceived. 

The deep motivations underlying leftism are therefore spiritual; which is why leftism is powerful and enduring, why leftism is innerly-experienced as value-imperatives. 

But leftism is always and necessarily evil; because these valid inner spiritual motivations are reduced and re-cast into false, outer, material forms. 

Crisis, what crisis? The best time for spiritual action

Cover art from the Crisis, what crisis? The 1975 LP by Supertramp - deservedly, one of the most popular bands of my middle teens; because of their touches of inspired lyricism. (Of course, the underlying value-tendency of the lyrics was net-evil - but so it goes with successful mass culture. And beauty is always good.) At the time I never noticed how enormous are the sunbathing bloke's feet - human flippers!

When there is an official crisis - as at present; all the presented options are wrong - because all are misdirections from what we ought to be doing. 

The three options at present are actively to support one side or the other, or active pacifism. 

The idea is encapsulated by the message behind the illustration above: we, each and all, should Do Something... Now! Before it is too late! And that something we must do is always material, physical, socio-political (even if, nowadays, symbolic-virtual).  

In effect: the presented-options are all attempting a negation of the negative - which is not a positive. The crisis is the negative, and the choice of actions are designed to negate that negative. 

In theory this might be asserted as 'clearing the ground' for something positive; but that only applies when there is a positive to begin-with. 

And here-and-now, there just isn't. 

To demand we do something, when all the somethings are supportive of one-evil-or-another is a recipe for making things worse. 

What about when the underlying problem of the crisis is spiritual not material - including the exclusion of the spiritual as well as the prevalent value-inversion? What then?

Well, clearly, the response to a spiritually-caused crisis ought to be spiritual -- and yet, the urgency is always for some choice of physical action. 

They always say, and with upfront validity, "Let's just sort-out this crisis first; and then - when this immediate and acute situation is over - that is the right time when we can (and should!) sort-out the spiritual stuff."

Superficially sensible... apparently the only realistic option; but only if you fail to notice that aiding evil (of any kind) is bound to make matters worse overall - and worse spiritually (because that is exactly what we are supposed to set-aside). 

So, what we are being asked to do is to select between counter-productive options: especially when the crisis has not (yet) physically upon us, except virtually; and when the inhabitants of totalitarian bureaucracies are (by design) materially powerless.

And, what when the crisis is never over; but instead we move (or rather, are-moved) from one emergency to the next? The time for spiritual re-evaluation will never be ripe, will never happen. 

Yet;  if or when a crisis is resolved, and another has not been assembled, then the spiritual urgency has diminished, the masses are then lulled and distracted by the pleasures of peace and prosperity. 

Official crisis is always the necessary time for spiritual re-evaluation; when 'issues' become real, when mortal life is revealed for the serious thing it is. 

Also; spiritual re-alignment is the only way to solve the crisis. 

From where we now stand, all options are bad, all futures are negative, all actions lead to greater harm... 

Only from a different spiritual perspective may we - possibly, if we are serious about it, and put the spirit first - perceive a positive future; and only a positive future can do us genuine good. 

To be overwhelmed by the evil, pain, and suffering of this mortal world; is a demonic temptation

It happens sometimes - whether from something in one's own life; or (more often, nowadays) a depiction in the mass media, a novel, movie or TV show; or maybe after wakening from a nightmare... We become acutely, or chronically - obsessively; preoccupied with the evil, pain and suffering of this mortal world. 

For the past two or three centuries, such a conviction or obsession in a person (or institution) has generally been regarded as a sign of admirable moral sensitivity, and perhaps of actual ethical superiority. 

The belief could be summarized as: this is the ultimate reality of our world, it is intolerable; and something must urgently and as the number-one priority, be done to reform the situation with a view to eliminating the problem. 

Such a conviction has become the focus and bedrock of a wide range of 'reformist'/ leftist socio-political movements (abolition, pacifism, socialism, feminism, antiracism, healthism, environmentalism, and the sexual revolution for instance). Such a conviction has, indeed, become universal in all mainstream politics, the media, large corporations of all sorts; and among the ultra-rich-and-most-powerful. 

Such a conviction has also become the focus and bedrock of Christianity, for large numbers of self-identified Christians of all denominations and none - including most of the most influential Christian leaders. 

Theology, scripture, Christian history and everything else has been re-interpreted in this light, such that it is increasingly difficult to find anything else in the mainstream of churches.  

Jesus Christ Himself is usually regarded as having done something (what exactly he did, varies widely) towards remedying, or at least reducing, this vast weight of evil/ pain/ suffering.  

Yet, it strikes me with considerable force, that this line of thinking is a vast demonic temptation. 

This kind of insight and awareness is of-the-devil, not of-God. 

This provenance in-evil would be well worth bearing in mind, when such considerations seem compelling, and especially when we realize that the powers of propaganda and persuasion are trying to overwhelm us with exactly such a conviction.  

Many of the bad trends of the modern era are evil twists then wrong choices, made from developments of consciousness that were intended (by God) for our benefit

One of the malign aspects of the secular socio-political divide between left and right; is that the evils of leftism tend to be opposed both 'root and branch' by the right - whereas the 'root' of the change is often either potentially good, or at least necessary, and it is actually the 'branch' that is evil.  

I think this applies very generally, across many of the 'isms' that get used to justify the major strategies ad policies since the 1700s - abolition of slavery, pacifism, the various socialisms, feminism, antiracism etc. 

What needs to be kept in mind is that it is the motivation behind actions which ultimately counts in terms of values; not actions themselves. 

It is the intent and spirit which matters primarily in values, not the systematic application of 'the letter' of laws, regulations, principles etc.  

If we consider 'socialism' in its various manifestations; there seems little doubt that in the early decades, much of it (although probably Not Marx and Engels) was well-motivated; by people who (mistakenly, overall) believed that the Industrial Revolution (I.R.) had impoverished the poorest classes - as evidenced by the increasing numbers of the poor, especially in cities. 

This was, objectively, an error of causal attribution - because what was really happening was that the poorest classes had their condition raised such that after the industrial revolution the poorest classes survived in increasing numbers but in extreme poverty; instead of, as in earlier centuries, dying of poverty. 

Furthermore, the extreme poverty was concentrated in cities - where the intellectual class could not help but observe it - rather than being invisibly spread across many, but scattered, cottages and hovels of the countryside. 

The increasing urban poverty that the socialists were observing was actually a result of increasing, not reducing, standards of living. However, if the socialists causal inferences had been correct, then the adoption of socialism was not, at the time, unreasonable - and was (often) motivated by genuinely humanitarian impulses. 

In other words; there was a real problem (increasing urban poverty); but the proposed answers - e.g. coercive redistribution of wealth by an all-powerful central government in the direction of equality - was based on false understanding; and (when attempted) created other, larger and more long-term destructive problems (including spiritual corruption) that were then ignored or denied.  

My point is that socialism was a response to a real problem; but was the wrong response to a misunderstanding of the causes of the problem.

And furthermore, socialism was operating from a materialist perspective that at first placed 'the physical' as more urgently important than 'the spiritual'; then, because of the nature of this perspective and the effect of habit, soon evolved-into denying the reality of the spiritual altogether; and eventually (nowadays) both asserting, and behaving-on-the-basis-that, the physical and material world is everything. 

Looking back from where we now are - i.e. the most evil, because most value-inverted, system in history; it is tempting to assume that socialism was wholly evil; and that therefore the answer would be to roll-back history to restore the situation before socialism... 

But my understanding is that the problems that led to socialism were real, and new, problems. They derived from the Industrial Revolution - and therefore the proper response to I.R. problems would need to have a true understanding of the deep causes of the I.R. 

In seeking the causes of the I.R. we need to consider material causes (the sort of thing that economic historians consider); but Christians also need to consider what God may have been aiming-at in enabling the Industrial Revolution to happen.  

And Christians will want to regard the spiritual causes as, ultimately, deeper and more significant than the material ones. 

We may agree that the outcomes of the I.R. have been net-evil; yet God does not intend evil; but rather He works by providing us with opportunities. 

If Men (en masse) made wrong and evil choices when confronted by the many new possibilities of the I.R., then that was the responsibility of Men - but is not proof of God's intent and hopes.

I understand God to be working to allow Men to develop their consciousness towards a more divine level (i.e. to enable theosis). This can also be understood as involving the increase of freedom/ agency. 

And it can also be understood as God encouraging Men (through history and also as individuals, which processes are related) to grow-up from the passivity and unconsciousness of spiritual childhood, through spiritual adolescence, to a spiritual maturity where choices are active and consciousness.

From this perspective, we could interpret the Industrial Revolution as a consequence of changes in Men's consciousness, in Men's relationships to 'the world' - including other Men. 

The I.R therefore presented Men with challenges which, if the right (good) choices had been made, would have led to spiritual learning and greater spiritual maturity. 

But these opportunities came with the risk that wrong choices would instead be made, these opportunities would be lost; and - because Men were more free and had greater individual agency - the outcome could potentially be worse than was possible at early phases of human consciousness. 

So, the I.R. was an event that brought with it high potential rewards in terms of Man's spiritual agency; but also the possibility that this increased agency would be used to reject the spiritual and result in worse Men in a worse world. 

And it turned-out that most Men made the wrong choices, and got the worse world. 

We could see something similar for several of the more specialized aspects of post-I.R. society and psychology. 

For instance, Feminism can be understood as rooted in a change of the actuality of the spiritual relationship between men and women; which emerged as part of that 'modern' change of consciousness that led-up-to the I.R.  

This new relationship between men and women was a new fact, and was the 'problem' which Mankind had to face; and face it from the perspective of newly-increased free agency. 

Clearly (from a Christian perspective) Feminism as-is represents the outcome of wrong choices in face of these problems; and Feminism is responsible for great corruption and evil - including official and coerced moral inversions. 

Nonetheless; there was a real 'problem' to which Feminism was the wrong solution; and there was (and still is, to some extent) the possibility of better choices in face of this problem. 

In conclusion; I believe that Christians need to be able to see more deeply into the problems and issues of our times than a falsely dichotomous choice between either accepting the evil mass majority ideology; or an attempted roll-back towards the attitudes, motivations, and behaviours of pre-modern times - and a pre-modern consciousness which no longer exists! 

The first (modernist-assimilation) is straightforwardly evil, although deriving from real problems that might have led to good - if Men had made better choices. 

The other (roll-back) is based on a denial of real problems and real changes, and is therefore impossible to accomplish - and will lead, indirectly, to evil if it is attempted. 

What we need instead to do is recognize that the problems of modern Man are not identical with those of ancient Men; and this is part of God's plan of creation. 

Therefore, we should start from where we actually-are, and this time use our new-powers of agency and free autonomy of consciousness, to make the right choices, from good motivations. 

Pacifism is acceptable, within-System, dissent - which Christians should recognize as a red flag

In the post-1945 'Western' world; there is a sense in which to desire 'peace' has always been regarded as an acceptable - if not approved - opinion. 

We can see that by the fact that pacifism has always been afforded a platform in the mainstream media and politics, and is allowed as a subject of discussion - even when it is subject to official disapproval, and argued against. 

This continues, even under the current system of unprecedented discourse-control; and this should alert us that for a person in public discourse of 2022 to argue for peace is a red flag. And RF both in terms of showing that something is 'off' (e.g. that the pacifist is being used or manipulated for pro-System purposes) - and possibly that this is also a red flag in the sense of a pro-leftism fake or deception. 

Pro-peace discourse is an alluring deception, because peace (as opposed to war) is something that almost everybody wants as an outcome - and as soon as possible. 

Nonetheless, its public expression in terms of complete- or partial-anti-war pacifism, or putting peace as The Priority; is also something that is nowadays routinely deployed by those who have engineered war and are actively working to escalate war.

Unless that fact is understood explicitly; then the desire for peace is an unconscious instinct that can- and will-be - and is being - used against-itself. 

It is characteristic of our time that instincts are almost-always being (Systematically) harnessed and used against themselves - eg. sexual urges, the desire for freedom or tolerance or dignity, the yearning for security. 

Systems that are purporting to generate more of these, in actuality eventuate in less of them (while claiming to have promoted them). 

Therefore, peace and pacifism are not just red flags, but red herrings! They are small scale and tactical distractions from what needs to be understood at the large scale; and as distractions from what ought to be done, they passively-promote (actively-allow) the opposite of what their supporters want to be done.

When a society's metaphysical assumptions are false and evil (as in our case), and that society therefore understands wrongly the nature of reality, and thus wants what is fundamentally wrong; then this deep problem cannot be solved - but will instead be worsened - by aiming to implement-directly superficial and short-termist motivations. 

Emptiness and futility, arbitrary motivations and hedonism - on re-reading CP Snow's The Light and the Dark (1947)

Although now almost forgotten as a novelist; CP Snow's work has many special qualities, and I find I return to re-read one or other of his books every few years*.

I last read The Light and the Dark when I was at school, aged about sixteen - but have appreciated it more this second time around. It is focused on the story of Roy - a brilliant scholar of lost and obscure languages, whose personality alternates light and dark moods... 

(Not to the level of psychosis - he is not a manic depressive, always keeps working, and is never hospitalized; but nonetheless the down-swings are terrible for him to suffer. The point of the book is that his gifts and his miseries are part of a package - he cannot have the bright accomplishments without the shades.)

As always with Snow; the main character is based on a real-life model - an oriental linguist called Charles Allberry; whom Snow regarded as the closest and most intimate friend of his life. 

As a teen, I was considerably put-off by the aristocratic milieu and snobbery depicted among many of the main characters (although not the narrator, who - like Snow - had impoverished lower middle class origins, but aspired to be assimilated into the rich and able ruling class. And achieved it - becoming Lord Snow of Leicester, and sending his son to Eton.)   

This time around, I was more entertained than annoyed by the class-consciousness; and instead I saw the novel as a depiction of the spiritual bankruptcy of the English ruling class on the eve of the 1939-45 war. 

In a nutshell; the characters depicted most intimately have nothing to live for - except arbitrary motivations such as cultivated snobbery, and short-termist 'amoral' (often sexual) hedonism. And then The War... 

There are political motivations - communism or pacifism for many (especially scientists), National Socialism for a few; but these are essentially negative. In the end the war is fought - bravely and effectively - but against Germany rather than for anything in particular in the world afterwards. 

Which is, of course, exactly how things turned out - but it is fascinating to realize that Snow could perceive this so clearly and explicitly even by 1947, when this book was published. 

One sub-plot is the 'Light and Dark' protagonist's unsuccessful 'search for God' - Roy sees with absolute clarity that his life (and the world) is futile without God - but cannot 'make himself believe'; therefore leads an hedonically promiscuous life (alleviated by great - and secret - kindness and generosity to many people) which ends by deniably engineering his own death. 

Most of the characters avoid acknowledging this harsh truth; and immerse themselves in little (or large) plans and schemes, to seek pleasure and 'get-on' - but all, sooner or later, realize the futility of this 'materialistic' life.  

Seventy-five years later our civilization has lost the bleak, stoic insight of Snow (via his characters); and are still trapped by a false dilemma between a traditional Christianity they cannot believe - and a despairing life of increasingly short-termist, ever-less-coherent expediencies. Snow himself - with his life of ambition and status-seeking - seemed to be caught in this trap, up to his death in 1980. 

Regular readers know that I believe there is a way-out from this crux of unacceptable nihilism versus impossible traditional religiosity (i.e Romantic Christianity) - but that it requires individuals to give their best efforts to understanding (for- and from- the depths of their natures) Man in relation to God. 

This personal quest needs to be accorded at least the same effort and application as Roy gave to his unravelling of ancient texts; or others gave to communism, fascism and the other later leftist ideologies that purported to displace and replace Christianity. 

So, here we are...

*The Masters is probably CP Snow's best book - being an extremely gripping, sustained, satisfyingly-structured work. The Search is less accomplished, but also excellent for anyone interested in 'real science' - it has stuck in my mind for several decades. Also The Affair, and The New Men are similarly memorable; encapsulating certain things incomparably well. The Physicists - a group biography of some of the greatest physicist of the early 20th century, most of whom Snow (who had degrees in chemistry and physics) knew personally to some extent - is also extremely good; as is Variety of Men, a collection of memoirs of eminent people.  

What Tolkien's war experience can teach us about the modern world

Second Lieutenant JRR Tolkien of the Lancashire Fusiliers

It is characteristic of those intellectuals and officers who wrote about the Great War of 1914-18, that they experienced a permanent disillusion leading to the attitude epitomized by Robert Graves's autobiography "Goodbye to all that". 

In other words, the typical effect of the Great War was some combination of a rejection of tradition generally but especially Christianity; the embrace of hedonism - especially sexual, but also drinking and smoking, jazz etc.; socio-political leftisms of various types - communism/ socialism, fascism, pacifism, vegetarianism, 'green' ideas etc; an intense, tragic and paralyzing, yet guilty, nostalgia for the care-free privilege and security of the Edwardian era; and all underpinned by a bleak combination of philosophical materialism and hopeless nihilism. 

But, as John Garth makes clear in Tolkien and the Great War, this did not apply to Tolkien. He was deeply affected by the war, his trench experiences, and especially the deaths of so many friends (i.e. all but one of his closest friends) - yet Tolkien was not permanently embittered nor disillusioned by the War, nor was he impelled to adopt the above-listed 'typical' literary responses. 

What made Tolkien immune to this existential aspect of the war? I think the answer is quite simple; and it is that Tolkien had a deep and powerful Christian faith. 

In contrast, from what I can tell, those who experienced the disillusion of the Great War either practiced a shallow and merely conventional Christianity, that rapidly and permanently collapsed under the intense and sustained psychological and physical pressures of trench warfare... 

Or else they were not Christians at all, and the war confirmed their pre-existent conviction that the reality of life was nasty, brutish and short - and the only valid response was to live for today oneself, and agitate for a more peaceful, prosperous and secure society in future. 

Many of the most disillusioned men were intensely artistic and aesthetic people, intensely political and reformist in outlook, and 'romantically' dedicated to a life of intense personal relationships. But they failed to learn from the fact that none of these - nor all together - were able to cope with the stresses and sufferings of the Great War. 

Instead of noticing this failure of their ideals - instead of noticing that their own disillusion proved that their ideals were illusions -  they doubled-down on their ineffective strategies... And have continued to do so in the many decades since. 

The failure of secular ideals taught the failure of trying to live without religion.

And something analogous applied to mainstream Victorian/ Edwardian Establishment Christianity: it had been tested, and it had failed the test. 

The failure of mainstream Christianity taught the failure of the churches. 

Things could have been otherwise... 

Tolkien, as so often, showed the proper and effective way forward - because he was both a Romantic and a Christian. 

I think the same applies to this era. 

The mainstream churches have been taught that they have failed in the face of crisis; the leftists have been taught that their ideals are incoherent and based on lies, propaganda and coercion. 

We know what has failed - now we need to seek what is both good and strong.