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 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. 

 

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. 

 

 

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. 

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace-ifism - Establishment-weaponized pacifism

Leftism (conceived as a long-term Satanic plan directed against God, divine creation and The Good; and aiming at - pretty much - exactly where the world is now) was originally defined by its opposition to Christianity.

More subtly it was framed as anti-'clericalism' directed at the 'abuses' (real or imputed) of whatever specific church was dominant in some place. 

But when Leftism began to become more strategic; and began its highly successful efforts to infiltrate, subvert, invert and (now) substantially co-opt Christianity - it started to advocate (apparently) Christian-compatible 'single-issue' doctrines such as the abolition of slavery and pacifism. 

Both apparently emanated from Nonconformist Protestants in Britain, especially the Quakers - who included many wealthy and successful businessmen (and who were, moreover, probably the best employers of their day - i.e. providing the best remuneration, housing and conditions for their workers). 

Leaving aside abolition; pacifism has remained a constant and strongly supported ideology ever since - and it re-emerges whenever there are a significant section of The Establishment who oppose a particular war; or as now when the entire Establishment takes one side in a war. 

But since The Establishment certainly are Not pacifists (are, indeed, exactly the opposite!) - pacifism takes the more subtle form of 'Peace-ifism'; with concerted demands for 'peace' from the right hand - accompanied by left-hand actions that directly aim to maximize innocent civilian casualties. 

In practice, peace-ifism is always one-sided. 

It means that the side disapproved-of should give-up, surrender, retreat - and face whatever punishment The Establishment choose to inflict upon them.

(And especially their leaders; who can expect to be scapegoated and punished severely up to and including execution - whether judicially or by mob.)

Peace-ifism is not, therefore, about peace!

Under the New Leftism of perpetual revolution - peace is not on-offer from our Global Establishment; but instead perpetual-revolution.

From the Establishment we get multiple sources of violence as excuses for ever more repression, monitoring and control; all being positively-propagandized, organized, funded, encouraged and legally-allowed.

Anti-peaceful riots and lootings, destruction, violence - operating with impunity under whatever Leftist banner is currently being deployed: birdemic-peck, antiracism, climate emergency, compulsory mass immigration/ refugee crisis... Whatever.     

Thus, peace-ifism shares the soft-and-cuddly, wouldn't-harm-a-fly vibe, feel-good/ virtue-signaling attributes of pacifism; yet is in practice (and by intent) also integral-to and accompanied-by (deniable but deliberate) encouragement of severe physical punishment, violence and killing. 

In other words; peace-ifism is just-another morally-corrupting manipulation of the masses by The Establishment. 

And when all The Establishment institutions (which includes the major Western Christian churches) are united in propagating peace-ifism; and when this evil manipulation (with its obviously evil provenance!) is blotted-up and regurgitated by our docile, cowardly, unthinking and uncritical masses - as currently... 

Well, it makes for a profoundly unedifying spectacle! 

Note added: 

Another way of conceptualizing peace-ifism is that it is net-evil - evil overall - because it is intrinsically dishonest, deceptive and manipulative.

Peace-ifism pretends to neutrality ("all we want is peace!) yet always and necessarily it takes one of the sides - and yet denies the fact. 

There is no neutrality in peace-ifism: firstly because there is no such thing as neutrality; and secondly because when you analyze any specific case you will find this to be so. 

I have recently been studying the American Civil War; which was a horrible and destructive business - and if ever there was a candidate for peace-ifism, surely this was one of the strongest? 

Yet there was no neutral way of imposing peace - one side or the other was bound to be the loser. If we assume that the South wanted to retain its agrarian life based on slavery; then this was not possible so long as the USA remained unified. 

For slavery to continue, the abolitionist North would need to enforce slavery laws (such as capturing and returning escaped slaves) and thereby be complicit in a practice they found abhorrent - and the North would lose. 

Yet if slavery was to be abolished, the South would lose their way of life (as actually happened when they lost). 

The obvious solution - that the South separate from the North, was exactly what the North would not allow - and this was indeed the original cause of the war. 

Yet the South was smaller, poorer, and much less industrialized - so if the South did not separate, then the South would lose (as actually happened). 

In sum, there could be no peace without losers; so peace-ifism was just taking one side or the other - but pretending not to by calling vaguely for 'peace'. 

As then, so now: All calls for peace, when made concrete and implemented, are always a matter of taking sides. 

To take sides but dishonestly pretend to neutrality, is intrinsically sinful. 

And if you really cannot decide which side is the less-evil (a discernment that is nowadays made easy by noticing the provenance of propaganda) then you should neither have nor express any opinion. 

Overcoming the vast scale of failure: recognizing your Achilles' heel

It seems clear that we are all of us raised to have at least one, but usually many, Achilles' heels - weak points in our world view, through-which evil can enter and colonize; and turn us to its side in the spiritual war.  

2020 showed us a comprehensive failure of All human institutions, of All ideologies - the failure even to to recognize the obvious fact of a global, totalitarian, leftist-materialist - hence evil - coup.  

Everybody failed - but in many different ways. 

The various causes of their various failures are what I term their Achilles' heels. 

The collection of these Achilles' heels, over several centuries, could be termed Leftism - or simply the demonic strategy. 

Some early ones were pacifism, abolition (of slavery), and socialism. Nationalism came later. Since the sixties there have been feminism, antiracism, 'environmentalism' (now reduced to 'climate change'), multi-culti-anti-nativism, and the stages of the sexual revolution culminating in the gross lies of the trans-agenda. 

These are all provide examples of the way in in which adherence to a single false - partial, distorted, simplistic - principle or idea, can serve to be the entry point of evil - from which it expands to take-over a person's perspective. 

But 2020 also showed the failure in the West of the Christian churches: the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican churches and the Protestant including Evangelical churches, the Mormon church etc. - none of which recognized the reality of the Satanic coup; all of which explicitly embraced one or more of the coup's ideologies via is weaponized Litmus Test issues. 

What we saw in 2020, on a vast scale, was the failure of every mainstream and powerful metaphysics; due to one or many Achilles' heels. For instance; we have all seen the way in which a 'lifelong' 'committed' socialist, feminist, 'civil rights' activist or whatever, is led-by-the-nose into supporting gross and obvious evil. 

It is obvious why the secular ideologies all failed; but why did the major Christian churches all fail? 

Each for different reasons, perhaps. Each had built itself on some principle which 2020 revealed to be inadequate. Roman Catholics and Mormons relied on their leadership to tell them what was right and what to do - and when these leaders became assimilated to the coup ideology, then members were drawn with them. 

Protestants began with an incoherent dependence on 'scripture' - and (mostly via the generations of corruption of Bible 'scholarship' to secular modes of reasoning) scripture translations and 'historical' interpretation have become incrementally assimilated to the coup ideology. 

It seems that now 'the Bible says' and 'the leaders say' we all ought to live in accordance with the coup agenda in part or in whole: believe the birdemic propaganda, crave the peck, take the knee/ confess our racism, welcome mass colonization/ cultural annihilation by 'refugees', clamour for a worldwide anti-carbon economy - and embrace the new world order of omni-surveillance and micro-control necessary to impose all these and more.  

There has been 'no hiding place' among the institutions, nor among the major churches. No hiding place among the ideologies, the theologies, the systems...

Faced with so many lies, so much dishonesty, such a vast and relentless propaganda, so little courage and principle from an expedient-faithless populace... almost-all social institutions simultaneously capitulated all over the world. 

And apparently none have repented. (Individuals - yes; but not repentant institutions.)

My understanding is that, by the evil choices of many Men, the world has become as it is; yet God can turn even these End Times to Good. We are now, each of us, confronted by a world of evil institutions - including not just the actual churches, but the principles and practices of those churches - which have been 'turned' onto the side of Satan.  

Each Man must either choose assimilation into this obviously-evil world - supported (overall) by each of the world institutions; or else he is thrown back upon him-self; upon his own personal discernment and judgment - and his capacity to take the side of God and follow Jesus Christ. 

There is no program, nor formula; no checklist nor principle - because all programs and formulae/ checklists and principles have been corrupted and re-directed towards the devil's side.  

What we each do have is the intuition, the heart-thinking, of our divine self (or soul) as internal guidance; we have the revelation of the Holy Ghost as external guidance; and we have the motivation based on hope which comes from faith. 

What this means is that Life has become very simple! 

It seems like a paradox - when the world has reached such an incredible level of complexity and interlocking deception and evil-intent. But as the world has become very-obviously too complex to explain in materialist terms - it has become spiritually simplified to mere evil-intent (in its multifarious and proliferating expressions) 

To take the side of God, solidly and against all these pressure; we absolutely must recognize and repent those Achilles' heels in ourselves - because they are always present. 

Recognize (and repent) those precious-but-vulnerable points of 'central' doctrine or principle which have rendered All of us as individuals (as well as All institutions) vulnerable to colonization by evil.

These are not the central points of Christianity - and never really have been (although in past ages, when Men implicitly assumed and knew more of the divine and spiritual than now, they could without fatal harm be regarded as core and essential). 

The central essence of being-a-Christian is not to be made dependent on any worldly thing - including not depending on the validity on any particular church institution - but come to each of us directly and unmediated from God. 

After all, God is creator and continually create-ing; God is wholly Good - and is our Heavenly Father. And just like any ideal mortal father; God will never leave any single one of his children bereft of sufficient guidance for his salvation and theosis when God can (by his ongoing work of creation) reach and shape the lives of all of us - no matter how bad 'the world' becomes. 

It is faith in this simple fact that gives indomitable hope - and an antidote to fear, despair and all other evil snares. These times can teach us this vital Christian lesson; and more powerfully than any ever before. 

 

"Suffering? I'll show you suffering!" - and the leftist impulse

Insofar as it has any positive program (and in fact this is a double-negative, not a positive) the alleviation of suffering could be regarded as the focus of leftism - arising at its early roots in abolition, pacifism, socialism, feminism etc. 

My Glasgow friend, the writer Frank Kuppner, used to intone the phrase "Suffering? I'll show you suffering!" whenever some leftist, feminist journalist (invariably upper class, public school, Oxbridge educated; then straight into a prestigious and high profile newspaper job) embarked on yet-another account of the abuses, adversity and prejudices of her hellish life...

For modern people the problem of suffering in the world; and the socio-political intent to eliminate or reduce suffering (or, at least, the suffering of particular groups such as workers, women, or blacks), has come to seem The Primary problem of Life - the primary objective of life. 

Yet, suffering cannot coherently be made the centre of a moral system. And indeed 'suffering' itself is an incoherent abstraction of billions (at least) of individual responses to billions of different - labile, fluctuating and often utterly specific - situations. 

As so often, there is a colossal but unacknowledged and denied assumption at work here - that all these billions of adverse feelings to billions of specific instances and circumstances - can, should and ought to be considered together; and dealt-with by one or a few generalized socio-political solutions of the type that constitute leftist politics and ideology. 

And, even give that all these assumptions were true and reflected reality; the resulting ethic of diminishing suffering is one that has many consequences which would be considered self-contradictory if clearly apprehended and comprehended. 

Because when reducing the suffering in this-life becomes the priority, it trumps life-itself; as with the mainstream acceptance and advocacy of abortion; where the priority is to reduce the suffering of the mother and or the child - even at the cost of killing the child. 

It is quite normal to express the ethic that it is better not to be born, than to be born to suffer; not to live, than to live in (presumed) great suffering - and this also justifies the grossly sub-replacement reproductive rates that characterize the entire developed world.   

It is quite normal to envisage a massive (but suffering-free!) reduction in global human population ("giga-death") as a mechanism for reducing global suffering due to some imputed cause or another; or even to save the 'suffering planet'. 

There is no great mystery to all this. Suffering (like pain, fear, humiliation or any other of its subtypes) is a consequence of many possible causes of many types; and furthermore is not a fixed quantitative result but varies according to attitude, explanation and treatments. 

A person can be - often is - made to suffer by evoking resentment against real or imagined persecution for supposedly class, race or sex (etc.) reasons. And then more people can be made to suffer 'vicariously' by empathic identification with (alleged, often fictional) supposed-instances of such suffering! 

The left has developed an 'economy' of suffering. Suffering can be imputed to some groups while others are blamed for that suffering; suffering can even be imputed to the planet, biosphere, ecosystem or environment. 

After a couple of centuries of expanding and permeating leftism, and especially since the explicit emergence of a leftist world government last year; Suffering is now Big Business.

Indeed, suffering is now the biggest of all world enterprises! With multiple and linked agencies and bureaucracies engaged in the identification/ creation/'raising awareness', validation, and allocation of suffering on one side...While on the other side is a vast and ramifying state-media-charitable-corporate apparatus for (allegedly) preventing and alleviating suffering. 

Leftism has become a global machine for creating, amplifying, and spreading suffering; even as it claims to be alleviating - or, at its transhumanist extreme actually abolishing - suffering. 

Modern Leftism is - insofar as it has any positive content - a meta-ideology of suffering. 

We can regard this 'meta-ideology of suffering' as an almost inevitable consequence of abolishing God, the spiritual and the after-life. 

If this mortal life really is our only experience - then its rationale can only be related to our current state of experience. 

The ideology of suffering has therefore been made public and socially-manipulative by the bridging concept of altruism; so that ethical persons are supposed-to-be concerned primarily to alleviate the sufferings of as many others as possible. (i.e. the philosophical system termed Utilitarianism.) 

But when the transcendental and spiritual have been wholly removed from public discourse and life (ignored, excluded, denied, forgotten); now we can observe an accelerating centripetal tendency towards short-termist certainty rather than long-term strategy; and a focus on the experienced-self rather than the inferred and alleged suffering of others. 

Therefore the terminus of the leftist ideology of altruistic is selfish negative impulsive hedonism. 

And the only way to be sure of avoiding suffering is to die (either immediately or as soon as suffering is too great) - die painlessly and quickly. 

Hence my prediction of a (imminent) mass epidemic of fear-motivated, resentful-spirited and despairing suicide. 

And this leads to damnation - not because it is suicide as such; but because such attempted self-annihilation was motivated by the sins of fear, resentment and despair; which amount to rejection or  denial of the reality and Goodness of our loving God the creator. 

No Hiding Place (or, learn from what The Enemy *does*)

Christians have often commented with dismay on the way that the Totalitarian Left actively seeks-out dissidents. Nobody is left to themselves to 'get on with life'. 

As of 2020 when the Global bureaucracy has taken-over; there is No Hiding Place - to quote the title of an old TV programme which used to chill me as a young child.

 

It seems natural, and necessary, to find a 'hiding place'; somewhere un-known to The Enemy where we may shelter and escape his attention and demands. Why? (those not Of The Left complain) can't They just leave us alone, to live the way that we want?

To mainstream materialistic thinking, this situation looks-like one of a vast System deployed against a series of helpless individuals, each of whom will inevitably be crushed. And that is certainly how things are portrayed, and how their personal situation is described, to those individual dissenters who find themselves the focus of The System. 

(I know. I have been there, twice: it tends to feel like Me against The World.)

 

Yet, if that captured the essence of the situation, The System would not bother about individual dissent. After all; focusing The System on detecting and eliminating each and every incidence of dissent inflicts vast costs and inefficiencies, and cripples actual System capability. Why bother?

Why indeed - if Leftism really was materialist... But it is Not. 

Sure enough, Leftism says it is (and acts like it is) a materialistic philosophy at its lower levels (among the un-thinking, un-conscious minions and propagandists); but the demonic powers at the top of The System are driven by spiritual aims: they are fighting a spiritual war. 

(Albeit Leftism is engaged in a spiritual war of a distinctively anti-spiritual kind; in other words Leftism seeks to eliminate the spiritual from Life; to track down and eliminate all people who are genuinely spiritual in their thinking.) 

And this should be obvious from how modern, world-dominating Leftism actually behaves. Leftism is (after all) about the thought police; Leftism is about propaganda, persuasion, public relations; it is about 'winning hearts and minds' via the censored and controlled (yet attention-grabbing and addictive) mass/social media, a corrupted arts establishment; (fake) news, (pseudo) science. Leftist crusades are quasi moral - abolition, pacifism, socialism, enviromentalism, healthism, antiracism, sexual liberation...

Leftism wants zero dissidence; requires every last person (in every 'hidey-hole' on the planet) to be On Message, With the Program: actively and internally supportive of this-week's moral imperatives.

(This was the clear message and lesson of Orwell's 1984: every single person must love Big Brother: every-single-person, Must, Love... Big Brother.)  

 

And by this demand; Leftism reveals its weakness to those with spiritual-eyes to see: that any single individual person who dissents in thought (no matter how apparently obscure) is a significant threat to The Agenda at the level which matters most: i.e. the spiritual level.     

The individual has never been so objectively empowered as here-and-now. 

The Global Establishment demands that you, specifically (no matter who you are), decide to be On Their Side. 

When the demonic powers view our planet; any dissidence, any one Godly Christian, stands-out of this world like a blazing beacon.

(This, ultimately, is why there is "no hiding place".)

 

Of course it is vital to The Enemy to persuade Christians that Resistance Is Futile... 

Meanwhile, by everything they actually do; Leftism makes clear that any resistance, by any person, anywhere is In Fact a colossal threat to The System - at its primary and spiritual level. 

 

Note: This general phenomenon was brought home to me some twenty years ago when I refused to put my signature to a bureaucratic performance-surveillance document in the university system. 

I did the perfomance review, but would not sign-up to targets: I would not formally agree to performance measures. I refused because signing was legal agreement, and weakened my employment protection - by modifying my contract in favour of the employer and with zero advantage to myself. Obviously, I wouldn't sign... 

(And equally obviously, 'everybody else' did sign.)

In order to persuade me to sign, I was alternately told that my signature was a trivial formality that meant nothing - so I might as well sign; and also that it was essential that I sign Or Else. 

In other words, that my formal agreement to institutional goals and practices was completely insignificant; yet also that it was vital I formally-supported institutional goals and practices. 

Writing my name at the bottom of my form meant nothing whatsoever, and at the same time my failure to sign was of major concern to the organisation. 

This is just an analogy for the spiritual reality. But, in the end, each of us must decide which is the truth about our situation: are we insignificant specks of dust (one among billions), or are we personally a significant threat - whose thinking might, potentially, materially damage the plans of the Global Elite?

One or the other.

2020, Us, and Them (Good or evil)

One thing I have learned in 2020 is that there are not many of Us - and nearly everybody is on-the-side-of Them. The ratio of Us/Them turns out to be a very small fraction - and much smaller than I had previously realised. 

In other words, They are the servants of Satan, and almost everybody (and apparently All leaders) is on Their side. 

I can see from the way that people talk and write that this fact is not generally recognised among Us. The reason is a failure to recognise that evil is about Taking Sides. Being evil means being on the wrong side in the spiritual war; being on the side of Satan - and many/ most nice/ altruistic/ kind people have chosen to take Satan's side. 

 

In particular, many devout Christians (including - almost - every leader of every Christian church and denomination; and all of the big ones, so far as I know them) have already taken Satan's side; and act accordingly. And those who have taken Satan's side include many people who are (let's say) 95% or more Good Christians in what they profess and practice. 

It turns-out that being 95% Christian, obedient to the rules, and devout in practice doesn't matter a jot! Because these people have-joined-with Satan's side. They see what Satan wants them to see, ignore and deny what Satan wants them to deny; think the way Satan wants them to think; make the key talking-points and express the core affiliations that Satan wants. Their positive personal attributes (e.g. intelligence, kindness, obedience, loyalty, hard-work...) are all turned to the aid of evil; all are joining the alliance that is making war on God.  

Satan - it seems - needs only a tiny window to find his way into the heart of a Christian and claim his allegiance. The window might be (and usually is) any type of Leftism; such as socialism, feminism, antiracism, pacifism, the sexual revolution... It might (more rarely) be nationalism, Nietzschean hedonism or power seeking. 

It may simply be careerism or the desire for social acceptance. The particular evil-theme may be driven by individual fear, resentment, pride, despair - or any other sin which regards itself as virtue and thereby feeds-upon itself.

 

Of course, at any moment, an ex-Christian might repent and undo all the evil work! This is the gift of Jesus. 

But this will only happen if the particular person discerns that prioritizing their socio-political hobby-horse of psychological desire is a sin that is rotting their soul. The rarity of such repentance suggests that extremely few people are able, or rather willing, to acknowledge the fact of their own previous/ current choice of Satan's alliance (not even when they look around and see what their numerous demonic allies are advocating and celebrating; not even when they learn what They have in store for the world). 

As usual, it is all terribly simple. There are just two sides: Us with God, and Them against God. And all that we have to do is choose one; and nobody can prevent that choice being For God.

 

In 2020 the choice is binary and mandatory; and the two sides are easier to tell-apart than ever before. It should be easy! Except for the disturbing fact that (nearly) everybody, including (nearly) all self-identified Christians (and their churches) - has made the wrong choice: and is doubling-down on it. 

Why people stay in Leftism after the fun stops

Leftism gets individuals, and got our civilization, by being more fun than Christianity. 1966 and 1967 were fun years... Swinging London, the summer of love.

It retrospect it was superficial, pretentious... Sex, drugs rock and roll... It was at root a promise of hedonism, a world of guilt-free pleasure. But it was fun...

But very quickly, by 1968; Leftism took a different turn, towards angry, violent demands for pacifism, feminism, antiracism and the rest of it. Instead of "freedom" there was a growing bureaucracy of Human Rights.

The process, the bait and switch, has continued person by person ever since; liberation, followed by assimilation into The System. The System growing ever stronger, the hedonism dwindling to its recent rock bottom of lockdownsocialdistancing...

Yet, once grabbed by the hedonic promises of Leftism, it is a rare individual who steps away. And no society, no Nation has stepped away... We live in a Leftist world.

Hardly anybody seems to notice that what began as fun has ended in dullness, fear and mutual resentment.

Why? Because the process, at root, is a positive feedback cycle of leaving God, of rejecting God, of living without God - each decision a step further away; each step reinforcing the previous.

Why no learning, no noticing, no negative feedback, no rebellion against the lies and fakery? Because each step is a removal of the heart, the core, the very capacity for judgement and learning.

By now we are less than a civilization, less than Men..and each individual has walked this path, step by step, by many choices.

Why it's best to be English

I take it that being English is the best thing to be - since the mass media regard it as so shameful. The rule in mainstream culture is Anything But English - much as spirituality is Anything But Christianity.

If I was a celebrity; I would call myself Irish - and would years ago have obtained an Irish passport on the basis of my Granny's birthplace; just as I would say I was spiritual but not religious, with a particular interest in Zen - or, even better, Sufism. I would play-up all non-English (exotic, victim-status) aspects in my history as happens in almost every celebrity biography on Wikipedia.


(Exaggerating, inventing and lying-about one's origins and ancestry to claim victim-status is regarded as acceptable; since it displays agreement with the prevalent moral framework, and accepts the validity of our dominant paradigm.)


Since the mass media are puppets of Satan (to put matters succinctly); this hostility tends to suggest that if you are - like me - an English Christian; this might just be the best possible thing to be - simply because the worst kind of people regard you as their prime enemy.

I know this isn't conclusive; because even the most evil people have some good in them; and it might be that there is indeed something especially evil about the English - but on the whole, I take the prevalent anti-Englishness on the part of the most loathsome of persons and institutions as a big compliment!


But why should it be that there is enforced a perpetual Open Season on the English by people who are themselves deeply subservient to the agenda of evil? My understanding is related to what I call Romantic Christianity - and that there was some divinely-required work of this kind that the English were supposed to do, from around 1800-ish...

This Did Not Happen; and instead the English abandoned Christianity and the spiritual; invented such (over the long-term) blights of leftism as radical atheism, the sexual revolution, abolition, pacifism, feminism and socialism; to make modern England among the worst examples of anti-Christian, morally-inverted, soul-crushing, bureaucratic, nihilistic, materialist and despairing nations.


But, apparently, something about the English is still feared by the powers of evil; as was evident after the pro-Brexit vote: there followed a shock wave of (almost incoherent) terror through the Global Establishment, apparently because they feared that the English might awaken to their destiny...

Well, it did not happen, and now shows no sign of happening. To all appearances, the current English are abject in their embrace of the new Globalist, self-loathing, before-'other'-abasing totalitarianism.

But the Establishment remain uneasy, and intend to ensure that the English are pressed-down; and stay on the ground, sprawling and grovelling...


For such reasons, I think it is still - despite everything - best to be English (assuming you are English); and I shall not be trying to pass myself off as anything else.

What motivates the pro-totalitarian bureaucratic evil of mainstream Leftism (including CO2 Global warmists and pro-EU Remainers)

I have been trying to understand why it is that so many Westerners - especially in the Establishment, its servants and the intellectual-managerial classes and the mass media; embrace a whole raft of pro-totalitarian strategies and policies; and why they do so with such moralizing zeal.

This zeal can only partly be explained by the self-interest of wanting to grow the single global bureaucracy, and get jobs and status from it - because these people are overall as much in thrall to the evils and abuses of The System as everybody else.

So why do they want it to grow, why do they feel so positively about it? Why do they love Big Brother?


Why do so many such people believe with such passionate zeal in the nonsense of the Climate Change agenda? Why do so many of them regard the European Union (of all things!) as not just the best overall political option, but as absolutely vital to human well-being? Why do they - in sum - so much admire and trust, so rarely criticise, any 'global' agency, any bureaucracy or institution like the UN, WHO, EU, IPCC that merely espouses high sounding Leftist ideas (regardless of what they actually do, and fail to do).


This moralizing zeal has grown tremendously in Britain since the pro-Brexit vote of 2016. Those who opposed Brexit with righteousness are exactly the same people who want Global Agencies to implement a comprehensive system of omni-surveillance and micro-control of 'Carbon' production and sequestration, and implement a Global system of coercion to replace current with 'sustainable' energy technologies. To accomplish this they want the whole world, and (ultimately) every-body and every-thing in it, to come under control of a single, central, purposive agency.

Why the passion? It is, I believe, driven by fear.

The Leftists, Warmists, Globalists want what they want because they regard world totalitarianism as the solution to those threats which they most fear.  


The first fear is of war - because these are the same people who are 'pacifists', loud shouters for 'peace'; and pacifism was perhaps the first Western manifestation of this pro-totalitarian zeal.

Modern pacifists are not against use of coercive force (they approved bombing Syria and other Arab states - they approve the hundreds of assassinations by drone strikes, they approve Antifa violence against patriots, and aggression when practiced by the likes of Extinction Rebellion) - but pacifists want this force to be deployed by Global Agencies against the partisan wishes of (for example) Nation States, or groupings within them who oppose the totalitarian agenda - and thus (They believe) make war more likely.

They so much fear war that they actively desire an international totalitarian regime that (They believe) will make war impossible.  If war is the single worst thing, then anything is better than war; and if you believe totalitarianism will stop war - this makes sense.

They now fear Global Warming; and they fear it so much that they want a global totalitarian system to ensure that it cannot happen. The same reasoning applies - 'anything is better than' the planet being consumed by flames (and that, exactly, is the image in Their minds now) - and if totalitarianism is what it takes - so be it...


They project their fear... They fear on-behalf-of the other*: the 'third world', Palestinians; 'minorities', of women, sexual revolutionaries, immigrants, whatever. They fear that 'people' will - if not restrained - attack and oppress all such persons.

Because they fear for The Other, their fear has no knowledge, no reason, no limit - and can never be assuaged. The Other's fear cannot be addressed (indeed it is imagined, not known) - the solution can only be impersonal. Because they fear for The Other; the only possible answer is external, mandatory, comprehensive. 

They fear it, because ultimately they feel in themselves the impulse to do so. They therefore seek an im-personal solution, a final solution... A solution that must apply to everyone, everywhere, forever (because it is up-against Human Nature).

A system that works whatever the people who run it, despite the people: thus a total system, that covers all possible eventualities.

So... totalitarianism. 


Here is my understanding: 

In this Ahrimanic age, Western people fail to recognise evil when it is abstract and systemic, when it is impersonal, numerical, procedural. This is our Achilles Heel. Such evil is not just unrecognised, but regarded as good: hence the prevalence of, and increase in, value-inversion: virtue, beauty and truth are inverted - and sin (especially sexual), calculated ugliness and dishonesty are redefined (among those in-the-know, The Establishment) as 'the new good'. 

This is why we have ended-up with a world of ever-expanding, ever-encroaching bureaucracy, a world in which all the individual bureaucracies are linking up to make a Single Master Bureaucracy (that is, totalitarianism). A world where our rulers and opinion-makers nearly all want nothing more than that this system be extended over the whole planet and into the smallest interstices of life.

If the global surveillance and control system were to be put into the hands of a World Emperor with absolute power, the problem would immediately be obvious.

But when the proposal is for a system - for laws and rules, for protocols and procedures, for decision-making by committees and with votes... If the personal, if human judgment and the need for individual goodness are rigorously excluded... Well then Western people cannot perceive the problem.


Mainstream Western Leftists assume - and so deeply that they are not aware of this assumption - that the impersonal is good when its objectives are good, that the impersonal cannot be evilbecause only persons can be evil. They assume that a system can be set up so that it must be good - if adhered to; indedd the only real problem is to ensure that people actually do what they system wants. Hence they regard totalitarianism as both necessary and good.

So, that is it. Our Establishment and ruling class want global totalitarianism essentially because they are in thrall to unexamined Ahrimanic assumptions concerning the nature of good and evil, and because they are prey to free-floating fears that have been moralistically inculcated by the media and authorities.

These are not obvious fears, these fears are insidious because they are inversions and speculations; they are threats as defined by a system which needs unreal hence insoluble threats in order to justify its own perpetual growth.


Real and immediate threats are in fact taboo - and regarded as 'extreme right wing' concerns and 'conspiracy theories' - especially that biggest and worst threat of all, which is precisely the global totalitarian bureaucratic system that the Establishment and its servants are working, on so many fronts simultaneously, to implement: everywhere, and for everything - forever.


*Note added: It is the projection of fear - that is, regarding oneself as fighting on behalf of 'others' which makes Leftism so zealous and labile. After all, to be selfish is so instinctive that we have various natural ways of recognising, compensating, limiting its effects (in ourselves and others). But once fear is projected onto 'the unknown other' it becomes both abstracted and fundamentally ignorant; and also presents itself as universally-altristic. Therefore projected fear is intrinsically (intoxicatingly!) self-righteous. Under such unnatural and artifical conditions working-on second-hand and speculative data; fear expands and spreads without limit or possibility of negative feedback. The resulting state of un-moored, delusional, moralising hysteria; is familiar to all who observe Leftists from a Christian perspective.

What is it about Leftism (including the sexual revolution) that so absolutely blocks real Christianity?

The simple answer is not primarily the things themselves, not the effect of Leftism* (including the sexual revolution - which is Leftism's most insidious and effective manifestation); but the failure to repent.

That is, the failure to know that these are wrong. The failure to recognise, acknowledge that these are not The Path; that these are not what we should be doing - that these are temptations towards sin.

After all, we have it from Jesus that sin is no barrier to salvation, nor even to theosis (to becoming more divine). But for sin to be negated, we must know that it is sin; and to know sin, we must know goodness, virtue, beauty and truth.


The special, lethal damage of Leftism is that so many people are so deeply persuaded that some particular (or more than one) of the multifold Leftist ideals, principles, rights, prohibitions, aspirations... are needful.

(By which I mean any or all of the mutating and evolving imperatives of Leftism: pacifism, abolition of slavery, equality, socialism, social justice, feminism, antiracism, abolition of suffering, the rights of non-biological or pathological sexual orientations and aspirations, environmentalism, libertarianism, transhumanism... etc. and so forth.) 

Needful and necessary in an ultimate fashion - as a bottom line.

Necessary for themselves, necessary for some others or groups of others - needful in a kind of cosmic way.


Either that - or another kind of Leftism; that these matters (political, social and sexual) are - as a matter of principle - trivial, unimportant, nobody's business, arbitrary... that they are purely materialist arrangements of matter; excluded from the realms of values; nothing whatsoever to do with truth, beauty or virtue.


What absolutely blocks real Christianity among Leftists is the failure to include the political, social and sexual within the reality of Life that is relevant to following Jesus. This is not, at root, a matter of following rules; but a refusal to be real.   

To know and follow Jesus, to know one's mortal life in the context of Heaven to come; is to regard this our mortality as really-real in a way that is absolutely clarifying of our needing to have faith and love in the first place; and then to live this life and learn from it.

What we have, endemic in The West, is a mass refusal to learn from life; derived from a failure to regard life as real, significant, solid and of Heavenly scope. Leftism (including the sexual revolution) is a commitment-against this.


So, in a world in which Leftism encompasses almost the entirely of public, social, institutional life; in which the sexual revolution has been inculcated, encouraged, rewarded since infancy - we are all of us prone to temptation and lapsing. We are all complicit. Purity and consistency is unattainable. We are all infected and diseased, to some significant extent.

None of this matters when we are prepared to live and learn, to recognise, know and repent (trial, error, repentance; and trial...); and this is God-given and comes spontaneously and naturally (if we but allow it - albeit few do) - for those whose orientation is set-upon following Jesus through death to Heaven.

We will stray from the path, we will know when we stray - we can return to the path and continue; but only if we personally and consciously choose to make Jesus primary, and acknowledge when we have strayed.


*Note: This question about the lethal effect of Leftism on real Christianity is of central importance to our time and place: The West, here-and-now; because Leftism is the entirety of mainstream public discourse - including all conservative, republican, libertarian, nationalist groupings... Any and all discourse that does not acknowledge the primacy of the divine is Leftist - to put it another way materialism is Leftism. Therefore, all who call-themselves 'Right' yet who are not primarily religious in terms of how they aspire to arrange society, are actually of-the-Left. The Left (of all types) is therefore the party of evil, whatever one's religion. There are - of course - many religions with very different ideas concerning the nature of deity - but the question of by which religion we ought to live, is a separate discussion.

The real Leftism cares Nothing At All about implementing the (current) Left agenda

It is a trap of the materialist perspective among those who (think that they) oppose the Left, to notice that the main pillar of the (current) left agenda - that is, the Sexual Revolution - is very probably going to be defeated, then reversed, by Multiculuralism.

They say this as a Gotcha! - as if it is an error on behalf of the Left - or something that those who control the left agenda have not noticed, or are - perhaps - too idealistic to believe.

But in fact this is not conflict, nor an oversight - but an important clue to the real nature of Leftism and the real agenda of those behind it - an agenda which has nothing to do with any of the shopping list of the Left agenda.

The real Left care precisely Nothing At All about social justice, socialism, antiracism, feminism, pacifism, the homosexual or trans agendas... So why should they care if multiculturalism defeats the sexual agenda?

The real Left has a spiritual agenda and merely uses the shopping list of 'isms' as temporary, expedient, disposable means to that spiritual end.

Old Left-New Left... Modernity-Postmodernity - surface changes masking a constant deep motivation against God

It is easy to make too much of the change in mainstream socio-politics that happened in the mid-1960s. Leftism has been increasingly mainstream in The West for a couple of hundred years - but within that project, there was a change in the 1960s; and on the surface it seemed to be a qualitative change.

Some contrasts... The Old Left was about economics, the New Left was about the sexual revolution and antiracism; equality of opportunity versus affirmative action and group preferences; nationalisation versus globalisation; planned economy versus free trade; protectionism versus mass-unlimited population migration; the native workers versus immigrants...

For a while the idea became fashionable that this was a shift from modernism to postmodernism; where modernism was seen as a kind of Enlightenment Rationalism and progress; and postmodernism was seen as relativism, loss of all values, loss of all explanations, loss of all sense of purpose and progress - a world of change but no meaning.

However, although the surface change was indeed qualitative; underneath the change from Old to New Left/ modernism to postmodernism, can be seen as an unfolding of the same underlying impulse.


How do we know this? Because many millions of individual people on The Left, en masse, made this exact transition in their beliefs; and very few of them refused to do so.

The same individuals who in their youth championed white, native-born, working class men as the oppressed 'proletarian' heroes of society... by the time they reached old age had demonised this group (as racist/ sexist/ homophobic/ Christian bigots etc.), and now champions everybody except them.

Another example is eugenics. Before 1960 pretty much All intellectual Leftists (except Roman Catholics) were ardent advocates of eugenics: i.e. of state control of human fertility as an essential means towards improving genetic quality, and therefore social functioning. By 1970, the same group of people, often the same individuals, regarded eugenics as a hallmark of 'Right Wing', 'Fascist' evil; and anyone proposing eugenics was aggressively, often violently, excluded from public discourse ('deplatformed' as people would now call it).

The same happened with 'feminism'. Before the transition; Leftists regarded feminism as subsumed within socialism (racism too) - the sexes being unified by equality of opportunity. From the 1970s, women were increasingly split from men as a victim group with opposite interests than men; and with different laws and rules applicable to women and men; so as first to equalise sex outcomes, then to make women's outcomes higher than men's - in one area of public action after another. The ideal of equality has been replaced by an ideal of inequality.

Yet although these aims (sex equality of opportunity versus sex inequality of outcome) were extremely different, almost opposite; Leftists remained Leftists - with very few exceptions they obediently followed 'the party line', and (in their multi-millions) set-aside honesty and consistency.

And Many millions more joined them - as the Left took-over all mainstream politics, government, all all major social institutions.


The fact that people on the Left so easily, seamlessly, changed - and even reversed - their superficial opinions and their policies; and did so dishonestly, claiming that they were not doing so; tells us that the roots and motivation of Leftism are not at the level of obvious opinions and policies.

The roots of Leftism are much deeper - and are, indeed, at the level of metaphysics. That is, at the level of basic assumptions concerning the nature of reality.

The basic assumptions of Leftism have unfolded over the past couple of centuries (and were foreshadowed before that time). The most fundamental assumption is a set of linked assumptions rejecting divine agency and the immaterial. These are along the lines that there is no God, and no objective truth, beauty or morality; that the material (perceptible, measurable) realm of things is the only reality; and that human emotion (pleasure-suffering) is the only valid measure of goodness (aka 'utilitarianism').

(You should note that materialism and utilitarianism are ultimately contradictory - because other-people's emotions do not exist according to materialism, being objectively unobservable, not-measurable, unquantifiable; nonetheless this combination of assumptions is universal in mainstream public discourse for the past century and more.)


On the positive side of 'what was wanted', Leftism probably began with pacifism among mid-18th century Nonconformists, the abolition of slavery spreading from this same group, and a mounting demand for relief of the new kind of poverty and misery that was caused by the industrial revolution by means of state redistribution of wealth...

And from the beginning the sexual revolution was a strong element, although initially only among the upper class radicals (e.g. Lord Byron, Shelley); who immediately used a political rationale for advocating their own practice of unbounded sexual relations outside of religious marriage. 

We need to recognise that, even though its early advocates espoused some good causes, and many individuals at the low level of the movement were basically good-but-misguided people, the Left always was from its very roots a basically false (hence evil) human motivation.

By excluding or marginalising the divine perspective; by placing mortal life, materialism and human emotion as the focus of human evaluation and action; it was always inevitable that Leftism would unfold to short-termist hedonism, despair, and nihilism - and would lead its adherents (at first unconsciously, but increasingly explicitly) to seek their own self-annihilation - both in general - by working actively for the destruction of their own marriages, families, institutions and nations) - and individually.

This self-annihilation is rationalised by a publicly enforced cancerous compassion. Compassion is, objectively, a minor virtue intended as a duty in relation to a person's immediate circle of family, friends and neighbours. But post-60s Leftism has raised 'universal, unbounded compassion' to be the ultimate virtue to be striven-for - and, of course, this is a form of suicide - both at a group level and for individuals.  

Self-annihilation therefore also operates personally - with its compassion-driven focus on abortion/ infanticide, and euthanasia for an expanding and open-ended scope of indications. The ideal of unbounded non-procreative sex is also justified by compassion for those with 'unconventional' desires.

Ultimately there is the increasingly-accepted/ wanted transhumanist project of destroying and replacing humans (by drugs, genetic engineering, implanted social-mass media, microchipping, downloading etc) - again, advocated mainly on the basis of compassion for suffering.


All these 'new' phenomena have their motivational roots in the centuries-old and basic assumptions of Leftism; they were implicit from its very beginnings.

Which tells us that the origin of Leftism lies in the demonic; in immortal purposive evil with foresight.

And this is why Leftism has been by far the most successful of all evil strategies in the history of Mankind.