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. 

  

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. 

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

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

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

Such rhetoric is either deliberately or ignorantly subversive of Christianity.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But opposed in the name of what? 

That makes a big difference. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The synergies of bureaucracy - where Left 'fights' Left to promote totalitarianism

One of the most astonishing and resistant blindspots of "radical" Leftism (the scare quotes are because progressive "radicals" actually serve the totalitarian agenda of global power and finance) relates to their role in promoting the growth of bureaucracy and management.

Since there is no genuine Right in mainstream politics (the only coherent definition of the Right being  those groups that favour religion as the primary basis of society) - modern politics is the Left battling the Left in many versions of the kind of inter-office politicking (struggling for domination) you get within any large bureaucracy such as the civil service.

Most obviously this is between priorities - should poverty be the priority, or equality, feminism, antiracism, the sexual revolution, carbon dioxide reduction... or what? All the different Leftist groups support each other in principle, but in practice each wants their pet-topic to be regarded as most important (this being both ideologically justified by their world view, and is - of course - self-serving).

The Left regards naked self-interest in a progressive cause as morally admirable; as when women support feminism, non-whites speak against racism, immigrants are active in promoting further immigrant privileges, and trans people become ideological leaders of the trans agenda. Such 'bloc voting' is regarded as natural and indeed ethically-normative on the Left; while being evidence of evil and conspiracy when seen in the pseudo-Right controlled-opposition. This is perhaps a major reason why poverty and inequality have lost influence on the Left - since the core Left leadership (throughout history) have been nearly all upper-class and/or wealthy people (Jeremy Corbyn but the latest example).

So the Left is divided and has internal opposition; but for Leftism inner-competition is a feature not a bug since it energises, feeds and serves the true, deep, covert Left agenda:

All the Leftisms converge on promoting totalitarian bureaucracy.


(Note: This promotion of totalitarian bureaucracy also applies to the small minority of anarchistic Leftists such as Noam Chomsky - in practice. Although in theory the Anarchist Left are in favour of 'grass roots', direct, participatory, bottom-up democracy, and against all large institutions; in practice, when the chips are down; their Leftism always trumps their anarchism. They always side with mainstream Leftism - and its multinational bureaucratic institutions and agencies - both against the mainstream fake-Right and the excluded true-Right-religious.)  

***

A couple of decades ago I was involved in the (now defunct) university lecturers' trade union (the AUT - Association of University Teachers) as a representative and elected member of the senior university management committee (Senate). But I soon realised that in truth the union and the management were on the same side - or rather that their minor conflicts were serving a major, higher-level Leftist and bureaucratic purpose.


(Note: The union branch, like many, was substantially 'infiltrated' by a cell of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) - a smallish but very active and influential Trotskyite Revolutionary Communist outfit - of which Jeremy Corbyn the ex-Labour leader was a fellow traveller - whose modus operandi was provoke and escalate any dispute; with the aim of radicalising participants and thereby forwarding The Cause. This fed and energized the totalitarian Leftism with further pseudo-conflict/ actual-collaboration.)  


The union collaborated actively with management in the removal of all 'academic privileges' - by moving all 'employees' towards the exact same terms and conditions of service; mandatory on staff because union-approved. All employees from Deans and Professors to secretaries and cleaners should (the union believed) have the same status and (lack of) privileges - which was, de facto, to become Human Resources; interchangeable units to be hired, promoted and fired - and in general deployed - by Management; in line with managerial (and thereby governmental) goals.

This entailed - as all mainstream Leftist schemes entail - a vast bureaucratic apparatus of monitoring and control, to ensure that 'power was not being 'abused' by individuals - or, put into in other words, to ensure that all individual autonomy was crushed by diktat of the senior management committees.

This was a Leftist issue; because up to the 1990s, academic staff, but only academic staff (faculty, including researchers), had significant autonomy (and indeed, institutional leadership); but this inequality was seen as unfair (by Leftist understanding) therefore the system must be levelled (and, in practice, as always, levelled-down) so that cleaners and secretaries had 'the same rights' as faculty.  

The union also collaborated with management on such national policy goals as introducing group privileges (affirmative action) for people from on-average-poorer neighbourhoods (as a fake-proxy for being actually 'underprivileged' - which appeased the class warriors of the Old Left), then women, non-whites, immigrants etc.

All of this 'required' new higher levels, and new intrusiveness, of bureaucratic monitoring and control - in order to 'ensure' 'fairness'.


(It should be noted that these schemes were justified by the dishonest denial of group-differences - such as intelligence differences - that explained the reason for different 'representations' of different groups. Having lyingly denied such differences, the reason for inequality of outcomes 'must be' irrational and malign prejudice, justifying managerial takeover in order to implement detailed 'impartial' systems.)


Everything in the university was (including teaching, scholarship, research) was coercively reorganised into manageable, auditable, hierarchical and ever-larger 'teams' and 'collaborations'. And again unions and management actively-cooperated.


I could go on - but it can be seen that the unions and the management collaborated on the over-arching Leftist agenda - one predictable consequence of which was the 'proletarianization' of academic faculty. These became mere tools of management; to be hired and fired according to institutional 'needs' (i.e. current policy priorities). Academics lost all their 'privileges' (actually necessities for them to do their proper work) such as 'tenure' and freedom to pursue scholarship and research and publish autonomously.

Yet the unions still saw themselves 'on the progressive side' - and at deep-reality level they were. Having co-implemented a system of totalitarian surveillance and control; they engaged in those other favourite Leftist activities: destructive moral-preening and virtue-signalling.

That is, the unions 'collaborated' in making a permanent situation of internal conflict based on mutual-resentment (mixed with despair); recurring waves of futile protests and strikes - all directed against against the predictable consequences of the very system the unions had co-implemented; including managerial takeover, casualization of academic labour (non-secure short-term jobs), reducing pensions, external direction - and so forth.


This is the modus operandi of The Left. It is a negative programme of opposition; based on negative emotions especially resentment verging into spite (inflicting harm on others, even at cost to oneself). Leftism leads-to (actually-itself-is) permanent conflict, permanent 'revolution' and change; and then justification of top-down takeover to deal with the chaos. But always serving the overall goal of the subversion, destruction and (ideally) inversion of The Good (i.e. God and Creation - although these are never mentioned).

Universities have been hollowed-out and re-filled, their names and badges retained; but their functioning and activities utterly re-purposed. Their personnel have been replaced with obedient drones, their internal rules replaced, and their objectives redirected towards convergence with the continually-changing Leftist purposes of global bureaucracy.


In sum, thanks to the synergy of Leftisms; each university is now a microcosm of the totalitarian state of omni-surveillance and micro-control. They are institutionally moving close to the ideal of knowing, auditing and regulating what each manager, employee and student is doing, every hour of every day: the pre-requisite for control of all behaviour (including - ultimately - thinking).

...'Smart cards' are needed everywhere - monitoring and controlling access; classes are recorded and often videoed - hence auditable, the campus is studded with video monitors, work is broken-down into multiple tasks in linked flow charts.

Big Brother has been invited and installed; and he is watching, listening, recording - welcomed by all Leftists in order to protect against the prejudice, injustice, persecution and the rest of it - that characterise individual, free human beings.

The human being has become all-but dispensable; except to fill the gaps between the machines and the systems.

Truly the modern university is a Leftist paradise - and the predictable, inevitable, product of Leftist competition/ collaboration.

The fact that he Left hates its own-created paradise - and blames its problems upon a wholly-imaginary 'Right' - is entirely as predicted and was inevitable: it was built-in by design.

   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

This is an essential first step. 

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

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

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

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

Nuance versus judgment by inferred motivations

*
This plays out daily in the sham debates of the mass media.

Those in power - i.e. the mass media and their Leftist servants (in other words, the Progressive Establishment, the Mandarinate, those with power and influence) demand to be interpreted with nuance - and impose unilateral nuance on the debate.

In practice, this means those in the power structure debate so that they are judged by strictly legalistic interpretations of their precise words - interpreted with an assumption of their good motivations.

This framework is imposed by the mass media

*

The Progressive Establishment refuse to be judged by any except good motivations (which have been inferred from innumerable previous acts and trends) - it is regarded as simply crazy talk from 'conspiracy theorists' to assume that the power-holders' motivations are bad.

Yet, if the debate is structured by this assumption of the good motivations of the Progressive Establishment - then they must always be allowed 'the benefit of the doubt'; and since doubt can always be manufactured - therefore the Liberal Establishment have pre-won every debate: their victory is built-in...

(Because the mass media controls the debate, and the mass media is the origin and focus of modern New Leftism, Political Correctness, Progressivism.) 

*

Leftist politicians have pre-won every issue they care to raise - in the public arena - so long as there has been a lawyerly choice of wording for everything they say.

In other words, so long as Leftist politicians speak legalese, the mass media will always win their debates for them.  

It is the ability to communicate in lawyerly - ie. deniable -  forms of words which explains the domination of the political system by lawyers.

*

Opposition to Progressive Leftism is, on the other hand, judged not by the legalistic wording of its arguments - but by its inferred motivations: by its assumed negative motivations.

Since it is pre-decided that Leftism has good motivations; opposition necessarily has bad motivations (or else they are ignorant or insane, and can be ignored).

The actual arguments of the opposition do not need to be considered (nuance not needed), because it has been pre-decided that their motivations are wicked (or dumb or crazy).

Therefore the arguments of the opposition are not considered - but the opposition is simply treated as as bad people who want bad things (or else labelled as ignorant or insane, and out-with the scope of legitimate debate).

*

This is modern public discourse.

Nuance and the assumption of good motivations for us - but you will be treated as wicked, dumb or crazy and your arguments will therefore - naturally, be ignored.

You will be managed as 'a problem', not debated.

*

What is the point of participating in this?

None that I can see. Good stuff can only happen outside the public arena, out-with the mass media.

Good people with good ideas must either build-up their own channels of communication - mostly face to face and/or person to person - and essentially ignore the mass media; or else good people are absorbed into evil; fuel the mass media; take-up their pre-assigned parts of demons, knuckle-draggers and lunatics whose defeat has already been scripted.

*

Musk, Twitter and the bankruptcy of the "based" secular "Right"

When I began this blog on a frequent basis, in the middle of 2010, there was (supposedly) a new, vigorous, and intellectually-rigorous movement of the secular "Right" - variously termed Alternative/Alt Right, Neoreaction, and similar 

(The 'rump' of this movement is sometimes nowadays termed "based" - and can be sampled via this branch of Synlogos.) 

One of my earliest themes was that this movement was not actually "Right" but was just part of the Left; because they wanted essentially the same thing as the Left (i.e. optimal happiness and minimum suffering in this mortal life - the 'hedonic' calculus); and the secular "Right" therefore only differed in terms of their priority groups (eg. white native men) and the methods employed (e.g. new kinds of monarchy). 

Same ends, different means. But is the end that is definitive. 

I then argued that the only genuine alternative and opposition to The Left was religion. 

So, the truth was that the Left-Right axis was all-Left; and the only true axis of opposition was Left-Religion. 

For those who opposed The Left, I said; their only valid choice was: which religion? 

This has proved to be correct over the following decade, as evidenced by the fact that the self-identified secular Right are still merely negatively responding to what the mainstream Left are advocating or doing; much as 'fascism' did in the 1920s and 30s; . 

Since the Left is actually a negative and oppositional ideology; this means that the secular Right are a double-negative ideology. 

And since the Left's policies are already double-negative - e.g. anti-racism anti-men (feminism)  - the secular Rights policies are triple-negative anti-antiracism, anti-feminism...

Something like this explains the astonishing obsessions of the secular Right; who remain utterly focused-on everyday mainstream politics such as elections and the Twitter takeover by Musk (what!); but in this extra-negative way of opposing the destroyers instead of proposing positive creation; which the secular Right cannot do because they are secular.

The amount of internet-ink spilled over the Musk-Twitter business is especially gratuitous. Twitter is a Bad Thing, Musk is a Bad Thing - why discuss the business as if some Good would come out of it? 

The answer is: one regards this as a major issue, only when one is operating on the basis of mainstream assumptions of Good.

Just as the election-obsessives implicitly, by revealed-preference, believe (whatever they say) that we can vote our way out of trouble; so the Musk-Twitter obsessive believe we can Tweet our way to a Better World.      

So that Better means, for them, just more of the same stuff - but directed at groups they like. 

And they believe this because they have nothing better to offer. 

But what of the proper opposition to the Left: I mean The Religious? 

Well... In 2020 the major churches of the world - of (apparently) all religions and denominations - overwhelmingly made clear their convergence with the this-worldly and hedonic values of the Global Left: they made this clear by massive closures and cessations of their core activities. 

(It may be that the Government and Orthodox Church of the Fire Nation has since reversed that convergence with global Leftism: where that may lead has yet to be seen; but anyway, such a direction is not a possibility, nor desirable, for The West.) 

So the churches, of all religions, were revealed as just another part of The Left.  

So the situation is that even the Left versus Religion axis, which seemed a possibility back in 2010; is not a possibility. 

My hoped-for (albeit slender, pessimistic) possibility of a church-rooted religious revival to become culturally dominant; has since been revealed as a false hope. False, not merely because of the political weakness of the churches, but mainly because the churches do not even desire it, but instead seek assimilation to the Left (and as fast as the church leaders can persuade the laity).

Therefore; these times are far more desperate than the "secular Right" imagine; and far more desperate than church-orientated Christians acknowledge. Because (at least in The West - albeit the Fire Nation in the East may have chosen a different path of destiny) there is nowhere to turn in the world of powerful, high status, influential public discourse. 

We can neither vote-in a saviour (because none are available to vote-for, and because the bureaucracy-media control everything of social significance), nor can we engineer a way-out by participation in high-impact social media (because the medium is intrinsically evil-promoting; in form as well as its allowed-content).     

What we can do is at the individual level, not in institutions; is spiritual, not material; and is rooted in understanding correctly - which means honestly and with full acknowledgment of its scope - the nature of our situation and responsibility. 

Destruction is easy! - Explaining the (inverted) triumph of atheist-materialist-leftism

However differently things used to be, the world is now simplified - Good and evil are increasingly without overlap, separating, diverging. 

There are those who affiliate with God and divine creation - and there is the opposite side: the mainstream, common, majority of atheist-materialist-leftist ideology that rules The West (and which apparently includes most self-identified religious people, including most Christians). 

All the leadership class and most of the populations are therefore leftists; which means that their motivations have no genuine positive agenda, but operate via oppositions.

(e.g. As of 2022, leftists - i.e. the entirety of the mainstream of Western public discourse and a majority of the population - oppose 'climate change', or are anti-racist, or keen to protect and promote sexual 'minorities', or eager to transform the world to 'prevent' the birdemic, hate the Fire Nation etc - typically they are all of these. All major policy strategies of the mainstream are primarily oppositional, negative in motivation - and adopting even one of them, is to join the leftist alliance.)

Opposition is easy because it is destructive in nature, therefore leftism is easy: therefore the lefter has triumphed over the less-left, and the trend is ever-leftward. 

Any kind or degree of subversion, destruction or inversion - of whatever is created, divine, of Good - is therefore a triumph of leftism.

Of course, this 'triumph' is itself a value-inversion. To re-label destruction as triumph is to invert the true nature of accomplishment. 

The global triumph of leftism is only real, because value-inversion has become mainstream and dominant.

Creation is difficult in this mortal life, which is dominated by entropy; even sustaining good motivations and effective functionality requires ability, energy, effort...

To make something new, useful, beautiful, happy, complex... these are difficult. 

But anybody - even the laziest and most talentless fool - can destroy what has been made; destroy to a greater or lesser extent, or even completely!

It takes talent and hard work to design a functional machine - but any fool can throw a spanner in its works, sprinkle sand into its gears, or smash it with a hammer... There is just one way to make it work; but innumerable ways to break it. 

The leftist West is now self-weakening rapidly. It can accomplish less and less of the positive, and that only at greater and greater cost (due to massively reduced efficiency and the diminished status of functionality). 

Indeed the West is not even trying to create, grow capability, produce that which is necessary...

Instead; the West's diminishing resources are being increasingly channeled into the infliction of destruction. 

Even as the Western powers are consumed by their own evil; and as their capacity to create good - and even to sustain functionality - declines with increasing rapidity; they can easily destroy - internally and externally, at home and abroad...

Destruction is so easy that the powers of evil can attack simultaneously on multiple fronts. 

...As I write, leftist-motivated Western powers are seeding and nurturing chaos across the globe and in many nations; destabilizing, pouring fuel onto conflagrations; breaking complex systems of design, production, and maintenance; snapping webs of trade, transport, distribution; threatening, lying, blackmailing and bribing; encouraging hatred, resentment and despair. 

What can stop them? 

Well, the first thing is that there is no cohesive desire to stop leftist destruction. We would have to want to stop leftism, and do something else instead. 

The West is leftist here-and-now, and getting more-so. The mass majority are invested in one or several left-agenda items, therefore resistance is neutralized and cooperation widespread.

In the short-term it is nearly-always pleasanter or more expedient to join the left-agenda, than to oppose it; even when its long-term lethality has been recognized. Selling-out has become the single major career path for those with talent and the capacity for hard-work.

  

It is a snare and delusion to suppose that those who oppose the leftist-agenda can succeed in stopping and reversing it. It is too easy to destroy, too hard to sustain and build. 

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right: double-opposition is futile. 

The problem is not what we shouldn't, but what we should do. 

So, first (before anything else) we must want to stop leftism because we want something-else more - want that something-else as the highest priority in our own life. 

Since this world makes destruction easy, and this mortal life is dominated by short-termism and expediency; the only conceivably effective answer is when people live with their hopes fixed beyond this mortal life and world; and with faith that to dwell eternally in such Goodness is personally achievable. 

Work it out...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Is Social Justice/ Political Correctness/ New Leftism a religion? Actually *not* (despite superficial similarities)

*

"Social Justice” is a religion. It has saints, dogma, and sacraments.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/05/guest-editorial-social-justice-as-a-sacrament/

There are some similarities (which the writer goes on to enumerate) but actually, in its core features, 'social justice' (New Leftism, political correctness) is not a religion - because it is essentially negative and oppositional, hence fluid and self-consuming.

The Old Left, such as Communism, was very much like a Godless religion; and it did have saints- such as Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao. But the New Left of Social Justice and Political Correctness has only temporary idols, any of whom may be vilified and demonized at any time.

The idols of the Social Justice Warriors are not saints, but merely function as clubs, taken-up to beat the enemy - then usually discarded. 

The evidence is that the majority of hate figures of the Left are themselves Leftists who used to be revered. Most early IQ researchers - such as Cyril Burt - were socialists; most victims of Two Minutes Hate such as James Watson and Larry Summers are Democrats; ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair was a socialist. For Heavens sake, the Nazis were socialists! 

The lesson is that modern Leftism is parricidal (as well as fratricidal), nobody is secure in their Sainthood - indeed nobody and no group is secure in the status: even Marx's 'proletariat' was redefined as evil white males. Today's Gods are tomorrow’s devils.

And this is the essence of the beast: it is negative, oppositional, lives by subversion, inversion and destruction of the Good; its stance is perpetual opposition.

Stability and the status quo and tradition is attacked, but there is no alternative stable state in view; no Social Justice utopia being aimed-at; no end-point at which political correctness will say 'enough', 'this is it'.

This non-religious nature comes from the New Left being located in the mass media, and not in any political organization. The mass media is subverting, inverting and destroying;one thing after another; but it is going nowhere except towards chaos.

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

So, fundamentally the Social Justice Warriors are something new; not a religion but instead something only possible after the death of religion as a political force; after mass apostasy and the forcible exclusion of religion from public discourse.

The New Left is in reality an anti-religion; and its religious aspects are merely tactical accidents of its negative and oppositional stance.

*

Living in a New Left society of permanent revolution

*

The old Communist idea of Permanent Revolution is now reality.

We live in a world that is based on the idea that that the true revolutionary – such as the avant garde artist or radical intellectual – is intrinsically subversive; and will always be in revolt against whoever was in power, changing sides as necessary to achieve this.

(This is how the word ‘subversive’ came to have its current positive and approving meaning for modern intellectuals.)

This is the modern type of Leftism: more specifically New Leftism.

*

By New Left I mean that the ideology of the Media is that of the post-1960s evolution and development of communism, socialism, progressivism and (US) Liberalism – the Leftism of Political Correctness.

The Old Left was mostly focused on the economy – Marxism was mostly an economic theory. Thus its analysis was based on an economic category of Class; and its tools were economic things like nationalization and redistribution of wealth. The most favoured group was The Proletariat, which was in practice essentially the native male working class of manual labourers, especially as represented by Trades Unions.

But the New Left is in practice almost indifferent to the economy; and instead focuses on a rainbow of identity politics, 'Human Rights', ‘the environment’, anti-racism, feminism and (most of all) promoting the sexual revolution. Consequently, the New Left has ‘switched sides’, and turned-against the native class of male manual labourers; and now strongly favours women, other ethnicities, the unemployed and economically inactive, and newly arrived immigrants.

*

The qualitative transition from Old to New Left demonstrates that there is no stable, long-term positive ideology to the Left/ Liberals/ Progressives – and even the most fundamental values and principles may at some point be discarded or reversed.

And although relativistic, the New Left ideology is not tolerant. Whatever is being asserted now is absolute, on the one hand and opposition is not considered reasonable.

Yet, despite this totalitarian intolerance of dissent at any given point in time; what has been treated in this absolute manner can very rapidly be dropped and replaced with some other, equally ‘absolute’, priority.

So in practice strong opinions are cycled and re-cycled, promoted then vilified, suppressed then revived, turned upside-down, combined and split into fragments... 

*

In the long-run, anything and all is grist to the Mass Media mill; no topic is sacred or fundamental; everything is up-for challenge, discussion, mockery, analysis, criticism – anything at all may be discarded and replaced with something else, or not replaced at all.

This behaviour is, of course, profoundly negative and subversive – in particular the relativistic ideology of the permanent revolution has been subversive of traditional and orthodox forms of religion (especially Christianity – since this has been dominant in the West); and also subversive of 'tradition' – in all its forms: subversive of traditional socio-political order (traditional hierarchies and specialisms); subversive of traditional concepts of truth, beauty and virtue; and perhaps especially, subversive of traditional sexuality including marriage and the family.

Furthermore, the New Left has been subversive of the Old Left values and institutions – of Trades Unions and Labour Parties, of rational central planning and nationalization, and especially subversive of the tradition Christian and Ethical socialists characterized by modesty, frugality, earnest toil and puritanical sexual ethics.

Despite its fanatically-opinionated campaigns in favour of this, that or the other; relativism is indeed over time a profoundly negative ideology –indeed relativism sooner-or-later undermines any positive agenda which may emerge – even its own ideas such as the dictatorship of the proletariat which at one time seemed so terribly important to such a lot of people in the Mass Media.

*

In sum, we live in a state of Permanent Revolution. 

Permanent revolution means that the dominant ideology has no positive goal or aim – the is no long-term plan to structure society in some permanently sustainable way; indeed whatever is was or is or may in future be achieved exists only to be dismantled and replaced when expedient.

This is, indeed, the primary and essential difference between the Old and New Left – the Old Left intended to make Heaven on Earth – Utopia. And then stop – and maintain utopia (because who would want to change utopia?).

And utopia justified the humanly unprecedented ruthlessness of the Old Left – the End was so wonderful that any Means were justifiable in trying to reach it.

But when utopia showed no signs of arriving, the revolutionary impulse began to feed-off-itself; and revolution succeeded revolution in an iterative cycle aimed at destroying the forces opposed to revolution – but without any genuine or stable long term purpose.

This is precisely how the modern Left works. Over time, it identifies, mocks, subverts, weakens, destroys and finally inverts and reverses any group or person that opposes revolution – but with no goal.

There is no stable, explicit, long-term aimed-for state of affairs which is being implemented. 

(This is is done via the Mass Media ideology I have called Opinionated Relativism: a relativism which at any specific moment and on any specific topic denies its own relativism – but over time keeps on discarding its previous convictions as mere opinions.)

*

Thus the modern Left truly is a negative, destructive, meaningless, purposeless thing. 

Yet the modern world is utterly dominated by this nihilistic zeal: it is, indeed, the most powerful thing in the modern world. 

*

What we have Now is Not 'fascism' (not even 'neo'-fascism) - what is it?

Some people have noticed that the current global totalitarian system is more like fascism than communism, specifically in terms of its relationship between the state and the corporations. (In the sense that communism has every-thing nationalized, and included in the state system, while in fascism the state and corporations are aligned by a single, compulsorily-enforced ideology, but not ownership...)

On this basis, it is being said that we live in a fascist system; here-and-now, in 2021... 

Well, I am tempted to say "I wish!" - because what we actually have is far, far more evil than any of the fascisms. 

A form of economic ownership and state-corporate relationships was hardly the defining feature of real-life fascism, as it briefly existed in mid-twentieth century Italy and Germany! 

Fascism was characterized ideologically by being a secular, explicitly-leftist movement that was also strongly anti-communist (which meant, mostly, anti-nationalization). But hardly anybody notice that aspect of fascism (except for the owners of corporations, hence their support for fascism when it was the most viable alternative to communism) 

Positively fascism was a dictatorship motivated by militaristic nationalistic pride. 

The country was to be run on military lines, and the country was to be celebrated and glorified. That was was people saw, and liked, about fascism - and where it scored so heavily over communism. 

The motivations of fascism were comprehensible, human, and non-paradoxical - whereas communism was - like mainstream modern leftism - negatively, oppositionally, motivated. The communist atrocities and purges were all 'against' something (the bourgeois, the Kulaks, the Jews, reactionary saboteurs...); whereas fascism was motivated by nation-building. 

Of course, communists have since tried to reframe fascism as mainly 'about' racism. That clearly was not the case - but it is a telling projection; because if the communists had been running fascism, then it certainly would have been about racism!

In other words, to the communist-leftist mind, the only way to motivate people is in opposition; thus they cannot even imagine the kind of positive national pride that was crucial to the (brief) success of fascism. Communistic leftists can only suppose that nationalism was a mask for oppositional racism directed against some particular groups or groups.

Nationalism, including fascism, offered a kind of halfway house - a positive (but temporary) alternative to religion; briefly uniting the country around its positive celebration. 

Nationalism/ Fascism still used habits of thinking and motivations derived from the Christian era - but as a secular society, it had no way of renewing these resources - so all nationalisms, everywhere, weakened and declined - and it has not proved possible to revive an effective nationalism anywhere in the world for several decades.

By this analysis, in 2021 we have something new and unprecedented.

What we have is nothing like fascism - except in the double-negative way that it has enlisted the mega-private corporations by Not nationalizing them; and by (for mow...) coopting their interests in the totalitarian world government (public-private partnership).

What we have is much more like communism than fascism - especially The Establishment's uncritical/ warm feelings towards the communist dictatorships of past and present. But this 21st century leftism is post-communist; and has shed the economic focus of Marxism.

(No more nationalization of banks, media and corporations! Come and sit at the high table! So the billionaires are kept wealthy, and 'happy'...). 

Gone, too, now - are any positive notions of building a utopia; indeed, any attempt to represent a positive vision of the future sound like one of the fictional nightmare dystopias. We now have the implementation of post-1960s New Left oppositional-identity politics, which grew in the USA and is anti-nationalist, anti-military, anti-white, anti-men, anti-working class (aka. 'white nationalists') etc.  

Consequently, They keep the masses focused on rotating negative, oppositional scares and crusades; without mentioning where all this is supposed to be going... 

Anyway; the main point here is that what we have now is not fascism, neither is it communism - but is something new and different. 

We have a regime built almost entirely on negative and oppositional motivations. We have a populace who do not require heavy-handed violent and physical coercion; because they are so profoundly demotivated, passive and short-termist; that they will believe and go-along-with almost anything that is suggested by their state-media-corporate rulers. 

We have a world government of state-media-corporate rulers, we have a world ruled in conformity and global masses who are acquiescent to this totalitarianism ... yet there is no clear, simple, comprehensible positive ideology in which they are ruling. 

We are not going-towards any-particular-thing - or maybe, we are pretending to go-towards dozens of particular but incompatible things, each pretense being maintained for a few hours, days or weeks... Then swapped-out for something else equally temporary and insincere. 

The obvious but ignored fact is that we now (obvious since early 2020) have a world government for the first time, with an international scope for action...

But that government is not aiming to build anything in particular; instead it is being used* to destroy itself - partly by setting each against all; and partly by Just Plain Destruction... Stopping great swathes of the economy, stopping human interaction, stopping... almost everything. 

Just Plain Destruction. 

Not-doing, Stopping, Preventing... these are the huge facts of these times; and these times are fundamentally un-like any time or place before, ever. 

*'Used' by whom? By the evil supernatural forces of evil - Satan, and the demons of destruction.

What is the aim of the sexual revolution?

*

The aim of the sexual revolution is to eliminate all opposition to the sexual revolution.

*

The sexual revolution is a negative thing; its definition is negative, its operations are negations, it is defined by what it isn't. 

*

The sexual revolution does not, therefore, aim at achieving any particular state of affairs, nor does it favour any particular group of people.

The sexual revolution is not implementing a blueprint. 

The sexual revolution is not trying to, and never could, achieve a situation where it would say - Yes, THIS is it: our job is now to maintain things AS THEY ARE.

*

No - that can never happen; because there is no such state of affairs and no such situation (if there was, then we would no doubt have heard about it by now).

In sum: the sexual revolution is a permanent revolution: it is perpetual opposition; as it grows, it mutates to ensure it will have ever-more targets.

*

Like all subspecies of Leftism - the sexual revolution is negative: it knows what it is against, it knows what it hates - but it loves... chaos, disorder, transgression; the triggering and observation of disintegration.

*

The sexual revolution is 100% process.

That process is destruction.

That which is destroyed is The Good: anything which is Good, and even the concept of Good itself.

*

The sexual revolution is aimed at destruction of whatever has been or is; whatever tradition or religion or common sense or reason has valued - those things are just exactly what the sexual revolution wants to destroy.

The revolution wants to destroy the belief that sex is important; and it wants to destroy the idea that sex is unimportant; and it wants to destroy the idea that sex has a certain degree of importance. 

*

Ultimately, whatever people want to keep - for whatever reason; that is defined as precisely what the sexual revolution needs to eliminate.

*

Ultimately, the sexual revolution has only victims: there are yesterday's victims (chastity, stable marriage, stable families, men), today's victims (marriage itself, women) and tomorrow's victims (everything and everybody else).

But, sooner or later, everybody is a victim.  

*

Evil conspiracy entails cock-ups

Establishment mouthpieces (whether deliberatly, or as dupes) often assert that there is 'no need' to posit conspiracies to explain bad things, given that people are so prone to cock-ups, or errors.

(This 'no need' argument smuggles in the illegitimate assumption that it is only allowable to recognise a conspiracy when all possibility of accident has been excluded; whereas common sense would suggest that the existence or not of a malign conspiracy is a matter of fact (to be determined) - and has nothing to do with an imagined necessity first to exclude all alternative 'random' explanations.)

One way to try and discredit the evidence of conspiracies is to point out that many things happen, and are planned and aimed-at, which contradict the supposed aim of conspiracies. Life is too chaotic to suppose that 'everything is planned' by wicked powers.


This argument has some weight; in the sense that any plausible conspiracy posited, even one that emanates from the Global Establishment, cannot be regarded as all-powerful; since that would not allow for the reality of genuine opposition, or even the reality of noticing the conspiracy! So, no matter how powerful the conspiracy, there must be the possibility of effective resistance.

But also there is real conflict within the Global Establishment - i.e. among the identified conspirators. In other words; there is conflict within the mainstream, modern Left - who dominate all major social institutions.

This conflict arises from the fact that although all share the same, long-term ideological Leftist goals; different institutions have different short-term interests, and different powerful individuals likewise and even more so.

For example, the Western military Establishment contains people whose goals relate to traditional military objectives of effective application of force. But the same organisation contains people who are - indirectly - sabotaging military effectiveness by 'affirmative action' personnel policies that systematically give preference to certain groups (not-men, non-white races, non-Christians, non-natives, non-heterosexuals etc).

So, on the one hand, the Global Establishment want to have a highly effective military force (including police) to impose their ideology on anyone, anywhere, who resists it; on the other hand they also want to promote inter-personal and intergroup resentment and conflict (between the sexes, classes, sexual preferences, races, religions and ideologies) everywhere, among all humans, and without any exceptions. 

Similar conflict scenarios apply in all social institutions (education, science, health, law etc) because these withn-bureaucracy groups are rooted-in genuine oppositions of proximate interest - despite that all parties share the same distal (long-term) goals...


Therefore, all modern organisations - like all bureaucracies (like all evil entities - and bureaucracy is intrinsically evil) - are (at this level of analysis) alaways at war within themselves; and this endemic conflict is an inexhaustible source of cock-ups by organisations. The left hand is always sabotaging what the right hand is trying to accomplish; and vice versa.

So, things go wrong often and in a big way without those specific wrong things being deliberately planned. But the fact that cock-ups are endemic, is built-into the organisation, as a consequence of its over-arching Leftism.

Why? Because the 'unity' of Leftism is a unity of opposition. Leftism is defined by not what it proposes - which nowadays changes every decade. (Approximately...) In the sixties in the US it was the blacks, in the seventies it was women, by the eighties is was homosexuality - nowadays it is transhumanist transgender-ed/ing).

Since these cannot all be The Priority, there is conflict built-in; but there is a unity in what is being opposed - which ultimately is God - specifically Jesus, The Good, the transcendent, the spiritual reality... all of these interchangeable priorities on the Left are temporary expedients for attacking Christianity.

(Or, more specifically, for ensuring that Christianity does not become what it ought-to become - does not become truly Christian.)


The Left is, in other words, ultimately unified only by the long-term objectives of its Satanic, demonic, immortal and spiritual leadership - who operate invisibly, behind the scenes, across the decades and spanning the huuman generations.

These and can only be known directly by spiritual discernment; or indirectly inferred from the gap between the feebleness and limitations on human strategic action (given individual corruptibility, short-termism, selfishness etc); compared with the actuality we observe of a coherent-but-negative, evil-motivated plan, unrolling over at least two centuries.

The conspiracy is seen in the fact that the implicit strategy of the mainstream, modern, Global Establishment ideology makes comprehensive sense only when regarded as aiming-at constant, endemic conflict - designed to induce fear, resentment, pride, nihilism and despair.

At this level, cock-up and conspiracy are united, because the demonic supernatural conspiracy designs the situation that creates multiple and severe cock-ups; and the cock-ups are intended to maintain further conflict; and the conflict is intended to promote the agenda of fear, resentment, and all the rest of it.

In a sense: the conspiracy is cock-up. 

Functional systems were a blip - secular Leftist ideology is the current reality - religion is the default

I grew-up in a world where public discourse had the built-in assumption that functional systems were (and ought to be) focused on their function! - and any departure from this was corruption.

So that a school ought to be about education, a newspaper about accurate information, a hospital about improving health, a police force about maintaining civil peace and order, an army about military effectiveness and so forth.

Because this was expected, it was substantially true - and this was the basis of the industrial revolution and the expansion of human capability - culminating in repeatedly landing men on the moon and bringing them back alive.

By the middle 1960s, Western societies were composed of multiple functional units - each focused on performing their 'sticker function' with other aspects subordinated to it. The modern world resembled a machine of many parts. If an institution was to put religion or ideology above its function, then this was a corruption.

The first steps in this direction, back in the early modern period (1700s, 1800s) were to dispense incrementally with what might be termed 'religious tests'. Because (as Alasdair MacIntyre made clear in his body of philosophical and historical work from After Virtue to Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry- and was independently argued by Ernest Gellner in books such as Plough, Sword and Book) all 'traditional' societies - that is, all societies up-to and outwith modernity - have been organised primarily around their religion.

Part of this was that all institutions were, ultimately, regarded as having a religious function primarily - because religion was the basis of social cohesion. This was the case most of the time, for internal affairs and in peace-time - during war then the primacy of religion may be displaced by military objectives.

(In Gellner's terms, traditional societies were thus ruled by various combinations of the Sword - or military specialists; and the Book - or religion specialists: soldiers and priests. They were not ruled by other types of functional specialist such as businessmen, scientists, teachers, craftsmen or whatever - nor by the mass of peasants - represented by the 'Plough'.) 

In traditional societies, therefore, it was functional focus that would have counted as the 'corruption' of an institution. For instance, any school or research institute (university) that ignored religion and focused on science would have been regarded as dangerous (because intrinsically immoral, and intrinsically hostile to social cohesion).

This means that the society of my childhood, with its functional institutions, was very unusual in world historical terms  - and that this had been achieved by means of (at the cost of) displacing religion from its central position in public, national life.

Gellner realised that communism, and its variants such as socialism and national socialism, represented a reversion to the pre-modern form of organisation in which all social institutions were primarily ideological (that is with an atheistic ideology replacing religion in the scheme). If modernity was functionally specialised and differentiated, as the basis of its increased capability; then Leftism was inevitably and intrinsically anti-modern - since Leftism entailed all institutions being primarily, compulsorily, Leftist.

(For instance, a metal pipe factory in the Soviet Union was primary about propagating and enforcing Communism; and any production of functional metal piping had to be subordinated to that ideology - such that the actual metal piping might be unusable. A current equivalent is the mass of schools and colleges in which there is a focus on identity politics, and no actual education.)

This is, of course, the world we live in - the world of New Leftism and Political Correctness - a world in which all of societies institutions now have the priority of Left ideology (in its mutating and evolving forms). So all schools, hospitals, police forces, legal institutions, government offices, military units, and media corporations now have the primary and compulsory goal of pursing Left Wing Ideology - the sexual revolution, diversity, equality and so forth.

All current institutions in The West are Left Wing Ideologies first and foremost (and almost - but not quite, exclusively). Any other functions are optional, and must be fitted-around this mandatory focus.

(This failure to be functional requires that institutions be state subsidised to some degree - and this is in fact the case - extremely few modern institutions do not receive a significant portion of income from the State - either directly or indirectly, explicitly or covertly. There are no 'markets' - we inhabit a 'command economy'.)

Any institution which does not put Leftism as its primary focus is now, and has been for several decades, regarded as immoral and dangerous to cohesion. Opposition is not necessary - simply to dissent from - to fail-to-subscribe-to the ruling ideology will block your appointment and lead to your removal from any position of high status power and influence in Western Institutions now.

This is a major underlying reason why current societies do not work as well as they did 50 years ago, when it comes to the primary social functions.

So, functionality was a blip - and it was a blip because it was unsustainable. At a deep level, the mass of people do not want to subordinate their lives to functionality - they do not want to be cogs in a national machine. But what has happened is that over the past century or two - religion has been replaced by Leftist ideology as the primary focus of human activity.

This applies everywhere in the developed world and without any exceptions - the differences are merely differences of degree. There are no functionally-orientated societies remaining in the developed world, nor are there any religiously-focused societies in the developed world. 

But Left Wing Ideology is unsustainable - not least because it is self-destroying. Opposite to religion - Leftism is anti-cohesive, intrinsically negative, oppositional and a state of perpetual revolution. We live, therefore, in the paradoxical, nonsensical, auto-destructive situation of a society which places as its primary focus ideological coherence on the basis of an ideology of anti-coherence. All developed societies have broadly this same ideology of self-hatred - differences (conservatism, libertarianism, nationalism etc.) are merely 'heresies' within one secular Left ideology.  

Communism - in various versions - has conquered the entire developed world - where all nations are secular and Leftist in their ideology, and all have placed ideology above any functional priority. You may be one of the best scientists, doctors, chief executives, editors or generals in the world - but you will still be removed from your institutional leadership position (or not appointed in the first place) if you not not put Left ideology above all functional considerations.

 The future is therefore inevitably that of religion. We may pine for an era in which functionality could be a priority - but that has been decisively rejected by the mass of people who neither understand nor support it. We have returned to the traditional world where beliefs and ideas are primary - except that our beliefs and ideas do not make sense and fail to motivate the cooperation and altruism upon which society depends.

Leftism has collapse built-in; in the end, secular ideology simply cannot replace religion. Historically, all secular ideologies are, like functionality, merely a blip. 

The future is therefore religion, again, at the centre of society and all social institutions - the only question for each nation or human group to determine is: which religion? 

(The above condenses the argument of my book from 2011 - Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness - which is now available free online: http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk.) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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