The stigmata of political correctness: pacifism

*

There is honest pacifism - which asserts that war must be avoided on principle at any cost; there is dishonest pacifism - which allows war but only as a 'last resort' (hence de facto never); and there is the mainstream 'pacifism' of careerist and manipulative 'international communism' and PC - which is the doctrine that the West must passively submit to its enemies. 

*

All pacifists are politically correct; although all politically correct are not necessarily pacifist.

(It is their pacifism which marks many libertarians as politically correct.)

Those who believe the opposite of pacifism to be war-mongering are all politically correct.
 
PC is mostly pacifist at present, in the sense that PC imposes a pacifist agenda on its Western host societies while ignoring or indulging other societies.

However PC is not pacifist with respect to its favoured (client) groups: from them violence is tolerated, and war is reframed as resistance. 

*

Pacifism is a product of defective morality; which denies transcendent goals, denies the primacy of salvation, denies - indeed - that anything is worth dying-for.

Pacifism is therefore materialist, this-worldly, soul-denying: an abstract exaltation and excuse for the primacy of life-preservation, comfort and sensation-seeking.

(Pacifism is also, and very obviously, short-termist and self-destroying; hence pragmatically untenable. However, that is another matter than being considered here.)

Of course, as individuals we are weak, we cling to life, are addicted to comfort, crave the indulgence of sensation - and war is destructive of almost everything that we most value.

We fear war.

*


Nonetheless, to be a pacifist (that novel doctrine of modernity) entails the extraordinary arrogance of rejecting the wisdom of all our ancestors, including the wisest and holiest.

Pacifism entails that all previous generations until recently were so stupid as uniformly to have misunderstood the massive reality of war and/or so wicked as grossly to have misinterpreted objective morality.

We fear war. But to be moral, we must fear other things even more than we fear war. 

*


Note: There is neither recklessness nor prejudice in labelling so many people to be PC as is implied by the stigma of pacifism: nowadays, in the West, everyone must be assumed politically correct until proven otherwise.

*

The psychological roots of pacifism - genius plus egalitarianism

*

Pacifism is historically almost the primary and first type of recognizable Leftism - with the Quakers - but I think that psychologically Pacifism derives from already-established egalitarianism.

I take it that pacifism, as a political principle, is about men rather than women (since women are usually exempt from war) - and my intuition is that it derives from genius men.

In historical societies, I think the equivalent people to modern geniuses were shamans, priests, healers, advisers etc. In sum, it was recognized that geniuses were unsuitable for deployment as soldiers.

Psychologically, part of being a genius is a primary commitment to the importance of one's own work, above social ties and duties. So the genius feels, about himself: "I personally will not fight."

But when egalitarianism began to get a grip, geniuses saw that the logic was that either all should be conscripted for war, or nobody - and this, I think, led to pacifism.

In effect, the genius's own imperative to avoid war - plus egalitarianism - drove him to advocate pacifism as a universal principle; on the basis "I personally will not fight, but all should be equal - so what applies to me should apply to everybody; therefore nobody should have to fight".

I believe that this is the basis of genuine, principled (albeit wrong) pacifism.

Such geniuses constructed pacifism as a political principle - rationalized in various ways; and various other - differently motivated people - subscribed to pacifism until they made a vast majority.

But the origin of pacifism is, I believe, in the combination of genius with modern (i.e. post-medieval) egalitarianism.

*

Peace-ifism - Establishment-weaponized pacifism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace-ifism is not, therefore, about peace!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it makes for a profoundly unedifying spectacle! 

Note added: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One cannot be pro- or anti- "war"

*

Or rather, to be for- or against-"war" is senseless - it all depends on what type of war.

*

War includes several objectives - for example plunder, defense against plunder; empire building or defense against empire building; religious conquest or resistance to such - and war can be proactive (e.g. exterminating pirates nests) or reactive (arming against raids from pirate ships).

Each of these is a different scenario - some of them are very different from each other (e.g. a treasure-seeking war for the expansion of an Empire versus a village fighting a band of robbers who have come to burn, steal, slaughter and enslave).

*

My point here is that it turns-out that 'war' is one of those fake Leftist concepts (such as 'immigration' or 'education') which bundle together opposing entities and thereby sow confusion, create chaos and prevent resolution.

The concept of 'war', in its modern sense, is a product of pacifism (or 'anti-war') which arose in the late 1700s as an early sign of the conquest of the Left, and spread among the intellectual elites.

Pacifism - by being anti-the-thing-it-called-war thus led to the phony problem of 'war', which is that it divided the world into themselves (the pacifists) and their opponents were labeled as pro-war, warmongers.

*

(We see analogous phenomenon with Left-defined pro- and anti- positions in relation to open-borders-mass-immigration, education, diversity, human rights and so on. The 'pro concepts are nonsensical, undefined, incapable of definition, obviously wrong, intrinsically destructive etc - but the Left promotes them as nice/kind things, things which we need more-of, and more, and yet more; such that any dissent from the destroying nonsense is vilified as evidence of the opponent being a nasty/torturing kind of individual.)

*

Consequently, there are volumes of inconsequential nonsense spouted on the general theme of 'war', and how terrible it is, thus whether 'war' may be morally justified or otherwise...

trying (and, obviously, failing) to use this incoherent and undefined notion of 'war' as the basis for short universally-intended and context-free formalizations and rules concerning how 'war' should be conducted and what is necessary and forbidden in that conduct...

and then enforcing these nonsensical bureaucratic formalizations (only) onto those who are stupid or weak or confused enough to allow them to be enforced upon themselves...

and them congratulating themselves on this as evidence of the moral progress of humanity - in the face of those Right-wing remnants of societal evil who actually want 'war'...

*

But because there is no such thing as war: we must un-ask all questions concerning its nature and desirability and conduct.

*

Is Christ's injunction to 'Love your enemies' pacifist?

“Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

Brett Stevens at Amerika.org said last week that this particular section of 'The sermon on the mount' was his least favourite part of Christianity - and he described it as 'pacifism'.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/snapshot-the-problem-of-christianity

I can certainly see how he would make this interpretation. There is a common, misleading and unfortunate habit - both from real Christians and anti-Christians - of supposing that the Bible (or the New Testament, or Gospels. at least) must be 100 percent true, when taken literally (i.e as statements of facts and universal laws) one sentence at a time.

I can see how this situation has arisen, given the tendency of Men (and nowadays especially 'liberal Christians') to distort Christianity to be compatible with those secular and political ideologies which are that person's primary motivation.

But really it is nonsense! Nonsense in general, and in this specific instance; because Jesus obviously did not intend this this statement to be taken as a universal law - for two reasons, one because he did not himself behave this way, and two because it is impossible to behave this way.

We could add that any specific virtue, pursued exclusively, leads to sin - and that therefore no statement or rule is universally applicable - but ought to be taken as part (typically a small part, given the large number of specific virtues) of that larger whole of 'Good'. Jesus was crystal clear that the Good human life is not one of passively obeying a list of rules (i.e. Phariseeism); it was the inner motivation that mattered supremely - plus of course a willingness to repent our many and frequent inevitable moral failures.  

Those three reasons  - Christ's example, impossibility and 'prudence'; the virtue of a balanced Good - should suffice to prevent us from regarding this passage as a stumbling block. We could, if required, add in that Christianity is about 2000 years old, while pacifism is only about 250 years old (arising first in England among some Nonconformist Protestants - esepcially the Quakers).

Is more needed? Not necessarily. Not every sentence in the Bible is relevant to our condition, whether as a society or as a person. Probably everything in the Bible has been, or will be relevant to some people at some time - but certainly not to all people at all times and not equally - the necessary emphasis, the primary moral problems and their solutions, will be very different in The West nowadays from - say - Rome AD 200, Constantinople in 500, England circa 800 or 1350, or New England circa 1750...

So weshould not expect to, do not need to - and almost certainly cannot - personally properly understand all the statements in the Bible. And indeed we do not always know how these statements were intended, nor in what sense they were meant.

For example, with the first chapters of Genesis, The Song of Solomon, the Book of Job and Revelations of St John it is very hard for us modern Westerners to understand what is being done - certainly the meanings and implications are not easy nor transparent.

So we could leave aside this particular passage; or we could try to understand what Christ was getting-at, now we know he was not compiling a set of bureaucratic instructions.

I think the meaning comes from the first sentence - which is indeed a universal truth (properly understood: i.e. we must indeed all and always strive for a state of love, which is the bond and unity of all life in God's reality; and must repent states of resentment, although they are inevitable).

“Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you."

And the last two sentences are vivid, memorable illustrations of specific situations that might illustrate the principle: these are things it may be necessary and best sometimes to do; things we must be prepared to do when that is overall Good.

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.”

The Leftist inability to learn from experience - Bernard Shaw and women and mathematics

*

One of the strangest traits on the Left is the one when people behave as if pacifism, secularism, egalitarianism, feminism, racism, the sexual revolution etc. are new ideas - fresh, exciting, untried, untested - give them a shot why not? Don't write-off idealism! They might work!

The most extreme example is communism, which ignores all actual experience of the idea; but feminism and anti-racism is by now equally stale.

And I am genuinely astonished to hear 'new atheists'  painting a picture of how much better life might be 'if only' people could be persuaded to recognize that God is a delusion - as if this hadn't happened again and again, for several generations - after all, it's a century since the first full-on atheist state in the USSR and there are numerous other examples, past and present.

*

The point is that we actually know, in so far as anything can be known, how these ideas turn out - and they they turn out very differently from how idealism paints them.

*

For example, George Bernard Shaw's play Mrs Warren's Profession was written in 1894 and first performed in 1902 - get that: written 1894 - and features a 'modern woman' called Vivie, who supposedly graduated third ('Third Wrangler') in the Cambridge Mathematics exam.

I presume the Vivie character was triggered by Philippa Fawcett having been placed top in this extraordinarily prestigious exam in 1890 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippa_Fawcett. This performance seemed - to Shaw at least - to 'prove' that women were equally adept as men on average at the highest levels of mathematics, but were being kept-out by men.

In Shaw's day, 120 years ago! - it was assumed that the only thing standing between women and equality with men in mathematics was lack of opportunity for women. That lack of opportunity for women was remedied several generations ago, yet of course at the highest level of mathematics (and the Cambridge Tripos exam was far-away from the highest level) there are probably proportionately as few women as ever there were.

Therefore, it is now known - insofar as these social things ever are known, and has been known for a few generations, that lack of opportunity was not the reason why women were less good than men at the highest levels.

*

(Because even though it is impossible to attain complete equality of opportunity, any partial correction - and step in that direction, would have a big effect if indeed inequality of opportunity was an important explanation. For example, the history of the Ashkenazi Jews shows that even a very partial removal of the exclusion of Jews from mathematics professorships - led to a very big change in the proportion of Jewish mathematics professors. Anti-semitism remained, of course (complete eradication would be impossible) but this proves that the only significant factor preventing Jews from becoming mathematics professors in, say, Germanic universities circa 1700 - was their exclusion.)

*

But it is currently a very big thing in the Mass Media and on the organized Left that women are being kept-out of the highest levels of mathematics (and physics and engineering). Such a view was probably reasonable and certainly excusable 120 years ago - it is not reasonable nor excusable now.

This view that women are kept-out-of the highest levels of mathematics, physics, engineering is nowadays necessarily either ignorant or dishonest - and often both. It is not any more fresh, untried; it is not idealistic - it is simply a manipulative, destructive, stupid lie.

*

This trajectory - from untried idealism to cynical lying - is seen all across the Left and its principles and policies; from pacifism (the earliest distinctive Left ideology) right through to the ever-expanding and more-coercive demands of the sexual revolution and the talking points, hot button issues and litmus tests of today: all tired and worn-out, all stale, all tried and failed - all known to be false and harmful by those competent to have an opinion.

*

Christian alliances: individual and social - Exercise your inner judgementalism!

*

I have been publicly a Christian for not much more than five years - although it feels much longer.

It feels like time has slowed-up in the same way that parents' memories of the first five years of their first born child is slowed-up - so much happens in such a concentrated way, that subjectively it represents a much bigger proportion of my life.

Many things have changed and many things continue to change - and one of them is the decline of optimism in the growth of Christian alliances.

*

I used to have a simple vision of the power of Christians taking-sides: in particular of ceasing to support groups with evil intentions, and of starting to support those with good intentions - of tipping the balance of influence in that fashion.

But I had underestimated the degree to which almost all groups, and all large and powerful groups, in the developed-world have been first subverted then incrementally-demolished by their leaders (from the top downwards) - and since all hopes of group alliances depend on cooperation between leaders, the taking of sides has gone in the opposite direction from that which I hoped.

Christian alliance-building, such as the 'ecumenical' movement, has in practice been a matter of apostates and anti-Christian leaders joining together to demolish the faith of their flocks - using alliance building as an excuse.

Their idea of Christian cooperation is one in which everybody's faith has become so weak and superficial that there is no reason remaining why all self-identified "Christians" cannot join hands and march forward together in implementing the projects of something very much like international socialism.

*

Christianity is NOT the opposite of secular Leftism - that would be the reaction against Leftism and something more like (secular) fascism - but secular Leftism IS the opposite of Christianity in an Antichrist way: Leftism dishonestly mimics some features of Christianity - e.g. tactically pretends to love, truth, humility, meaning and purpose - but in practice is destructive.

Tactically and temporarily the Left allies with anybody who can provide (temporary) grounds for its work of destruction. The Left used to ally with native male proletarians, it used to ally with Christian socialists of the Anglo Catholic type (who then dominated the Church of England when Britain was a world power), it used to have Israel and China as their international poster children. But all these are now hate groups for the Left.

*

In recent times the Left allies with pacifists when pacifism used to have the greatest potential for destruction of Christianity - for example during the Vietnam war when Leftists temporarily linked pacifism with the sexual revolution.

In a nutshell, the Left are doves when the cause is good (or pro-God), and hawks when the cause is bad, futile or just plain incomprehensible

But Leftists also support new 'random' (i.e. seemingly unmotivated, wasteful and futile, anti-self-interested) acts of military aggression and support of rebellion when that seems more destructive (e.g. for the past few years and currently in the Middle East 'spring' revolutions, the one certain result of which has been the near-total elimination of Christianity in that region).

And the Left's latest anti-pacifist aggressive agitation is related to the Ukraine, where they sense vast possibilities of destructive consequences with near zero chance of benefit.

*

So the Left is willing to ally with anybody, for a while, in order to implement whatever destructive possibilities seem most urgent and fruitful - and this includes even supposedly-Christian leaders such as Pope Francis and the current and previous Archbishops of Canterbury, and Reformed Jewish Rabbis.

Christian alliances, on the other hand, are continually blocked and subverted by their leadership - who are a fifth column within.

So far as I can see, real Christians are mostly on their own - in worldly terms.

If they join one of the non-corrupt denominations which have Christian (rather than Leftist) leaders, they will often find that denomination to be small and weak - capable of great good in a small way but in no wise capable of turning the tide of Leftism.

*

This does not change Christian strategy. I think we still must seek alliances with those who are working for good, and (as far as possible) stop supporting strategic evil.

But good tending initiatives will often be at the personal and individual level, or in small and self-selected groups; and autonomous from official and leadership-driven changes.

*

This means that 'judgmentalism' is absolutely vital to the modern Christian.

Christians cannot allow themselves systematically to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to organizations and leaders who are very likely working for the destruction of Christianity and all Good. Instead Christians must use all their powers of discernment to detect evil intentions, especially when these are concealed behind fair words, smiling faces and acts of manipulative kindness.

*

(Most of the servants of strategic evil are consciously unaware of their tendency - for most of the time, anyway; they believe themselves to be 'on the side of the angels' while operating under orders from demons. They are quite happy, for the time being, to be 85 percent in service to Good; so long as the 15 percent of destructive evil has a greater pay-off and ratchets the world towards even greater destruction - the sexual revolution (aka sexual 'liberation') being the major conduit for strategic destruction.)

*

I think Christians must be absolutely explicit, in their own minds and among themselves, about the identity of strategic evil, and that this is the majority dominant tendency in the world.

Active resistance may be impossible. Passive resistance may be the only option - and (lacking a leadership) this must generally be at the individual level.

In so far as is possible, probably in multiple tiny ways, Christians need to withdraw all possible forms of support from strategic evil - labour, funding, rhetoric, approving nods of the head... Refusing funding/ subsidy/ subversive control, declining to participate in evil-tending activities, not putting significant amounts of money into the collection tins of evil-tending charities.

(i.e. most of them. Ask yourself - is any charity actively supported - nay, rammed down your throat! - by the BBC, or the NYT, or any major media organization likely to have an overall tendency to promote good, or evil?)

*

Do individual acts of allocation of support/ withdrawal of support make any difference?

Apparently yes - otherwise individuals would not be harassed and persecuted for doing them.

But how could such microscopic things ever be known about or ever have the slightest benefit?

Easy - we are engaged not in a worldly battle but spiritual warfare.

Whereas worldly powers may not detect micro-behaviours; spiritual powers (powers of evil, as well as good) can and do detect pretty much everything that happens - and perceive covert causal links and tendencies which we cannot detect.

Micro-alliances and micro-allocations are noticed, are known, and have an effect in the spiritual realm - for good or for ill.

*

Be judgemental!

**


Reference: 

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/christians-must-exercise-discernment.html

What is happening after Brexit? What caused it? What does it mean?

Whatever it is - it is not happening in the mass media, in the public domain.

Uncharacteristically, I have been scouring the mass media this past week for some wise discussion of Brexit; and have found none. Zilch.

My point is that nobody at all in the mainstream media is speaking from a true and real basis in the life of Britain. I detect wrongness and incomprehension everywhere.

The amazing thing is that vote and what it came from! There is (because there must be) some kind of unarticulated root or basis - something that came-through despite everything stacked against it. The very fact that it is unexpressed and unrepresented is how this Brexit motivation survived so strongly among the English in the face of solid and unrelenting adverse propaganda - soft- and hard-sell. 

Mainstream and visible politics is framed such that it neutralises and demonises the views implicitly revealed by the Brexit vote. The reality of the majority view cannot appear in the mass media - anything which does occasionally appear from that source, is so selected or distorted by the time it has appeared, as to be false and grossly misleading.

The Brexit vote is indirect evidence of a level of communication which is imperceptible; the nature and distribution of the vote combined with the nearly-total lack of any detectable spoken or written expression, demonstrates that there has been and is some kind of mutual linking of minds at a spiritual level.

And this spiritual network just does affect things. Why exactly has Brexit triggered both political parties to seek leadership change? (A mere swip-swapping of obviously and demonstrably inadequate personnel.)

It makes no sense - when you think about it logically; yet is seems 'inevitable' and it has happened. Why have the British and Euro elite gone crazy with hatred, except to try and reverse their collapsing morale and engulfing despair?  Their world view has proven to be dangerously (from their perspective) wrong. So why are they so keen to maintain it? Again, this makes no sense, except that they feel compelled to behave this way.

The elite leadership haven't a clue about what has just happened. A week later, the mainstream mass media has 'healed-over' and it is 'business as usual' with the whole matter reframed - but what else can they do? The source of Brexit is not objectively perceptible or measurable, and the majority of the elite will not risk attempting an empathic identification with motivations and understandings that they despise and fear.

(However, some surely will - and therefore we can expect to see sincere - as well as faked and subversively intended - significant spiritual repentance and rebirth from the intellectual elite.)

My understanding of the special evil of the modern world is that it is literally demonic, its source is 'supernatural' purposive evil entities - that is, personages imperceptible and undetectable by our senses and by scientific instruments. And their ultimate, strategic objective is to make the mass of people actually desire evil.

In the first place it is about such things as hypnotising the masses, getting them to sleepwalk into evil, unresisting, like sheep to the slaughter... but from an ultimate perspective, this is not enough. The underlying idea is not merely that people will passively consent to evil, but that they must be brought to a state of actively asking for and wanting evil. Only then the demons will have won.

People need to be induced to want ugliness, lies, and the destruction of virtue in all its forms. What is sought is the inversion of Good - so that what is truly Good is interpreted as evil; and what is evil is sought as a higher-Good. This is the ideal.

Such inversion of Good is extremely ambitious, to be sure - but there has been great and almost-uninterrupted progress towards the ideal over the past fifty years.

Modern evil has kept our eyes away from the reality of moral inversion, and - mostly - advertised its own higher good by refraining from direct violence.

(In a sense, moral inversion has been built upon pacifism. By making violence the ultimate evil, and non-violence the ultimate Good, secular Leftism has been enabled to destroy all other Goods. Demons spontaneously love violence - the physical infliction of pain and suffering; but by refraining from it they have been enabled to advance many other evils unobserved, unimpeded and indeed celebrated. For them, pacifism is a price worth paying! At least in the medium term. Presumably, when the fullness of evil is being approached, then the plan would be that  'normal violence will be resumed', and at that point regarded as a positive good. And with the public advocacy and celebration of sado-masochism as a sexual lifestyle option - this is something indeed already well-advanced.)

Since Brexit revealed that there is in fact a powerful and active system of human communication which is 'supernatural'; then it is clear why the Establishment rules have been, for several generations, that the supernatural will be ridiculed, ignored or denied in all pubic discourse - the supernatural has been declared not to exist, as a matter of metaphysical assumption. Yet, that is precisely where Brexit comes-from.

The ultimate source of purposive evil knows perfectly well the reality of the supernatural - because demons are themselves supernatural! However, the great mass of Establishment people who serve their purposes utterly deny even the possibility - and it is these people who are in the main, those whose brains 'exploded' on 24th June, and who are suffering a kind of melt-down of morale. They know that things - real things - can never be the same again (knowing what is now known) yet their only response to Brexit is to pretend that it can, will and should be deleted and forgotten.

The only response of the intellectual elite to to replace the facade.- But whereas until a week ago many people believed that the facade was real; now everybody knows that it is just a facade, including especially the people who are currently remaking it. The virtual reality of the mass media has been perceived as virtual - hence false; despite that nothing else, no alternative, exists in the explicit and perceptible realms. 

What of the demonic masters behind the Establishment? Their most loyal human servants have behaved in a wild, hysterical and counter-productive fashion - and thereby revealed themselves as untrustworthy and incompetent. And - even worse - they now know that they are not winning in the way they believed that they were. They now know that there is some kind of big thing going-on which they cannot detect or control; that the mass majority of people are not the atomised and alienated despairing units of perverted desire that the demons had supposed them to be. They know that the English (and to a lesser but significant extent British) people are joined by an invisible network; an unsuspected communication system.

Suddenly the demonic masters have recognised that - despite all appearances - they may perhaps be losing the battle rather than winning it.

Losing not in worldly terms; but in the ultimate and real War in Heaven, the 'game' of salvation and spiritual development towards divinity. There is a wide-spread but hidden knowledge, hidden consciousness, hidden communication - which they do not and cannot understand because they do not have access to it.

What will happen next in worldly measurable terms is unclear - and indeed of secondary importance. Because for those with imagination - as well as five senses - primary reality has shown itself to itself; and the consequences are certain to be profound, one way or another.

Ideology versus expertise - Political correctness coming the full circle

*

There is a sense in which political correctness in The West is (merely) the return of a normal situation for historical human society: a situation in which all social functions are subject to 'ideology' (which was previously religion).

It is modern societies that are unusual in favouring expertise above ideology.

*

So, where it can be seen that over the past several decades there has been a progressive 'politicization' of the educational system, public administration, health services and so on - this is a case of 'normal service will shortly be resumed'.

The normal thing for most differentiated societies in the world and throughout history is to be ideological, not expert.

*

The move back towards a society unified by ideology  can be seen in terms of universal political influence expressed via laws and administrative regulations which mean that a university or school or business must be PC first, and fit educational objectives into that framework. Senior staff are screened for political correctness, and non-PC behaviour is grounds for employment sanctions including dismissal.

Ideology is mandatory, effectiveness is an optional extra. And this is the normal human situation (except, perhaps, in times of emergency such as war or famine).

*

Specified religious beliefs and behaviours were mandatory  among the ruling elite until relatively recently.

Such that the philosopher David Hume (the 'best'-ever British philosopher) was passed over for a Professorship at Edinburgh in favour of a nonentity, essentially for religious reasons.

Of course the same was seen in the Soviet Empire - all leadership positions went to loyal Party Members with competence as a secondary consideration.

This is normal usual natural - and applies to most societies: Ideology trumps expertise.

*

The past couple of hundred years in the West, with its ideas of the rule of 'the expert', is exceptional.

The idea that leaders should primarily be competent is unusual.

Modernity was that era when expertise trumped ideology; when science pursued scientific goals related to truth and was (at least in theory) ruled by the best scientists, the economy pursued profit, productivity and other economic imperative - and was ruled by those best at attaining these goals - and so on.

But with the advent of political correctness, Western society began to move back to its pre-modern default.

Since PC, The West is no longer even trying  to have its societal functions run by specialized experts.

The ideology of PC trumps expertise.

*

So, wind-ahead to when PC has displaced expertise with ideology; and in so doing has destroyed modernity.

This means that, under PC, the economy and technological capability of the West would subside to the level of pre-modern agrarian societies - so that The West would be equal in power to the societies that surround it...

(This is not my inference, but is an explicit ultimate goal among many elite Leftist intellectuals including the most powerful person on the planet.)

*

Okay - so then how does a society dominated by Leftist PC ideology line-up against the more traditional ideologies - religious and ethnic?

A nation dominated by a PC-elite versus a nation dominated by a religious elite?

A nation dominated by a PC-elite versus a nation dominated by nationalistic ideals?

To frame the question is to answer it.

*

This is the blind spot of Leftism, and always has been. If the Left gets the kind of society that they want, it will be destroyed by traditional societies?

This is why the Left is dishonest - structurally dishonest.

In practice Leftism is a fake - maybe it pursues modernity under disguise of Leftism (early Soviet Union, early Communist China); maybe the Left destroys modernity but disguises this with propaganda and spin (the current situation in the West); maybe it explicitly destroys modernity but pretends that this is sustainable (Green politics).

But an honest Leftism would need to be driven by some kind of spirituality - since it would have to acknowledge that in destroying modernity it would destroy itself - and would do so anyway because it was the right thing to do: perhaps because it regarded itself as evil and deserving of destruction, or perhaps in pursuit of some higher goal.

The nearest approach to this would be something like an absolute and unconditional pacifism which explicitly acknowledged that the pacifism it advocates will inevitably lead to defeat.

*

I have never seen anything explicitly of this kind - I mean advocacy of deliberate, ethical suicide - honestly and explicitly stated on the Left - but it is possible that the strength of political correctness may derive from an implicit desire of martyrdom which will some time soon become explicit.

That would be the ultimate triumph of ideology over expertise.

*

Conclusion: Modernity is finished, normal service has been resumed with ideology as primary.

Assumption: We will get ideology (whether we like it or not).

Question: Which ideology would you prefer?

*

Tom Bombadil and Final Participation

If you don't already know them; I would highly-recommend The Letters of JRR Tolkien, edited by Humphrey Carpenter (1981) which are absolutely packed with fascinating and deep reflections.

In Letter 144 (25 April 1954) Tolkien makes a thought-provoking comment about the presence of Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings, and his importance to the story - which hits home on a matter I have been reflecting about over the past few years; the matter of the ideal form of human society, and (therefore) the nature of Heaven:

The story (of LotR) is cast in terms of a good side and a bad side, beauty against ruthless ugliness, tyranny against kingship, moderated freedom with consent against compulsion that has long lost any object save mere power, and so on; but both sides in some degree, conservative or destructive, want a measure of control. 

But if you have, as it were, taken a 'vow of poverty', renounced control, and take your delight in things for themselves without reference to yourself, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing; then the question of the rights and wrongs of power and control might become utterly meaningless to you, and the means of power quite valueless. 

It is a natural pacifist view, which always arises in the mind when there is a war. 

But the view of Rivendell [i.e. the Council of Elrond] seems to be that it is an excellent thing to have represented, but that there are in fact things with which it cannot cope; and upon which its existence nonetheless depends. Ultimately only the victory of the West will allow Bombadil to continue, or even to survive. Nothing would be left for him in the world of Sauron.

I cannot, nowadays, shake the thought that it is the true goal of our Christian destiny to 'renounce control' in much the way that Bombadil represents; and that kingship, moderated freedom with consent; and an ideal of the control of the better over the worse - are all mortal expediencies that do not reflect the reality of Heaven.

What is more, the traditionalist ethical ideal epitomised by agrarian (pre-industrial) societies such as all those depicted in LotR (with the exception of the Ents and the Woses of the Druadan forest - since even Bombadil has a garden), seem more and more like mortal expediencies representing a phase in Man's development. The era of 'moderated control with consent' seems like an historic phase now receding.

Such ideals; which we see so inspiringly realised in the High Elves, Numenorean Men of Gondor, and even the Dwarves of Moria - are characterised by great arts and crafts, songs and poetry, courage and nobility, lore and knowledge... All of these ideals have been fading for several or many generations; and there seems waning support - and growing hostility - towards the requisite institutional basis of such a society (royals and nobles, guilds and professions, hierarchy and ritual, apprentices and canons).

In Barfield's terms, traditional society in LotR represents the evolving phase bridging between the unconscious immersive life of Original Participation (Ents and Woses) and the modern, disenchanted, materialist world termed the Consciousness Soul.

This evolution from Original Participation to the Consciousness Soul can be seen in terms of incrementally increasing control. As control increases, and in order to enable control; Man has become detached from nature, from The World; and regards living Nature as merely Things; so much material to be manipulated. Somehow, we have never been able to stop this tendency for increasing control at any intermediate or optimal level; once begun the quest for greater control seem to feed upon itself.

All moderating of the raw greed and lust for domination is, dissolved to mark the triumph of the bad side, ruthless ugliness, mere power and - inevitably - destruction. The spirit of Morgoth, Sauron and Saruman has already prevailed at the highest levels of authority, and the program is being rolled-out with accelerating velocity.

What lies beyond, and after this mortal life, is Final Participation, which is similar to what Bombadil represents. Final Participation is a renunciation of control - in contrast with Original Participation when control was neither sought nor even possible.

Voluntary renunciation of control power, domination, manipulation comes after the fullness of control has been either been grasped or else at least comprehended. My feeling is that this is what Bombadil represents; my notion is that at some point Bombadil had the possibility of power, domination and control - and chose to renounce it.

The tough aspect is that this is also a renunciation of much that we value most - such as arts, crafts, science, canonical accumulation of texts and the like. It is, in a genuine sense, a voluntary renunciation of civilisation.

In a sense this is an impossibility, just as pacifism is an impossibility in time of war (or, as pacifism is dependent upon that which it repudiates). Nonetheless, despite impossibility; what I think we have - at present, here and now - is the situation in which there is an irrevocable and cumulative loss of faith in those compromises (moderated controls) upon which civilisation depends - there is a mass withdrawal of 'consent'.

On one side this process is being encouraged, top-down, with evil motivation, by those who seek the destruction of civilisation because they believe it will lead to the self-chosen damnation of souls. This is Tolkien's bad side.

On the other side - which constitutes most of the good side; this top-down dismantling is opposed by (broadly) well motivated persons traditional religion and reactionaries of various types. However, it seems likely to me that the society they are fighting For (their positive goals, their alternative to the destructions and inversions of top-down evil) cannot happen.

'Moderated control by consent' is an earlier phase (the long transition-between Original Participation and the Consciousness Soul); a phase now gone, now not genuinely wanted, now irrecoverable. I feel that we either have been, or will be, called-upon to move beyond the incipient or actual absolute totalitarianism of the Consciousness Soul - move on to a Bombadil-like renunciation of power and the desire for control.

In Final Participation we are called-upon to take delight in things for themselves without reference to ourselves, watching, observing, and to some extent knowing; we are called upon to participate in creation directly in thinking - and not via arts and crafts and science.

This will come beyond death, because it is the nature of Heaven. The still-open question is whether it is meant also to come before death; or whether in this world it is impossible to actualise, and instead an ideal that we affirm even as we are overwhelmed by the worldly triumph of control.

Leftist trends are a materialist distortion of innate, spiritual motivations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why people stay in Leftism after the fun stops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should Western Civilization be saved? (even if it could be saved)

*

It is purportedly the baseline belief of the Secular Right that the major goal of conservative or reactionary politics should be to 'save' Western Civilization.

Yet this is not a coherent belief, nor is it possible, nor is it desirable.

*

Western Civilization is not a 'First Thing' as C.S. Lewis defined it; it is not a primary aim: it is a secondary outcome.

Western Civilization is not the kind of thing that can be 'saved', or defended, or anything else.

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/conscience-in-science.html

Whatever 'it' is (whatever 'Western Civilization' legitimately includes or excludes) nobody created Western Civilization on purpose - it is a by-product.

And, as Lewis said in his essay 'First and Second Things' (see link above) - if you do try to aim directly at attaining or defending a Second Thing as if it was a First Thing, then you will both fail to achieve and save it; and also end by actively destroying it.

*

The big problem is that it is precisely Western Civilization which created Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, and Political Correctness; 'modern art'; 'human rights'; pacifism - it is Western Civilization which is destroying itself.

The counter currents have always been there - at least since the Great Schism of a millennium since - and the counter-current has now overwhelmed the main current.

*

The self-destroying aspects of the West have always been there, and they permeate or are woven-into the whole.

Western Civilization has always been changing -  not merely superficially, but deeply. It has never been stable - not even for two generations in a row.

The West is continually becoming more abstract, more specialized, less Christian. 

There is no evidence that The West ever could be stable - and everything suggests the opposite.

*

Furthermore, all of those abstract attributes which the Secular Right wants to preserve in Western Civilization are complicit in the decline: freedom of choice/selfishness; democracy/ mob rule; freedom of consciousness/ secularism; philosophy-science/ rational bureaucracy; art/ subversion; freedom of lifestyle/ moral inversion; kindness/ cowardice; an open and accessible mass media/ the primacy of virtual reality ... the whole lot.

*

The West is perpetually in transition: it has no essence: it is evolutionary.

Those who set out their stall on defending 'Western Civilization' are therefore either defending a process (markets, democracy, 'the Open Society'), and an evolutionary process which might lead anywhere, including to self-destruction of Western Civilization (as, in my opinion, it already has)....

Or else they are really defending some other bottom line entity that is not Western Civilization and would quite likely dispense with Western Civilization at some point in the future: e.g. a nation or group of nations, a race, a ruling lineage (e.g. of monarchs, or castes)... the preservation of which might well necessitate at some point dispensing with what are currently 'Western values'.

In other words, if you favour a process (like democracy, sexual freedom) you must be prepared to sacrifice an entity (like a nation or a race): if you favour an entity you must be prepared to dispense with processes.

So, I am saying that it is strictly nonsense - and destructive nonsense - to claim to be defending Western Civilization.

*

People can only get away with this absurd claim to be defending Western Civilization (get away with it in their own minds, as much as the public arena) because Western Civilization is so obviously collapsing so fast; and because this process is being accelerated by an evil, blind and insane politically correct elite who apparently must be opposed - somehow - although with little chance of short-term success. 

But the Secular Right is trying to keep its cake and to eat it: to retain the residual and declining bits of modernity, the counter-currents that it personally values (especially sexual freedom); but at the same time to dispense with what is now the (dominant) flow of modernity.

*

So, there is a pressing need for defence of the Western social system against imminent threats to survival, and to fight the present and future-looming succession of political crisis - each of opens Western nations to their enemies and any of which is sufficient to destroy it.

(Indeed, a major source of conflict on the reactionary right is which of the many lethal problems approaching the West will be the first actually to kill the West. There are so many dangers of such great dangerousness, that we don't really know which is the most pressingly dangerous!)

But deeper than this is the relentless and almost-wholly successful use of  distraction and indifference to deal with the existential realities of the human condition, the use of media technologies and virtual realities as an alternative to having meaning and purpose in life.

The Secular Right is, I am afraid, merely Saruman attempting to use Sauron's Ring to fight Sauron; all its tactics to defend what it regards good are simultaneously (but in other places) strengthening the forces of destruction.

*

There is enough to suggest that the Left is indeed the main line of a Western Civilization which is pre-programmed to self-destruction; while the Right is merely imposing temporary corrections which save the West in the short term but only at the cost of entrenching its long-term and underlying errors.

The West cannot be saved.

There is nothing to save; and anyway The West has self-destruction built-in, woven-in, pervasive.

How can you save something which so much wants to kill itself?

Take your eye off Western Civilization for just a moment and it will be swinging from the rafters with its own belt around its neck...

*

Christians and the Hot Button moral isues of the day

*

Are the mainstream Christian churches substantially corrupted by secular Leftism? Yes.

Is this a fact or mere opinion? It is a fact. 

How would we know? See below:

*

One test is very simple: and the test is exactly what the secular Left say it is. Where does the Christian church stand on the Hot Button issues of the day.

*

For more than 50 years the secular Left has rolled-out a sequence of Hot Button moral issues to create conflict with the Christian Churches - and these are almost all to do with sexual morality. Each of these sexual issues then becomes a political cleavage-point or litmus test for good versus evil as defined by the Left.

And before the sexual revolution of the mid 1960s, there were analogous challenges spread out over previous decades and indeed over a couple of centuries: the proposal to use secular historical scholarship to over-rule scripture was one of the first and deadliest; natural selection versus creation was a later one where a scientific metaphysical assumption was put forward to over-rule the Christian understanding of the human condition; and at various times abolition of slavery, pacifism and socialism have been the major issues.

*

In retrospect we can discern that each of these issues was a wedge - and that all were significant.

Acceptance of even one of these issues acts like a wedge, because the new principle expands incrementally to break-apart the unity and coherence of Christianity in the way that wedges were used to break-up a tree trunk.

This applies to the issues of sexual morality which dominate church-secular controversies today.

*

All of the Hot Button issues have been chosen by the secular Leftist system (whether chosen by blind, impersonal, systematic summated social forces, or chosen by evil intent) for their long-term potential to destroy Christianity (or subvert and rewrite it - which is the same thing).

*

None of these issues are insignificant, as the secular Left realizes - which is why the secular Left pursues these matters with such strategic zeal and ruthless aggression.

The secular Left are hard-line fanatics, the Christians try to be 'reasonable' and meet them half-way - with predictable results... 

In no instance will small-scale 'compromise' changes be acceptable to the secular Left - since their agenda is revolutionary and destructive - all small changes will simply open-the-door to further changes in the same direction.

*

Now, we now that this is the case; looking back we can see the same pattern again and again.

There is nothing for Christians to debate here; because debate implies the possibility of change and to be 'reasonable', to seek a mutually acceptable compromise, is simply for the church to surrender and to weaken itself for the next attack.

(The argument goes: "if you have already agreed to that - then logically you must also agree to this which is merely a consequence of that.)

*

All this the secular Left perceives with absolute clarity.

Yet Christians do not.

Christians continue to pursue the policy of appeasement, conceding and conceding to an aggressor who has stated quite clearly that he wants nothing less than your annihilation - consequently the mass majority of ever-yielding Christians are in a perpetual state of disappointment and are continually aggrieved that their decency is not being appreciated by their enemies - constantly shocked that their enemies are being so unfriendly!

*

But Christians need to wake-up.

Christians absolutely must reject the secular, Leftist anti-Christian agenda in its totality; including to go back and undo or reverse all the concessions and yieldings to secularism made over the past centuries.

All of them.

*

Because all the Hot Button issues were chosen by secular Leftism, all are wedges, all are capable of great destruction, all need to be decisively rejected, eventually all need to be removed.

Individual Christians need not, should not, try to understand the modernizing agenda from an assumption that it is 'well-meaning': it is not well-meaning - even when the individuals who pursue it are nice and decent people, it needs to be kept in mind that they are nice and decent people in the service of evil.

All and any future proposed 'reforms' originating from the secular Left therefore must be refused categorically and finally, without argument.

And any and all of the changes to Christian theology, morals, scripture, liturgy (etc.) originating from this sources need to be reversed.

*

We moderns have, we should recognize, been corrupted, such that we are incapable of 'judging for ourselves' - how can hedonistic chaotic addicts with the attention span of a gnat, near-zero Christian knowledge and even less sanctity, judge anything 'for ourselves'?

It is often said that scripture, reason and tradition ought to guide Christians: quite true. But we modern cannot read scripture, and our scriptures have been re-written; we cannot reason because we are ignorant, inattentive and incompetent; therefore we must focus primarily on tradition where this is clear, and tradition is crystal clear on all the Hot Button issues

- and we must let tradition guide our understanding of scripture and reason (i.e traditional understandings of scripture, traditional modes of reasoning).

*

Therefore, we moderns must be guided primarily by tradition, by ancient tradition, by tradition originating from before modernity - and especially when this tradition is clear and unambiguous among the Holiest of our Christian ancestors.


**


NOTE: This perspective on the nature of modernity can be seen throughout the work of Fr Seraphim Rose.

*

The causes of gratuitous wars

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

The same is happening over most of Europe. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Political correctness and fear

*

An aspect of political correctness which I have not really considered was pointed out in an e-mail from Henry Harpending: the extent to which PC is motivated by fear and a spirit of appeasement.

*

Clearly, there is a strong element of fear in the choices of groups upon which political correctness bestows special privileges.

Broadly speaking, the most feared groups are given the highest status by PC.

*

(One apparent anomaly is women; who, following after slaves and organized labour, were early beneficiaries of the appeasing spirit of PC. An argument could be made that there is indeed a very strong element of fear of women behind political correctness: women being the mutually cooperating arbiters of social status and inclusion, and the sex which (nearly always) controls the sexual arena in which/ for which men are competing. If correct, this would emphasize that for men fear as a motivator is not restricted to fear of violence, although that is often an element, but includes fear of status loss.)


*

However, feared groups are not treated by political correctness according to the methods of traditional common sense, but instead by appeasement.

Traditionally (historically and still throughout most of the world), feared groups were controlled, subordinated, repressed, excluded and (ultimately) exterminated.

These methods were usually effective - if applied early enough.

However, a deep aspect of political correctness is pacifism: in the sense of a personal reluctance to be involved in physical coercion and even to be complicit in physical coercion.

PC strongly dislikes negative sanctions.

*

Consequently, lacking access to negative sanctions and especially physical coercion; political correctness gravitates to appeasement of feared groups.

The aim of PC is positive encouragement (of peaceful behaviour), which it does by conferral of privileges, subsidies, bestowal of higher status and so on.

But to do this entails a rationale: the rationale is one of desert: the feared group is seen as deserving of special, positive treatment.

This represents an inversion of common sense government; and culminates in a privileging of the feared group, increased power of the feared group, and ultimately a hand-over of government to the feared group.

*

Thus appeasement of the feared group becomes transformed into submission to the feared group.

*

(According to Demonic Males - available on Google Books and a classic account of primate aggression by Robert Wrangham and Dale Peterson - submission is characteristic of some ape females. They explain this in terms of 'warfare' - inter-group aggression. In sum: the difference is that defeated primate males suffer 'murder' and reproductive death; defeated females suffer 'rape' and continue reproduction. When a primate band is defeated, the losing males are exterminated by the winners - 'hence' males must fight and win, or die; but losing females are abducted rather than killed, 'hence' female primates tend to submit to superior force rather than fight. A stark example occurs when gorilla females live in the harem of a dominant male, and a rogue male breaks through the dominant male's defences and kills an infant. The mother of the slain infant will leave the dominant male's harem to join the rogue male who killed her infant. Presumably, because the event establishes which male really is dominant.)

*

For the PC elite, appeasement at least buys time since the feared groups will be likely to behave well for at least as long as the ruling elite are needed to manage the handover of power.

Furthermore, the PC elite hope (in the teeth of common sense) that the process of appeasement, empowerment and submission will (before the handover is complete) transform the nature of the feared group - such that there will no longer be a need to fear or appease them.

***


(This analysis leaves open the question of why the PC elite should be reluctant to use traditional common sense methods of dealing with feared groups, what is the cause of this change? This leads back to the deep roots of PC in secular nihilism - and its hopes of an intrinsically altruistic/ unselfish society of optimal gratification and minimum suffering; a society of impartial and abstractly virtuous procedures. In terms of mechanism, the PC elite has its roots in the takeover of society by the intellectual class; who must distinguish themselves from, marginalize and disempower the traditional military rulers, and devalue the analysis and methods of the military class. It is only the military class who are able to apply the approach of control, subordination, repression, exclusion and (ultimately) extermination. For intellectuals to replace, to dispense with, the loathed military class entails intellectuals using non-military methods (even when the alternative methods are ineffective). Alternatively, the process might be conceptualized as consequential to an altered balance of power between the sexes - i.e. progressive feminization: increasing female societal dominance - leading to a reaction to external threat that is ever-less aggressive, ever-more submissive. The two explanations could be combined if the class of intellectual men formed an alliance with women against the class of military men: the intellectual gaining cooperation by appeasement. It all sounds highly Nietzschian!)

*

Here and Now we must turn-aside from politics, economics, society and sexuality - and as first priority sort-out our cowardly, despairing anti-spirituality

Men have been on the wrong track, hijacked and diverted, for many generations - probably about 200 years. Instead of pursuing the development of human consciousness and thinking, as was our destiny; we have (I mean in The West - where the change was intended to begin) been diverted into focusing on (in approximate order) politics, economics, society and sexuality.

We have had spiritual impulses, but at the social level these have been corrupted into evil. Impulses for freedom, for self-development, for agency; for a recognition of all Men as spiritual siblings and gods-in-embryo (because children of God) and of Life as based in universal consciousness...

All such have been taken and twisted by the great evil strategy of 'Leftism' (led, invisibly, by immortal demonic powers) - into pacifism, abolitionism, anti-clericalism and anti-Christianity, the class warfares of Marxism and socialism and communism, ecology and Green politics, feminism, antiracism and diversity, and the multifaceted sunversions and inversions of the revolution in sex and sexuality. 

Indeed the phenomenon occurs with a sickening predictability! As soon as there is some kind of spiritual impulse that contains some kind of good; it is rapidly and near-completely diverted into some kind of programme - some scheme or plan - for externally changing society, for changing people... a law, regulation, system, blueprint, flow chart... nowadays typically into ultra-surveillance and micro-management.

As we look-around, here and now, we perceive a world of mass media and bureaucracy and leisure, in which the whole thing has been pretty much sewn-up. Attention is relentlessly fixed externally onto political, economic, social and sexual affairs.

Our capacity to think is blocked - apparently almost completely, and with just a few cracks remaining in the system through which experience and contemplation may, at rare times, penetrate.

THIS is why we must now, and for a while, stop ourselves from focusing our minds onto the 'problems' of our society - the problems of politics, economics, society and sexuality. Turn aside, turn inward.

Yet people are trapped, have been trapped. Our present attitudes will lead to defeat - that really ought to be clear by now! So we must change our deepest perceptions and understanding of the world. And if we must change the deepest pre-conceptions; then we must disengage to do this. And must means must - if we do not disengage and work on primary things we are doomed for sure and certain.

We cannot 'wait until things are sorted-out' and we have breathing space; we cannot first engage in practical problem-solving (about, say, the economy, immigration, evil laws) and then move on to spiritual matters. We cannot do this because we are already too deeply corrupted and demotivated to do any constructive work. A corrupt and cowardly population cannot 'fix' things - by meddling they will instead make them worse.

But because matters are worsening all the time, we fear to set-aside worldly concerns and focus on the spirit. We are afraid to let the forces of evil proceed unopposed - even though all that opposition can achieve is a minuscule slowing of the rate of corruption; yet we are afraid even to allow this, for fear that things may go too far, too fast...

Well, the fact is that we are not stopping the corruption, therefore the longer we delay - the further things will go. And yet the ultimate problem is not really things going too far, but the corruption of the population (by totalitarianism) to the point that we cease to be aware of the problem.

In other words, the primary problem is not the severity of corruption, but its invisibility. Any degree of corruption can be reversed where there is will and courage; but corruption continues to proceed when it is unperceived or the population are cowards; and, anyway, have no idea how to improve things because we are enslaved to evil, demonic metaphysical assumptions and perceptions, that drain us of common sense, virtue and courage.

There is no realistic alternative to turning aside from all those material problems that constitute the entire focus of the mass system of media, propaganda, laws and regulations - turn aside to focus instead upon our own deepest thinking and assuming.

Yes, things will indeed decline faster when we do this - that is the price we must pay for several generations of neglect and counter-productive activity. The process of spiritual recovery may be faster than we fear - if we are thorough and energetic about it: days rather than months, perhaps...

But however long it takes, we must do it anyway: because must is must. And soon. Or else will will cease to recognise that it must be done; and then it won't.

NOTE: By synchronicity; William Wildblood is saying much the same as the above in his post today:
meetingthemasters.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/liberalism-is-materialised-spirituality.html

The venom of political correctness

*

When I first came across political correctness - which was the summer of 1981, inflicted on me by a social worker - I thought it was a joke.

Even in 1992, when I was in a Texas university humanities department for a month, and I saw the thing in full flight, it still seemed too silly to take seriously.

Now, of course, the joke is on me: PC defines reality, and we all live and work at the whim of the advocates of PC, who could destroy the lives of any one of us at any moment, for any reason or no reason whatsoever.

And they would feel good about doing it.

*

But whence comes the sheer venom of PC?

How is it that people who believe in nothing (or, if they do believe in anything, it is supposedly in tolerance, pacifism, stuff like that) - how come these people are so vicious?

I think it is because they fear that their pleasurable distractions will be taken away by their opponents, and for the PC, pleasurable distraction is life itself.

*

I say this without a shred of exaggeration.

If you believe in nothing, if life can have no real objective meaning, then pleasure is necessary as an analgesic, and distraction is necessary as the key philosophical argument.

The politically correct are nihilists, reality deniers, and when there is no reality then the only positive is pleasure.

*

But all pleasures are up against habituation - on repetition, pleasures lose their effect.

Habituation is the driving force of modernity - the drive behind neophilia, the drive behind fashion, the drive behind the leading edge of political correctness.

Habituation rules because without effective stimuli, modernity is lost - without pleasurable distraction modernity will be confronted by the void, and for the nihilist the void is no joke, but is indeed the only reality.

*

For the nihilist the real is an illusion, and to live is to be deluded. Political correctness is deliberate self delusion - to the point of self-forgetting. 

*

This the need for change (neophilia), thus the need constantly to break boundaries, to transgress in search of powerful stimuli to connect us with the insubstantial world.

Under modernity, humans are (nearly) all jaded by pleasures repeated.

We are all decadent, all Caligulas now.

*

Any who challenge the escalation of stimuli, the freedom to transgress, the primacy of lifestyle, the mix of populations, possibility of the exotic, .

Any who assert the eternal, the unchanging, who seek to limit the potential of the future (even by word - especially by word) - any such strike at roots of vitality. And vitality is all and only.

Even as such a person speaks, or is read or watched - the politically correct can feel their life draining away, can sense the world receding, can perceive their world crumbling.

Hence the venom, the viciousness, the panicked attack with anything: ad hominem inventions (immediately believed as facts), fantasied motivations, lies of any and every kind.  

For the PC becomes vital to stop the hostile communication, immediately, without any delay - it must be shouted down, laughed at, shut-up - the politically correct must switch-off, turn-away from the horrible sounds and sights; gabble and gossip among themselves - until they gradually stop the dissolution, and being again to rebuild the world with their own words, in their own image.

*

The venom of the politically correct is the venom of a person faced by the extinction of their pleasurable distractions upon which they rely utterly to keep themselves going: the ever expanding choice of favourite food; the anticipated holidays anywhere; the pleasures of seduction without restrictions; the unbounded novelties of sex, picking and mixing among an unedendingly growing, whirling and recombining of cultures and ideas; the experimentation with drinks and (maybe) drugs; fantastic hopes for these to be facilitated by world peace, harmony, abolition of poverty, blending; in sum, the infinite possibilities of the future and the hope of pleasures so overwhelming and utterly absorbing as to extinguish all concerns concerning meaninglessness or lack of purpose, strong enough to delete self-consciousness.

*

The more extreme, the less realistic, the greater the delusional psychoticism of the dream - the greater the loathing of anyone who threatens to shatter it.

Against such anything is permitted - restrained only by the danger of evoking such an extreme of self-disgust, of demoralization, as to shatter the dream oneself.

This is the danger faced by the intellectual elite - that one day they will behave such that they will destroy their own delusions of themselves. Then there will be nowhere for them to turn.

Nowhere at all.

*

Moral parasitism: when leaders act against the interests of their institutions

*

Why on earth do people assume, by default, that the leader of a political party represents that party, that he has any real interest in the well-being of the party - or indeed that the leader of any institution is trying to do his best for that institution?

A leader can promote himself as the primary objective, or 'his' organization. But parasitic behaviour is the norm, not the exception.

Often it will pay them, now or at some point in the future, to promote themselves at the expense of the group.

*

This is especially a problem with young leaders who have been parachuted into the organization, and are expecting a limited term of leadership; and therefore need to plan their career beyond the current organization.

Typically, they will operate such as to get as much as possible for themselves from the organization.

*

What leaders want for themselves, and what they take from the organization, depends on the person - money, status, power or sex are the usual.

But in some instances (and these can be the most damaging) it is self-esteem: the organization will then serve as an agency for fueling the leader's own sense of moral superiority.

The results of self-esteem maximizing behaviour may appear irrational; but inside the leader's head, he is taking the lead role in a psychodrama demonstrative of his own moral integrity and superiority.

*

Self-esteem is protean and insatiable and thrives on change.

The leader who is a self-esteem seeker is much more difficult to control, and much more likely to destroy the organization, than a leader who is merely trying to make money for themselves.

*

Such moral parasitism on the part of the leadership seems almost like the norm in much of the public administration, education, NGOs, the mass media, the legal system, and progressive politics.

If it is such a big problem, then why is the question not addressed at all?

Why does evaluation of potential leaders focus exclusively on 1. their 'qualifications' and 2. what they say they intend to do (their 'policies') - and ignore completely whether this particular person has any deep, genuine and personally-motivating identification with the organization they are supposed to lead?

*

This is a matter of loyalty.

If leaders don't have loyalty to that which they lead (and loyalty comes from within,  is spontaneously expressed, and imposes-itself - loyalty is not something which can be imposed on a leader from without)... if they are not loyal then leaders will be parasites - and once they are leaders it will be all-but impossible to stop them running the organization, or the country, for their own personal benefit.

*

But what is that 'personal benefit'?

In a society dominated by Leftism in the form of political correctness, we must be aware that 'personal benefit' is not always, nor even usually, financial.

The commonest and worst form of corruption among the modern leadership class is moral parasitism.

The typical modern leader is driven by primarily by the imperative of self-esteem-maximization as enacted in the symbolic and subjective arena of their own minds, and evaluated by their internal representations of equality, diversity, pacifism, inclusion and all the rest of it...

Meanwhile, reality is crumbling into chaos.    

*