The Left is winning, where it matters: Right triumphalism misunderstands the very nature of the Left

People who regard themselves as of the Right are displaying an insane and blinkered optimism that they are winning, and rolling-back Leftism. 

This is because they do not understand what the Left is, in its fundamental nature. 

If they did understand, those who proclaim themselves of the Right would realize that they are merely functioning as a subtype of the Left. 

The political Right supposes that the Left is an ideology rooted in some principles. They believe that the Left IS these policies that I call the Litmus Tests: I mean things like socialism, feminism, antiracism, anti-antisemitism, the Climate Agenda. 

In general terms, the self-identified Right define the Left in terms of Political Correctness, SJWs, Wokeness - and their manifestations in the mass media, law, employment regulations etc. 

Because they suppose that the Left is an ideology of "Wokeness" the Right imagine that reversals of specific social practices and regulations represent a rolling-back of Leftism in their nation, or in the world.

When the Right sees such laws, fundings, rhetoric being undone; they think the Left is being defeated. 

But this is completely wrong; because the Left is a negative ideology, an ideology of opposition, and none of the Litmus Tests are core features of Leftism - they might all, in principle, be undone and the Left still be as strong as ever.    

All the Left ideologies are negative in form: the Left is (in various times and places) against many things (capitalism, the bourgeoisie, inequality, patriarchy, European people, Christians) - but is not in favour of any state of affairs as an ultimate and real goal.  

In other words the Left is protean in nature, fluid, adapting - it is continually discarding old ideologies and taking up new ones. 

The Left used to be in favour of economic communism - but not any more; in favour of native-born male industrial workers  (the working class) - but not any more; in favour of equality of opportunities and unequal outcomes - but not any more. 

Leftism can and does discard anything that is currently inexpedient; because there are an endless number of alternatives.

And there is in fact no coherent thing as "the Right"; because the Right is merely opposition to the various Leftist oppositions. 

Leftist ideology is double-negative (i.e. against what they currently regard as bad things), the "the Right" is a triple negation (i.e. against those who are against what the Left currently calls bad things).

No wonder those endless essays striving to define the Right never gets anywhere!  

This is why the Right is so wrong about the rolling back of Leftism. It supposes that the Left abandoning some of its recent woke agenda represents some kind of a defeat, but it is just the usual slippery shape-shifting of Leftism; which now has other priorities - especially war. 

Since Leftism is fundamentally oppositional and negative - Leftism is essentially destructive. 

War is very destructive; hence world war is perhaps an ultimate expression of Leftism. 

(And it matters nothing that pacifism, anti-war, anti-violence; was one of the original roots of Leftism - from more than 200 years ago.) 

War can give Leftism everything and more of whatever losses it may suffer from dropping a few strands of political correctness.  

Just look at what the Leaders of Western nations are actually doing, where they are putting most of their effort - they are in practice (not in what they say, but in what they do over time) angling for more war. 

Not to win a war, but for the maximizing the destruction of war: destruction of economies, societies, trade, positive national identities, of nature (aka "the environment") - expansion of such negations as lies, resentment, and despair. 

We are - and have been for a few years - seeing more and more wars, and what war brings. expanding and escalating the already existing World War with its multiple fronts - but especially in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

We can see the globalist totalitarian leadership class at work engineering wars all over the place; recently on the Asian Subcontinent. This isn't easy to do, there are plenty of people who don't want war - for obvious reasons. But that is what "They" are serious about.  

Ultimately, of course, politics is downstream of the spiritual war of this world; Leftism is a tool of evil in its opposition to God and Divine Creation.

Yes, the sexual revolution was and is a deadly tool of corruption; but a self-righteous and hate-driven war of each against all would be deadlier still. 

When the Right celebrates a few small "victories" (many of which turn out to mere words, and no substantive change; they miss that the Left now has bigger fish to fry, and other things it care much more about. 

The woke agenda might be "forgotten" as thoroughly as the days (a century ago) when white European men were the Left's heroes! - but the Left is continuing to win, and win where it matters most. 

And this will continue until those on the Right recognize that they are part of the problem, and repent. 

  

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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. 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One or the other.

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.

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace-ifism - Establishment-weaponized pacifism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace-ifism is not, therefore, about peace!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, it makes for a profoundly unedifying spectacle! 

Note added: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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?

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Class was its primary unit of analysis. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And so forth. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

So... totalitarianism. 


Here is my understanding: 

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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