"Resenting-the-resenter" - a disguised manifestation of the master sin of modernity

I have often harped-on about the sin of "resentment" - because of two reasons: first, it is seldom regarded as a sin, often considered a virtue; and second that it is the master sin of leftism - which is the basis both of the "Ahrimanic" materialist-totalitarian impulse, and of its now succeeding "Sorathic" motivation of spiteful destructiveness and each-against-all chaos. 

Perhaps the major socio-political movement of the past couple of hundred years has been the creation of ever-more resentment groups: examples include the working class, particular nations, women, non-white races, non-Christian religions, and any sex and sexuality other than married families or celibacy. 

Such groups are formed by their resentment, and are joined-with other resentment groups by the mutuality of their sin. 

There is a resentment-group for everybody now - including the richest, most powerful, and famous people in the world. Indeed, one of the twists of resentment is that it often presents in terms of resentment "on behalf of others".

This has always been a feature of resentment-rooted politics. The ruling class always made-up a majority of influential and powerful communists. Feminist men likewise. And resentment "on behalf of" other races and religions is a veritable industry. 

Resentment-on-behalf-of also disguises personal resentments - which, although covert, may be the true and most powerful motivator. 

  

Perhaps the most insidious aspect of resentment is that it is seldom acknowledged - either to others, or even to oneself; and whatever is unacknowledged cannot be repented.

Much of this is to do with the fact that whoever or whatever is resented always - in a false but often compelling sense - "deserves it"; so the resentment can be disguised as "simply the facts". 

Furthermore, resentment appears under the guise of "resenting-the-resenter"...

Resenting-the-resenter means that I resent some person or group, on the basis that they resent me.

(And therefore are trying to harm me).

The fact that their resentment against me may well be true, is used to disguise the fact that I have myself developed a sinful and motivating resentment. 

(And whatever is unacknowledged cannot be repented.)

What needs to be borne in mind, is that resentment is a sin because of the harm it does to the resenter; therefore resentment is always wrong - and therefore wrong no matter how apparently "factually based" it really is. 

In other words, the facts are nothing at all to do with the sin - except in providing a fake excuse, a false and irrelevant "justification", for not repenting it. 

That is: a person or group may really and truly be dedicated to harming others - but it is still and always a sin to develop an attitude of resentment towards him or them. 

Because the sin harm us - whatever it may or may not do to others. 

Take a (semi-humorous) example from this blog. I often indulge in rants against The Normans. 

I genuinely believe that The Normans are a problem, that they are constitutionally lacking in empathy, and have caused and still cause a great deal of harm to many people in may places (not just in the UK and Ireland). 

I also believe that modern Normans are strongly motivated by resentment - especially against the native English people. 

Those may be regarded as The Facts (from my point of view), and they have various real world implications for choices and actions. But at times I confess that I have fallen into resentment against The Normans... 

Now; I need to be able to recognize when this has happened - I need to recognize when I am actually resenting The Normans. 

Because this always needs to be acknowledged and repented - because otherwise I am doubling-down on a sin.  

 

Nobody "deserves" to be resented - no matter what they have do or want to do - because resentment is not about Them but about Us. 

"Deserving" has precisely nothing to do with it. 

It is a favourite (and highly effective) ploy of Satan to win adherents in the spiritual war of this world; by the false conception of "justified resentment" against his agents. He encourages a resenter; and that resenter then creates further resentment. 

Thus Satan gains supporters on both sides - because both sides are in fact unrepenting sinners, and thus (in truth) are affiliated to Satan. 

My take-home message (to myself as well as others) is simply that: All resentment is un-justified.

Resentment: shun it - Gratitude: nurture it

It sometimes seems as if the primary purpose of the mainstream modern world is (when not inculcating fear) to cultivate resentment.

Resentment is, in my estimation one of the most evil of sins, because of its characteristic to grow - by feeding upon itself, by brooding upon grievances, by finding confirmation wherever it looks, and by stimulating others to behave in a way that apparently justified the resentment. Resenters are seldom popular with those they resent, so resentment tends to lead to grounds-for-resentment...


Well, let's just stop right there! Because in reality there are No grounds-for-resentment - and the idea that there are such grounds is a part of the sin-encouraging atmosphere of many social circumstances. For example, I have often heard it said that (given 'history') it is 'not surprising' or 'understandable' that - say - the Irish resent the English. Thus has soul-rotting resentment been celebrated and encouraged for generations*. 

The fact is that resentment is evil - so there are never Any grounds for it; and we should not speak as if it were a natural response to maltreatment.  Resentment may, like most other sins such as fear or lust, be 'inevitable' as an occurrence; but that does not make it Good. 


This is because the primary harm of resentment is upon the soul of him who resents.

The conviction of 'justified' resentment is a major cause of unrepented sin; exactly because the resenter regards the person who (he believes) has damaged him as being 'to blame' for his own resentment.


We see all around us extreme examples of 'victim groups' who have fallen into a seething, growing, self-excusing and apparently permanent state of sin; because of their continual inflammation-of and brooding-upon their (real or imagined, it makes no difference) persecutions.

And, of course, much of the modern world is long-term dedicated to creating resentment-groups of self-styled victims.

This systematic and deliberate encouragement of sin is actually even worse than exhibiting the sin itself - since encouragement (by propaganda and other forms of persuasion, by financial reward, by manipulating social status through awards and publicity etc) is a more deliberate, chosen, and strategically self-seeking activity than simply falling into the trap of self-justifying resentment.


If one were to add-together all the (billions of?) people in the world who are either self-identified members of a resentment/ victim group; with those whose self-imposed task is to encourage resentment and the perception of victim status (in politics, civil administration, charities and NGOs, corporations, schools and colleges, the arts and academia, the police and military, religions, health services and so on...) - then we come to a very high proportion of the people in the world who are in a chronic state of self-righteous, hence unrepented, sin.

(Selling resentment is big business, nowadays - with many addicted consumers.)

And because it is unrepented sin that leads most people to choose damnation and to reject the gift of Jesus; I think we must conclude that the powers of darkness have been extremely successful in corrupting this world to the point that (apparently) so many will opt for Hell, and despise any Heaven that requires them to drop their resentment.


I would say that, in general, damnation requires moral inversion - that is, the reversal of values: such that evil is seen as Good and vice versa. Mass resentment is a core example of value inversion. As is the fact that modern morality - and to such a high degree - is rooted-in the conviction that the sin of resentment is actually a virtue, and indeed defines virtue. To be a member of a victim group defined by active resentment is currently regarded as an actual moral plus!


The antidote to resentment is gratitude. First gratitude to God for creation and sustaining, and for loving us as a parent. Second gratitude to those who love us... usually people from our family, in the first place - but also true friends, if we have any.

But in general a life dominated by gratitude - properly directed - should be our ideal; repented when we fall short.

Gratitude (once established) also has the property of feeding-upon-itself, and finding grounds for more gratitude. So, while we are all sinners and will all lapse - we can always repent our resentments, and affirm our gratitudes - and that will suffice for Jesus Christ!

Because it is our great good fortune that He does not ask us for perfection in thought, word or deed; but only to acknowledge that which is Good - and that which is evil. And that is our third (and consummating) major cause for gratitude!

*Note: I am 1/4 Irish.

Groups of people (e.g. a particular sex, religion, empire, nation, ethnicity, or social class) are never the root of The Problem

A good deal of human discourse is - and maybe always has been - ranged around arguments over which group of people are most at fault for the state of things? 

That group-at-fault may be very large - one of the sexes, for instance; or may be variously small - a particular religion, empire, nation, ethnicity, or social class. 

The thing is, there are so many candidate groups; and loads of evidence for all of them as being a problem, or even a Big problem - so there is constant and unresolvable dispute about which particular group is the worst.

What this amounts to is a search for the source of the major problems of the world; that special group which is the origin of the problems caused by most or all the other groups across the spread of history.

The point of this search for the origin, is the hope that when the source is known, then a solution will become possible... If the Big Problem can be located, then maybe it can be isolated, and its threat eliminated? 

So alluring is this prospect, that the project to discover the root-evil group continues; despite many generations of futility and failure - and no solid example of successful positive transformation consequent upon elimination of a particular group. 

Some of these problem groups are nonsensical projections, others are identifying a real and serious problem - by which I mean a real spiritual problem. It is a major aspect of the extremity of spiritual evil in these times that large groups have been (and are being) made evil by the sin of resentment. 

Many groups have been corrupted by resentment, to the point that resentment becomes the primary (or even sole) cause of their group-cohesion and motivation. 

Indeed, there may be nothing in common between the group members, except for the shared focus of their resentment. That is indeed the nature of The Left as of 2025: leftism has become nothing-but a collection of shared resentments. 

And, once a resentment-based group has been created, then there is the further spiritual problem that it leads not just to counter-measures, but to counter-resentment; such that a resentment-fuelled groups leads to the development of another group who "resent the resenters"*. 

And thus the problem compounds, and the search for an original group source of The Problem, and a remedy; instead spirals into a maelstrom of increasing mutual resentment.  

Why does this happen, and why does it happen so much here-and-now? 

It happens because ultimately humans are being manipulated by demons - because a world of humans that cohere by resentment is one that spiritually benefits only the Satanic strategy of human damnation - no matter what the (temporary) material outcome of inter-group conflict might be. 

And humans are more easily manipulated by demons here-and-now because we have (as a civilization) excluded the spiritual perspective from public discourse; including having denied the reality of the demonic - so that only human causes are regarded as permissible explanations for human problems.

(Spiritual explanations are regarded as necessarily false, because impossible.) 

The situation is strongly encouraged by the dominant Western ideology that regards "correctly-directed" resentment (e.g. anti-nationalist-globalism, socialism, feminism, antiracism, anti-antisemitism) as a virtue, not a sin; and which encourages resentment as a core human motivation by all means possible (state propaganda, media propaganda, laws and regulations etc).

Resentment is therefore a besetting sin of this era and place - because it is a sin that has been culturally-inverted into a virtue. 

Christians absolutely need to break out of this demonic cycle of group-resentment, on the basis that it is spiritual poison. 

As I've often said before: the reasons Christians are commanded to forgive in all situation is a spiritual (not practical) imperative; rooted in the fact that the opposite of forgiveness is the sin of resentment. 

Forgiveness is not about the evils of other person, or the other group, no matter how very evil these may be; it is instead about an evil in ourselves: We forgive sins in order that we ourselves do not fall into resentment. 

+++

* Examples of this abound on the "Secular Right" i.e. the group of anti-mainstream-Left political activists and commenters; which group includes plenty of self-identified Christians whose deepest and most compulsive interest is this-worldly, hedonic, and material. So we get those whose obsessive focus of discussion and argument is ("manosphere") anti-feminism, anti-antiracism, anti-(anti-antisemitism), and so forth. As with the mainstream Left, this broad grouping of "Alt-right"/ "Neoractionaries" etc has no net-positive spiritual motivation, and is united only by their resentments**.

**Further note: If you shake free of the past few weeks of gleeful euphoria of the Secular Right at the stated-intentions/?actions of the new US President's administration - you will observe a great surge of increased resentment (gleeful spite, Schadenfreude...), and nothing at all in the way of a positive spiritual programme. This may be "natural" for people to behave like this, but it sure ain't Christian thus gratuitously and publicly to celebrate one's own sin! 

Resurrection - Love versus Resentment, and the role of Forgiveness

What of us gets resurrected? 

The answer, I think, is essentially 'that of us which is love'. 

In other words, a person who has led a loving life will have plenty to resurrect (plenty from-which to re-create his immortal self); and by contrast, someone who is incapable of love, or has rejected it - cannot be resurrected, because there is nothing to resurrect. 

The 'opposite' of love - that sin which is most opposed to the essential-master virtue of love - seems to be 'resentment' (which is more usually called 'pride' - but I think resentment captures the essence better). 

Resentment cannot be carried into Heaven - so by repentance we must consent to its being stripped-away in the process of resurrection. 

But this means that every aspect of us which is dominated by resentment will be (must be) removed before we can enter Heaven. A Man who has, though his life, built up a mass of personal resentments, will therefore lose a great deal of himself in salvation. 

Hence the vital importance of forgiveness; because if we hold-onto a resentment directed against someone or some-institution; we are maiming our-selves now, and maiming the potential of our resurrected selves. 

But if we choose to discard this resentment (if we 'forgive') then there is more of us that can be resurrected - we will be a larger person after resurrection. 

Thus - the positive benefit from forgiveness is actually for the forgiver, not the forgiven. 

One who nurses his resentment (a 'resenter') is often operating under the spite-full (and demonic) belief (or fantasy) that his sustaining of resentment harms its subject - which harm he desires; and therefore he refuses to forgive. 

But at the worst extreme, the 'resenter' realizes that he cannot harm the subject of his resentment (either because they are in Heaven, or are no-more); and then a refusal to forgive becomes wholly negative, and necessarily spiritually self-harming. 

This is why resentment (or 'pride') is often regarded as the worst of all sins, and why it can be understood as the opposite of the Christian injunction to love. 

When indulged, when forgiveness is rejected; resentment can become the core of self-identity to the point where damnation is chosen.

Such is the situation of Satan; and such the incipient situation of those many Men for whom a resentment (and their own commensurate 'victim status') has been made their core value. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

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

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

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

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

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

This is an essential first step. 

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

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

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

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

The importance of Resentment in modern materialist evil

It is Resentment that the Establishment uses to control us, and to keep us focused on the material world. 

The first (attempted) major socio-political movement to come after the massive collapse of Western Christianity in the 19th century was Nationalism; which was a movement of Resentment, originating in the lower-upper classes; the high school teachers, journalists, clerks and others clinging to the margins of the ruling elite.

For a while, some Nationalist movements could create cohesion and motivation by inculcating a belief that prosperity, power and pleasure were due to if The Enemy could be thwarted. Nationalism worked best (albeit always temporarily) when there was such an historical enemy - a perceived 'oppressor', and not very well when there wasn't.

But at a deep level Nationalism is untrue, and indeed a lie; because it is materialist - that is, its implicit claim is that if material things can be sorted-out - then life will be Good (or, at least, as Good as Life can be...).

One would have supposed that the fact that is was Not true, and that material prosperity in the absence of spiritual meaning led to despair and nihilism ought to have been recognised by 1965 at the latest - since that recognition was the currency of much public discourse across the whole of The West from the middle 50s - Existentialism, the Beat generation, the 'Angry Young Men' etc.

My understanding is that  the (evil, demonically-controlled) Establishment recognised the danger of a spiritual, ultimately Christian, rebirth; and decided to manipulate Western societies into mutual resentment; so people would be focused on the lie that 'if only' they could escape oppression (by the 'Bourgeoisie', men, white people, The English, Christian churches, 'heterosexual' married families, or whoever) then life would be... well, Good Enough.

Half a century later - we have never been less spiritual, less Christian, less Romantic - and almost everybody in The West is seething with Resentment against some group, or many groups.

To 'fix' the source of this Resentment in some material, literal fashion is, for almost everybody, the number one priority - but there are so many number one priorities that the societal quest is futile/ deceptive/ obviously-manipulative.

And if ever it was achieved in any single domain (which attainment could/ would, anyway, never be acknowledged) then such people would find themselves no further forward than The West circa 1965: a state of meaninglessness, purposelessness, superficiality - and despair, nihilism and death.

So beware making Resentment your guiding motivation - no matter how justified it may seem, no matter if it is (apparently) wholly-justified... because it is a demonic deception, the path to death and despair; and Resentment will seal you off from the true happiness of Life.


Note: We all feel Resentment, and none can truly prevent its emergence - especially in this world. But all Christians can repent what cannot be prevented - and Repentance of itself places resentment in a subordinate position in your life - and thus neutralises its ultimate evil.  

The Great Misinterpretation. That crucial, wrong existential choice by the British circa 1800, at the advent of the industrial revolution

*
The beginning of the Industrial Revolution was in Britain, and so was the beginning of socialism, communism - political Leftism under its various names (bizarrely, Leftists are called Liberals in the USA).

Britain invented the modern world, and at the same time invented political Leftism.

*

I say invented 'political' Leftism, because the deepest roots of political Leftism are in anti-Christian radicalism - which is why all attempts to combine Christianity and Leftism have failed - usually by rejecting Christianity. So, when they were not actual or covert atheists, the early political Leftists were mostly religious radicals (and, of course, often advocates of sexual revolution).

*

So. Britain invented modernity and Leftism at about the same time. But was this a necessary co-occurrence? No it was not - Leftism was an error - a wrong and false interpretation of the facts - and often a dishonest error.

Specifically Leftism was an error of:

1. Misinterpretation

2. Attitude

After which, the error of attitude sustained the error of misinterpretation - as it so often does.

*

(The attitude prevents correction of error, because the error is moralized. To challenge the error is the interpreted as advocating evil. For instance, my thesis will seem evil to Leftists: because pointing at the factual or logical errors of Leftism, or its bad outcomes, is always interpreted as advocacy of... well... advocacy of whatever-Leftism-currently-happens-to-regard-as-the-ultimate-sin. What this ultimate evil actually is, has varied a lot over the years.)

*

Back at the beginning of the industrial revolution in England, around 1800, there was a point when large numbers of the poor who would have died before adulthood and failed to raise any children, did not die but instead stayed alive.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/who-are-poor-traditional-poor-versus.html

Increased efficiency of first food production, then production of industrial products, meant that people, and especially children, on the edge of death - in ever larger numbers - were fed, sheltered and sustained enough that they lived instead of dying.

The population began to grow, bigger than it had ever been. And there were lots more poor people - also, the poor people began to be more noticeable to the rich by becoming concentrated into cities instead of being hidden in hovels spread thinly across the countryside.

*

The rich and middle classes were the first Leftists - and these people misinterpreted the existence of more poverty as meaning that the industrial revolution created poverty by making the poor poorer.

Upon this error was erected the wildly-false theories of Engels and Marx and, and the many other early Leftists and proto-Leftists which became visible in the middle 1800s - Owen, Ruskin, later Hyndman, Morris, later the Fabians and so on.

Some were honestly mistaken - such as Morris, who was a very decent man; others, like Marx seem to have been self-servingly dishonest (certainly, Marxism seems to have been poisoned at source such that it went to the bad much more rapidly than any other brand of socialism).

*

The Leftists said that the industrial revolution had created mass poverty by making the poor poorer. But the reality was almost the opposite that the industrial revolution 'created' poverty by making the poor richer, by keeping them and their children alive, rather than dead.

In fact, in stark biological terms, the industrial revolution benefited the poor and it harmed the middle class and rich.

This is an objective fact, as should have been obvious by the rapidly increasing population - and indeed it was obvious from the later 1800s: the poor were very clearly out-reproducing the rich, and they were not dying en masse, but surviving en masse to create a new hereditary class.

This was of world historical significance: in Britain in the early 1800s and soon after in Western Europe and the USA, and for the first time ever, generation upon generation - the poor began to out-reproduce the upper and middle classes: the poor had what biologists term 'higher reproductive success'.

*

It seems that people became aware that 'something was happening'.

And throughout the nineteenth century, as the-penny-dropped here and there, for one person then another, the British people were confronted with a choice: the choice between either feeling grateful for what they had, or resentful for what they didn't.

The mass majority chose resentment, and gave their souls to the politics of resentment - that is to Leftism.

The same happened, sooner or later (it was later in the USA) everywhere in the developed world. And resentment is close kin to hatred.

*

And so, for eight or nine generations and increasingly, the population in the Western world has been taught the Leftist error and falsehood that the industrial revolution created poverty by immiseration.

And the West has been taught that the proper response is resentment: the indoctrination in resentment is so vast and intricate as to be un-measurable: modern man has been trained in victimology, and lives and breathes the ideology of resentment.

Why? Because Leftists are resentful of what they have not rather than grateful for what they do have; and this because they cannot be grateful because gratitude requires an object; a person to whom gratitude is owed; and Leftists (being necessarily and implicitly secular) do not acknowledge anybody to be grateful to.

In theory, Leftists are supposed to be grateful to abstractions such as The State, The Proletariat, The Party, The People or whatever. In practice, this is meaningless nonsense. So Leftists are not grateful but resentful.

*

And resentment - with its companions and consequences of pride-full hatred alternating with submissive despair - is the characteristic affect of modern political and public life.

No matter how much people have, no matter how comfortable and convenient are their lives, modern man feels entitled to more. Leftism is the public summation of millions of personal grudges and entitlements into the demand for ever more rights. 

*

The industrial revolution has come, and it will surely go, and the social leadership and the mass majority of people they have indoctrinated will never realize what hit them or what really happened. They have resented the industrial revolution, especially the good things it produced (life, rather than death), and they will resent - even more - the end of the industrial revolution.

Once established and inculcated, resentment is insatiable - it consumes all experience and evidence. Long ago, Britain made the wrong interpretation and the wrong choice, and Britain taught it to the world.

And this is what must be repented, individually and collectively. And it ought to start in Britain, since that is where The Great Misinterpretation began.

*


Britain was where the cancer of Leftism began, Britain is where it should first be ended. 

However, I see no sign of this at all - indeed quite the opposite, as the tone and content of public discourse relating to the recent referendum on Scottish independence showed. Nonetheless, that is what should happen.

But this cannot happen without first a Christian revival - positive reform is on-the-other-side-of repentance: we must start with repentance of Leftism (must start with repentance) - including Leftism's deepest roots in anti-Christianity. 

Because if gratitude is to replace resentment - and gratitude can only be accorded to a person, and no human person is an appropriate recipient of gratitude - then gratitude can only in practice and legitimately be to God.

And the British have locked-out God, and barricaded the door against Him.

*

Spite is all around us; invisible, dominant: the fruit of resentment, fuelled by despair

Spite, spitefulness is a strong candidate for The Worst Sin (I've blogged on this often). 

Another word for (aspects of) spite is Schadenfreude - but this is more often treated as an amusing foible, trivialized; than recognized as among the worst of evils. 

Surely we can all, if honest, recognize in ourselves (and infer in others) this most evil of evils: a desire to harm others, to make others suffer: a motivation that will, at extremes, risk or sacrifice even oneself? 

Surely we have all felt an arising impulse that responds to awareness of happiness, beauty, moral decency, honesty in other people or the world around us... with an impulse of hatred, the urge to destroy it, to smash it. 

We observe perfection; and then a stab of desire to mar that perfection. The urge may even be yielded to, when "harmless" - as when we see a perfect reflection cast by a still pool of water... And then respond by smashing it to smithereens by hurling a rock into it! 

"Harmless" fun, maybe - a tiny lapse, in the scheme of things; no lasting harm done... Yet if we examine the motivations for such everyday (trivial) destructions, we may (if honest) find spite at the root of it.

Likewise for our actions against others. These may be rationalized as necessary, or because "he deserves it"; but at root, the motivation may be spiteful: "I want to see him suffer".  

Most people, most of the time, squash such vile feelings in themselves (and certainly try to forget them) - but surely we have all experienced them? 

And - if we have any insight or capacity to reflect - seen this in other people (including the best people, at times; including those we love the most), and perhaps been at the receiving end of it? 

People who cause trouble among groups of friends - break-up friendships, relationships, even marriages; who spread malicious rumours, mislead, misreport, life; who engage in "he said, she said" betrayals. 

And surely we have at least thought about doing such things ourselves?  

Spite is ignoble, it is despicable - but it is real.

It is found to some degree in almost everybody, and it is the master sin ruling some people (and many demons). It is seen all through human history, and all around us - yet, spite is hardly acknowledged. 

(Except, maybe, in stories about youngish children! Enid Blyton often included spiteful characters, named as such, in her stories - which is how I first put a name to it.)

It is regarded as more sophisticated and pseudo-intelligent to analyse spite in terms of other motivations - especially disguised forms of self-interest. So, the harming of B by A is likely to be described in terms of how harming B benefits A (perhaps indirectly, or over the long-term). 

But the point is not whether spite can be explained-away - Of Course it can! 

The point is to to Ask The Question. Is this spite?

We absolutely need to know whether whether spite is the real motivator behind behaviour; because if it is, then such behaviour cannot be appeased by fulfilling self-interest. 

And, like most sins, spite feeds on its own gratification. When infliction of harm brings gratification, then the infliction of more harm to more targets will probably follow.    

Spite cannot be bought-off. Spite will not be satisfied by less than suffering and destruction. 

Thus when spite is explained-away - this merely allows for the undetected and more effective deployment of more spite. 

And spite is a natural product of the besetting modern sin of resentment - with the dominant ideology of The West being the creation, encouragement, subsidy and protection of ever-more "resentment groups" defined in terms of class, sex, race, sexuality or... whatever*. 

And (in the West, the developed world) this is a world of despair (whether actual or incipient). Because nearly everybody lives-by the assumptions that reality has no purpose or meaning, and that human life is followed by annihilation. 

With such assumptions; existential despair is normal and rational; such that self-distraction from this (supposed-) reality has become perhaps the primary life goal.    

When we have so many people who fundamentally assume themselves to be victims, and who despair; the ground is prepared for the operations of spite - first directed against those who are most resented (i.e. the supposed "oppressors"); but soon (as the sin takes grip) directed against pretty much anyone who in any way irritates us. 

When the most spite-dominated people are also among the most powerful, wealthy, high status, and influential in the world - then we have.... Well, we have exactly what we see around us in the world of geopolitics, global strategy, and the international and national leadership class. 

This world of "Sorathic evil".  

A world in which anything that is (or seems to be) of-God, or Good; anything apparently manifesting the transcendental values of Truth, Beauty or Virtue. Anything wholesome, innocent, natural, spontaneous, care-free... Any such becomes a prime target for spitefully-motivated attack. 

Yet, up to now, spite is invisible. Trivialized. Explained-away. 

By refusing to recognize the operations of spite in ourselves - failing thereby to acknowledge and to repent its sinful nature; we thereby fail to recognize spite in others. 

So spite can be everywhere, dominant, and increasing - yet we choose to be self-blinkered against perceiving it. 

And until we are aware of spite; the operations of spite cannot be resisted - either in ourselves, or others. 

* Leftism now rules the West and much of the world; and Leftism is a negative, oppositional ideology built upon resentment, and depending upon continuing expansion of resentment. The so-called political "Right" (of all types) is merely a variant of Leftism**. This can be seen in its domination by resentments, but of a different inflexion; typically inversions of mainstream Leftism: e.g. resenting women instead of the Leftist resentment of men, resenting the Left-approved races etc. Of course, such motivating resentment is rationalized and explained-away on quasi-objective grounds - yet the actuality of resentment as prime motivator is sometimes revealed when spite-driven desires or fantasies are expressed; as well as by the relentlessly negative and oppositional focus of Rightist discourse (against, against, AGAINST!). 

**The only alternative to the Left is religion. All secularism, all atheism, all materialism is ultimately Leftist. 

H/T - This was stimulated by a comment from Avro G. 

What is forgiveness and should all Christians always strive to do it?

I have often written about forgiveness on this blog, because I think the Christian injunction to forgive is widely and profoundly misunderstood - and not only by non-Christians.  

The reason that Christians are called upon to forgive everybody and every-thing is that the alternative is to nurse resentment, which is bad for us - is indeed a sin, and one of the commonest (because officially encouraged) in this time-and-place. 

There is no place for resentment in Heaven; so to enter Heaven we must be prepared to give-up all our resentments; and insofar as we harbour resentments during our mortal lives, then so much the worse for us. 

Almost always, resentment harms ourselves, and does nothing whatsoever to whoever is resented. 

For example, it is common to continue resenting people long after they have died - sometimes for many generations or centuries.

Resentment is therefore on the spectrum of that worst of sins: spite - whereby the desire to harm others is more powerful than even the desire to benefit oneself. Resentment is like that. It is a willingness to orientate one's life around negative desires for another person or people. 

So, forgiveness is simply a recognition that resentment is a sin and does us harm; and repenting any resentments we feel. 

This means that forgiveness has nothing to do with remitting just punishments, nor has it anything to do with forgetting - and failing to learn from - the harms that others have done to us. 

Obviously, Christians need to learn from our experiences in life; and when other people have lied to us, stolen from us, assaulted us, tried to make us miserable or to destroy that which we most value - it would be idiotic to pretend this never happened! 

As for other people asking us for forgiveness... well they shouldn't do it; and they would not do it unless they were deceitfully trying to manipulate others for their own benefit. 

Anyone asking another human being for forgiveness is on the wrong side in the spiritual war. They should be asking God for forgiveness.

But even then, God Just Is merciful; so that forgiveness by God is a non-problem for anyone who has recognized their own sin and repented it. 

Repeatedly begging God for the forgiveness promised by Jesus Christ to all who repent, seems likely to be a problem of not-really-repenting - and then asking to have the fact ignored. 

If someone wants to repent, but somehow can't - then they should be repenting their failure to repent - and not psychologically-groveling to be forgiven despite not repenting!

The literally delusional nature of that resentment which motivates so much socio-political action

The thing about paranoid and persecutory delusions (that is; beliefs that are false, strongly held, powerfully-motivating, in practice irrefutable), is that they cannot be contradicted by further knowledge or experience. 

Once a person has decided that X is "out to get them", is-harming or will-harm them in some way; then the whole cognitive apparatus is orientated towards collecting evidence based on this assumption. The assumption shapes the entire realm of facts, interpretation and theory. 

This delusional mechanism happens at the individual level; but also the long-standing, and sometimes all-consuming, resentments of history are understandable in this way. e.g. In the world today one race may attribute its low socio-economic situation to the effect of racism; while another race infers the reality of massive and worldwide racism despite occupying the highest socio-economic status and power. 

Once the assumption of racism, or sexism, or "fill-in the word"-phobia has been made, and once a person (or race/ sex/ orientation) builds its motivational system around racism - there is no possible empirical evidence or argument that can shake this delusion. 

In a very fundamental sense, it does not matter whether there is some or even a great deal of truth to the delusion of being-persecuted. The point is that the delusion is a psychological and motivational fact, for which reality is an irrelevance. Once established, a change in reality does not change the delusion. 

Therefore, when delusional thinking underlies political movement (as it so often does), when one group is delusionally-convinced of the hostility of another; then there can - in principle - be no political solution to the problem. 

Even a "final solution" of eradication of the perceived threat will fail; because it will turn-out that the threat has not, after all, been eradicated - but continues in some covert or crypto- form! The currently influential concept of implicit racism is a clear example... Even after all perceptible racism has been eliminated, racism nonetheless remains - and all the more threatening because of its invisibility.   

I have termed these "theory of mind" delusions; because they are based on normal cognitive processes (i.e. they are Not psychotic) and instead are rooted in a false inference concerning the intent and motivations of others - but this false inference cannot be corrected by evidence, because other people's minds are not transparent, and can only be inferred indirectly. 

What this means (as I - apparently - never tire of saying!) is that recognizing and critiquing the basis of underlying assumptions is of extreme importance. 

We all base our understanding upon assumptions of a metaphysical kind, that can neither be proved nor refuted; therefore we have a profound individual responsibility to examine our own baseline assumptions about the world with respect to coherence, and "good-ness" - because some assumptions sustain a good life and society, while others are deeply and incurably pernicious in their effects.

And ultimately the spiritual victims of that resentment which is rooted in delusional thinking, is the resenter himself; because resentment is a sin that must (like all sins) be repented if we are to want to choose salvation. 

(...Because we cannot carry our resentments into Heaven, which is a place motivated only by Love: we must check our resentment in at the door - permanently. One who does not want to leave-behind all sins, does not want Heaven - but something-else instead.)

(...And, resentment is an especially pervasive and dangerous sin to modern Western Man; because it is widely inculcated, engineered, encouraged, rewarded - sometimes mandatory.)

In sum: theory of mind rooted assumptions are inevitable and ubiquitous forms of thinking; what makes an assumption "delusional" is essentially that it is an evil model of reality.

Even when delusional thinking has some factual basis, it is an evil; because it is a spiritually-false orientation of life - a projection of attention and motivation onto "other people" that denies our absolute personal responsibility for our own salvation and theosis.  

The harm of such delusions is primarily spiritual and related to eternal post-mortal life; although the material harms caused by this trap of thinking during this world and life may also be colossal.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Since the millenium, we have entered the era of domination by Sorath - who is consuming Ahriman, as Ahriman consumed Lucifer

My idea here is that the Ahrimanic impulse - which is evil in its cold, rational, systematic manifestation - has over the past couple of centuries consumed the more traditional Luciferic ('devilish') evil of short-termist personal lust, pleasure and torment. And is now being-consumed, in his turn, by 'Sorath'. 

The archetypal Ahrimanic evil is epitomised by a manipulative bureaucrat who presides over a state or corporate PSYOPS/prison/death machine; while Luciferic evil would be characterised by proximate evil: for example those who personally beat, rape and torture helpless prisoners.  

The final turning-point of the Ahrimanic consumption of Lucifer was when the Luciferic revival of the 1960s ('sex & drugs & rock-n-roll') was captured by the state bureaucracy - leading to a pervasive and intrusive system of monitoring and control for political correctness. 

Modern leaders are primarily Ahrimanic - and often anonymous/ hidden/ personally-timid; while old-style leaders were often Luciferic gangsters and pirates who cultivated a reputation for recklessness and the enjoyment of inflicting cruelty.  Luciferic evil now operates at a low-level in The System - among the mooks, minions and henchmen; while the ruling architects of evil have an Ahrimanic nature.

The Luciferic values were condensed and operationalised into systemic and materialist form; their spontaneity and pleasure were drained-away. 'Free Love' and open-ended promiscuity became compulsory sensitivity-training, and the threat of harrasment prosecutions. Spontaneity ("Turn-on, Tune-in, Drop-out") was incrementaly transformed into a world of proliferating committees, laws, guidelines and procedures; checklists, forms and feedback... 

 

But from about 2000; there was a further move towards the purest, most absolutely negative form of evil - which could be named Sorathic (adapting this from Rudolf Steiner's identification of Sorath as the most extremely evil of beings). 

Sorthic evil is neither about pleasure nor about control; it tends towards the purely destructive.

If Luciferic evil is motivated by short-teremist pleasure; while Ahrimanic evil is motivated by God-denial, spiritual blindness and reductionism towards a meaningless world of mechanical procedures; then the Sorathic impulse is driven by negative impulses - primarily fear, resentment and hatred.

Sorathic evil will therefore tend to destroy both the lustful pleasures of Lucuferic evil, and the complex functional bureaucracies of Ahrimanic evil. 

This is the Sorathic world we inhabit in 2020. 

A world in which the Luciferic lusts of sex/ drugs and the rock-and-roll lifestyle are forbidden and punished; and also a world in which the global system is being disabled and destroyed - even as its Ahrimanic architects have successfully accomplished a silent global coup, and are trying to perfect it into the grandiose schemes of The Great Reset/ Agenda 2030. 

In 2020 we observe all modern institutions, corporations and every kind of bureaucracy as rapidly declining in efficiency and effectiveness - under pressure from an ever-increasing culture of fear, victimology, entitlement and resentment. 

Sorath divides Mankind into more-and-more, smaller-and-smaller, self-identified victim groups; each resentful-of and pitted-against each other. The aim is eventually for each person to feel alone, consumed by feelings of thwarted entitlement, and hatred of the world; and living in permanent fear of a whole world of other people, each of whom resents and hates the solo-victim just as he hates them. 

And then - eventually - Sorath's intent is that everyone, without exception, should die in fear and despair.

 

Thus we see that Sorath takes Luciferic and Ahrimanic and pits the one against the other, to weaken and destroy both. Whatever gives pleasure is thwarted. Whatever has been created, and is complex or functional, is reduced to chaos. 

Chaos is indeed the key term. Ultimately, Sorath is driven by resentment directed against God and all of His works; and resentment of Man as a loving creating-being and all of his works. Sorath wants to reduce creation back to a primal state of chaos. 

And then - when all else has been destroyed - to destroy himself as a act of spite against the God who created him. 

Such is Sorath's fantasy. 

Note: JRR Tolkien depicted Sorath in his Silmarillion legendarium under the name of Morgoth. 

 

"Boomers" are just as bad as their worst critics say; but the following generations are even-worse

I'm afraid I regard the bulk of the "anti-Boomer" genre as strictly delusional; not because I disagree with all the nasty things they say about the post-1945 generation* - indeed in this respect, I don't think most anti-Boomers go anything like far enough, because they focus on physical-material flaws, whereas it is the spiritual sins of the Boomers that are most serious. 

Where I totally disagree with the genre is the inbuilt assumption - sometimes implicit, often explicit - that the later generations are superior to Boomers; including that later generations have learned from Boomer excesses and errors. 

This seems so utterly mistaken and truth-inverted that I must regard it as delusional. The fact is that that, generationally, things have Very Obviously gotten worse and worse; although not in exactly the same ways that Boomers went so wrong. 

Because leftist-materialism is an oppositional ideology, it contains many contradictory and incoherent strands. So, while Boomers were keen on divorce and "heterosexual" promiscuity then feminism; later generations are much keener on other sexual sins and lies. Whereas Boomers were mad for socialism/ communism, later generations are keen on Climate Change and Diversity... Boomers are selfish and cling to life, but later generations are more prone to suicide and despair. 

And so on. 

But - changing the theme of evil is not a move-towards Good!

If later generations really were better than the Boomers, then we would be seeing a pendulum-swing back towards sanity - whereas we are seeing the opposite: the pendulum swings further-and-further away-from common sense and basic decency. 

I think the problem arises from the great sin of our era, which is resentment. While it is fine and factually-correct to hate Boomers and get angry at what they/we have done as a generation; once resentment enters-in, then we are into the realms of the master sin of Christianity: which is Pride. 

Delusional Anti-Boomerism is a form of Pride, which is why it feeds-upon-itself, is so insatiable, and so corrupting to those who hold it. 

Resentment doesn't just oppose, it assumes self-superiority; such that every criticism of Boomers becomes an implied self-aggrandizement. The worse the Boomers are painted - the better (tacitly suggested) seem later generations. 

In other words, resentment-driven Anti-Boomerism becomes just another Poor-Me/ Evil-You leftist victimology; unless contained within a realistic understanding that the worst legacy of the Boomers was the corruption of later generations. Which means that later generations need to accept that they are even-worse than the worst they can say about Boomers.  

+++++

*"Boomers" (an American term, never used in Britain until recently) are presumably those born up to about 1970, on the biological basis of the length of a generation being the average date of childbirth. For most of history (among demographers); "one generation" used conventionally to be 25 years (with, therefore, four generations per century) - on the basis that about half the surviving children were born to the average woman before that age, half afterwards. More recent generations in The West/ developed world are therefore more than 30 years, since currently the average date of first child is greater than 30 years.   

Forgive, but don't forget

Christians must forgive - for our own personal good, primarily. 

Unforgiveness is resentment - close-cousin to spite: to desire harm against another person or Being (harm even at the cost of our own suffering). And spite is probably the worst, most insatiable of sins. 

Failure to forgive will keep us out of Heaven, because we will not even want to dwell in Heaven - which is a place of love and without spite. Someone who prefers to sustain his own resentment - even on a single topic; and who will not accepts the cleansing grace of Jesus Christ to be purified of it at resurrection... Well, such a person has damned himself.

(Unforgiveness is not-to want-to forgive - forgiveness is the opposite.) 

Forgetting is not the same a forgiving - although forgiving (when effectual) puts an end to that grinding resentment which gnaws at the soul. When one has forgiven there is no particular reason to ruminate obsessively - therefore one may think on it less, or with less extremity... 

On the other hand, forgetting may be undesirable - we may need to learn. 

For instance; it may be right and desirable to remember when someone (or some institution) has lied to us. We ought to know liars, because (unrepentant) liars are servants of the devil; and therefore we may need to regard them differently. 

We need, for example, to recognize when someone (or some institution) is using language in order to manipulate us, and not to communicate truth. This means we are dealing with evil; and therefore it is desirable for us to remember that this is a liar. 

We must forgive the fact they have lied to us - because not to forgive means deliberately nurturing resentment - which will act on us as soul-poison. However, we should not forget the fact; because that They are 'a liar' is spiritually relevant and important.  

But what if "I can't forgive"? 

Well, that is never true - for forgiveness is the inner act of wanting to forgive - forgiveness just-is the recognition that we ought to forgive, and the willingness that we should be enabled to forgive. 

While we are on earth everything - including the human mind and body - is subject to change and mortality, and the limitations of our physical situation (the constraints of our body and mind). 

Therefore, the actual 'process' of forgiveness, which is eternal, comes only after our death - at the time of resurrection. 

Until then, what matters is our recognition and willingness.

Recognize that you must forgive and be willing to forgive - but do not try to forget matters of spiritual importance. 

A checklist for spiritual en-couragement in the face of resentment, fear and despair

I have often said that the big sins of these days seem to be resentment, fear and despair. 

But, although fear is the most obvious, it is not usually regarded as a sin. Similarly - resentment is frequently felt as a moral principle (social justice, entitlement), rather than an evil. And despair is mistaken for realism. So, the dominant sins of our times are too seldom noticed as such - even by Christians. 

At any rate; given the fact of accelerating spiritual war, and the global socio-political victory of the side of evil, nowadays a lot of people; undesirable negative emotions are seldom far away - and these need to be combatted.

I say combatted; because these emotions are themselves an element in the spiritual war - and as such we must but Not treat them therapeutically (to be analgesed or tranquillized); but instead need to learn from them and defeat them. 

(Therapy is this-worldly - treating sin with 'healing' is a demonic snare.) 

We need courage not therapy; we need hope not analgesia.

And since The World of Men is now substantially in the hands of the Enemy - we need to take-our-stand outside of this corrupted world. 

Therefore, when assailed by resentment, fear or despair; I find that sometimes I am able to induce myself to a wider and longer perspective; providing a bigger context for present dysphoria, and angst about the future.  

This by reminding myself of certain truths. Sometimes one works, sometimes another - depending upon my current state and mood. Here are some of them, in no particular order, which might perhaps be of value as a kind of 'checklist' when the mind is clouded or oppressed:

1. Reality is ultimately created by God - and continually being-created by God; and I participate in this creation (as a sub-creator) insofar as the world is understandable to me. I look around and remind myself of this. 

2. The world is Not dead, mechanical or random; the world is alive and conscious: this is a world of beings. Every 'thing' is actually a being, or part of a being. (These beings are (by choice) either on the side of God, or against God.) 

3. The so-called dead are actually alive, in some way and in some place; and those of 'the dead' in Heaven remain active in this mortal life: we may help them, and they may help us. This is important work for us. 

4. Sleep is a vital part of our mortal lives. Sleep is an experience from which it is intended we shall learn. It requires our attention. 

5. We need to become consciously aware of much that is currently unconscious - indeed this is a major task of these times. A false non-reality is being imposed on us when we are passive, unconscious and refuse the responsibility of choosing; therefore, we need to be conscious of reality (of truth) and actively-choosing the 'real reality'.  

6. God is the eternal (loving and creating) dyad of heavenly Father and Mother - yet I tend to neglect my Heavenly Mother. She surely deserves my attention, and I would surely be the better for giving it. 

7. There is no fixed limit to my knowledge except my capacity of knowing - and that may be developed by spiritual experience and learning; by right alignment and right choices. Anything I need to know - for salvation or theosis - I can know. If I don't yet know it, then I have not yet asked properly. 

8. My current spiritual task is related to my current situation - including bad things about Now; because my current situation is continually-being fitted to my spiritual needs by God. 

9. Whatever is my current motivation or obsession has some meaning, some lesson to impart (maybe positive, maybe negative) - so is worth attending to. 

10. Think about Heaven and the everlasting resurrected life to come for all those who choose to follow Jesus Christ. This choice is free and cannot be compelled - or excluded. Heaven is awaiting after the end of mortal life - if we want it, if we are prepared to acknowledge our sins and allow ourselves to be cleansed of all that contradicts eternal love. So - assuming we intend to accept the gift of it: think about Heaven.   

We've already got Ahrimanic transhumanism - how about Sorathic superpower war?

In October 2019 I posted a video of Terry Boardman in which he prognosticates about three major civilizational threats - war, transhumanism and envirnmental damage. 

Since then we have had the world government totalitarian coup of early 2020; which has used the birdemic to impose much of the transhumanist agenda - building on the work of the trans-agenda which had imposed reality-denial, insanity and destructive abuse of children at the highest levels. 

But what about superpower (US/ NATO, Russia, China) war - which TB regarded as the most imminent threat? 

Certainly this looks increasingly plausible. US military capability and dominance is being been deliberately demolished with extraordinary rapidity (removing decades of superiority); meanwhile it is clear that there are powerful influences operating in the US that both make and take every possible opportunity to provoke war with either or both of the superpowers. 

If a superpower war is being sought; then we would be foolish to regard it as being driven by 'national interests' - because there is no such thing, anymore. We have a single world government. National interests are just something to be manipulated - just 'office politics' - in this era of the single, linked-bureaucracy. 

What we are seeing is the demonic agenda continuing to morph from Ahrimanic to Sorathic; from the strategic objective of a global System of omni-surveillance and micro-control, to the short-termist, spite-driven evil of sheer destruction. 

When destruction of God's creation and all that is Good becomes the goal, it is hard to better a global superpower war; especially when the contenders are fairly evenly matched. 

Of course; many of the Ahrimanic controllers will initially try to resist such a war, because it would destroy The System. Last summer the controllers managed to channel the Sorathic outburst of violent antiracism into 'yet more bureaucracy' - but the fact is that it is easier to destroy than to build. 

Evil bureaucrats (who are currently the most powerful among the wicked or the world) may quite easily corruptible (by their own dominant fear and resentment) into a spiteful, vengeful, despairing destructiveness. 

The extreme vulnerability arises because the global Ahrimanic System is built-upon Leftist resentments that have been created and encouraged between classes (originally), sexes, 'sexualities', races, ethnicities, religions etc - and such resentments need only be one-sided to be effective. 

So we already have a System built in deliberately provoked resentments; all that is needed is for self-seeking resentment to be transformed to other-destroying spite - and then we have war: war at multiple locations and levels; from the superpowers down to the inter-personal.  

This transformation from resentment to spite is already happening; and is likely to increase (because this is being encouraged from the highest levels). It may suddenly increase very quickly, in a positive-feedback spiral. 

...Including the powerful/ wealthy/ famous/ influential evil bureaucrats turning-on each other, and on everybody else. 

Such a war may be perceived (by those with most influence, or who believe it is in their grasp) as offering massive immediate possibilities for grabbing power, wealth, sex or whatever They personally most want most. 

When time horizons shorten even further than already - then functional and sustaining structures will look like opportunities for parasitic looting and 'rape' of The System (in both general and specific meanings). An attitude of carpe diem among the evil Establishment would soon cause collapse of the already eroded social functionality; and when functional social structures collapse (in such an inter-dependent world as this) one failure will bring-down several others systems - spreading and accelerating.   

My point is therefore that some of the Establishment are clearly trying to trigger a superpower war; and that pressure is increasing; and if it does break-through it could soon become unstoppable and irreversible. 

But (again) we should not suppose that this is about old-fashioned national/ ethnic/ political self-interest - such an interpretation would grossly underestimate the evil of its real motivations.

When the world government is dominated by supernatural demonic powers; then merely human motivations are a false guide to action; and create wrong predictions. 

And when the dominant demonic influences become Sorathic, we can observe the unedifying scenario of the very-evil being overcome by the even-more-evil. 

When/ if this happens; the transhumanist 'controllers' who are trying to preserve their System of Damnation, will then superficially appear like the 'good side'! In comparison with the 'pure', destruction-seeking evil of the baddies who shape resentment into spite; to provoke, sustain and amplify a terminal superpower war. 

What can we do? The first and most important things are to understand correctly the primarily spiritual nature of what is happening in the world. Such an understanding (in individual persons) itself has a positive and creative influence. 

And this positive influence does not depend upon material systems of communications, but potentially works by spiritual means, by the direct and intuitive knowing between persons (and other beings) on the side of God, The Good and Divine Creation. 

The more we recognize the spiritual nature of phenomena, and discern clear the side of Good; the more powerfully beneficial will be the influence. 

God works to improve the spiritual state of the world through those who love him; but God can work only through those themselves meet him part-way. When we consciously discern and choose Good, all kinds of invisible but pervasive positive influences are made possible. 

The anti-Christian effects of superstition, propitiation, sacrifice

*
I feel in myself a deep, existential worry which is superstitious, and relates to the idea of propitiating - ultimately by sacrifice.

So, I resist expressing happiness, confidence, hope, optimism - I resist allowing myself to feel confidence in the future - I am to some extent constrained in being honestly positive about such matters, for fear that it will trigger resentment, revenge, reaction from others.

It feels like there is something which regards my feeling happiness, confidence, hope and optimism as being arrogant or 'cocky'; and needing to be taken-down-a-peg  and taught-a-lesson. 

I therefore feel negatively-compelled to think things, and to avoid thinking things, from a fear that someone or some-thing will be offended, prickly, insulted, jealous; it is a fundamentally superstitious attitude of living life among rules - mostly unknown - which prescribe and prohibit and are zealously enforced; and the main business of life as being rule-following and avoidance of rule-breaking - and the servile serving-out of punishments for our inevitable breaches.

*

This constraint motivated by fear of reprisal may be realistic in human society - given the endemic nature of spitefulness, and the 'dog in the manger' attitude of so many people who delight in the misery of others and whose main concern is that nobody else should have more or be more than themselves.

(This is, indeed, the case for such high-flown garb as 'equality', egalitarianism, sexual liberation, democracy and so on.) 

*

But there is more to it than this. The constraint is also (and perhaps primarily) inner - it is present even in the privacy of my mind, of my stream of conscious thought.

This is not surprising since belief in gods, spirits, ghosts, malicious ancestors at large - belief in 'the supernatural' in general - is spontaneous and natural to humans - we believe that our inner thoughts are to some extent accessible and shared and communicated, and that among those who share them are powerful and malicious entities (something like the Christian concept of demons).

This is a powerful constraint - and I suspect it is a very general factor in human affairs (although I can only observe it indirectly in other people - I and sure it is there). However, although general, spontaneous, natural - I suspect it is anti-Christian in a developed sense of Christianity - for the simple reason that it implies God (who knows our thoughts) is not fully loving, but is prone to the same kind of resentment and revenge as other people - indeed the worst kind of people - in this world.

Yet at the same time (because it is general, natural, spontaneous to humans) this tendency to assume that God really does have a resentful and vengeful attitude is a constant tendency to which individuals and organizations and society tend to recur (for motivations which may be 'good' - e.g. encouraging or enforcing good behaviour - as well as wicked).

*

This can be seen even among our own young children, who sometimes act towards us in a way that shows they are afraid that we do not really love them, that we need propitiating.

Sometimes the children are right - because parents are not perfect; but they are fundamentally wrong in that loving parents really are not motivated by resentment and really do not need to be propitiated - indeed a loving parent is appalled and deeply sorrowful to perceive this attitude in his children - an attitude based on fear. 

*

So, the situation seems to be that it is (at least to some significant extent) natural for humans to treat God as if he were a demon; and demons (I think) really do want to be treated with superstitious concern, propitiated and sacrificed-to.

Demons (presumably) want us never to be free of the constraining fear to express (or even to feel) an attitude that is positive care-free, hope-full. They want humans to cringe, to be eaten up with anxiety about deflecting bad luck, evil influences, they want us to be hog-ridden by superstitious observations, they want us to be always and repeatedly destroying good things as 'sacrifices' - and to regard this destruction of good things as necessary to deflect divine 'wrath'.

*

Unsurprisingly, because humans are error prone and yield to sin, this attitude of constraining fear has been (to varying extents, but sometimes very fully) incorporated into Christianity - the attitude that God watching out for us to trip up, get angry, punish us - unless this is deflected by propitiation and sacrifice - by a general human attitude of pessimism, expressions of misery... an attitude which is in fact and to some significant extent a dishonestly negative expression of our state of mind.

People come to fear - even inside their heads - a full and honest expression of positive and happy states of mind; asif this would trigger the jealous resentment of God! This I feel in myself, and I believe I perceive it in people all around me.

But I believe it is anti-Christian - a flaw, an error, a sin - a consequence of insufficient Christian faith and not a sign of Christian faith: this anxious, superstitious focus on propitiation and sacrifice is itself an insult to God rather than respect for God; deeply saddening to God, rather than what he wants from us.

*

Indeed, when we treat God as if He were a demon, it is analogous to someone who falsely accuses her loving parents of 'abusing' her. It is to treat our loving Father in Heaven as if He were an abuser.

That is a measure of how serious an error we are making; how serious a sin it is to feel constrained against expressing - even to ourselves - our happiness, hope, confidence.
*

Note: On this view, Christ as a propitiation and sacrifice is a matter of getting all that stuff out-of-the-way; of telling us not to worry about it any more because Christ has utterly and permanently taken care of it.

The corruption of Scottish Nationalism

I have been interested by Scottish culture - to varying degrees, sometimes very intensely - for forty years, when my family moved there. I have myself lived in Scotland 'solo' for more than three years, and family connections continue.

One thing has become clear is that Scottish Nationalism has been thoroughly corrupted over the past few decades - in a nutshell, it has moved from being (overall) based-on Patriotism, to being based on Resentment - specifically anti-English animus.

In other words it has gone from being rooted-in Love of one's own-country, to hatred of another-Country


This has often been the fate of Nationalism whenever it takes a political form - because it is much easier to encourage and sustain resentment than love.

Almost all nationalisms have been defined-against - in the sense that there is a threat to the culture that is resisted. Almost every nation has an excluded-other. For Germany and for England this was France (which annoyed Scotland and Wales, because they defined themselves against England) - for France it was England (which annoyed the Germans, who felt slighted).

It is interesting that the most notorious nationalism of recent years - Germany 1933-45 - was a fake nationalism, directed against a newly-invented rival-enemy distinctive only to the Party leadership. This suggests that the mass-popular roots of support for the National Socialist Workers' Party was quite probably genuine patriotism, i.e. love of country; as against the anti-patriotism and cultural destruction advocated by the rival forces of International Socialism/ Communism.

Scottish 'nationalism' (ie. loving patriotism) emerged after the Union of Parliaments with England and Wales, in 1707; and was most exemplified by people like Sir Walter Scott - who were strongly in favour of this Union. In other worlds, cultural patriotism was distinct from political Unionism. There followed a great era of Scottish creativity and intellectual attainment - during which Scotland was an international leader in philosophy, medicine, technology, science, universities; as well as literature (the likes of Byron, Burns, Scott, Stevenson). The Scots became cultural arbiters, and Edinburgh was known as the Athens of the North.


Modern political nationalism emerged, I think, due to the centralising and controlling tendency of the modern State from the late 1800s; which put ever increasing pressure on the social forms of distinctness.

For example, in Scotland, the Union into Britain exempted Scots Law, Education and the Church - but the modern State was continually eroding the autonomy of these institutions - and imposing a uniform centralised government.

So, the desire for political autonomy was understandable. But, because it was political, it was almost-certain to be operationalised towards maximising the benefits of politicans.


There was a referendum about increased Scottish devolution in 1979, which resulted in a majority in favour of devolution - but this was claimed (by the prior definition of margin required) to be too small a proportion of the population to lead to change.

Thus, the result was genuinely ambiguous - but instead of being clarified it was ignored - thereby contributing to a building anti-English resentment as the 'local' Scottish elites saw the opportunity for a power/ wealth grab, as putative leaders of a pseudo-independent Scotland: under the slogan of Independence In Europe. The idea was to separate from England, but remain a part of the European Union.

(At that time, the smaller-economy nations who joined the EU - e.g. Ireland, or Spain - were being bribed with pretty lavish public-works subsidies - mostly harvested by France from Germany, the UK and the Netherlands. Later bribery to lure nations into the Union became restricted to the pockets of decision-making elites.)

But I say this was 'pseudo'-independence because no Scottish patriot (no-one who loved Scotland - its people, its culture) would wish to stay within the European Union. Leaving Britain but remaining in the EU would make very little difference when most of the national laws and cultural changes derive from the EU.

More decisively, the EU is strategically-dedicated to obliterating national cultures and creating a single culture; a single 'zone' to be homogenised and colonised and overrun by massive and sustained migration and immigration.


The fact that Scottish 'independence' is envisaged within the EU reveals the dishonesty of any pretence of patriotism; and explains the escalation of explicit anti-English sentiment in the Scottish Parliament, mass media and social institutions.

For me, a threshold arrived just over a decade ago when the Scottish government abolished tuition fees in Scottish Universities. The plan was to offer free tuition to all European Union nations except for England (who, of course, supply most of the tax incomes to pay for this subsidy). In practice, Scotland was legally-compelled also to charge tuition fees to students from Wales and Northern Ireland - but officials apologised for this, because it was only England who was being targeted.

This, then, is a measure of the corruption of Scottish nationalism into a crude combination of anti-English resentment and servile rent-seeking: the cause of its basis in spiteful Schadenfreude rather than love; and the strategic desire for a life of subsidised hedonism rather than creative endeavour.

Leftist motivation - how resentment and self-hatred are combined, and how theoretical long-termist group-sacrifice justifies short-term selfishness

Leftist psychology is simple and extremely effective: it has to be simple, because it is almost universal; it is almost universal because it is so effective.

(In The West, almost all supposedly Right wing people, and all in the mainstream, are merely variants of Leftist - just a small minority of religious people are Not Leftist.)

There are two aspects to Leftist motivation - one is self-interested, and the other is what provides a veneer of morality. Neither would work well alone.

If Leftism was wholly self-interested, it would not be a success - the key to Leftism is that it enables people to be self-interested while also feeling good about it - feeling, indeed, altruistically superior about it. But if Leftism was genuinely altruistic, self-sacrificing at an immediate and personal level, it would not be popular.

In the first place, Leftism creates, mobilises, amplifies resentment - class war, war of the sexes, race hatred, the resentments of the sexually non-normal. Since resentment is the commonest, and most insatiable, human sin - this formalisation is very powerful. Few are immune to the blandishments of victimising one's enemy.

Resentment is the self-interest that defines the acceptable enemy, the scapegoat - he or that who is (as an individual or group) to be stripped of status, power, resources. Leftism is based on identifying such victims, asset-stripping them, and using the assets to buy and pay supporters (keeping aside a share).

Leftism makes this act of coercive violence into an act of altruism, by its various (often elaborate) theories - at bottom, these all amount to the idea that it is always good to take from the evil, and give (some of) what is extracted to the virtuous.

Over time, Leftism has varied, sometimes reversed, the definitions of evil and virtue - but those who are, by one definition or another, virtuous; can expect rewards from this extraction, and have a direct self interest in one or another version of Leftism.   

Furthermore, Leftism has developed a powerful way of justifying, morally - and in daily practice - being short termist and selfish; while justifying this in terms of displaced, remote, theoretical long-term altruism. Again, this is the doing of theory, of abstraction - which is the job of Leftist intellectuals.

Leftism is about self-hatred - and this is very important; indeed vital to its long-term success. Self-hatred is the deep morality of Leftism.

This means that the Leftist leadership can convince themselves of their own altruism by the fact that they will often argue against their own long-term, group interests.

Upper class Leftists will designate their own class as evil (almost all Leftist leaders, past and present, come from from the upper classes). Men will be feminists. White Native-born people will denigrate the white native population. Married people with families will advocate sexual revolution... and so on.

It is this self-attack, this suicidal self-hatred, which acts to reassure the Leftist of his own high moral values - and proves (to himself, at least) that he is not merely self-interested.

Yet - and here is another vital aspect - the suicidal self-hatred is displaced. The Leftist attacks his own class, sex, race - and designates the group as an evil exploiter - but not him-self. He asks his class/ sex/ race to give-up their status, power and wealth - but not himself... at least not-here and not-now.

The Leftist leader displaces the sacrifice away from himself and into the future, and often other places. So the Leftist leader's mantra is Not me, Not here, Not now... Arguing that "People like me should give up their jobs to minorities - but not me". Or, the leader argues that a working-class person, woman, an immigrant should have jobs in preference - but this does not apply to my job, here and now.

Always the sacrifice is distal while benefits are proximate - Not me! Not yet!

(The usual excuse is that "I be allowed to keep my status, power, wealth for a bit longer - until I can finish this important work of Leftist redistribution". For a Leftist leader; when-utopia-arrives, when The System is just, is the best time to yield privilege; before then it would be futile or premature... Thus all Leftist leaders are hypocrites, all are Quislings, all are traitors and sell-outs - it goes with the job description.)

So this is the psychology that has led to Leftism taking-over the world. It is selfish - which is why it is so very popular; and it is moral - which makes it even more popular.

But, crucially to Leftism's success, the selfishness is proximate, direct, immediate; while the altruistic, sacrificial morality is abstract, impersonal and remote.    


Note: All the above is necessarily and intrinsically a feature of Leftism, because it is this-worldly, and denying of God and creation. If you think about it; in a world without meaning, when death is extinction, morality can only be some variant of the above.