Bruce Charlton's Notions

Just as the mass media is ultimately "about" itself rather than any specific content; so the vast, global, totalitarian apparatus (media, bureaucracy, all major institutions) is to control thinking as such, rather than to inculcate any specific content to thinking. 

Thus totalitarianism seeks to direct thinking, and to link that thinking to a continuous infusion of external stimulus. 

What results is thinking of a certain character. The characteristic is that people think about subject matter that is being fed to them, using concepts and interpretations that are fed to them; and that this thinking forms the dominant subject matter of human interactions. 

And, sometimes, control of thinking is a PSYOPS; a form of psychological torment that is enjoyed by the Beings who control our social systems. 

The masses are fed with stuff that induces terror and despair; perspectives that make one group resent and hate another; creates enormous edifices of pseudo-knowledge that people then take seriously; or the stuff is simply incoherent, illogical, self-contradicting - and induces bewilderment and numbed passivity. 

The global totalitarian thought-control System can therefore serve many purposes; and satisfy many desires of those who control it.  

Social media amplify, rather then counteract, the mass media; because people mostly talk about what they think about; and what they mostly think about comes from the mass media - usually in terms of subject matter, but also in terms of the categories and assumptions by which discussion proceeds. Thus not just the topic but the scope of social media discourse is totalitarian-controlled. 

Because people are always-absorbing that which they think-about; this sets up habits of thinking that crowd-out other possible ways of thinking - other subject matter, yes; but more importantly other modes of thinking altogether. 

A modern person therefore finds himself enmeshed in toils of bad thinking habits of a mundane/ worldly content, and passive in form; with priorities, interests, assumptions etc. that are chosen by the dominant totalitarians on the one side, and reinforced by most social interactions on the other.

Where can something different and better be sought? 

Until the past few decades, there were realms of groupish human discourse and action that was somewhat or almost-completely autonomous - the realms of entertainment, the arts, hobbies, social activities, the church... 

But, of course All of these have long-since been infiltrated and subverted, and they are now dominated by exactly the same totalitarianism as described above - the phenomena variously termed leftism, political correctness, or wokeness. 

As of 2023; there is no safe place to escape from totalitarianism - at least not into any large grouping or large social activity. 

Even families are being destroyed by anti-family laws and practices and by subversion of individual members. 

2020 and its sequelae demonstrated that only the most loving family relationships and strongest friendships can survive a participant expressing significant dissent from the confines of totalitarian-approved discourse - when the totalitarian System is making a massive push on any particular theme.

As usual nowadays, each individual is thrown back onto his own powers of discernment, analysis, understanding. 

If we do not want to think just whatever They want us to think-about; and in only the ways that They want us to think it - then we must embark upon some kind of personal quest to discover the real and better alternative. 

As of 2023; any easily available or obvious source of external guidance is almost certain to be corrupted; and will (sooner or later) channel us back to the totalitarian-approved main stream. 

So it is up to each of us to seek the answer; made more difficult that the answer will be - to some significant extent - unique to each individual; since our needs and destiny are distinctive. 

The reward, however, is great if we can escape the gravitational tractor-beams of the totalitarian thought-control System: to discover what we ought to be thinking about, and how we ought to be thinking. 

Because the right kind of thinking is one of the very few positively-transformative events that can happen in this world - and because such thinking leads-on to other, and similarly good, outcomes.

The Transhumanist agenda (like most things) has two sides to it - depending on motivation.

For well-motivated transhumanists, for therapeutic transhumanists (as we might call them - a category including most of the people who openly call themselves by that name of transhumanism); it is the project to alleviate all pain and distress, maximise gratification and fulfillment, abolish ageing and sustain human life indefinitely. In other words, it is a kind of extrapolation of medicine from treatment into enhancement.


At a mild and quantitative level, this soft-transhumanism has nearly always been a part of human life - the idea to use human knowledge and technology to enhance human life. But taken as an imperative, when regarded as a kind of religion-substitute; even well-motivated transhumanism is deadly - because by its focus on trans-cending human limitations, it implies trans-forming humans into something else...

So that if the human condition entails suffering, then humans ought to be abolished; if humans cannot be prevented from ageing, then we should devise some alternative 'life' that is immune to ageing; if humans persist in dying, then humans should be replaced by something that doesn't die...

If the abolition of suffering is the primary goal, it implies the abolition of life - which would be the only way of ensuring that nobody and nothing suffered. Bottom line transhumanism is therefore only one step away from advocating death as prophylaxis.

Transhumanism also provides no reason for having children - and many reasons to avoid having children - since children usually suffer, and are typically a cause of suffering in their parents. The safe option is to avoid them.

Or, short of death, abolishing human consciousness, which greatly intensifies the possibilities of suffering. This suggests that a lobotomised life, a tranquillised life, a sedated life, a false-virtual life, a drugged-euphoric life are all preferable to a conscious and free life insofar as they entail less suffering or more pleasure. Even if such a life led to rapid death, it would be preferable on a purely hedonic calculus. 


But there is another side to transhumanism; which is the transhumanism that denies itself and operates by deception and dishonesty.

This is the transhumanism of mainstream, modern, almost-ubiquitous totalitarianism - a  transhumanism that aims at omni-surveillance and micro-control of the population.

This transhumanism sells itself as hedonic - as enhancing - but is motivated by the agenda of control. It is the strategic push for intercommunicating 'smart' technology, for omnipresent cameras and microphones, a society in which everyone carries a tracking device (smart phone) that monitors their activity to a fine level of discrimination - and seeks always to extend this (artificial 'intelligence', self-driving cars, the skies filled with drones...) - and to make it mandatory (microchip implants etc.).

This transhumanism has infiltrated medicine, with a massive and expanding use of prescribed psychotropic drugs - mostly SSRI-type 'antidepressants' and 'antipsychotics' marketed as 'mood stabilisers'...

These types of drugs (especially when given to young children and teens and essentially normal adults, as at present)  have a pronounced overall tendency to blunt emotions and induce a state of indifference - to partially-zombify people, to put it crudely. They all tend to increase suicide rates. Certainly they do more harm than good, overall - yet usage continues to expand - driven by serious problems of drug dependence and withdrawal symptoms, which are denied and hidden.

Much the same applies to the top-down mass campaigns of propaganda, funding and coercion to induce 'gender' uncertainty and same-sex attraction in children; and to 'treat' such situations with permanently harmful hormones and mutilating surgery. This is a crystal clear case of totalitarian transhumanism pushing forward under the guise of therapeutic transhumanism.


This totalitarian transhumanism is, I believe, an existential approach to social engineering, a core aspect of spiritual warfare; driven by the demonic powers of evil, and with the ultimate aim of compelling humans actually to want and to choose damnation.


So far, this totalitarian transhumanism has been spectacularly successful in persuading people that this is what they want. In this post-religious, anti-religious world it seems that most people are not just prepared to trade off freedom and privacy for amusement and convenience - they are positively queueing-up, and shelling-out large sums of money, to do so...

This totalitarian transhumanist agenda aims to implement a comprehensive system of surveillance and control so complete and dominant that it will be able to shape human emotions, motivations and knowledge as required.

My point here is to ascertain whether they are correct - supposing the totalitarian transhumanist agenda does, as seems to be happening, go-through to a very high level of completion. Suppose the world becomes one of omni-surveillance and micro-monitoring and control of behaviour...

Suppose the world is a single gigantic and interlinked System which affects the entirety of perception and extends into our bodies (via brain and hormone influencing microchips, or whatever might replace them).

Suppose that the demonic evil powers are in control of this total-system - so that they decide what we perceive - and are substantially able to entrain our emotions, and our reasoning processes.

Is this lethal to human agency or freedom of will; or not? Is a wholly controlled human brain-and-body also a wholly controlled person?

The answer is metaphysical - not evidential. If we believe that there is in Man that which is eternal and divine - the Real Self then that will always be free, agent, able to choose... If we believe that Real Self stands-outside of 'material' reality - and controlling the brain and body does not control  the Real Self...

In other words, if the arena of freedom is thought, and if the thinking of the real self is immaterial - then this cannot be touched by the most successful totalitarian agenda; and the demonic plan is destined to fail.


So, are the demons making a mistake? Are they wrongly supposing that they can control thought  by controlling the brain?

No - it is Not a mistake - because the demons already have in-place a metaphysical system which negates the Real Self.


For a long time, materialism (positivism, scientism, reductionism) has been the inbuilt assumption of official, media and all public discourse. This discourse intrinsically assumes that the Real Self cannot exist, because nothing immaterial (nothing spiritual) can exist. So the mind is wholly the brain, and the brain is the mind - and everything else is an illusion, a deception, a mistake...


In practice, this means that although the Real Self cannot be controlled, and cannot be destroyed; the situation has long since been created and sustained that the Real Self can be ignored - indeed ought-to-be ignored, since it is irrelevant, imaginary, an epiphenomenon. Insofar as the thinking of the Real Self reaches awareness, it will therefore be ignored or rejected.

As I have said, this has been going on for a long time by now. For example; a century ago Freud replaced Conscience - which concept carried a quasi divine imperative; with the Superego - which was implanted by parents and teachers as a mechanism of social control. At a stroke, the promptings of conscience changed from potentially divine nudgings, to an instrument of oppression that should be suppressed or ignored.

In a future totalitarian transhumanist society, the same would apply. Our Real Selves would still be present, and free agents; but we would - by our metaphysical assumptions - regard the Real Self as false, unreal, deceptive... and we would suppress or ignore it.

Thus the Real Self is utterly negated by inbuilt (often unconscious) metaphysical assumptions; and the merely-brain processing is a wholly-controlled unit of The System. Humanity has been captured - and can be directed to any goal desired...


I think this is a very important matter for us to get clear - since at present it looks very much as if the strategy of totalitarian transhumanism will succeed. There is little insight about the intentions and implications of current trends in surveillance and control. There is a general metaphysical denial of the immaterial and the divine.

Everything is in place - and the only delay is caused by the process of rolling-out the technology everywhere and to affect everyone...

Is there hope it will fail? Of course there is hope - each and any person can reject the agenda. I'm just saying that it does not look like this is happening.


The other hope - which is more realistic - is that the modern System will collapse before it can be fully implemented. I find this quite likely to happen - since there is a genetic decline in human capability (from the chosen sterility of the most intelligent and able population, and from the accumulation of deleterious mutations due to relaxed natural selection).

Geniuses have all-but disappeared from The West, we have already almost-ceased to make significant 'breakthroughs' in science and technology; and the failure would be expected to spread to R&D incremental development, then to repair and maintenance, then to the ability to manufacture and distribute...

And all this is exacerbated and accelerated by the deliberate dysfunctionality of 'affirmative action' preferences for women, specific races and classes, non-Christians, and those who identify with the goals of the Sexual Revolution. So we are not even trying to have the best people doing the most important jobs. 


So, it is not unlikely that the totalitarian transhumanist agenda - which requires mass advanced technology and a reasonably-competent workforce - will be intercepted and prevented through our faults and blindness and wicked intent; rather than because of our understanding, foresight or virtue.

Prevented, therefore, by a wholesale collapse of modern civilisation; of agriculture, manufacture, medicine, trade and transport - with rapid and colossal mortality (measured in billions) from starvation, disease and violence.

Yet even that scenario (entailing the greatest quantity of acute suffering the world has yet seen) would almost certainly be better than the alternative of a permanent, comprehensive, global system of damnation...


Note added: I forgot to mention that in talking of transhumanism I speak as something of an ex-insider of the 'therapeutic' style of the thing. I was writing from this perspective in my psychiatric and psychopharmacology writings from about 1998 up to the middle/ late 2000s - and my writings from this era were and are hosted on David Pearce's hedweb.com server (Dave being one of the co-founders of the World Transhumanist Association, now renamed Humanity+). There is a video on YouTube from the summer of 2008, of a lecture I gave in which I set out the possible futures as Transhumanist or Religious. It was shortly after making this clear to myself that I became a Christian.

The totalitarian state notched up another ratchet in Britain this week. Terrorism is now proposed and accepted as normal.  Increasingly-complete mass surveillance - excused by, but not actually preventing, terrorism - is normal. Recurrent lockdown emergencies are normal. Armed police and troops in swarms are normal.

In institutional life micro-management, pervasive propaganda, constant monitoring and thought-control are now normal

The problems must continue, we are told - but in actual practice we are also told that we must adapt to them: and, it turns out, we must adapt by more totalitarianism.

The message is being hammered home by word, picture, deed and - most powerfully - by no change... except more totalitarianism.

(Totalitarianism doesn't work at preventing the problems - but that's okay, in fact that is the point! - because the problems are created as excuses for more totalitarianism, and therefore the solutions aren't supposed to prevent them!) 

Modern people put up with all this because we are hollow men, stuffed with straw; men without chests; lacking any religion hence lacking any motivation to do anything inexpedient.

To take effective action would be to invite reprisals. And to endure short term suffering en route to long term good... but for us there is No long term good. (For us, death is the end of everything; a comfortable life is the ultimate we can hope for.)

We are cowards. Because atheism doth make cowards of us all. Because not to be a coward requires a goal beyond the immediate; and for a population not to be cowardly requires some clear social goal which would be thwarted by totalitarianism. People can only be brave when they have something to be brave about.

To resist totalitarianism requires courage and a reason; courage requires being able to imagine and believe a better goal that what totalitarianism promises; a reason requires being able to imagine and believe that we, personally and now ought-to work for that better goal.

(Courage cannot be conjured from nihilism. And we modern Britons/ Westerners believe in nothing. The frenzy of a cornered rat is not courage; and is anyway utterly ineffectual against a vast totalitarian system. What is needed to escape totalitarianism is cold courage - the hardest courage of all to attain, because it is a consequence of high and firmly-held impersonal ideals.)

Atheist societies are utilitarian - in their explicit aims at least - everything done justified by making people (some people) feel better. But when/ if people's feelings are the end-point of justification, then government becomes a matter of manipulating people's feelings - which is exactly what totalitarian systems are aimed-at; which is exactly what we now have.

But what is in it for those in the leadership who deliberately create the situations that create terrorism? Those who claim it is impossible to change what they have created (because effective change is unthinkable, unsayable); so we therefore must just-accept more-of-the-same causes, so we must therefore just-accept more-of-the-same consequences: accept this as normal.

(Even as 'normal' is very obviously and very quickly getting worse: getting more totalitarian.)

What they are actually doing - on purpose, planned, with deliberation - is to create an ever-more totalitarian state. Why is this strategy so hard for people to recognise?

They aren't incompetent, they aren't well-meaning fools, they aren't self-enriching hypocrites: they are doing what they want to do, and doing it more and better every month: they are implementing totalitarianism step-by-step and they are winning! 

Why? Simple. The aim of totalitarianism, from a Christian's perspective, is not to kill us nor to make us miserable, but to get us damned. That is why they do it.

Thought control is desired in order that we will choose damnation over salvation - our thoughts will be policed, minds filled, actions directed, feelings manipulated towards sins: sins such as fear, resentment and despair.

That's it - in a nutshell: infuse fear, resentment and despair - all sins, all leading to self-chosen damnation. That is, to the active rejection of Good because Good is now considered to be evil.

This is a spiritual war. A Christian war.

We cannot conjure courage from cowards - and the Western population just are cowards - lacking cold courage. Because lacking ideals - indeed modern people cannot even imagine anything better than pleasure and comfort: that is the summit of fantasy.

First we need a basis for courage. What is needed are love and hope, based on faith in God (not feelings); and aimed at eternal joy (not comfort and convenience, amusement and the avoidance of suffering).

If totalitarian mind-control becomes complete; it will be because ultimately we did not want anything better. 

My interpretation of present global events (for what it's worth) is that we are seeing further confirmation that Evil Plan A for a global system of totalitarian value-inversion is collapsing. 

Plan A reached its peak of success in early-mid 2020 (before the antiracist, pro-chaotic, turn of that summer) - and Plan A has now failed.

The demonic masters are moving more and more decisively towards Evil Plan B - which is (just) spitefully-motivated destruction and maximum chaos. 

In other words, Plan A was an instance of Ahrimanic evil; and designed to impose by law and saturation-propaganda a value-system of positivism-materialism with the inversion of real-true-divine values. It was intended to make Men choose damnation because they had come to believe evil was good, and good was evil. 

Plan A was mainly concerned to make a world system leading to the greatest quantitative damnation of human souls - and the 'pleasure' of demons, and demon-possessed or demon-serving humans, therefore had to take second place to this strategy. 

Plan B is a much cruder, simpler, more short-termist - but more advanced-in-wickedness - form of evil than Plan A; Plan B is the outcome of that evil I have called Sorathic.

Plan B is mainly motivated by the sheerly spiteful enjoyment of its implementers: their simple 'personal' desire to destroy all that is good, of-God, of-creation, and true. 

Those demons and Men who pursue Plan B are consumed by hatred of divine creation; and are therefore somewhat reckless about whether the people who are tormented and killed by their policies are damned. 

These Plan B advocates enjoy inflicting suffering so much, get so carried-away by the process; that the fact their victims may cry to God from the depths of this suffering (De Profundis) is of secondary interest.  

It is Plan B that has engineered World War III - with its vast potential for suffering and deaths by violence, starvation and disease. 

In other words; we need to recognize that the recent break-up of the projected unipolar world of Plan A; the deliberate provocation of a WWIII; and the calculated, repeated, accelerating measures to escalate and spread this war... 

These actions are motivated by a sadistic desire for human and environmental destruction rather than control; and the progression of WWIII is an evil attempt to destroy, not enhance, the possibility of a totalitarian New World Order. 

This is my interpretation of the Global Establishment's behaviour towards the Fire Nation. 

In the early days of the birdemic-peck; the Fire Nation was apparently on-board with Plan A - the One-World, totalitarian Reset Agenda. But that Plan has not happened; and instead the vision of a single omni-surveillance, micro-controlled world, unified under One World government - has fallen into pieces. 

It seems that the Plan B-ites have tricked the Plan A-ites. 

The Plan B-ites apparently sold their Plan for starting and fuelling WWIII to the Plan A-ites as a mechanism for (quickly, easily) isolating and conquering the Fire Nation, eliminating all Establishment-hostile leadership; and fully-assimilating a broken-up Fire Nation into the New World Order in a subordinate role. 

Or maybe Plan B supporters did not need to mislead the Plan A-ites? 

Maybe the intrinsic processes of evil on Men (and demons) meant that many of the ex-totalitarians had 'progressed' to sheer destructiveness, and the residual totalitarians are reduced to pretending still to be in control by manufacturing excuses for the collapse of their strategy? I believe that this is, indeed, the exact way that evil feeds-upon-itself. 

For instance; some commenters interpret the recent break-up of the world and wildfire descent into multi-location war, as a 'cunning plan' version of Plan A. This would need to be a very long-term plan - still directed at the eventual establishment of the same unitary totalitarian global society described in the Great Reset and Agenda 2030. 

This amounts to explaining destruction as construction, interpreting chaos as order, insisting that fragmentation is just another kind of unity. 

I regard this as a serious misunderstanding. If we are indeed now in Plan B - as I suggest; all we really need to know is that (whatever soothing or 'high-minded' 'strategic'  lies they tell themselves) those who are ruling this mortal world are now, and increasingly, focused on an agenda of torment and destruction, reckless of the consequences. 

However, Plan A is still in place even as it disintegrates; and the globalist, totalitarian bureaucrats of the New World Order still have a great deal of influence and power.

But the direction of change seems to be established; and Plan A can now be regarded as dying.

What is my Christian interpretation of these events? From a perspective of human suffering, Plan B certainly accelerates and intensifies suffering in the short term - albeit maybe not in the longer term. 

But from a perspective of salvation; I think it probable that more souls would choose to be saved in a Plan B (WWIII) scenario; than if the worldwide system of surveillance-and 'thought control' of Plan A had been put into place. 

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.

At present, it seems that there are no primarily Christian nations in the world.

(With the probable exception of the Fire Nation - but none in The West) 

Therefore - all nationalism is evil: as are all secular polities. 

In other words, the only good nationalism is one that is secondary to Christianity. Which means that the nationalism must function within Christian priorities and a Christian framework. In other words, to be good, nationalism must be part of a Christian theocracy.  

Yet, I believe that a Christian theocracy is not desirable in the West (as well as being in practice almost-certainly impossible). 

This undesirability/ impossibility of Western theocracy is for reasons I have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, to do with the changed nature of Western Consciousness - that is changed motivations, a changed mode of thinking, a changed relationship to divine reality etc.  

Western people don't want it, cannot be made to want it, will not choose it, and would not tolerate it if it were imposed. So that the result of trying to impose theocracy would not be a Christian society, but merely secular totalitarianism using Christianized language and excuses. 

In the Western World now, the nationalists are would-be totalitarian bureaucrats, exponents of Ahrimanic evil (whether they espouse "Christian values, or not). 

The nationalists oppose the globalists who are Sorathic agents of spitefully destructive evil. 

And that is the choice within the political arena. A choice between variants of the dominant globalist destroyers, or a backlash of nationalist totalitarians: there are no Good choices available.  

Disillusion is not wisdom; because dis-illusion (as the name implies) is a double-negative - not a positive - value; and Good comes only from a positive affiliation to God and divine creation. 

At present I perceive increasing numbers of disillusioned totalitarian bureaucrats among the national leadership class - people who have noticed that their worked-for totalitarian New World Order is being destroyed by strategic chaos imposed by the dominating multi-national globalists. 

So we are getting (and indeed have been getting, since around the millennium) some of the more intelligent and insightful adherents of totalitarian-Ahrimanic evil embracing a nationalist agenda to some extent. Putting themselves forward as a "common sense" alternative to literally-insane inversion of the Sorathic globalists. 

But nationalism is evil. Historically, nationalism arose after the decline of Christianity: nationalism was the ideological basis of the first truly secular states.  

What the globalists call the "far Right" - or populist Right, often tacitly supported by a majority of Western population - are actually "local totalitarians": those who want to have what they regard as a strong, productive, efficient nation - more like the Western societies of the middle 20th century. 

This agenda would entail some sensible and common sense controlled and reduced immigration, a degree of meritocracy (instead of "inclusion" or "equality"), a protected and planned economy, coherent laws, effective military and police etc. 

Sounds great, you say? Not so.  

From where we are now; such a society is not just impossible, but would anyway be evil - because inevitably totalitarian. 

It would not have Christian foundations, would not be organized in accordance with God's will and divine creation, nor would it be Christianly motivated. 

Therefore what we would actually get would be a version of "the Great Reset" - but on a national basis; and without the self-destroying elements such as "sustainability", antiracism, and the rest. 

At best and temporarily, such a society would assert justifications that are this-worldly, and utilitarian. But since such abstractions are both humanly-feeble and irredeemably subjective - very soon selfish, short-termist corruption among the leadership class would inevitably take-over. 

(Which is why They are keen on the idea!)

What I am saying is that "nationalism" is a delusion or a deception for The West, arising only as a consequence of in-fighting among the demon-serving ruling class. 

Serious Christians should be wary of falling into the trap of supporting nationalism - since it will inevitably be unmasked as local totalitarianism - hence intrinsically evil. 

It doesn't much matter what people say; but if you observe what they do, advocate, approve - it seems that many or most people favour totalitarianism.

All they really want is totalitarian in-line with their own ideology or religion.

And this applies to many or most Christians too - e.g. they dream of a society in which all discourse is Christian, minds are filled with the message - and opposition to this is excluded.

By totalitarian, I mean a political system that tends towards total thought-control: that is to inculcating favoured thought and prohibiting all other thought - by whatever systems and technologies are available, effective, practical.

Many societies of the past were totalitarian in this sense that it was what they wanted - but effectiveness of imposition was limited by primitive technologies of surveillance and propaganda, or the presence within society of effective opposition, or simply by disorganisation and corruption.

Why is totalitarian thought control so common a goal, even among Christians? I think the reason is that people wrongly value action above thought (just as, in practice, so many Christians behave as if action is ultimately more important than motivation).

In other words, the 'supporters' of totalitarianism are often being, as they suppose, 'practical' and focusing on what they suppose will be most effective at controlling social behaviour.

This contrasts with the intentions of those who are behind totalitarianism, which are directed at thinking rather than action.

So - on the one hand the theory of totalitarianism, its appeal, is practical effectiveness; but the actuality of totalitarianism is that it is focused on minds and interested in practicalities only as an excuse for mind-control!

The Christian message is clear that thinking is more important than action; but clearly the two interact - and actual Christians often lose sight of this fact... they become focused on 'society', on what people do - and lapse into short-cut thinking which is coercive. It has, indeed, been quite common to Christians to lose sight that they cannot impose Christianity, it is not so much forbidden as utterly impossible.

However, what happens is that the use of coercion creates a system of interpretation that is focused on actions (eg what people say, what people do) - and once this refocus has happened then totalitarianism is appealing to Christians; since it sets no limit on the totality of surveillance and control.

Whether the system is overall physically or psychologically coercive is a matter of expediency; but both are used.

My point here is that totalitarianism has a much broader appeal than commonly realised - totalitarianism is a subtle trick of the evil demonic ruling elites. They want to control minds, to induce damnation - but they offer the promise of controlling behaviour. 

Can damnation really be induced? Well it can't be caused, but it can of course be encouraged. Agency (free will) is potential in everyone - but it may be rejected. We can allow our minds to become ruled by 'automatic' processes, we can refuse to engage our agency.

And that refusal to use agency - and instead to use superficial, inculcated, or not-human types of thinking - is exactly what the demonic powers aim-at. They aim to fill minds with thoughts that deny agency; they suppress ideas of agency, autonomy, inner reality; and at the end of this people will live and die disengaged.

Disengagement is the aim of totalitarianism - disengagement of agency. To have people so harried and trammelled that they just behave - and they never think. What such people imagine to be their own thinking is not their won - it is just some kind of superficial, robotic, habitual processing which has been drilled and applied.

In a materialist world view, totalitarianism makes perfect sense - and the desire for totalitarianism is a sign of covert materialism in Christians.

Totalitarian thinking is a kind of test - a test of our fundamental assumptions: a test of metaphysics. Most people nowadays have rotten metaphysics - and that is why totalitarianism is currently so popular among so many types of people. And that is why we have such a lot of it.   

I have found a modified version of Rudolf Steiner's schema that evil can be distinguished in two forms - Ahrimanic and Luciferic - to be a valuable tool.

The Luciferic is (roughly) the impulsive, instinctive, self-gratifying, psychopathic kind of evil - as characterised by the frenzied violence and torture of unbridled war; or the greedy lustfulness that drives the sexual revolution. This tended to be the dominant form of evil in ancient times - and of course it still continues.

But that does not capture the modern form of evil - which may originate in this kind of 'id'-driven thirst for instant gratification; but which takes this and operationalises it in the form of definitions, laws, regulations, and bureaucracy - enforced by omni-surveillance and micro-control mechanisms. This is the Ahrimanic - a cold, rational, systematic form of evil.  

In other words, the distinctive and dominant form of evil of this time, of modern times, is totalitarian. The Ahrimanic is the totalitarian, bureaucratic, strategic...

It is the evil of a whole society organised in pursuit of evil that has been pre-defined as Good. It may be an evil without pleasure; evil as an industrial process - a crushing, icy evil. The modern sexual revolution is presided-over, guided, implemented - not by passion crazed Caligulas - but by stony-eyed officials.


The problem is that almost all the real and serious Christian denominations and churches (I mean the best churches - not those that are liberal, apostate, vaguely-Christianised-leftist organisations) still seem to regard evil as Luciferic; and respond to its threat (or try to respond) by doubling-down on the Ahrimanic aspects of Christianity.

For example, the sexual revolution is seen by Christians as primarily about the Luciferic - to be opposed by better organisation. Whereas the real problem is not the work of lust-crazed individuals seeking pleasure; but the Ahrimanic, incremental, planned strategy of a vast army of drab, cold-eyed, strategising bureaucrats; armed with United Nations mission statements, European Union laws, International consensus definitions, guidelines, terms-of-service, models of best practice etc etc.

All too often the Christian response to the sexual revolution has been along exactly the same lines as the totalitarian bureacrats. An increase in planning, systems, supervision; a greater number and precision of rules; tougher enforcement - and so forth.

This is to fight ice with more ice; to fight Sauron with the One Ring. Such a Christianity presents the individual with what looks like nothing more than a choice of rival bureaucracies - one powerful and growing, the other small and collapsing. A choice of two would-be totalitarian monitoring and control systems. Both alienate, both are evil in form.

One can either be crushed by secular materialism, or crushed by religious practices...


The answer to the dominant Ahrimanic evil cannot be merely a different version of the same. Nor can it be a version of old-fashioned Luciferism; which is, anyway, an impossibility...

The middle sixties saw a massive cultural upsurge in the Luciferic (turn-on, tune-in, drop out - let it all hang out etc.) and that would-be explosion of the id and the instinct, merely fuelled decades of ever-expanding and further-encroaching bureaucracy. Nowadays, the Luciferic 'liberation' serves merely as an excuse for ever-more Ahrimanic constraint.

If evil comes from some combination of the domination of the Genital urges (Luciferic), and the raionalism of the 'Left Brain' (Ahrimanic) - what is needed is the Heart. And that is something new, something untried - but something profoundly Christian.


What Christianity needs cannot be captured in any formula or rule (that is just more Ahrimanic stuff) - in a totalitarian age we cannot expect to protect Christianity, or even to be Christian, by adhering to any principle of truth, or any flow-diagram of validity.

Nor can we fall into the trap of regarding anything other than the systematic as Luciferic, hence evil. There is a third way - the way of Jesus - and that is the only Good way. 

We must acknowledge the individual person in relation with God to be the fundamental unit of truth, beauty and virtue. This has been said many times before - but never done. A religion of the heart must be rooted in persons, not abstractions; because only persons can love - yet love is objective, the primary basis of all creation, the heart of Christ's teaching.

The answer is simply that both the totalitarian societies and the 'rebellious' heroes are both Godless.  Genuine, rooted and cultural Godlessness is demotivating, induces despair - and cannot support courage. 

The two great dystopias are Brave New World by Aldous Huxley and 1984 by George Orwell - both induce in the reader a feeling of helpless despair. The reason is quite simple - that AH and GO were both products of the twentieth century during which Christianity was abandoned - and first of all by the upper classes.

The characteristic despair of 20th century art is not really to do with the world wars; but with the replacement of Christianity by a this-worldly, leftist ideology. It was not about the horror and pain of massive conflict, it was about the newly-narrow perspective from which any war (or poverty, disease, or any kind of suffering) was understood and evaluated.

From that perspective, when the solitary individual (or tiny group) confronts a massive, oppressive society; society can be the only winner.


Because this is a 'war' in which there is only one 'side': and that side is society. There may be various dissident individuals; but each is up-against the interlocking power and propaganda of The System, with a relatively-immense capacity to propagandise and censor, bribe and seduce, or torment and punish.

And since the assumption is that human life begins at birth (or conception) and is terminated by death - whichever side wins in this-life, wins forever. Any society that controls (nearly) all of human life therefore is capable of infliction (what is assumed to be) total suffering.

When Orwell wrote his book, he hoped that it would provide an effective warning and preventive against totalitarianism; but because his dystopia is Godless it has had the opposite effect. What we see all around us in the West is a mass population embracing totalitarianism; in the hope that it will be 'benign' and lead to a totally-happy life. This is popular transhumanism - focused around the provision of virtual realities via electronic media.

Totalitarian transhumanism is rational - within its narrow and rigid frame of understanding. If biological life is the entirety of human experience, and political 'solutions' have comprehensively failed; then our only hope is that it will be happy (or, at least, free of suffering) - and most people have reasoned that the only hope of happiness is technological and therapeutic.


People believe in a benign Global Establishment - headed by multi-billionaires and the large media and technological corporations - because they have nothing else to believe-in. If only they can believe that the globalist Elites are benign in nature and intent; then they can hope for a virtual, drugged and technologically enhanced life of pleasant feelings (with perhaps a bit of actual sex, interspersed) - which is the highest life that modern Godless Man can conceive-of.

So a 'good' totalitarianism is the highest aspiration - by contrast, an evil totalitarianism, one that exploits and torments its people, is the worst horror.

But the typical modern Man; totalitarianism is a given, indeed it is necessary - because only if a society can be totally monitored and totally controlled, would it be possible to eliminate suffering and to provide pleasurable stimulus to all. So, any extension of centralised surveillance and bureaucratic control is welcomed - so long it can semi-plausibly be presented as a step towards universal pleasure, comfort, and convenience.


This is important to (real) Christians; firstly because it explains why it is likely that (assuming we live long enough, and Western societies do not collapse) we will all be living under a hostile totalitarianism, in which most citizens will be keen to destroy Christian institutions on the basis that they interfere with transhumanist totalitarian plans.

All Christian institutions that can be detected will be destroyed; or subverted and inverted. 

And secondly because this will be a test of our faith. especially our belief in Heaven, and in Jesus's promise that any can attain to Heaven who will follow him.

Because we will very probably each be compelled to live in a vast, overwhelming, globally-interlinked Totalitarian System; without institutional support; and without realistic hope of escape or victory... in this mortal life

As the totalitarian society increases in power and scope on a weekly basis, we need to ask whether an underlying reason for totalitarianism is actually that this is precisely what modern people actively want for themselves, as well as others.

If we judge people by what they say, what they do, how they vote, whom they criticize and persecute - it becomes clear that modern people desire a totalitarian system of total surveillance and micro-regulation*. A wholly un-free society in which anti-social behaviour becomes un-thinkable.

And the reason that so many modern people want this, is that modern people want, more than anything else, to evade responsibility.

This is, I believe, an existential life-decision, that goes very deep. By their revealed preferences, we may infer that modern people want to regard themselves as helpless victims, want to be protected, want to be favoured systematically. They want Not to be blamed for anything; they want it never to be 'my fault'. They want always to be able to say 'I couldn't help it'.

And they want it to be the case that any person who does try to assert responsibility or blame, any person who believes in human agency and freedom - be punished, eliminated, silenced, reprogrammed. 

In a world where evasion of responsibility is primary, a totalitarian system promises the perfect excuse of being thought-controlled.

This desire to be able to plead helplessness goes all the way to the top, where individual responsibility is replaced by committees and votes; so that nothing can ever be pinned on anyone. It includes the vast, global, bureaucracy-of-everything - so that every nation, corporation, group and individual can always claim that their decisions and behaviours were compelled, that they were merely following orders.

In sum, modern man is a willing servant of the demonic spirit of Ahriman - this kind of cold, anti-personal, reductionist, pseudo-scientific, systematised evil is dominant. And, ultimately, it is dominant because of the decisions and desires of the millions upon millions of mainstream modern people who collaborate and make careers from The System.

Mainstream typical modern Man (say, the ordinary - female - middle managers in an institution) viscerally reject the reality of their own existential freedom, deny their responsibility for their own beliefs, claim helplessness against the evil-intending propaganda they so eagerly embrace and so diligently implement and defend.

These want a totalitarian system and assert themselves to be powerless innocents. But they cannot in fact evade responsibility for their positive choice of an evil system that claims to eliminate responsibility.

Because thought cannot really be controlled - to 'be' thought-contolled is therefore a decision; and all claims of oneself being thought-controlled and therefore not-responsible are a dishonest excuse. Anyone capable of making that excuse is lying. Humans just are free in their thinking.

Instead, these people actually-are actively-evil - they are in a state of willing evil upon themselves and upon everybody else. They will totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is intrinsically evil.

And this has been their choice, it is what they want.


*It might be asked how I know what most modern people want? My answer would be as above - I am simply assuming that what people want is what they say they want - as confirmed by how they behave - with a high (but not complete) level of consistency, and over several decades. 

Anyone who disagrees and says that modern people really want something different - e.g. want to be free and responsible and others to be likewise, want to live in a world that encourages and sustains human agency... well, such claims go beyond objective appearances, and are asserting deep knowledge of the hearts of Men below the surface and despite contrary actions.

I am simply suggesting that as we descend into evil totalitarianism, people are - broadly speaking - getting exactly what they want; and are therefore personally responsible for what they (and we) get. To put it differently - our problems go very deep indeed, and they are far more wide-spread; much much deeper and more pervasive than most people realise. 

The thing is: They are clever! Not all-knowing, certainly not all-powerful - and highly fallible; but They are clever. A lot cleverer than most of their pseudo-intellectual critics who will explain-away the biggest, fastest, most universal and comprehensive change in the history of the world as some kind of random coincidence of something or another.


I mean that, just four months ago, the world was qualitatively different; and now almost everybody is living under an extremity of control and restriction that would have been literally incredible, just four months ago. All the talk is that this change will be permanent, in some form.

It happened. And - fundamentally - hardly anybody has noticed; and hardly anybody who has noticed can see the obvious cause; but instead grasps and holds-tight onto the transparently inadequate and incoherent excuse that everything is necessary because of the deadly birdemic plague - and the totalitarian world must continue because of the birdemic plague...


This is all the more surprising since - for the entire last generation - the best-selling, and biggest impact media have been all-about evil totalitarian dystopias; from Harry Potter and the Hunger Games through innumerable other variants of the same idea. And this was building upon the past century of similar products - The Time Machine, 1984, Brave New World etc.

These have been massively disseminated, in multiple media. Now, why would the Global Establishment be so keen on making and sustaining mass media phenomena describing totalitarian dystopias, if that is what they were planning to impose upon us?

The answer, I think, is misdirection.


We have seen many, many evil totalitarian dystopias; but the evil-ness of these societies has always been portrayed as militaristic, violent and murdering. (That is, Luciferic evil.)

This is indeed natural, because in a godless and secular society; directly causing physical suffering seems to be the only kind of evil that people recognise. Thus in these modern dystopias, the baddies are bad because they torment, torture and kill lots of people.

Therefore, when a totalitarian society arises that does not (any more than usual) torment, torture and kill great masses of people - and what is more, was implemented without any uniformed, marching armies and by consent - then it just isn't noticed, and is indeed denied.

Misdirection has worked. 


A godless materialistic society has no belief in any purpose or meaning to life; therefore the idea of evilness as micro-control of behaviour and thought has no reality. It cannot be grasped.

Such a society denies the non-material, the spiritual - indeed it barely acknowledges the autonomous free agency of human beings; who are continually redescribed and modelled in terms of being wholly-determined or statistically-random in their actions. The existence of evil spirits is regarded as being childish, dumb or an insane delusion.

In such a world - and this is mainstream and mandatory in Western discourse - there can be no genuine intent, not even of humans; and everything is explained by the forces acting-upon humans.

One would have supposed that the indescribably vast evidence of humans planning and scheming throughout history and into the present might have had some traction - but no.

The only acceptable view is that stuff just happens, either because it must - or for no reason at all; but at any rate, evil strategies are ruled-out a priori (by assumption) because evil Men are not self-motivated and evil spirits don't exist.


The actually-existing Ahrimanic nature of modern evil is beyond comprehension; hence unrecognised; hence unopposed. The evilness of a society of omni-surveillance and total-control is seen only when this is used to pursue violence; and there is no conception of materialistic reduction being evil in itself.

In sum; when reality is spiritual, but Men are materialistic, then the basic nature and point of life become utterly invisible to consciousness. At an unconscious and inarticulate level; Men retain an awareness of spiritual realities - and it is this that causes the demotivation, fear and despair underlying much of the world today. But unconscious and inarticulate does not suffice.

Therefore, the best and most important thing that we can do is to bring to explicit consciousness these vague feelings and hunches about what has happened and the nature of this current situation. We need to make our-selves aware of that understanding already latent in us.


This is the indispensable first step... But towards what? The answer is: To the salvation of our souls, to life everlasting beyond death.

Those who don't want Heaven can get what they want under totalitarianism - they have no problem with being misdirected.

Those who want Hell or self-annihilation for themselves have no problem with totalitarianism, because it is a demonic mechanism of damnation. They can continue to live under misdirection.

But you may be different. If you want Heaven, if you are a Christian, you need to understand.

The problem of human cooperation only became 'a problem' through history; because (it seems) in early human societies Men regarded themselves as primarily part of the family and community within-which they were born.

But now, insofar as Men introspect, we experience ourselves as cut-off, alienated - and we presume others are the same. How to get individuals to cooperate is one problem, and another is that the group is understood (and, often, experienced) as intrinsically hostile to the individual. 

Me versus the world, and the world versus me...

Which means that groupishness is, must be, imposed upon individuals - even when this is for the long-term benefit of the individual, this still opens-up an ideal that 'everybody else' should work for the group while we our-selves (covertly...) selfishly exploit the situation. 

Thus we get the actuality of totalitarianism; whereby groupishness is imposed, top-down and by a mixture of coercion and propaganda - yet the rationale for such imposition is merely expedient (i.e. because the alternative as a chaos of each against all, in which civilization collapses instantly). 

The choice is between coerced order and chaos - and the choice is made on selfish grounds (i.e. an evaluation and choice of that circumstance in which I am most likely, personally, to do best)

In other words; the implication of modern experience and explanations at the individual level is that ideally each person should be a hypocritical psychopath - hypocritically expounding altruism and groupishness for other-people, while (covertly) selfishly exploiting this situation for oneself. 

...In other words; exactly the hypocritical behaviour of the typical modern leader - whether in politics, the mass media, corporations, or any institution such as a charity, a school/ hospital/ army/ or whatever. 

...A superficial ideology of altruism and public-good covering a core ruthless and exploitative careerism and hedonism. 

This is our situation: i.e. a cynical, arbitrary, purposeless and meaningless totalitarianism.. Top-down and coercive arbitrary order is imposed on individuals at every level and scale - because there is (believed to be) no other possible basis for groupishness. 

And the analysis is self-fulfilling over time; because all actual human groups become subverted by this understanding; such that all actual institutions are indeed assimilated to the totalitarian whole, and behave as such. 

Yet, while our consciousness - and all the modern explanatory schemes - regard humanity as a collection of individuals; there is also a suspicion of, or hope for, some kind of spontaneous (not imposed) groupishness - although its basis is typically unclear; and the available explanations tend to be unconvincing hence weakly motivating. 

We 'know' that there really is a groupishness among Men; but we cannot explain it - at least not in a way that convinces both ourselves, and others. 

Traditional Christian explanations - such as that all Men are children of God, and have a shared divinity - have lost their power to motivate. 

Indeed the churches use these groups explanations to justify totalitarian goals! As when the parable of The Good Shepherd is said to support mass immigration, "the feeding of the five thousand" to justify bureaucratic communism, and the interests of the people of God are said to mean obedience to "the church" and its current-actual leadership.

The answer is twofold: 

To understand groupishness from an individual perspective - intuitively from-within, where that understanding cannot be touched by worldly totalitarian imperatives. 

And to understand groupishness spiritually such that the material corruption of this world cannot corrupt or otherwise affect it. 

This is a very extreme stance, by world historical standards - but it is exactly the corruption of the world that leads to the need for it. 

It regards our cut-off individualism as a fact; but moves beyond the negative aspects that have led to totalitarianism in the public sphere. 

Since we really-are cut-off in the public sphere - this means we can and should disregard the public sphere in our explanations and understandings. 

On the one hand, totalitarian groupishness is merely external, because it cannot (exactly because we are cut-off in consciousness) penetrate to our inner self-experience. On the other hand; from this state of inner cut-offness, we can strive to discover an understanding of our groupishness that we find to be real and true. 

Even as we are inwardly cut-off from the old spontaneous groupishness; we are also cut-off from the new totalitarian groupishness. 

We can revel in our absolute independence from the imposed evils of physical control and psychological manipulation! 

That which makes us alone, also makes us free. 

Thus one individual person can stand, if he chooses, with-God and against The World: silently indomitable. 

All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.


The evolving hoax of 'Climate Change', is incomparably the biggest Big Lie that has ever been perpetrated on the world. Indeed, starting with the falsehood that climate can be predicted; the Big Climate Lie is many-many lies-piled-upon-lies to reach the insane conviction that a world government can control the world climate to within a degree - if only it is given complete surveillance and micro-control over everything.

In other words - the totalitarian agenda.

Okay - that's been the last 25-plus years. A quarter century, trillions of dollars, trillions of man-hours, galactic volumes of verbal hot-air; an incomprehensibly massive drain of effort, time and resources; infliction of heavy economic damage; and immense environmental destruction - all because The Big Lie.


But now we have a state of Climate Emergency. In other words, the global Establishment is pushing very hard, everywhere, by all means at its disposal, to be given totalitarian powers as a matter of emergency. 

This is a Power Grab, the power grab: a coup d'etat intended to be complete and final - this is the urgent and rapid attempt at totalitarian takeover - and it is happening here and now. 


First of it, it is helpful to contemplate the sheer insanity of this situation. Truly it is hard to comprehend that so many could collaborate in fabricating such colossal untruth; and to believe the sheer impudence of such infamous distortion of reality. It beggars belief that this, of all imaginable issues, should have become the core rationale for the implementation of a totalitarian world dictatorship.

Yet here we are.

Why this? Why now?


Why this? Because this lie works - it has been tested and developed over a quarter century. Okay...

But why now? That's the interesting question. Why now, and why not sometime before or later?

My answer is that the answer is not that this time is optimal. It is not optimal. The Climate Emergency movement did not emerge from a rising groundswell of public opinion. To the contrary, the Climate Emergency came out of the blue, and after several years during which - in the mass public mind - climate change had faded in significance and was the subject of increasing doubts (as reality stubbornly failed to conform to delusion).

Yet, They (i.e. the global establishment) regard it as necessary to do this Now. Why?


My assumption is either that They regard it as either possible for the first time, or necessary because of some risk to the project.

On the one hand, the expansion of population demoralisation, surveillance and control; mass population migration and the ability to trigger deadly civil disorder etc... - these may all be in place now; such that - for the first time - centralised  dictatorship is a genuine possibility, easily graspable.

So let's get on with it... 

(They may be right or wrong about this. I am suggesting how it may look to Them in order that the Climate Emergency button was pushed.)

Or else, conversely; They are worried about something going wrong with their plans; such that They suddenly feel the need to press-ahead, despite the fact that the ground has Not been optimally prepared, and Not enough people are sufficiently ready for what is being proposed.

(They may be right or wrong about the rising risk to their plans. Again, I am simply suggesting how things may seem to Them.)


Two opposite possibilities.

The totalitarian power grab that is Climate Emergency is happening Now; either because of Their strength, or because of Their weakness.

Whatever the answer you decide does not change what you ought-to be doing; but it should be encouraging to speculate that the international attempted coup that is Climate Emergency may be product of panic, rather than the long anticipated final step of step of a decades long master plan.

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

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

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

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

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

All the Leftisms converge on promoting totalitarian bureaucracy.


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

***

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

   

It seems to be common for people to conflate, to assume the sameness of, a revival of national power and prestige with a revival of Christianity. This conflation seems to happen both on the mainstream political 'Right' as well as the Left (who bracket nationalism and Christianity under the category of 'fascism' which they bestow indiscriminately upon all their opponents).

But although de-nationalisation and anti-Christianity are being simultaneously pursued by the Leftist Establishment; the two do not necessarily go together, indeed I think they cannot (in principle) be pursued in parallel - we must choose one or the other as priority.

If it is accepted (which I argue elsewhere at length) that the Global Establishment is purposively evil, being tools of the demonic powers dedicated to the damnation of Man - then we can see that the anti-Christian agenda is primary; and the globalist agenda is a means to that end.

The Right-wing nationalist agenda sees engineered mass immigration and population replacement as a toll for destroying Western Civilisation; and the main modern problem. But from a Christian perspective this is a secondary problem, and not the main goal of those who pursue demographic destruction.

For Christians, the role of demographic destruction is to induce fear, hatred and chaos - justifying the extension and completeness of the materialist, surveillance and micro-managed totalitarian state which is already substantially in-place.

This planned totalitarian society will be used to (attempt to) destroy Christianity, and indeed all transcendental thought - by deluging the mind with constant input, by rendering the will passive, by filling thought with bad stuff, and by manipulating emotions: by burying our true free selves under layers of engineered and automatic habits and responses.

But the planned totalitarian future can only be resisted by a society that has higher goals than the modern 'utilitarian' public ethic of maximising pleasure and minimising suffering during mortal life. If our feelings and pleasures are to be the bottom line, the totalitarianism will not be resisted, because totalitarianism can sell itself as the best and only means to human 'happiness' (as with Aldous Huxley's Brave New World).

So a Christian revival is the priority; and this would be welcome from whatever source - however, to be effective against the prevalent materialism of modernity, any Christian revival needs to be spiritual.

Spiritual sounds vague - but what is needed is anything-but vague. It is indeed radical beyond anything we have yet experienced (except among a tiny minority). Recent and current Christianity (and I mean among good and sincere Christians) is very materialist - very assimilated to modernity; it is a set of beliefs, a set of assented 'fact'; rather than that different way of thinking, perceiving, and experiencing which is required.

To get back to priorities - the observable fact is that over the past twenty years the British population, hence culture, has been replaced by a variety of other people and cultures - typically non-Western. This has been enabled and facilitated by native sub-fertility; which is itself the major symptom of nihilism and despair - i.e. the British people in a deep sense, en masse, want to become extinct.

That national despair (consequent upon wholesale and near-complete abandonment of Christianity - including among self-identified mainstream Christians and especially their leaders), ultimately, is also why the British have passively-consented-to being substantially replaced; with very little discussion, indeed very little awareness of what is visibly and rapidly happening.

This analysis reveals that nihilistic despair, hope-less-ness, demotivation is the core problem for Britain (and The West generally). Also, awareness of the evil agenda of demographically-induced chaos leading to fear and hatred makes clear that the evil agenda will not be prevented, but will instead be assisted and advanced, by any nationalism based upon fear and hatred.

In a nutshell; there is only one positive option for Britain and that is a Christian awakening distinguished by a new and qualitatively-different perspective on reality; a new and spiritual way of perceiving and thinking.

Furthermore; such a Christian awakening needs to encompass regent migrants to Britain - if hate, fear and chaos are to be avoided.

In other words, National cohesion must be based on religion first, transcending cultural and racial differences. Indeed, religion (and only some religions) are the only known effective basis of long term, non-tyrannical social cohesion among people of different cultures and natures.

To put it another way; the future is totalitarian tyranny or a society based on one, shared religion; and that can only be Christianity; and an effective Christianity needs to be spiritual (non-materialist).

Unless there is Christianity and that Christianity embodies a different and spiritual (non materialist) way of being - then we will remain trapped in nihilism and despair.

(Note: The reason to be Christian, and to aim for a new and spiritual Christian way of being, is that this is true, and best, and indeed divinely destined. Above I am arguing for its expediency - which is true - but secondary.)

I only know of Karl Popper's book The Open Society and its Enemies at second-hand - initially from Popper by Brian Magee (1974); and from references in Popper's autobiography which I read aged nineteen - and in many other places. 

I never read the big book itself, because (for most of my adult life) I already knew I would agree with it - and there seemed no point. 

The basic idea is that societies must be (like science a century ago) open to dissent, indeed encouraging of all debate; and thereby error can be corrected, and a closer approach to the truth can be discovered. 

Yet there can never be a positive formulation of truth, exception provisionally - for further evaluation - so societies must always remain "open".* 

The notion was one of a dynamic society; always questing, always critical, always self-correcting; always hypothetical, never dogmatic. 

I never revised my positive attitude to the Open Society until after I became a Christian. 

However; in the early 2000s I was re-reading Popper's ideas, and became aware that their major supporter was a chap called George Soros+ - who funded specific people (one of whom was a colleague), organizations, publications promoting the Open Society. 

What a helpful chap!

GS was supporting the autonomy of civil society, protecting freedom of expression, encouraging a free interaction of arguments... and so on. 

(+Yes, that George Soros.) 

So, how did Popper's Open Society ideas - apparently formulated specifically to explain why early 20th century totalitarianism was morally wrong and intellectually bankrupt; end-up by seamlessly evolving-into a primary rationalization for a global totalitarianism of greater scope and thoroughness than ever was achieved before? 

I think the reason is simple - which is that the Open Society is a godless ideology, a secular and atheistic society, promoted by those who have abandoned their religion; which therefore is all-about means and nothing-about ends. 

Indeed, the open Society idea tries to make a virtue of its own deficiencies; by claiming that only a life, society and world based upon process-merely is genuinely good. Goodness has been redefined as process!

Any idea that there is a good that ought to be pursued by various means, is declared totalitarian. It is replaced by the idea that good inheres in the means - good is 'whatever results from the proper process'. 

And the 'proper process'? Well...

Articulated as such, the Open Society is now a universal rationalization for the direction and content of official modernity - however that is currently-defined... 

Nowadays, justice is whatever results from the legal process (regardless of the corrupt actualities of that process); education is 'whatever-happens' at officially-validated schools and colleges; 'quality' is whatever-emanates-from 'quality-assured' (auditable) management systems...

Democracy is whatever emanates from the actual system of voting (including whatever latest corruptions and disregarding all propaganda and ideological coercion) - and whatever comes from the 'democratically-elected' government is therefore good. 

Science is whatever professional and accredited scientists are saying today. 

In a nutshell; the Open Society is a philosophical justification for The System is Always Right. 

It turns out that - lacking God or any roots in the spiritual - the 'Openness' of an Open Society can be redefined into its opposite.  

Why not? 

So long as the society - the System - continues to declare itself "open", then it is said to be superior to others that are based-on ideas of truth being separable from process.

If the Open Society is wrong now, is revealed as evil and totalitarian ; then maybe it always was intended thus - maybe it was engineered (under demonic influence) as a stalking horse against God, divine creation and The Good? 

That is suggested by the obvious fact that those who adhered to these 'liberal ideas' so very seldom jumped the ship and blew the whistle, when Openness became ever more obviously closed censorship, exclusion of dissent, and micro-control of mass thought and behaviour. 

And, because no Good was allowed to be distinguishable from approved-process - because Goodness was held to inhere in The System itself; all this vast apparatus of totalitarian control was routinely deployed against whatever was true, beautiful or virtuous. 

(As we may see all around.)

The flaw was always there - when Popper talked of the need to be illiberal in defense of liberal ideas - intolerant of "intolerance"; yet neglected that he had abolished all criteria for knowing the truth or the good. Liberalism was un-rooted, set-adrift, opened to endless redefinitions in light of the expediency of the-current-system protecting itself. 

Anyway; the fate of Popper's Open Society over the past century is a case history of the way in which (like Zombies) - ideas and ideals, as well as persons and institutions, can-be (have-already-been) subverted, killed, hollowed-out, and replaced with their opposites.  

In other words: an inverted-world, of inverted values: where Open means Closed; freedom means omni-surveillance and micro-control; and where the Open Society is a ruthless, world-wide, oligarchical, piratical-looting dictatorship. 

*This links with Poppers 'falsification' idea of science; whereby - supposedly - an hypothesis can never be proved, but can be refuted. Science can demonstrate wrongness, but not rightness. This concept of science is (if taken seriously) a vast negation of knowledge - as science moves from error to error, based on hypothesis that have Not Yet been disproved, but may be at some future point. (It also removes the individual scientist's personal motivations, ability and truthfulness from consideration - because "science" is the process, not the person! In other words, this is writing a blank-cheque for corruption and dishonesty in science.) By Popper's account, this makes science into an 'open society' in miniature - the first such, and the most highly-developed. Yet, science too is now a closed society. While continuing to pay loud and continuous lip-service to the same ideals of a century ago - science now is in actuality a merely branch-office of the totalitarian bureaucracy, like everything else - its role merely to manufacture rationalizations for... whatever the global leadership class currently want to do.