Bruce Charlton's Notions

From a comment I left at The Politically Incorrect Australian 

Nationalism was powerfully motivating, but only for about one generation after the mass apostasy from Christianity began (this happened at different times in different countries).

As of now, nationalism is ineffectual; and it is a waste of time - and diversion from the real problem - to pursue it.

Nationalism is just one of a long series of failed attempts to motivate people after they have abandoned religion - this universal secular demotivation can be seen in the voluntary subfertility (subfertility in spite of material abundance) among all secular Western societies. The only groups in modern society with above replacement fertility are from among the religious, and only among the seriously religious (these seem to be only among Christians, Muslims and Jews - Eastern religions don't seem to work - certainly not outside of the East).

To be clearer, I think a large majority of people in The West are in favour of not being replaced by assorted immigrants; but they are (like all established secular populations) too morally incoherent and hence insufficiently motivated to anything about it - when doing something involves the slightest risk or disadvantage.

This affects everything, which is why totalitarianism is established and increasing its grip - almost nobody will say no, because almost nobody can believe-in any coherent alternative.

No belief, no motivation: Demotivation unto death, and beyond: Terminal demotivation...

*


It can be argued that Demotivation is the primary pathology of modernity. The reason is obvious - modern society has severely-weakened or abolished at least three of the primary motivations of Mankind:

1. Survival
2. Family
3. Religion

Such that many, probably most, of those engaged in modern public discourse are operating in a context where biological survival is taken for granted, family is actively-rejected, and serious religion is regarded as nonsense (evil nonsense when practised by native anti-Leftists, quaint nonsense when practised by 'minorities').

*

Over the past couple of hundred years, people often thought and wrote that these motivators could (and should) be dispensed with, and that they could (and should) be replaced by other and supposedly-better motivations - (e.g. spirituality, fluid friendship, Leftist politics).

However, fifty years of experience shows that the replacements are just too feak and weeble to do the job, and the outcome is a massive motivation deficit.  

*

So, modern Man is reduced to trying to get-by on a very enfeebled and impoverished set of motivations - e.g. seeking comfort, stimulation, sex, status; avoiding suffering, pain, social-rejection...

But The Big Three motivations are either absent or weakened to the point of ineffectuality.

Small wonder that modern Man is alienated, nihilistic; lacks courage and honesty; and has become self-hating and strategically-suicidal.

*

There are plenty of Good Ideas, or at least sensible and practical ideas, floating-around in the mass media - especially old books; but no motivation actually to do them - therefore they are not done, and they will not be done; unless or until Men are again sufficiently motivated.

And Men will not be significantly remotivated until at least some of that triad of Survival, Family and Religion are restored and strengthened.

And this restoration and strengthening will happen sooner or later, because there is no remedy for demotivation and no way of compensating for demotivation - it is a single and sufficient cause of extinction.

So, selection mechanisms will ensure that the demotivated will be replaced by the motivated (specifically, the motivated who can transmit their motivation to the next generation).

A demotivated society will - inevitably, from internal causes - waste all its inherited advantages - dissipate all its strengths, attack all its virtues, fail to defend and renew itself - no matter how great are those advantages.

The motivated shall inherit the earth. But, what kind of earth they inherit will depend on the nature of their motivations.

*

*

The way to tell the difference is to observe the response to crisis.

If the modern demotivation is due to excessive peace, prosperity, comfort and convenience - then when there is a crisis, the virtues will re-emerge.

The soft Shire Hobbits retain their ancient toughness underneath the plump and lazy surface, will respond to urgent necessity, and will save the world.

But if modern demotivation is due to sickness, if it is due to generations of mutation accumulation; then a serious crisis will simply reveal that sickness.

When the civilized comforts and conveniences are withdrawn, sick people will not cope, because they have lost their coping mechanisms (broken by genetic damage) - so they will simply curl-up and die.

*

Modern civilization is like a hospital, and we are the inhabitants of that hospital.

The question is: are we like fit people who just happen to be living in a hospital? Or, are we patients - seriously sick individuals who are only alive because we live in a hospital?

When the hospital (modern society) collapses - then we will find-out.

*

*
The biggest and most obvious problem in modern human psychology is the near total lack of steady, long-term, positive motivation. En masse, modern Western Man has no idea what his life is for, what he is trying to do overall, and lacks any strong reason to do anything in particular. Secularism has made everything a matter of unaligned, subjective, personal convictions or uncertainties.

The characteristic modern demand is that "Something Should Be Done!" Ask why that particular something is a good idea, or ought to be done, and there are plenty of superficially-plausible answers- indeed there are literally millions of such answers for millions of mutually-antagonistic things all of which "should" be done.

But ask who exactly is going to do them, who is motivated to do them - despite that whoever does it will immediately suffer personal disadvantages, and you get a blank.

Hence the pattern of bureaucratic democracy. The requirement  that 'THEY should do something about it", combined with complete uncertainty about who THEY are and why we should suppose that THEY would be motivated really to solve problems; rather than, for instance, merely taking the money then utterly failing to solve - or worsening - the problems; which officials term 'addressing the issues'.

Until people, in their own lives, actually have and will live by steady, long-term and positive motivations; then nothing significantly constructive will be done - nothing at all. And unless these personal motivations are aligned, then these motivations will merely sabotage one another- unless these motivations have a common basis, and therefore an intrinsic alignment.

I think it is impossible, even in theory, for a motivational system to be applied top-down to this mutually-destructive chaos of complex, conflicting and ever-changing demands. People who lack common motivation cannot be controlled except negatively - they can be dispersed, or briefly stampeded - but they cannot be made to work together in long-term projects that must overcome short term hardships.  

It therefore seems that the first requirement is for individuals to find genuine, visceral, effective motivation; and then - by reflection on what actually works in their own lives, felt-motivation - to discover ways of scaling-up enough of this subjective motivation to a societal level such that there is overall coherence between enough individuals.

Perhaps this is the primary task for Modern Man - to acknowledge and reflect upon his own personal deficiency of motivation; to stop supposing that the major problems can, will and should be solved by THEM; to refuse to accept their own state of alienation and negativity and to seek-out and find that which genuinely motivates in the way that makes a positive society at least possible. 

To find motivation Modern Man, as a first step, needs to give-up those secular, nihilistic, god-denying assumptions which guarantee (100 percent, lifetime, copper bottomed) that he personally will be demotivated: that whatever he wants or hopes or needs to do, will be undercut and destroyed by his own lack of motivation.

After this, answers will not be so hard to find.

*

I have been asserting for many years that motivation - the lack of it, its weakness - is the overwhelming problem in modern Western societies; and that its root is the deletion of (real) religion - which was, through recorded history, the strongest motivator of Men.

Charlton BG. Why are doctors still prescribing neuroleptics? QJM 2006; 99: 417-20.

This is a version of my paper "Why are doctors still prescribing neuroleptics? - in which the word 'neuroleptic' has been replaced by the word 'antipsychotic'. Both neuroleptic and antipsychotic refer to the same class of drugs - but neuroleptic was the original and most scientifically-accurate name. Antipsychotic is a dishonest marketing term, since these drugs are not anti-psychotic. However, antipsychotic has now all-but taken over from neuroleptic in mainstream discourse - so I have prepared this version of my paper containing the more common term.

Bruce G Charlton

Abstract

There are two main pharmacological methods of suppressing undesired behavior: by sedation or with antipsychotics. Traditionally, the invention of antipsychotics has been hailed as one of the major clinical breakthroughs of the twentieth century, since they calmed agitation without (necessarily) causing sedation. The specifically antipsychotic form of behavioral control is achieved by making patients psychologically Parkinsonian – which entails emotional-blunting and consequent demotivation. Furthermore, chronic antipsychotic usage creates dependence so that - in the long term, for most patients - antipsychotics are doing more harm than good. The introduction of ‘atypical’ antipsychotics (ie. antipsychotically-weak but strongly sedative antipsychotics) has made only a difference in degree, and at the cost of a wide range of potentially fatal metabolic and other side effects. It now seems distinctly possible that, for half a century, the creation of many millions of Parkinsonian patients has been misinterpreted as a ‘cure’ for schizophrenia. Such a wholesale re-interpretation of antipsychotic therapy represents an unprecedented disaster for the self-image and public reputation of both psychiatry and the whole medical profession. Nonetheless, except as a last resort, antipsychotics should swiftly be replaced by gentler and safer sedatives.

* * *

It is usually said, and I have said it myself, that the invention of antipsychotics was one of the major therapeutic breakthroughs of the twentieth century [1]. But I now believe that this opinion is due for revision, indeed reversal. Antipsychotics have achieved their powerful therapeutic effects at too great a cost, and a cost which is intrinsic to their effect [2, 3]. The cost has been many millions of formerly-psychotic patients who are socially-docile but emotionally-blunted, de-motivated, chronically antipsychotic-dependent and suffering significantly increased mortality rates. Consequently, as a matter of some urgency, antipsychotic prescriptions should be curtailed to the point that they are used only as a last resort.


Behavioral suppression in medicine

Psychiatrists, especially those working in hospitals, have frequent need for interventions to calm and control behavior – either for the safety of the patient or of society. The same applies – less frequently – for other medical personnel dealing with agitation, for example due to delirium or dementia. Broadly speaking, there are two pharmacological methods of suppressing agitated behavior: with sedatives or with antipsychotics [2, 3].
Sedation was the standard method of calming and controlling psychiatric patients for many decades prior to the discovery of antipsychotics, and sedation remained the only method in situations where antipsychotics were not available (eg in the Eastern Bloc and under-developed countries) [3, 4].

The therapeutic benefits of sedation should not be underestimated. In the first place sedation can usually be achieved safely and without sinister side effects; and an improved quality of sleep makes patients feel and function better. Sedation may also be potentially ‘curative’ where sleep disturbance has been so severe and prolonged as to lead to delirium, which (arguably) may be the case for some psychotic patients such as those with mania [2, 5].

But clearly - except in the short term - sedation is far from an ideal method of suppressing agitation. The discovery of antipsychotics offered something qualitatively new in terms of behavioral control: the possibility of powerfully calming a patient without (necessarily) making them sleepy [4]. In practice, sedative antipsychotics (such as chlorpromazine or thioridazine), or a combination of a sedative (such as lorazepam or promethazine) with a less-sedating antipsychotic such as haloperidol or droperidol, were often used to combine both forms of behavioral suppression.


The Parkinsonian core effect of antipsychotics

The Parkinsonian (emotion-blunting and de-motivating) core effect of antipsychotics has been missed by most observers. This failure relates to a blind-spot concerning the nature of Parkinsonism.

Parkinsonism is not just a motor disorder. Although abnormal movements (and an inability to move) are its most obvious feature, Parkinsonism is also a profoundly ‘psychiatric’ illness in the sense that emotional-blunting and consequent de-motivation are major subjective aspects. All this is exquisitely described in Oliver Sack’s famous book Awakenings [10], as well as being clinically apparent to the empathic observer.

Emotional-blunting is de-motivating because drive comes from the ability subjectively to experience in the here-and-now the anticipated pleasure deriving from cognitively-modeled future accomplishments [2]. An emotionally-blunted individual therefore lacks current emotional rewards for planned future activity, including future social interactions, hence ‘cannot be bothered’.

Demotivation is therefore simply the undesired other side of the coin from the desired therapeutic effect of antipsychotics. Antipsychotic ‘tranquillization’ is precisely this state of indifference [8]. The ‘therapeutic’ effect of antipsychotics derives from indifference towards negative stimuli, such as fear-inducing mental contents (such as delusions or hallucinations); while anhedonia and lack of drive are predictable consequences of exactly this same state of indifference in relation to the positive things of life.

So, Parkinsonism is not a ‘side-effect’ of antipsychotics, neither is it avoidable. Instead, Parkinsonism is the core therapeutic effect of antipsychotics: as reflected in the name, which refers to an agent which ‘seizes’ the nervous system and holds it constant (ie. indifferent, blunted) [4]. Demotivation should be regarded as inextricable from the antipsychotic form of tranquillization [2]. And the so-called ‘negative symptoms’ of schizophrenia are (in most instances) simply an inevitable consequence of antipsychotic treatment [4].

By this account, the so-called ‘atypical’ antipsychotics (risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine etc.) are merely weaker Parkinsonism-inducing agents. The behavior-controlling effect of ‘atypicals’ derives from inducing a somewhat milder form of Parkinsonism, combined with strong sedation [11]. However, clozapine is an exception, because clozapine is not a antipsychotic, does not induce Parkinsonism, and therefore (presumably) gets its behavior- controlling therapeutic effect from sedation. The supposed benefit from clozapine of ‘treating’ the ‘negative symptoms of schizophrenia’ (such as de-motivation, lack of drive, asocial behavior etc.) is therefore that – not being a antipsychotic – clozapine does not itself cause these negative symptoms.


What next?

Whatever the historical explanation for the wholesale misinterpretation of antipsychotic actions, recent high profile papers in the New England Journal of Medicine [12, 13] and JAMA [14] have highlighted serious problems with antipsychotics as a class (whether traditional or atypical), and the tide of opinion now seems to turning against them.
In particular the so-called ‘atypical antipsychotics’ which now take up 90 percent of the US market [12], and are increasingly being prescribed to children [6] seem to offer few advantages over the traditional agents [12] while being highly toxic and associated with significantly-increased mortality from metabolic and a variety of other causes [13, 14, 15, 16]. This new data has added weight to the idea that usage of antipsychotics should now be severely restricted [3, 7, 17].

Indeed, it looks as if after some 50 years widespread prescribing there is going to be a massive re-evaluation and re-interpretation of these drugs, with a reversal of their evaluation as a great therapeutic breakthrough. It now seems distinctly possible that for half a century the creation of millions of asocial, antipsychotic-dependent but docile Parkinsonian patients has been misinterpreted as a ‘cure’ for schizophrenia. This wholesale re-interpretation represents an unprecedented disaster for the self-image and public reputation – not just of psychiatry – but of the whole medical profession.

Perhaps the main useful lesson from the emergence of the 'atypical' antipsychotics is that psychiatrists did not need to make all of their agitated and psychotic patients Parkinsonian in order to suppress their behavior. ‘Atypicals’ are weakly antipsychotic but highly sedative. This implies that sedation is probably sufficient for behavioral control in most instances [3, 17]. In the immediate term, it therefore seems plausible that already-existing, cheap, sedative drugs (such as benzodiazepines or antihistamines) offer realistic hope of being safer, equally effective and subjectively less-unpleasant substitutes for antipsychotics in many (if not all) patients.

I would argue that this should happen sooner rather than later. If we apply the test of choosing what treatment we would prefer for ourselves or our relatives with acute agitation or psychosis, knowing what we now know about antipsychotics, I think that many people (perhaps especially psychiatric professionals) would now wish to avoid antipsychotics except as a last resort. Few would be happy to wait a decade or so for the accumulations of a mass of randomized trial data (which may never emerge, since such trials would lack a commercial incentive) before making the choice of less dangerous and unpleasant drugs [17].

But there is no hiding the fact that if antipsychotics were indeed to be replaced by sedatives then this would seem like stepping-back half a century. It would entail an acknowledgement that psychiatry has been living in a chronic delusional state – and this may suggest that the same could apply to other branches of medicine. Since such a wholesale cognitive and organizational reappraisal is unlikely, perhaps the most realistic way that the desired change in practice will be accomplished is not by an explicit ‘return’ to old drugs but by the introduction of a novel (and patentable) class of sedatives which are marketed as having some kind of (more-or-less plausible) new therapeutic role.

Such a new class of tacit sedatives would enable the medical profession to continue its narrative of building-upon past progress, and retain its self-respect; albeit at the price of cognitive evasiveness. But, if such developments led to a major cut-back in antipsychotic prescriptions, then this deficiency of intellectual honesty would be a small price to pay.


References

1. Charlton BG. Clinical research methods for the new millennium. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 1999; 5: 251-263.

2. Charlton B. Psychiatry and the human condition. Radcliffe Medical Press: Oxford, UK, 2000.

3. Moncrieff J, Cohen D. Rethinking models of psychotropic drug action. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 2005; 74: 145-153.

4. Healy D. The creation of psychopharmacology. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.

5. Charlton BG, Kavanau JL. Delirium and psychotic symptoms: an integrative model. Medical Hypotheses. 2002; 58: 24-27.

6. Whitaker R. Mad in America. Perseus Publishing: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2002.

7. Whitaker R. The case against antipsychotic drugs: a 50 year record of doing more harm than good. Medical Hypotheses 2004; 62: 5-13.

8. Healy D. Psychiatric drugs explained. 3rd edition. Churchill Livingstone: Edinburgh, 2002.

9. Healy D, Farquhar G: Immediate effects of droperidol. Human Psychopharmacology 1998; 13: 113-120.

10. Sacks O. Awakenings. London: Picador, 1981.

11. Janssen P. From haloperidol to risperidone. In D Healy (Ed.) The psychopharmacologists. London: Altman, 1998, pp 39-70

12. Lieberman JA, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Rosenheck RA, Perkins DO, Keefe RS, Davis SM, Davis CE, Lebowitz BD, Severe J, Hsiao JK; Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) Investigators. Effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs in patients with chronic schizophrenia. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 353: 1209-23.

13. Wang, Philip S.; Schneeweiss, Sebastian; Avorn, Jerry; Fischer, Michael A.; Mogun, Helen; Solomon, Daniel H.; Brookhart, M. Alan. Risk of Death in Elderly Users of Conventional vs. Atypical Antipsychotic Medications. New England Journal of Medicine 2005; 353: 2335-2341.

14. Schneider LS, Dagerman KS, Insel P. Risk of death with atypical antipsychotic drug treatment for dementia: meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. JAMA 2005; 294: 1934-43.

15. Montout C, Casadebaig F, Lagnaoui R, Verdoux H, Phillipe A, Begaud B, Moore N. Neuroleptics and mortality in schizophrenia: a prospective analysis of deaths in a French cohort of schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia Research 2002; 147-156.

16. Morgan MG, Scully PJ, Youssef HA, Kinsella A, Owens JM, Waddington JL. Prospective analysis of premature mortality in schizophrenia in relation to health service engagement: a 7.5 year study within an epidemiologically complete, homogenous population in rural Ireland. Psychiatry Research. 2003; 117: 127-135.

17. Charlton BG. If 'atypical' neuroleptics did not exist, it wouldn't be necessary to invent them: Perverse incentives in drug development, research, marketing and clinical practice. Medical Hypotheses 2005; 65 :1005-9

*
Modern man needs motivation in a way that did not apply to pre-modern societies where the majority of the population were negatively-motivated by the Malthusian lash of starvation, disease and violence; and where the small minority who were not, were either desperately trying to keep themselves above this maelstrom, or who were clinging to power against multiple rivals who would kill them if successful.

So modern man needs motivation - and that motivation must be strong enough and complex enough and long-termist enough to structure his life; and that is exactly what the secular Leftism which now dominates the developed world some completely and utterly fails to provide.

There are weak, simple and short-termist motivations provided by secular Leftism, of course; for example, envy, hatred, hedonism and sex. These are amplified and channelled into political 'movements' by the mass media, state propaganda, laws and regulations. But clearly they are on the one hand socially destructive, and on the other hand clearly inadequate.

*

My initial interest in Christianity came from a consideration of motivations; and a recognition that the empirical evidence showed that when Christianity was removed from society as an effective source of primary motivation, nothing remotely adequate had replaced it.

And this had led to the characteristic malaise of this late modern period, increasingly evident since the mid-1960s - the collapse into sub-fertility in developed nations combined with staggering growth levels in some undeveloped countries, the active embrace of population replacement by Western elites, and endemic, compulsory dishonesty not only in public discourse (the mass media and all bureaucracies) - but also in science and medicine (those areas I best know from the inside)

The utter helplessness of the developed world stems from demotivation.

This helplessness is willed; it is not just a failure to tackle problems, but a demotivation so profound that it deliberately, systematically, mandatorily avoids even noticing the problems.

*

More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that Man must have a religion or else he will despair, give-up and eventually seek his own extinction (including the extinction of his society).

More than sufficient empirical data is available to show that secularism cannot provide motivation; so the viable choice is a choice between religions. Secular religions (like nationalism, communism, fascism, neo-paganism, New Age spirituality... so many have been thoroughly tried - and they have failed to provide a sustainable alternative - they are negative, demotivating, self-destructive and destructive of good.

*

It seems clear that religion is built-into Man in some sense; and if Man deletes religion then he deletes his motivation.

Does this prove that religion is true? Not exactly prove; but it is more compatible with the truth of religion (at some level, in some way) than it is compatible with the prevalent idea that religion is a pure delusion.

Because a delusion is (almost by definition) dysfunctional - that is how we know it is a delusion - and it is the absence of religion which is demotivating, which is clearly dysfunctional.

*

Of course it is facile for modern people to disbelieve the obvious and commonsensical, and to suppose that there will be some as-yet-undiscovered and non-obvious way of 'fixing' modernity that does not involve religion.

However, the both the present and future lies with religion.

The first decision is therefore whether to try and discover or make a new religion, or adopt an existing religion. It is easy to make a new religion, but very, very difficult to make a motivating new religion. Unless a religion can prove itself motivating enough to stop or reverse destructive trends under real world, modern conditions, then it is probably just a life-style option, rather than a real religion.

Having decided that viable options are restricted to actually existing religions; the next thing is to discover which religion is true, or rather which is true-est since all have considerable elements of truth.

Then it is a question of determining whether we can join, or at least actively support, that religion which we believe to be true/ true-est. In a world where all large institutions are strongly affected by secular Leftism, then this applies to religions and their adherents to some extent - and many or most religions are indeed utterly in-thrall to secular Leftism.

Nonetheless, Man must have a religion; therefore, in some way or another everyone needs to make a choice of religion to support and sustain; and then work-out how that support is t be implemented; in whatever way and to whatever extent they can manage, and which is most effective for them: effectiveness being measured (partly, but necessarily) in terms of motivation.

*

*

Re-reading the interview with Roland Kuhn (discoverer of the first tricyclic antidepressant Imipramine, and thereby discoverer of the concept of antidepressant) in David Healy's The Psychopharmacologists II; I noticed Kuhn's emphasis on the diurnal (daily) cycle of mood in melancholia (also known as endogenous depression), which he regarded as having core diagnostic significance.

*

Patients with endogenous depression tend to wake very early in the morning, feeling terrible and improve somewhat through the day.

This is the opposite of the much commoner 'neurotic' depression, where patients feel worse as the day goes on and have difficulty getting off to sleep.

Kuhn regards the distinctive diurnal rhythm of melancholia as evidence that it is an illness, something which comes-upon the patient rather than a consequence of their personality or being caused by the stresses of life.

*

This is a good argument, and I realized that I did not have any theory as to the cause of the diurnal rhythm.

In general, I have focused on two contributory causes to melacholia:

1. The Malaise theory - that immune activation of cytokines causes feelings of illness, fatigue and the 'vital' or physical signs such as aches, pains, heaviness. This would be a positive cause of misery.

The causes of malaise are the causes of immune activation: infection, autoimmunity, inflammation due to tissue damage, cancer etc.

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/depression.html

http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/psychhuman.html#chap8

2. Demotivation due to central dopamine deficiency,  - this would be a cause of negative phenomena such as anhedonia (inability to feel pleasure) and probably psychomotor retardation (subjective slowing of thought, and observable slowing of response and speech; and reduced movement - resembling Parkinsonism, catatonia and the side effects of antipsychotics/ neuroleptics - which are all dopamine deficiency states).

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/sub-types-of-depression-and-self.html

*

Malaise or dopamine-deficiency-demotivation independently could cause mild to moderate depression, but when these two are powerful, sustained and coincident - perhaps this leads to the (thankfully) very rare phenomenon of severe melancholia.

*

Of these supposed factors in melancholia, it is cytokines (comprising some dozens of related and interacting immune chemicals - interleukins, tumor necrosis factors etc) which are the most most obvious candidate cause for the diurnal rhythm.

Some cytokines (like the interferons) can cause acute depression within minutes if injected; and (from a quick survey of the literature) it seems that some cytokines exhibit diurnal rhythms in blood levels - some seem to peak in the early morning when depressed mood is at its worst.

(Alternatively, some kind of 'analgesic' cytokine - or perhaps cortisol - which protects against low mood may have a trough at the time when mood is worst.)

So it seems possible that a daily cycle in cytokines might lead to daily changes in malaise (feelings of fatigue, aches and pains, and feeling ill) which might drive the cyclical pattern of mood in endogenous depression.

*

So, I am suggesting that the daily cycle of cytokine blood levels drives the daily cycle in depressed mood in melancholia.

This hypothesis is straightforward to test in principle, by recording diurnal changes in mood and behaviour and charting them against frequent sampling of cytokines (and perhaps other immune chemicals including cortisol).

The hypothesis would be that the profile of mood change (severity of depression) would superimpose on the profile of cytokine change - probably with some time lag between the chemical change and the effect on mood.

*

But this would be extremely difficult to test in practice.

Melancholia is rare, with an incidence of probably only tens of cases per million population per year; and most of these would be too severe to conduct research on (especially research requiring multiple and frequent blood samples) and it is dubious whether such patients could give informed consent to research anyway.

(The problem is stopping such patients committing suicide (or becoming dehydrated) while waiting for them to recover; and the effective treatments with tricyclic drugs, and the possibility of electroconvulsive therapy every few days, might well be expected to interfere with cytokines.)

*

Still, the idea of cytokine rhythms causing diurnal mood patterns seems worth floating as a potential way of comprehending this core feature of melancholia, and an idea which may at some point become testable indirectly in a few patients - even if not testable in large trials, or by an obvious and direct experiment using current technology.

This is one of those times when politics forces-itself into the spiritual life.

I find it hard to ignore (what seems to be) the fact that my country, England, is right in the midst of the single most crucial time of my life. Whatever happens about Brexit; I feel that the most important thing has, perhaps, already happened; which is a deep loss of belief in the good intentions of politicians and the ruling class; such loss affecting everyone except the administrative class themselves.

Up to now, and for many decades, the English have pretended to disbelieve in the good intentions of their rulers - but this was superficial. It was merely 'grumbling'. It made no difference to compliance; and the English have gone-along-with almost everything their rulers suggested or imposed. The masses 'consented' to being ruled; albeit tacitly and without enthusiasm.

Now that grumbling disbelief in good intentions has become real.

For the first time in, probably, centuries; England is on the verge of becoming one of the (many) nations where the populace at large loathe and fear their rulers; where the rulers govern without consent.


This has not happened by accident. It is a consequence of a change in the mainstream ideology of ruling that began fifty years ago but has worked-through only slowly. 

The new thing about the current brand of totalitarianism, is the shift from the Old Left claiming to rule for the good of The People - i.e. rule on-behalf-of the Majority; to the New Left ruling to protect 'minorities' from The People - i.e. rule justified on the basis that the Majority are evil and need to be restrained and retrained.

(I am here assuming what is true: that The Left includes all mainstream political parties, all mainstream public discourse both in the mass media and officially, all the leadership of all the main social institutions and organisations and corporations. The Left rules, and the Left is all the rulers.) 


This is why the modern British rulers are perfectly happy, indeed delighted, to thwart the will of the masses on a permanent basis; to reject the Brexit which a large majority of English people want very strongly to be implemented - because the rulers regard the will of the English people as exactly the bad thing which they exist in order to thwart.

The rulers now (and for some decades) claim their moral legitimacy for control on the basis of protecting 'minorities' from The People. This has been a vast, tidal change - an inversion - in the rationale of government.

But until now most people have not been explicitly aware of it - Brexit has made it undeniable.


There is now an absolute division between the morality of the rulers and the ruled - and the ruling morality will only be supported by the ruled insofar as the masses agree that they themselves are the problem; and that they 'need to be defended from themselves' by a benign and enlightened elite.

To the extent that this is believed (and to some extent it has indeed been internalised by some people, especially among the intellectual classes) the inevitable result is a profound despair and demotivation.

So the rulers attempt to control the population by (deliberately) inducing despair and demotivation; and the more effective the rulers, the greater the misery and inertia of the masses... Meanwhile, the rulers regard opposition from the People - their cowed, resenting and reluctant state - as evidence that they are doing the morally correct thing...

It does not take a genius to recognise that this is unsustainable; and what cannot be sustained will not be sustained.


Since it is a fact that literally nobody can, no matter how hard they try, regard the current UK government as a 'benign and enlightened elite' - then our government has (Here, Now, Today) precisely zero legitimacy in the hearts and minds of those who are governed.

The age of (however reluctant...) Government By Consent has come to a close; and the new era of Government explicitly-against consent has arrived.

In other and simpler words; the actually-existing tyranny is now recognised.

And that must and will make a big difference to everything.

   

*

The major psychiatric drugs fall into three categories: Corrective, symptomatic and counter-pathological.

Corrective drugs (when they work) tend to correct the underlying pathology; symptomatic drugs (when they work) do not affect the underlying pathology but relieve troublesome symptoms; while counter-pathological drugs create an alternative pathology that (in some way) tends to counter troublesome symptoms.

1. Corrective

An example are the psychostimulant drugs, such as amphetamines or methylphenidate ('Ritalin'). These are drugs which increase central dopaminergic activity - and are generally used in people where dopaminergic activity is low or deficient.

Some tranquillizers such as benzodiazepines (or the earlier 'Miltown'/ meprobamate) act to diminish anxiety states, probably by damping-down the same brain systems which cause anxiety - and could perhaps be regarded as corrective.  

I would place electroshock/ electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in the corrective category. It probably works partly by normalizing the coordination of the brain (as seen in the 'brainwaves' of the EEG) and breaking a positive feedback loop of sleep disturbance leading to behavioural change which perpetuates sleep disturbance - as happens in ECT treatment of severe melancholia with psychosis, in mania and acute schizophrenia. The therapeutic effect of ECT on, for example Parkinson's disease and Catatonia, also suggests that dopaminergic deficiency states are corrected.

*

2. Symptomatic

Tricyclic antidepressants such as Imipramine and Amitriptyline can be used to treat moderately severe 'endogenous' depression, where they probably act as analgesics/ pain killers to treat symptoms of malaise (fatigue, aches and pains, 'feeling ill'), treat insomnia and reduced appetite/ weight loss.

Hypnotics, or sleeping drugs (strong sedatives) are used to treat insomnia, and also the psychotic results of sleep disturbance and deprivation. 

*

3. Counter-pathology

Neuroleptic/ antipsychotic drugs cause symptoms of Parkinson's disease, and this pathology may counteract the symptoms of psychotic illness such as agitation - the demotivation which comes with Parkinsonism tends to make people docile, stops them listening to hallucinatory voices, stops them acting upon delusional ideas.  

Lithium also produces the counter-pathology of emotional blunting - and this can be used to treat mania; and to prevent manic or depressive breakdowns.

SSRIs when used to treat anxiety and mild depression produce a milder version of the demotivation and emotional blunting of neuroleptics (because SSRIs are chemically related to neuroleptics, being derived from the same antihistamines as are neuroleptics). Thus people with emotional instability, anxiety, panic, phobias, shyness etc. - may have these symptoms implores by the counter-pathology of emotional blunting.

*

There is a hierarchy implicit in this classification system: the most effective treatments (potentially) are corrective (although they may have other problems, such as addiction); while the worst treatments are counter-pathological - since even when effective on the target problems these will always have significant 'side effects' because the core 'side effects' are in fact the counter-pathology caused by treatment. 

*

In this UK and US election year, people are induced to focus on power, and what they think they might do with it if they got it - or what those we most dislike might do it us if the power went to them. 

But in a society in which evil motivations predominate - and where personal motivation is at an all-time historical nadir - such that people are easily induced to be motivated for or against almost anything, and then abandon or reverse this motivation on a sixpence... 

In such a society of endemic, pervasive, near-universal demotivation and false motivations - the distribution of power is of very subordinate relevance.   

Unless the problem of motivation is first solved - that is, unless people are motivated towards Good rather than evils, and their motivations are internal and personal rather than passively responsive to external manipulation - then distribution of power is almost irrelevant. 

In a situation where Good is absent altogether (or motivated so feebly as to be a misleading distraction); we can (and are encouraged to) analyse and quibble about the lesser of evils, which particular fake-puppet-personality we prefer from a cast of obedient-drones and controllable-psychopaths.

But all available options are wrongly-motivated; therefore all options are evil - and, in a complicated and chaotic world - a world consisting of distortion, hype and outright lies; which particular option is the least evil cannot be predicted.  

The imperative is to recognize just how very bad things are - ultimately in a spiritual sense - and that from this spiritual corruption comes the situation of endemic, pervasive, near-universal demotivation and false motivations. 

Hardly anyone I speak-with or read seems remotely to realize the depth and extent of our current civilizational malaise - and this indictment includes all the most famous and influential "dissenting" voices.

From where we actually are, the only positive way forward entails a transformation and reversal of many of those assumptions that we hold most dear, or regard as obvious and unchallengeable. 

That is just how it is. 

Whether it is at all likely to happen is another matter! But that's what must happen - else present trends will continue towards predictably destructive ends. 

*

Yesterday's post was an attempt to describe the problem of overpopulation - which is not something that can be understood by focusing purely on population: indeed the bulk of the problem arises from the mind-set which sees 'population' statistics (numbers of people) as as isolate-able concept.

*

But over-population is linked to differential population reproduction - such that the average individual in The West is in the mid forties, while in other parts of the world in their late teens.

(Just think about that! Some places where half the population is above 44; others where half the population is below 18!)

And differential population growth/ decline is related to massive recent and current population migrations.

And both population growth/ decline and movements are linked to massive cross subsidies from developed places and people to undeveloped places and people.

*

The general perception of this whole thing is embedded in the weird world view of the New Left secularism - so that in the first place people are unaware of what is happening, in the second place they are not allowed to discuss what is happening, in the third place insofar as they have any opinions on what is happening they are either wrong or irrelevant...

At the end of the day - if the reality of the world situation can be communicated - then it is simply too much for people to take on board; because the problems are so vast, and probably - very probably - some kind of vast crisis seems unstoppable.

So often this is the case: the people who advocate looking at the Big Picture are either dishonest about what they see; or if they are honest, their heads explode.

*

My angle is that it is not up to us to look at the Big Picture and solve all problems before they arise; but to try and be sensible and prudent - in particular to try and stop making things worse.

What is happening nowadays, in terms of population, is very bad indeed; not just because of over-population, but because of the changes in the composition and distribution of over-population; because of what fuels over-population - the unrealism, the inability to acknowledge the consequences of short term action, the inability to make tough decisions which are worse in the short term in order to be better in the longer term - and an hysterical perspective which has it that dumb, selfish, short-termism is the only compassionate way to behave...

The current situation is that people continue to do almost everything possible that makes the population problem worse - now and into the future; and they do this (in a sense) because they cannot see a way of curing the problem.

*

Because we cannot altogether prevent disaster, people continue making the situation worse; in effect people refuse to stop behaving badly, because to behave properly would not be a complete answer.

We thus have a public, and increasingly private, ethic of helplessness; based on dichotomous thinking of an all or nothing kind - characterized by the set-up that because 'all' is impossible, therefore we must chose nothing; because behaving as sensibly as we can does not solve all the problems and may not avert disaster, then we might as well do nothing - indeed, the reasoning goes that we therefore might as well continue to make matters worse...

I don't think this is a caricature: I think this is how people so things nowadays; how people excuse themselves from even trying to behave sensibly.

*

Across the board we see a pattern of denying that there is a problem until the point when it becomes so big as to be undeniable; at which point its size becomes a reason for doing nothing - not even changing the direction of our efforts - because 'it is too late'.

This is a sickness, a state of sin, at the heart of our secular hedonic Leftist civilization - it is a product of profound existential despair, and the cowardice of demotivation - it is permeating a lot of people, right into their hearts - and it will be fatal unless cured.

*

I have noticed that there is an anti-Christian dog-whistle sounding when people rail against Certainty - and advocate doubt and permanent seeking as a higher path.

As usual, there is a grain of truth and insight that enables the evil to thrive.


That grain is our innate and spontaneous desire for a life of 'ing' rather than stasis. Aside from a small minority of intellectual mystics (who crave one-ess, stasis beyond time, ego-annihilation etc); most people's idea of the Good Life and of paradise is dynamic and rooted in personal relationships.

Therefore a life of doubting and seeking sounds more alive, more real, than static certainty.


Another (different) partial truth in the criticism of certainty is that certainty leads to motivation, and when people are motivated they are capable of great courage and hard work - and courage and hard work may be used to accomplish great evil.

A group of people who are certain usually have strong cohesion, amplifying the possibilities of accomplishment - including the accomplishment of nasty things.


(Thus the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany - Nazis - were highly certain of their rightness - and they were motivated, coherent and very hard working in the evils they accomplished (as well as the good). and they are unique paradigms of evil to the modern 'mind': therefore (so it goes) Certainty must be evil... Or, at least, Certainty must be evil when it is anti-communist, because the zeal of communist fanatics is admired - whether covertly or often explicitly.)   


Therefore it is plausible to rail against certainty on moral grounds - and advocate in favour of perpetual doubt and open-ended exploring - so long at people do not think any further about the matter.

And of course, very few people nowadays are capable or willing of thinking more than one, or at most two step along an argument. So they don't notice that in vilifying Certainty they are advocating powerlessness, paralysis, demotivation, nihilism and despair...

Now, for the powers of evil this is a feature, not a bug: it is precisely why evil has been so insistent that Certainty is A Bad Thing. Because, as always with mainstream modern leftism - principles are unilaterally applied. In particular, certainty is regarded as A Bad Thing for Christians.


When mainstream modern people slam certainty, they are slamming their usual (usually covert) target of 'fundamentalist' Christians - i.e. they are vilifying real Christians, those whose faith dominates their lives and thought.

They are not attacking the certainties of The Left. The Left are absolutely 100% certain of the goodness and univeral applicability of Equality, Feminism, Abortion, Affirmative Action, the Sexual Revolution, Human Rights and many other topics.

(Just try opening a conversation on the comparative pros and cons of slavery in the United States - and you will see Certainty in Action.)

Leftist principles Must Be regarded with unexamined and unqualified approval. They must Not be doubted ever, nor even discussed in any analytic fashion. Anyone who does - who makes any remark (no matter how brief or contextual) other than unqualified and uncritical total acceptance - is vilified without restraint and (if possible) their lives will be destroyed.

The covert message is: Un-certainty is necessary for You; but as for me and mine, we know we are true...


The attack on certainty is a part of the spiritual war between God and the powers of evil; and in this war, servants and dupes of the powers of evil dominate the Global Establishment and the leadership of all large and powerful Institutions - including the mass media. 

So, while there is some partial truth in criticising Certainty (else such criticism would not be effective); its true status is as a dishonest rhetorical weapon, to be strategically deployed to undermine Christianity specifically - and flowing from that to undermine any commitment to things of which the left disapproves such as monogamous marriage and the family.

The Establishment are on 'relativists' when it comes to their enemies - and absolutists among themselves. When it comes to their own principles and policies; they are dogmatic, uncritical, blind, blinkered and one-sided. They are certain, and They insist upon certainty in others.


Thus about half of the activity of the mass media (especially its entertainment branch)  consists in seeding and encouraging 'doubts' about Christianity and the Family; in advocating that such people (and only such people) be Not certain ('dogmatic', 'blinkered'); but instead be 'open', and 'progressive'.   

Not to be open and progressive about leftism is to be blinded by ignorant zeal or consumed by evil intent...


Happy endings come to those who are certain of the virtues of Leftism; while those who are dogmatic about Christianity and Christian morality have bad outcomes...  

By such means They intend to disempower and demoralise the forces on the side of God and the Good.

In my time working in the UK universities and National Health Service - these functions were brought under managerial control, and integrated into The System which (since early 2020) is now global. 

The almost complete surrender of power by academics and doctors happened almost entirely without coercion. Why? 

Essentially, deeply, due to the lack of motivation and courage from living as godless-expedient hedonists (i.e. regarding mortal life as wholly about 'utility'), on the basic of incoherent (increasingly inverted) Leftist values. 

Lacking any positive transcendent values (truth, beauty, virtue, coherence...); modern people, especially Westerners, are easier to control than any group I have heard of throughout history. 

But how did this control operate proximately? The answer could be termed pre-emptive compliance. 

The management (whether national or local) would announce what was going to happen - some new scheme to strip autonomy from academics and subordinate teaching, research, scholarship under administrative control; or some new, extra, unpaid and harmful bureaucratic tasks...

And always the mass reaction was 1. to assume that this was inevitable and that 'resistance is futile'; and 2. therefore to comply instantly and with feigned enthusiasm. 

There was essentially zero mass resistance, yet those individuals who did refuse to comply were - for many years - left alone; showing that mass resistance would likely have been effective. 

In other words - the mass of people responded pre-emptively to threats: threats were made, and people obeyed... Obeyed even before threats were implemented, obeyed even when threats were not implemented! 

Scaled-up this has been the story of The West over the past several generations. Coercion to enforce totalitarian tyranny was very seldom needed or used, because compliance was automatic and instant - despite that there has been very widespread cynicism concerning the motivations of the bureaucracy and politicians whose instructions were being so slavishly obeyed. 

This is a measure of our spiritual malaise - the West has quietly, obediently and pre-emptively complied with each step of a now System which covers all nations and regions, and claims authority over all aspects of human existence including family, church, and a Man's private thoughts - i.e. a global totalitarianism. 

And there has been extremely little need for coercion, because the world has complied automatically and instantly; which is evidence of an extreme level of human demotivation due to gross insufficiency of any inner and positive convictions that might provide a basis for, even conceptualized a need for, resistance.

That is the point. We are not seeing merely a global 'failure' of resistance; but a global failure to recognize any need for resistance: that is, a failure to have any reason for resistance of a totalitarianism which is evil both intrinsically (in that universal control is of-itself evil) and also evil explicitly, in its agenda.  

Our spiritual malaise is therefore much, much worse than most people seem to realize. People talk as if what was lacking is means to resist evil (they usually mean some kind of organization); but the much deeper problem is a lack even of the basic desire to resist evil. 

And this stems from a false basic understanding of the nature of reality - false metaphysical assumptions about the world - consequence of generations of apostasy from Christianity combined with a pervasive 'materialism' that by-now permeates traditional Christianity.

If, on the other hand; you are personally motivated Not to comply - because you have strong positive motivations with which compliance interferes and/or because you regard totalitarianism as evil by nature and/or intent - then you do not need a plan for non-compliance. 

One simply does not comply - and wait to see what (if anything) happens. Sometimes nothing happens.

If there are threats (and there will be) they are ignored. Often they lead to nothing. So one waits to see if the threats really are going to be implemented - sometimes they are not.

If the threats are implemented - which is relatively rare, because resource-consuming; one may still refuse to comply.

Or one may delay complaince: comply as late as possible (to make Them make extra effort - sometimes they will not)

One may continue to disobey except when specifically told to obey - that is: refuse to self-police... make Them do it (so They must expend effort); behaviour is adjusted reactively, not pre-emptively.

Evil plans and threats are cheap hence innumerable - an accurate response is that each will only happen when it has happened.

And even then evil will only continue happening either due to continued effort and resource expenditure from those who want it to happen - or else because of the chosen surrender to evil of pre-emptive compliance and self-policing. 

In sum - resistance to evil has many levels and degrees - most are 'passive' (a matter of non-compliance); most are about delaying in hope of unforeseen providential assistance, not all require heroism and some at least are possible even to the most timid. 

Enough delay, from enough people, for the right motivations; will provide God with everything He needs to make a cohesive, positive, alternative, better future. 

God helps those who help themselves is both true, and exclusive: God helps only those who help themselves. 

If individual people do not make choices, for good and against evil - then God cannot pursue good ends in this mortal world. But when some people do know and choose the side of God; then by the invisible working of providence (possible to The Creator) then an unknowably great deal can be achieved by combining and sequencing these individual acts. 

Any individual who is motivated to do good or resist evil, will find sufficient discernment and some courage. And then each such act can be woven-with other such acts, by God, into a divine plan of scope far beyond the wit of Man. 

But what all require is motivation - and motivation is based on an understanding of reality that identifies and distinguishes between good and evil, and the capacity to discern this for oneself (not relying on 'authority' to inform you) - it requires a perspective that we are each responsible for our own choices, and that individual choice is of genuine significance, and makes-a-difference.  

In other words, resistance needs a transcendental perspective - one that is larger than this mortal life; and it also needs a personal perspective - that regards an individual's as able to make choices and those choices as having cosmic significance. 

I don't know of anything other than Christianity - and even then only some kinds of Christianity - that can (even in principle) lead to such a combination of personal and transcendental motivations; and therefore sustain even the desire to resist totalitarian evil.   

*

To summarize...

Political correctness is a delusional system, based on thought disorder; that is to say it is false, dominating and un-tested against reality, because the cognitive process underlying PC is fragmented, non-consecutive.

*

PC depends upon at least two conditions: an intellectual ruling elite and a mass media.

The intellectual ruling elite are necessary, because only they have the disposition for abstraction, the preference to regard ideas as real, and to privilege ideas even when they are in conflict with (apparent) reality.

The mass media are necessary because the media are the cognitive process, the mode of thinking, of modern societies.

*

Political correctness is a mixture of bureaucratic Old Left and subjective New Left, the interspersion of a system of communist/ Fabian central planning with irruptions of counter-cultural hedonism.

*

The difference between the late Soviet Union in the Brezhnev era and political correctness in the West, is the presence of a mass media.

In the Soviet Union the media were instruments of state propaganda, they were dull and the amount of media was kept low.

In the West, the mass media are primarily attention-grabbing, vast and still growing, the content is vivid and varied.

*

Perhaps the New Left 1960s counter-culture would have happened even without a mass media to report and record it?

Perhaps the children of the intellectual elite would still have rebelled against the dullness, boredom and alienation of modernity - even if they were not being shown on TV and in newspapers?

But without the mass media, student revolutionaries would have had no lasting influence on national life.

Inchoate, hedonic rebellion is of itself fragmented, directionless and unsustainable.

It fizzles out.

*

But as it happened, the mass media was there, and the New Left did not fizzle out, but became integral to the mass media, which is to say that it became part of the West's cognitive process.

*

Of course, the New Left cannot be integrated with the Old Left, visceral hedonism cannot be fused with bureaucracy.

But they can be alternated.

The Old Left bureaucracy is the basis and mechanism of governance, that which holds together society, that which provides that which is provided.

But Old Left bureaucracy on its own is intolerable, a mere machine for growing itself.

The New Left injected into this (periodically) qualities such as excitement (e.g. sexual), purpose - or at least direction (greater pleasure - less suffering), and variety (e.g. multi-culturalism, the 'other').

The New Left made the Old Left interesting and inspiring and idealistic - but at a cost.

The cost of incoherence, of delusion, of psychosis.

*

What was necessary to sustain the New Left countercultural spirit was that it became connected-with Old Left bureaucracy.

Away from the mass media, the connection is intermittent - in the mass media the connection is apparent.

Some mistook the modern mass media for mere propaganda - it is indeed propaganda, but not merely.

Some mistook the modern mass media for mere entertainment - it is indeed entertainment, but not merely, 

The Eastern Bloc media were indeed merely propaganda - dull recitations of 'the party line'. Pure content.

Parts of the Western media have indeed been mere entertainment - 'chewing gum for the eyes'. Pure form.

But the characteristic, overall tendency of the Western mass media relates to both content and form, and is focused on a core of mainstream media which dominate intellectual elite discourse.

*

The Western mass media consists of competing institutions, which force it to be attention-grabbing, and drive its continual expansion.

The modern mass media is itself politically correct (staffed by the leftist intellectual elite) and also the virtual arena for the perpetual warfare of of political correctness.

The battle ground of PC with its enemies (the Old Left, conservatives, libertarians) is the mass media; and this battle is itself a major - perhaps the major - content of the mass media.

*

The battle of good PC versus wicked reaction is of course depicted in the news and documentary 'factual' mass media content - but also in the fictional, narrative content.

And of course these categories overlap - much of the purported factual content being actually fictional; much of the fictional stories and speculations actually being factual (by being treated as implicitly fictional and speculative, they become grist to the media mill rather than triggering real world responses).

*

The modern mass media therefore both coerces and trains elite intellectual discourse - and it does this by content to an important extent, but more importantly by form.

It is from the media that the modern intellectual elite has learned how to think; has learned how to alternate between Old and New Left, between a baseline of rational bureaucracy and frequent irruptions of unbounded utopian idealism. 

The mass media disciplines intellectuals and organizations who endanger political correctness: disciplines by exclusion, by demonization, and like an inquisition by targeting the anti-PC for action by 'the secular arm'.

*

And the fragmentary structure of the modern mass media itself shapes discourse.

The underlying leftism of both personnel and the bureaucratic system (both are necessary) provides the default politically correct assumptions against which anti-PC intellectuals are requires to prove their contentions.

But the fragmentary and alternative cognitive process of the mass media makes such proof systematically impossible.

*

Once political correctness is established then the psychotic cognitive process of the media ensures that it is insulated from challenge, insulated from reality. 

The modern intellectual elite are trained in this Old/ New Left PC cognitive style by the media, they are evaluated on their competence and commitment to this mode of PC discourse (and excluded from power if they are deficient in either respect), and they deploy it as a default wherever they dominate.

So - the necessary source of the PC delusion is the modern mass media, but this is not sufficient - PC also requires an intellectual ruling elite (and not a military or practical or priestly ruling elite).

*

If either the mass media or the intellectual elite were removed, then PC would collapse.

If the mass media were removed, then PC would collapse into Brezhnev-style centrally-planned communism (which would eventually collapse from demotivation).

If the intellectual elite were removed from power, then PC would be reality-tested and would rapidly collapse into reactionary politics: probably theocracy (or mystical nationalism) if the society is to remain at a large scale - or if theocracy is not effective, then small-scale tribalism. 

*

Intuition is spontaneous - in the sense that it emerges from our true self. And - if you word search this blog for such terms as Intuition, Primary Thinking or Final Participation - you will see that I regard nothing as more important (here and now) than the development (and thus takeover from childhood instinct and adolescent intellect) of spiritually grown-up, intuitive thinking.

Why doesn't intuition just happen - when we want it; why is it so difficult?

One difficulty is that intuitive thinking must be consciously chosen - it doesn't just happen. But given it is possible, why is it is so very difficult - when my assumption is that this evolutionary development of consciousness is our divine destiny?

Leftism is a big reason; because Leftism blocks our spiritual development (as well as blocking real Christian faith). And Leftism blocks our spiritual development by crushing intuitive thinking.


Consider what Leftism does? It takes a spontaneous, unconscious, and correct intuition - then labels it as evil. Differences in ability and personality between social classes; differences between men and women and the identity of man or woman; recognition and classification of racial distinctions; the ethic of favouring family over non-relatives - or favouring natives and neighbours over foreigners and strangers... all these are examples of intuitions which Leftism simultaneously denies and demonises.

Leftism is indeed a systematic denial of our intuitions, in one area of life after another: first by subversion (inducing uncertainty), then denial (i.e. destruction), ultimately by inversion (so that we are induced to believe and act-upon the opposite of whatever intuition tells us).


(Once Leftism has stabbed us with deep lies, it delights in twisting the knife by mandatory stark contradictions - asserting that there are no differences between the sexes or races; yet simultaneously different... for instance women and non-whites are are superior in desirable attributes. Yet when such superiorities are accepted, then denial of any differences -and the evilness or noticing them - is recommenced. And so on...)


This crushing of individual intuition is how Leftism enforces the Ahrimanic evil of bureaucracy - and (by intent) transhumanism.

How may it be overcome, and intuition validated? The answer is: by bringing all the processes to awareness.

Intuitions begin as spontaneous and unconscious. These are then 'unmasked' by Leftism, mocked and vilified.

The proper response is to thank Leftism for having helped make conscious, and therefore free, that which was previously unconscious and therefore unfree.


Once we are aware of the reality and nature of our intuitions - something assisted by Leftism's organised, sustained and focused attempts to crush them - then we are able to choose to adopt intuitive thinking from the full agency of our true selves.

Probably, this is the divinely-intended role of Leftist thinking - as a temporary clarification and conscious-making our previously unexamined (because unconscious) assumptions. Our culture has become stuck in what was intended to be a brief temporary phase.

For us to mature spiritually towards divinity, and to move towards Final Participation characteristic of Heavenly life, this development of intuitive consciousness is necessary. Yet so long as a person (or group) makes Leftism the primary ideology; such a vital development will be blocked.

The West is a case of arrested spiritual development - bereft of the deepest source of wisdom and courage; with potentially lethal consequences including nihilism, demotivation and suicidal despair.

Hence - in a world already and increasingly dominated by Leftism in all aspects of public/ institutional discourse and life - we have become individually and collectively crazy and evil. For us the realistic choice is intuition or hell.  

*

I read a report about Schizophrenia services on the BBC (it was everywhere in the media) which contains a number of recommendations for government, and wondered who was the charity from which this report originated: a group called Rethink Mental Illness.

That is its name - Rethink Mental Illness!

Wikipedia (but not the charity website) revealed that Rethink... was a new name for the old established National Schizophrenia Fellowship.

And that Rethink... is almost wholly funded by the UK government, with some top-up from Pharmaceutical companies.

So Rethink... is not a charity at all - it is a government agency; a branch of the civil service.

*

What we have here - objectively, not as a matter of my opinion - is one branch of the government lobbying another branch of the government for more money; and the whole process labelled and presented as a radical conceptual re-framing akin to the 1960s anti-psychiatry movement.

*

The exceedingly unfortunate people with schizophrenia, and the equally unfortunate people (including children and teenagers) who have nothing of the kind but are compelled on pseudo-medical grounds to take and become physically-dependent upon 'antipsyschotic' drugs, which produce horrible effects including precisely the demotivation and un-employability of which this report complains... these people are just so many counters in the media spin on a bureaucratic inter-departmental wrangle over funding+.

*

Meanwhile, back in reality, the incidence of schizophrenia (as contrasted with 'early interventions' on people who have not and never would have schizophrenia) is declining...

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000447.full

...which in the normal course of events would lead to a reduction in services; especially making saving on the expensive process of destroying healthy lives and manufacturing chronic patients by coercively prescribing expensive (on-patent) antipsychotics/ 'mood stabilizers' as an excuse for creating jobs for actively-harmful officials, warders and tormenters that are masquerading as health care employees.

*

+ Reference: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/charlton-bg.html

*

Many serious Christians have noticed that they know of extremely few people, as a proportion - and indeed in absolute numbers - who are Not aligned with evil. 

That is the case whether you accept the broad validity of the Satanic litmus tests as an indicator of spiritual affiliation, or if you simply go by those who accept the truthfulness, virtue and authority of the Global Establishment.

But if it is trivially easy to see that most people of whom you know are on the side of the demons; how can you discern those who are on the side of God, Good and creation? 

Well, for a start, there are several things which do Not work:

It does not work to look at what people say about such matters - evil people lie. Whereas - apparently - in the past it was not possible for demons to speak the name of Jesus or recite the Lord's Prayer - that does not apply now. Demon-servants will spout orthodox theology, and swear on the Bible that lies are true. 

And 'good' behaviour is not a useful discriminator either - indeed most of the most well-behaved (law-abiding, decent, kind) people are very obviously on the wrong side. Conversely, God-affiliated Christians will certainly be sinners - and will know they are sinners; having recognized and repented their sins - although we may not know this. Indeed, it is quite likely that those on the side of God will - in worldly terms - be worse-behaved on average than those against God. 

On the other hand; a serious Good-allied Christian will not consistently deny or advocate sin. Yet he may do so when under duress, from weakness, or in dark moods - since mortal Man is a fragile and changeable being... 

In other words, perhaps nobody is on the side of God 24/7 without any doubts or lapses. But this is not a cause for despair, because the fact was perfectly explicit from the very beginning of Jesus's ministry. And, after all, the core of Christianity is about what happens after we die, rather than in this mortal life; so any mortal life behaviours can only be proxy correlates of that spiritual choice.  

How, then, can a Christian tell an ally from a foe? The answer is: by the intuitive discernment of the heart. 

This works very well (if we let it) in real life personal relationships - where we can infer if this particular person really wants (here and now, at the time of evaluation) to follow Jesus through death to immortal resurrected life in Heaven. 

Such a person may change their mind in the future, such is the nature of human agency - but we can know about Now. 

And when it comes to evaluating people we have not met, who are not in our environment; it is (here and now, in 20201) easy to discern that nearly-all such public figures are evil-affiliated - because they make that fact very clear indeed. 

...And will support each other in their evil - while ganging-up to attack and (in some way) destroy any of their own who make any single or slight statement in support of truth, virtue or beauty. 

Yet those who are thus attacked for 'hate facts' are nonetheless nearly-all themselves unrepentantly evil affiliated - so we cannot use that as a way to identify those aligned with Good.

I personally look for the virtue of courage, as a preliminary way of identifying those who are affiliated with God - in particular self-sacrificing courage - so long as that sacrifice is genuine (and not a media trick, as so often). 

In a world of mass demotivation and cowardice, courage stands-out as being possibly sustained by God - so long as this type of courage can be distinguished from psychopathic-selfish recklessness. 

The greatest courage is, perhaps, the courage to behave (by choice) such as to be humiliated and regarded as a dangerous-fool by those with the most power, wealth, status and influence. The greatest, because this is a genuinely dangerous situation. 

Not much can sustain a person in such a situation except that courage which comes from faith in God and trust in Jesus Christ as saviour; therefore it is unlikely that anyone would place themselves in such a situation unless they were on the side of God. 

 

However, even self-sacrificing courage can be simulated for public consumption; so in the end we must rely on the thinking of the heart - on that intuition which combines our own inner divine nature with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

We make a discernment (and this may need to be swift): and then make our commitment. 

We must and will judge; and act on our judgment - and be prepared to repent our judgment if it turns-out to be mistaken. 

But let us not feel crushed or intimidated! 

With light and high hearts - with warm hearts - let us embrace the necessity to discern our allies, make the right choices, and accept the consequences with courage.

(...Whatever those consequences may be; and that, Nobody knows.) 

The Angry Young Men was a largely nonsensical media coinage for what was supposed to be the new generation of post WWII writers - the term was launched in 1956 by the play Look Back in Anger by John Osborne and The Outsider by Colin Wilson.

I became aware of the Angries only after discovering The Outsider in the summer of 1978, having read Kingsley Amis's novel Lucky Jim a year before (which, although from 1953 is usually regarded as an 'Angry' book; it is one of the funniest books I have ever read). For some reason I became very interested in the general idea of the 1950s at this point; and took to listening to Trad Jazz and wearing a corduroy jacket with leather patches - with or without trademark polo neck sweater.

I sampled a wide range of the literary output of the fifties - but aside from Colin Wilson I must admit I did not find very much to enjoy. Among those mentioned in this book I did not take to John Wain, Stuart Holroyd, JP Donleavy, Samuel Beckett, Arnold Wesker, Alan Sillitoe - and I never read John Braine or Kenneth Tynan.

I wasted a lot of time reading Amis, without finding anything else anything like as good as Lucky Jim - although his second and third novels (That Uncertain Feeling and I Like It Here) both had good stuff in them. Look Back In Anger was certainly original and had a kind of energy - but watching it was a torment; and Osborne's other works were entirely without interest.

I don't like it nowadays, but Iris Murdoch's first novel - Under The Net - was a favourite re-read for several years. And of course that miserable so-and-so Phillip Larkin (who is sometimes, absurdly, regarded as an Angry) was our last really worthwhile English poet.

Despite this long term interest, I have only just read Colin Wilson's account of the era. Especially considering the book was written in his mid-seventies - there is a lot of detail and energy in it - and I found it well-organised. Although I should warn that this book is certainly depressing in its sordid litany of lives ruined by drink, drugs, dissipation, sexual promiscuity and marital infidelities - Wilson is actually pursuing a thesis throughout: he clearly had a philosophical, almost spiritual reason for writing the book about his contemporaries and their successes and failures.

Indeed, as he approached the end of his life, Wilson seemed to be returning to the same focus as his second philosophical book: Religion and the Rebel - the necessity of a spiritual awakening, that Man needed a religion in order to live well. At times Wilson seems to argue himself right up to the very edge of theism, especially when analysing the demotivation and despair which overwhelmed so many of his friends, colleagues and acquaintances.

But to return to the theme of sex - and there is a lot about it; my conviction was again reinforced that sex has always been the nemesis of the recurrent romanticism revivals since 1800 - and that is what the Angry Young Men were. They were the British equivalent of the US Beat Generation, or the French Existentialists; and therefore in origin an 'attempted' or embryonic spiritual revival.

Whatever high ideals and ambitions were harboured by the best of these writers was wrecked on the writers unrepentant embrace and celebration of the sexual revolution. This took away much of the energy, created an atmosphere of exploitation and dishonesty, and blocked-off the only answer they could ever have found: Christianity. Consequently, they largely wasted their time and lives, running round in circles, showing off, and making excuses.

The modern Western elites are very brittle - necessarily so, because their complex, artificial and ever more unnatural ideology is under pinned merely by secular hedonic nihilism (weaker than any religion - too weak even to sustain replacement level birth rates) - which is a motivational basis that is only effective when fed by continual inputs of endorsement, confirmation and fear.

So the modern elites are sickening - both in the Good-inverted belief systems which they have elaborated and impose on The West; and in the fact that they are getting ever feebler, more cowardly... ever closer to the paralysis of despair.

At present they have whipped themselves into a frenzy against the somewhat feeble, but somewhat anti-politically-correct, ripples of 'right wing' 'populism' - i.e. the resurgence of a politics (somewhat) of protest, driven by the simple common sense and personal experience of the non-elite Westerners.

But think of how things are from the perspective of a typical elite Westerner:

You personally regard the universe as a meaningless collection of random events; you regard your own life as a brief interlude between an emergence from chaos and a descent into oblivion.

All of you readers will know these people; will (like me) probably have been one of these people yourself. You know have fragile a state it is.

How they have rejected marriage and family, how even their best human relationships are little more than temporary and expedient mutual exploitation; how their goals are limited and only possible with self-blinding - how the whole charade is kept going by holidays, treats, drink, drugs, medications, sexual fantasies (and how the reality of these things never remotely matches-up).

How for them life is only about hopes of pleasure and money, fame and status - and an awareness that these never last, and are never enough - nothing like it. 

And how there is nothing else: this stuff is the whole of life; and the expectation is even worse (unless death and presumed oblivion comes quickly).

This describes most of the people who run this world - and the feebleness and brittleness of Life which sustains them.

Of course, beyond and behind these people are supernatural forces of evil who are providing the overall direction and strategy and pulling the strings of the elites (and in a few instances, possessing and directly controlling them - having been invited to do so).

But you can see that the more sickening the system the elites are sustaining, the more they become sickened - the more brittle they are; the closer to wakening up to reality; the closer to a paralysing state of demotivation and despair.

Which will bring the whole edifice tumbling... no crashing, down.