Bruce Charlton's Notions

Some people have noticed that the current global totalitarian system is more like fascism than communism, specifically in terms of its relationship between the state and the corporations. (In the sense that communism has every-thing nationalized, and included in the state system, while in fascism the state and corporations are aligned by a single, compulsorily-enforced ideology, but not ownership...)

On this basis, it is being said that we live in a fascist system; here-and-now, in 2021... 

Well, I am tempted to say "I wish!" - because what we actually have is far, far more evil than any of the fascisms. 

A form of economic ownership and state-corporate relationships was hardly the defining feature of real-life fascism, as it briefly existed in mid-twentieth century Italy and Germany! 

Fascism was characterized ideologically by being a secular, explicitly-leftist movement that was also strongly anti-communist (which meant, mostly, anti-nationalization). But hardly anybody notice that aspect of fascism (except for the owners of corporations, hence their support for fascism when it was the most viable alternative to communism) 

Positively fascism was a dictatorship motivated by militaristic nationalistic pride. 

The country was to be run on military lines, and the country was to be celebrated and glorified. That was was people saw, and liked, about fascism - and where it scored so heavily over communism. 

The motivations of fascism were comprehensible, human, and non-paradoxical - whereas communism was - like mainstream modern leftism - negatively, oppositionally, motivated. The communist atrocities and purges were all 'against' something (the bourgeois, the Kulaks, the Jews, reactionary saboteurs...); whereas fascism was motivated by nation-building. 

Of course, communists have since tried to reframe fascism as mainly 'about' racism. That clearly was not the case - but it is a telling projection; because if the communists had been running fascism, then it certainly would have been about racism!

In other words, to the communist-leftist mind, the only way to motivate people is in opposition; thus they cannot even imagine the kind of positive national pride that was crucial to the (brief) success of fascism. Communistic leftists can only suppose that nationalism was a mask for oppositional racism directed against some particular groups or groups.

Nationalism, including fascism, offered a kind of halfway house - a positive (but temporary) alternative to religion; briefly uniting the country around its positive celebration. 

Nationalism/ Fascism still used habits of thinking and motivations derived from the Christian era - but as a secular society, it had no way of renewing these resources - so all nationalisms, everywhere, weakened and declined - and it has not proved possible to revive an effective nationalism anywhere in the world for several decades.

By this analysis, in 2021 we have something new and unprecedented.

What we have is nothing like fascism - except in the double-negative way that it has enlisted the mega-private corporations by Not nationalizing them; and by (for mow...) coopting their interests in the totalitarian world government (public-private partnership).

What we have is much more like communism than fascism - especially The Establishment's uncritical/ warm feelings towards the communist dictatorships of past and present. But this 21st century leftism is post-communist; and has shed the economic focus of Marxism.

(No more nationalization of banks, media and corporations! Come and sit at the high table! So the billionaires are kept wealthy, and 'happy'...). 

Gone, too, now - are any positive notions of building a utopia; indeed, any attempt to represent a positive vision of the future sound like one of the fictional nightmare dystopias. We now have the implementation of post-1960s New Left oppositional-identity politics, which grew in the USA and is anti-nationalist, anti-military, anti-white, anti-men, anti-working class (aka. 'white nationalists') etc.  

Consequently, They keep the masses focused on rotating negative, oppositional scares and crusades; without mentioning where all this is supposed to be going... 

Anyway; the main point here is that what we have now is not fascism, neither is it communism - but is something new and different. 

We have a regime built almost entirely on negative and oppositional motivations. We have a populace who do not require heavy-handed violent and physical coercion; because they are so profoundly demotivated, passive and short-termist; that they will believe and go-along-with almost anything that is suggested by their state-media-corporate rulers. 

We have a world government of state-media-corporate rulers, we have a world ruled in conformity and global masses who are acquiescent to this totalitarianism ... yet there is no clear, simple, comprehensible positive ideology in which they are ruling. 

We are not going-towards any-particular-thing - or maybe, we are pretending to go-towards dozens of particular but incompatible things, each pretense being maintained for a few hours, days or weeks... Then swapped-out for something else equally temporary and insincere. 

The obvious but ignored fact is that we now (obvious since early 2020) have a world government for the first time, with an international scope for action...

But that government is not aiming to build anything in particular; instead it is being used* to destroy itself - partly by setting each against all; and partly by Just Plain Destruction... Stopping great swathes of the economy, stopping human interaction, stopping... almost everything. 

Just Plain Destruction. 

Not-doing, Stopping, Preventing... these are the huge facts of these times; and these times are fundamentally un-like any time or place before, ever. 

*'Used' by whom? By the evil supernatural forces of evil - Satan, and the demons of destruction.

*

Following my negative definition of fascism as a secular (not religious), anti-egalitarian (reacting against Leftism, to at least that extent) and non-monarchial form of government...

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/what-is-fascism.html

(Insofar as fascism is monarchial, religious and/ or egalitarian - it is to that extent not fascism. of course, pure forms or types of political system are seldom/ never seen in reality - or at least not for long...)

, and considering the discussion in the comments,

there arises the matter of whether fascism was nationalist?

*

The answer, I think, is that successful fascism was nationalist.

Because fascism is a secular form of government, unless there is a strong nationalist sentiment, fascism cannot achieve the cohesion necessary to defeat Leftism.

And this is why fascism was a temporary phase during the early/ mid twentieth century - because strong nationalism is merely temporary (immediately post-religious) phase, and rapidly dwindles in just a few decades.

*

(Modern nationalism is merely a sub-type of Leftism - the self-award of victim status to a whole nation.)

*

So, a non-nationalist fascism was possible, but it would probably be small and weak. The fascisms which were successful enough to get themselves a piece of power were nationalist. 

*

*

The Neo-reactionary bloggers of the 'Dark Enlightenment' (e.g. those who regard 'Mencius Moldbug' as a guide and mentor) have been noticed by the mainstream mass media, and subjected to some hostile (albeit contradictory) rhetorical attacks.

In particular, they are being called Neo-fascists.

*

Is this correct? In a nutshell, my answer (below) is that yes it is correct, yes the N-Rs of the DE are Neo-fascist; but not for the reasons that the mainstream journalists give.

The mainstream Leftists regard fascism (whether Old- or Neo-) as bad because it is anti-Left; but as a Christian I oppose fascism (and hence oppose Neo-reactionaries of the Dark Enlightenment) because fascism is essentially non-Christian, and in practice strongly tends to be anti-Christian.

*

I have written fairly extensively against the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reaction from my perspective as a Christian who is fundamentally opposed to any secular anti-Christian ideology; and one who regards repentance as the absolutely-necessary first step towards any good political change.

(And yes, this makes me a pessimist.) 

If you want to read the stuff, I suggest you word-search this blog. 

Anyway, the present situation was one which I anticipated a few years ago.

*

The intellectual quality of the articles on the Neo-Reactionaries is, of course, poor: they are careless, ignorant and dishonest.

This is not exceptional, since that is the nature of the modern mass media.

But, when the Dark Enlightenment gets called Neo-fascist by these mainstream journalists this is interesting; because the name is strictly correct - albeit right for the wrong reasons.

(On those rare occasions that the Left is correct, it is almost always right for a wrong reason!)

*

The mainstream journalists have called the Dark Enlightenment/ Neo-Reactionaries fascist because of their attitude to race, their 'race-realism'.

But this emphasis betrays that the journalists are engaging in gang warfare rather than analysis. Because fascism-as-such has in essence nothing necessarily to do with race. (Mussoloni - the first successful self-described fascist - was not racist when he took power.)

Actual fascism is historically a very recent ideology and has been very rare. Fascism is essentially a post-communist phenomenon - in practice only becoming powerful after the Russian Revolution of 1917 (although of course its roots can be traced further back).

*

On the other hand, Neo-fascism is indeed focused on race; but only because it is a reaction against the modern, mainstream, politically correct Left (the Left that rules the developed world - noting that 'the Left' includes all the mainstream 'conservative' or 'republican' parties): and of course PC is race-obsessed.

Thus any opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose politically correct anti-racism - not because this is a central focus to the the opposition, but because race is a central focus for the mainstream modern Left.

*

(In fact, on the whole racism was much more of a communist and Old Left thing than it was a fascist thing. Communist societies engage in all sorts of racism - albeit inconsistently; since communists are too unprincipled to be consistent when that is inexpedient - e.g. the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939. In various phases, Soviet Russia tried to exterminate Christians and eliminate Christianity; and (mostly) killed, or long-term imprisoned, many thousands of bishops, monks and priests, plus some tens of millions of faithful believers (Yep, they did - it was a larger scale although less 'efficient' operation than the Nazi Holocaust.). They were also intermittently anti-semitic. And it was the Trades Union-dominated Old Left which preserved race-based policies and practices in the USA in the post Civil War era and up to the 1960s. It is only since the domination of the New Left - ruled by the upper class intellectuals with their 'personal' (not economic) issues such as feminism and sexual license - that anti-racism has been co-opted as a Leftist cause, and bigotry has become regarded as the worst of all possible sins.)

*

(By analogy, religious opposition to dominant modern Leftism will necessarily oppose the sexual revolution - not because traditional sexuality is a central focus to (or 'obsession' of) traditional religion; but because the sexual revolution is the major and most effective weapon used by the Left to weaken, subvert, colonize and invert traditional religion. Naturally, therefore, sexuality will become a major battleground.)

*

Neo-Reactionaries/ the Dark Enlightment are indeed fascist - because they are:

1. A secular Right wing movement

2. Intellectually in-reaction-against the Left

...hence they are 'fascist' - because that is what fascism is: it is secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction-against communism.

Plus, Neo-Reactionary/ Dark Enlightenment bloggers are 

3. Reacting against the New Left - i.e. the politically correct, post-nineteen-sixties Left - hence they are indeed 'Neo'.

*

So the label of Neo-fascist is accurate, albeit being applied for the wrong reasons.

Where the Left are objectively wrong is in lumping all their enemies into the fascist category - by putting the real fascists who are secular together with the religious Right.

(I know they do this, because when I was a Leftist it is exactly what I did too!).

The Religious Right is essentially utterly different from fascism, because it is religious! The Religious Right wants to put religion at the centre of national life (note: this is not synonymous with a system of 'theocracy' - theocracy is only one way of trying to make religion the focus of life).

This does not seem like an important difference to the Left; because the Left are secular and don't believe in religion, think religion is nonsense, and therefore don't take religion seriously.

*

(For example the Left always explain-away religious martyrdom as being due to either social/ economic factors or mental illness - they cannot believe that religion is a real, powerful motivation - indeed the most powerful motivation - because they themselves do not share it. This is another thing I know from personal experience; when I was an atheist, I simply could not believe that religion was a real cause of anything significant - but I always looked to some other explanation for human behaviour, such as class differences, nationalism, economic self-interest, organized crime... I saw religions as merely a mixture of wishful thinking fantasy and rationalized hatred; hence not the kind of thing which could motivate extreme commitment.)


*

A few years ago I predicted that the Left would call any secular Right movement fascist, and that in doing so they would be broadly correct.

I also predicted that so long as the secular Right denied the fascist label they would be powerless, but if they ever felt strong enough to accept the fascist label openly and explicitly and were able to survive the backlash... then that would be the time to worry about them.

Therefore, when mainstream Leftist journalists call the Dark Enlightenment Neo-fascist, they are testing it; testing whether the movement is likely to be dangerous.

If Neo-Reactionaries fight the fascist label - then that is fine: they are revealed as lacking clarity and self-awareness, as craving acceptance, as having insignificant commitment, motivation and power.

To reject the fascist label demonstrates to the ruling Leftist elites that Neo-Reactionaries can easily be controlled by some mixture of mockery and demonization, and subversion by recognition, and buying-out (and this latter may be a motivation for some of the leading N-Rs of the DE - they are covertly hoping to sell-out and be co-opted by the mainstream!).

But if, when tested, the fascist label was accepted; then the response would be serious suppression by the usual Leftist means. This would be hard/ impossible for the Dark Enlightenment to survive - but if the Neo-Reactionaries did become explicitly fascist AND also survived the consequent suppression; then it would be a case of Be Afraid: Be Very Afraid for the Leftist elites. 

**

I predicted this current situation when I wrote my book Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness

I have emphasized the relevant passages in bold.

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk

(...)


















































However, there are two important qualifications 1. that the fascist label properly applies only to the secular Right – not the religious Right; and 2. fascism is not synonymous with the Nazis - who were substantially a socialist and Leftist party, as the name of National Socialism implies.

Maybe at some point the secular Right will eventually stop fighting the ‘fascist’ label and become openly and explicitly fascist - but distancing themselves from the National Socialist type of (semi) fascism?

*

The religious Right is not fascist: fascism is secular hence modern; and the religious Right is pre-modern and much more ancient than fascism. Indeed the religious Right was pretty much all there was in pre-modern times: conflict being between different varieties of religious Right.

The huge difference between religious Right and secular Right is that the religious Right seeks to rule society primarily by religious principles, by religious goals. By contrast the common sense secular Right (fascism) is justified on the basis of this-worldly common sense goals: such as the aim to make its supporters happier and richer; to provide a glorious national or ethnic purpose; to forge a new community of the heart.

(...)

*

From the perspective of the global elite, their servants in the mass media and the corrupted dupes among the intelligentsia who sustain them; populism means to be opposed to the rulership of the the global elite, their servants in the mass media and the corrupted dupes among the intelligentsia who sustain them.

And indeed, those who oppose the rulership of the global elites etc. would agree!

The difference of opinion about 'populism' is what it implies...

The question is: does populism imply 'fascism' or its opposite? 

The global elites etc. imply that to oppose their rule is to favour 'fascism'.

But those who oppose the global elites etc. believe that 'fascism' is exactly what the global elites etc have given us, what they approve of, and what they are intending to give us more of.

*

(I put 'fascism' in quotes, because I believe the term is being misused by both sides - my understanding of fascism is that it was secular anti-communism - a non-religious reaction against communism. Since class-based utopian communism doesn't exist anymore in The West, but since has 'evolved' into the permanent revolution of New Leftism - 'identity politics'/ feminism/ antiracism/ multiculti/ sexual revolution/ political correctness - any modern 'fascism' must mean something qualitatively different from what it did in the past. Also. modern 'fascism' is (unlike the real thing) a label that nobody of significance explicitly embraces for themselves.)

*

I disagree with all secular politics as inadequate, ineffective and ultimately evil; although naturally - not being utterly insane, dishonest or corrupted - I disagree with the intentions of the global elite etc. much more than I disagree with the political aims of those who oppose them.

But opposition to the intentions of the global elite is not sufficient actually to improve things - at all depends on what is instead being aimed at.

And if the aims are secular - economic, political, utilitarian etc - then they cannot lead to anything more morally compelling than the world conceptualised as a glorified farmyard - an 'animal farm' indeed - where life is merely and ultimately about a choice of defining winners and losers, haves versus have-nots, exploiters and exploited...

In such a secular world; whoever is chosen, or whoever currently is a winner by 'luck' or force or skill...; in the end everybody will lose due to age, disease... and death.

*

The positive doctrines of modern secular Reaction are:

1. Dictatorship (ie. anti-democracy)

2. Strict formal hierarchy (i.e. anti-egalitarian)

3. Male domination of the public arena (i.e. anti-feminism)

*

Why is this different from 1920s/30s fascism?

It isn't - except that fascism was powerfully motivated by Nationalism and had a power base in the Military.

By contrast, modern Reaction is operating in world where Nationalism is extremely weak and the movement has no apparent support from the Military.

*

Therefore, modern secular Reaction is just weak fascism; or fascism minus the ability to take power.

*


Note: I use fascism here in a descriptive way. I don't regard fascism as the worst of all possible political systems - because that would be communism. However, I do regard fascism as a bad political system - mostly because it as fundamentally secular in nature; hence ultimately Leftist. 

*
National Socialism specifically, and Fascism in general, has never been adequately defined - that is because it was negatively conceptualized as a reaction-against Communism.

When Fascism arose, just after the Russian Revolution, Communism was an urgent and imminent threat. To be anti-Communist was, for many people - indeed significant majorities in some countries - sufficient; so Fascism and National Socialism attracted powerful and highly-motivated supporters.

Such supporters were drawn from a wide spectrum of anti-Communists, including religious groups and persons; but Fascism and National Socialism were themselves secular parties, with secular priorities - they did not envisage running the state according to and within religious priorities.

So, National Socialism seemed OK because they were against the primary threat of Communism; but, of course, they weren't OK.

*

Update to now - modern secular reaction is also negatively conceptualized and secular - being against the New Left/ Feminism/ Antiracism/ Political Correctness/ Social Justice Warriors and the rest of it.

But the difference is that New Leftism is not new (its dominance dates from the middle 1960s), nor is its threat urgent and immediate - not least because New Leftism is The Establishment.

Therefore, (unlike Fascism and National Socialism) reaction against the New Left is not powerful, nor is it a majority, nor is it highly-motivated.

Furthermore, it may seem that any party who is against the insane evils of the New Left is OK, just what we need. We might even be tempted to wish for a secular reactionary revolution. But - even if there was sufficient support for it to happen - any anti-Left party with secular priorities that attained power would surely go the same way as National Socialism or Fascism - why not?

Do not tempt fate by thinking, or saying, 'anything is better than' or 'things can't get worse'... That is a sure and certain path to things becoming very bad, very swiftly.

*

Colin Wilson had a meteoric rise to fame in 1956 when his first book 'The Outsider' was published - but within months he was being vilified and shunned by the British Establishment; and his reputation has never yet recovered among their descendants.

The usual reason given is 'the horsewhipping incident' which was splashed all over the newspapers - in which Wilson's cohabiting girlfriend's father arrived at his door to threaten him with a horsewhip as punishment for various sexual acts (some real - e.g Wilson was married to someone else at the time; some imaginary and based on having read a fictional diary as if it was factual).

Supposedly, after this salacious incident, Wilson became a mere 'tabloid' character ('famous for being famous') and nobody could ever again take Wilson seriously.

But I don't believe this is true. Sexual misdemeanours and embarrassing, even humiliating, sex-related media scandals were quite normal - indeed more usual than not - for radical Left-wing intellectuals throughout the whole twentieth century; and particularly in from the mid fifties and into the later sixties. The horsewhip incident would normally have enhanced Wilson's reputation --- If he had been a Leftist...

The real 'problem' for Colin Wilson is that he was regarded as a fascist - and that was, and is, unforgivable. It was, and is, enough to exclude him from approval by the Establishment forever.

It must be recognised that Wilson's fascism was as that word is defined by the communist-sympathising Left of his era. In other words Wilson's fascism was because he was known to be anti-Communist. At the time Wilson was mildly Leftist in politics; but that did not, and does not, matter - fascism was and is defined by the Left as being against whatever happens to be the dominant Leftist ideology of the era, and in the fifties that was Soviet Communism.

On top of that Wilson was known to be focused on religious and spiritual matters - rather than socio-economic equality - and this was (and still is) regarded as fascist (despite that fascism was a secular, typically anti-Christian, ideology). But the Left was correct that most thoughtful and coherent religious people are anti-Communist, and anti running society on primarily Leftist lines; and that was (and remains) enough to make them a fascist.

On top of this, Wilson was a close friend of Bill Hopkins, who really was a kind-of fascist! Other, later, friends included Brocard Sewell and Henry 'Tarka the Otter' Williamson who were friends and supporters of Oswald Mosley - the would-be British Nazi dictator of the 1930s. So Wilson's circle in 1956 and later did contain 'real' fascists - Wilson did not shun and vilify them, as the Establishment require/d.

At any rate, the emerging Angry Young Men literary group, of which Wilson was one of the originals; was soon divided (and divided itself) into Left and not-Left/ religious sides - and Wilson found himself on the shunned side of that divide; as did Bill Hopkins and Stuart Holroyd, whose careers were also permanently blighted.    

I am not claiming that the horsewhip incident and the sexual scandal was utterly irrelevant to Wilson being regarded for the next sixty years as either a pariah or a joke; but that 1. it was insufficient to account for Wilson's lifetime of shunning and 2. that the scapegoating sanctions would not have been applied to Wilson if he had been an adherent of the mainstream, pro-communist establishment.

So, in a sense, Colin Wilson was the first prominent person to be a victim of what would later be called a political correctness witch-hunt; and which is so regular a feature of modern public life.



Biographical reference: Beyond the Robot: the life and work of Colin Wilson, by Gary Lachman, 2016.

*

The definition must be reasonably close to popular usage, yet precise enough to distinguish fascism as a twentieth century phenomenon.

Here is my suggestion - alternatives are invited:

Fascism is a form of government characterized by explicit anti-egalitarian ideals, and with a non-monarchical head of state.

or

A fascist state is an anti-egalitarian republic.

(Where republic denotes that the head of state is not a monarch, and that the state is not intrinsically religious.)

Thus fascism is a reaction - defined more by what it is not, than what it is - a reaction 1. against the egalitarianism of the mainstream left; and a reaction 2. against the divinely-ordained monarchy and/or 'theocracy' (rule by priests) of the traditional (religious) Right.

The Nationalism, which has been a very obvious feature of some fascisms, is therefore regarded as a second-order phenomenon - essentially a means for creating social cohesion: replacing on the one hand religious cohesion, and on the other hand the egalitarian ideology of Leftism.

*

*

Does it have a name?

It is used a lot - everywhere from politics to everyday life.

*

It relates to large scale and imprecise policy and action taking place in large scale and imprecise situations - there can be no formal proofs or controlled experiment.

But the situation is one where action must be taken (or else there must be a choice to take no action) and there is a choice of a possible actions.

*

The logic is that if there is something that you want to be done, or you think needs to be done, or from which you personally benefit - then the fact that it has been tried before and failed - perhaps tried several times before and failed - is not counted as evidence against trying it again because this time things are different.

In one sense this is correct, things are different, things always are different - yet what this means is that past experience has zero influence on future action.

The reason is that just because it happened like that then, does not necessarily mean that it will happen the same now.

*

The logic is that there is no necessary link between the past and the future; therefore the link can and perhaps should be ignored.

The fact that communism used to be bad does not mean that it is necessarily bad to be a communist now; the fact that a person used to behave badly does not mean they will necessarily continue to do so.

Give them another chance/ ignore experience.

*

However... when the situation is such that there is disapproval: when you want something not to be done, when the people involved are disliked, when there is a personal disadvantage from a potential course of action - then a single past experience in a different situation may lead to an absolute prohibition.

Nobody give Nazis a second, third, fourth and tenth chance like they do with Communists!

(Indeed, potential or imaginary Nazis are regarded as a bigger threat than actual, existing, massive, expansive, aggressive Communist Empires!)

Nobody says things are different now - just because Fascism/ National Socialism led to bad results in the past does not means that it will necessarily do so in the future. Nobody imagines the experience of the Holocaust is irrelevant to future policy.

A single specific unreplicated instance has absolute authority over all present and possible future actions.

*

So this logic works such that on the one hand:

1. No past experience or possible future evidence is ever sufficient to condemn that which is pre-approved.

The onus of proof is that to reject communism entails demonstrating that communism must - under ALL possible and imaginable circumstances - lead to the worst possible results.

And if this cannot be proven beyond doubt we shall give communism another try!

2. Minimal or no past experience is necessary to absolutely rule out that which is pre-loathed.

The onus of proof is that to accept fascism entails demonstrating that under NO possible or conceivable circumstances could it ever lead to any kind of harm.

*

In sum, to reject communism requires showing that it is totally evil; while to accept fascism requires demonstrating that it is totally good.

No evidence is ever sufficient to reject that of which we approve, no evidence is ever enough to get us to accept that of which we disapprove.

Probabilities, amount of data, strength of evidence have absolutely no affect on things.

Because this logic is absolutist not probabilistic.

*

Policy choices - personal choices - are thus pre-determined, pre-immunized.

Vast edifices of research, analysis and critique are rendered utterly ineffectual.

All that needs be done is change attitudes - and from attitudes this all else follows.

*

What to call this style of absolutist reasoning in which attitude is 100 percent determinative of outcome?

In the past it would have had a name: something rather like 'un-manly logic' - and its current dominance would have seemed easily explicable.

Its dominance also seems strongly related to the rulership of society by  bureaucracies - by committees not individuals, by democracy and voting.

*

In many ways this kind of logic - a logic based wholly on attitude, on prejudice - is the natural, default mode of human functioning.

There is something to be said for a society which knows what it likes and want, knows what it hates and fights against, and just gets on with the job.

But the domination of a society ostensibly devoted-to knowledge and ruled by research and evidence by covert yet determinative prejudice is simply dishonest and irrational, hence evil.

*

So - what to call it?

The logic of prejudice, perhaps?

Or just plain prejudice - a prejudice that - once established - orders all past, present and possible experience to confirm itself?

Yet a prejudice that is ultimately ashamed of itself, that therefore lies about its own nature and operations. That disguises itself with borrowed trappings of skepticism, reason, evidence.

(And the plain fact that the logic of prejudice utterly rules exactly those individuals and groups who claim to be most opposed to prejudice really ought to have been a dead give-away!)

*

Apparently the farce or tragedy (take your pick) that is Brexit has seen a great increase in sales of self-help books. Is this to people so shaken by the event that they require psychological assistance? Or is it to those who think the future will be disastrous and they need to prepare themselves as best they can? 

Either way, what a pity that people turn to such feeble nostrums for sustenance rather than to the genuine medicine of real religion. But then where can the ordinary person find real religion now? If you have been brought up with no particular spiritual education, and therefore have a very poor and biased idea of what religion is, you may reject it without serious investigation. 

Alternatively, those who are exposed to what passes for Christianity today will not find much to inspire them there if they are searching for something that really speaks to the imagination and the soul. For modern Christianity is often little more than secular humanism dressed up in religious clothing. Its supernatural element, without which it is meaningless, has been reduced as much as it possibly can be without being jettisoned altogether. 

Partly this is because Christianity has not responded well to the changes in consciousness that have come about over the last few hundred years as humanity begins to awaken intellectually and become more individual (as was meant to happen albeit not in the way it has happened), but partly it is because of the generally low quality of Christian leaders who for the most part, certain honourable exceptions excluded, have lacked any real vision...

Comment: After the above excerpt; William goes on to speculate about why most of the British Intelligentsia wish for the UK to remain in the EU. 

That is indeed an important question - and the answer cuts to the very roots of our modern malaise. I understand it, from the inside; because it was not very long ago that I was of that party - before I was a Christian.

Such reasons are simple, from a real, spiritual Christian perspective - and the reason is that the Intelligentsia have actively-embraced evil; such that the obvious fact of the EU being a totalitarian project (strategically devoted to the eradication of Christianity and the imposition of materialism) is regarded positively by those who imagine themselves to be members and beneficiaries of the controlling elite.

The large pro-Brexit majority who reject the EU probably do so (at present) for very similar reasons that the Intelligentsia embrace it - in other words, the masses do Not want to be the subjects and victims of the EU intelligentsia.

The globalist intellectuals and leaders regard themselves as entitled to control the lives of the masses; and that is exactly why the masses want out of the EU.

The EU and the British Intelligentsia are - in essence - socialists; indeed they most resemble the late-era Soviet communism of the 1970s and early 80s. If we consider the attitude of the common people to Soviet communism, it is probably very similar to the mass of ordinary people in the EU: that is they loathe the ruling elites.

Our elites fear 'fascism' (as they call it) - even though the Ultra-Right-Wing White Supremacists are - in the first place - Left Wing, and secondly essentially non-existent outside of media fantasies and nightmares, false flags and agents provocateurs.

The Intelligentsia fear their own self-created fascist nightmares precisely because the masses loathed Soviet communism from its beginning to its end - and had to be driven to cooperate by violence and famine; yet they mostly loved fascism, fought and worked for for it willingly. 

As Christians, we know that both communism-socialism and fascism converge on materialist totalitarianism, nihilism and despair (which is where we are now). But at present Christianity has no perceptible influence on Brexit - although at an imperceptible spiritual level, it may yet be decisive. 

Time is indeed running-out - but has not yet run-out.

I have noticed that one of the barriers to (in the first place) valid Christian understanding, and (secondly) to a valid comprehension of how Very Bad things are in the world, now; is a mistakenly This-Worldly and Morality-Centred perspective. 

Furthermore, being this-worldly and morality-centred means that such Christians, almost-inevitably, are un-repentantly tainted by Residual Unresolved Leftism; since a TWMC perspective is also characteristics of the socio-political globalist totalitarian mainstream. 

Thus; this-worldly and morality-centred "Christians" gravitate towards a world view that could literally (non-pejoratively) be described as a type of Christianized fascism; since fascism was the early twentieth century's primarily-secular reaction against internationalist communism. 

Yet, of course, "fascism" is itself a species of Leftism - albeit a less complete and more-functional leftism than communism, socialism, or the current post-sixties "New Left"-ism.  

A Christianity that understands itself primarily in this-worldly and moral terms is catastrophically vulnerable to pessimism - where pessimism is understood as the belief that things in this world are already Very Bad Indeed, and most likely to continue getting worse. 

Anyone who is fundamentally this-worldly (whether self-identified as Christian, or not) will find it very difficult to avoid despair (which is, of course, a deadly sin) unless he is dogmatically and systematically optimistic; and this means that he cannot tolerate pessimism - no matter whether a pessimistic evaluation of this-world is valid or not. 

In other words, for the this-worldly "Christian" an optimistic understanding of this world is mandatory; and any pessimistic evaluation of current and future conditions is absolutely ruled-out, in-advance, by-assumption; otherwise the individual will be overwhelmed by despair.

This partly explains why so many Christians are so falsely optimistic about the condition of the world now, and its probably future; why they are so resistant to a realistic appraisal of this mortal life; and why they are so often drawn into advocating and supporting residually-Leftist and collectivist socio-political programs. 

Note: The answer to the impasse - which would enable Christians to be realistic about the nature and prospects of The World - would, of course, be to base one's Christianity primarily upon Jesus Christ's promise of  resurrected eternal life; as clearly set forth in the Fourth Gospel ("John").  

I have previously tried to make sense of the term Fascism - but the fact is that it was merely secular anti-Soviet-Communism; which isn't even a thing; and even as a negative-reaction it has long-since disappeared from the world. 

I have never tried to make sense of the term Racism, because that very-obviously isn't a thing.

Since racism is supposed to be the most evil sin in the world; that is a problem - or should be regarded as such...

But since we live in a world that is necessarily insane from incoherence (due to the subtraction of God and the assertion that all is either random or blindly determined) then we, as a culture, have become used-to insane incoherence...

It is the air we breathe.

But of course, nobody can ever refute the presence, or importance, or anything-else, of Fascism and Racism - and when you are a supernatural demon bent on the destruction of all that is good, that fact is a feature, not a bug.

*

I have never presented a written-out and formal taxonomy of the Right so far - but reflecting on Bonald's more complex taxonomy which I posted two days ago makes me realise I implicitly use a simpler (and more simplistic) threefold taxonomy as follows:

1. 'Mainstream' (or pseudo) Right (which is actually part of the Left)

2. 'Fascist'/ commonsense Right - which is the secular anti-Left, a reaction against the Left

3. the Religious Right - which is pre-Left: it is what the Left was/ is reacting against.

*

So the chronological order, and causal sequence, is as follows:

First there was the Religious Right, and nothing else

Secondly there was the Left which was a reaction against the Religious Right, therefore Leftism = the anti-Religious Right (and includes the pseudo-Right, such as mainstream Conservatives and Republicans, and libertarianism).

NB: The Left is intrinsically and necessarily anti-Religious, although secularization of the Left was gradual, and remains incomplete except among the elite politically correct intellectuals. Insofar as a person or institution is Leftist, by that much they are anti-Religious (which is compatible with a relatively high level of religiousness, nonetheless; especially in a society where the average level of religiousness is low).

Thirdly there was Fascism which is Secular Commonsense anti-Leftism, therefore Fascism = the Non-Religious anti-Left.

*

And that's it!

*

*

A few years ago, when Gordon Brown was Labour Prime Minister, I was asked to visit the Houses of Parliament to 'advise' two prominent Conservative Opposition Ministers both of whom are now power holders:

David Willetts - currently Minister for Universities and Science - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Willetts

and Boris Johnson - currently the Mayor of London - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson

*

At that time I was solidly libertarian in my views and had written from this perspective in the national media; and these two politicians were both known for their libertarian views.

As it happens, David Willetts didn't show - so I (with three other 'experts') advised Boris Johnson; whom I found to be a genuinely likable man - although I was struck by the fact that he was not exactly a 'wonk' - his interest-in and grasp-of detail was... approximate.

Willetts is a wonk - and has published detailed articles and books on his subject. And he is about as libertarian - on paper - as anyone in UK politics.

Johnson is also known as a libertarian - on paper - being editor of the libertarian/ conservative weekly The Spectator.

Yet of course when both these men got power and made policies they became politically correct. Libertarians always do.

*

Why?

Because not only does libertarianism not make sense (being far too narrow and too arbitrary in its assumptions) - it also doesn't work in politics: or at least not in democratic politics.

It does not work because the mass of people as well as (more importantly) the powerful interest groups do not want libertarianism and will fight tooth and nail to prevent (or more often sabotage) libertarian policies.

Libertarianism has - roughly speaking - zero support: by which I mean real support: people who will turn out, work hard, make sacrifices for it.

Libertarianism will not work - in sum - for reasons articulated by (sincere-libertarian) Arnold Kling's father:

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/04/insiders_outsid.html

*

So, when it comes to real-life policy, libertarians will jump. 

They will usually jump to the left, into politically correct Liberalism (because that is the dominant ideology of government, and the best career move), but if not they will jump to the populist right (aka fascism) or to religious conservatism.

Or they will jump out of politics altogether.

*

Forget Libertarianism - it is a delusion! Make your choice between PC, fascism and religious conservatism.

*

This interests me, because I was one of them.

The question was triggered for the nth time, when reading Colin Wilson; who does this in the space of a couple of paragraphs in Poetry and Mysticism (1970) - one of his Outsider series of books that I am currently reading for the first time (it's hard to find, usually expensive to buy).

Plenty of people have made an accurate diagnosis of the problem of Modern Man - because nearly everybody suffers from it, after all. The diagnosis is followed by a rapid, almost cursory, dismissal of Christianity as The Answer.


Why is it so easy for people to reject Christianity? When by contrast the same people will be prepared to put immense time and effort into (for example) trying to rehabilitate some version of Leftist politics as a possible answer; or paganism, Hinduism or Buddhism as a possible answer?

With Christianity it is a case of glancing briefly in the general direction of whatever preconception of Christianity that one has imbibed, then... Well, I don't like the look of that - straight down the plug-hole with it!

Yet with with anything else other than Christianity it is - let's find-out more, give it some serious work, and see what can be discovered...


There are several reasons. First, that the powers of darkness increasingly rule this world; and so Christianity is subjected to By Far the most pervasive and venomous smear campaign of any ideology or religion.

(Not even excepting 'fascism' - since what people now mean by that term bears near-zero relationship to the Socialist Workers Party of Germany, nor to any other of actual various supposed-fascisms. Fascism is just a Boo word used expediently against any opposition; such that real-life actual fascists such as the black-shirted Antifa, paid for by multinational money, are exempted from criticism.)

Christianity is continually under siege from combination of Global and Western National institutions (governments, politicians, large corporations, law, science, education, the mass media - and most mainstream self-styled Christian churches).

The accusations include extreme opposites (Christian churches are a living tomb inhabited by sentimental old women; yet also highly-organised patriarchal nests of fanatical white nationalist terrorists); but one or another criticisms will strike home for someone who is looking for a convenient excuse to reject Christianity. 

Second is sex. Sex is probably the second-most-powerful mass motivator, after religion; absent religion, sex assumes primacy.

There is a strong and correct assumption that Christianity places restrictions on sexual activity; and for many people that is sufficient reason to reject it as evil. (Modern people regard any restriction of their own sexual desires as an evil of the worst - most fascist - type.)

Whatever excuse is used to reject Christianity as an answer - the real reason is very often something to do with sex. Sexual revolutionaries (of all types) have been, for more than two hundred years (starting with Byron, Shelley and their clique), at the forefront of atheism, apostasy, secularisation, Leftism. This continues post 1960s, with each successive sexual/ identity phase picking up the anti-Christian agenda. 


Since Christianity is in fact The Answer - or, more exactly, contains the answer; this means that there are many people who, for many generations, have lived and died unsatisfactory lives (and perhaps gone to a post-mortal destination other-than Heaven) because of a hasty, ill-considered, and dishonest rejection of Christianity.  

Well, it's their choice...

So, the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution - probably the greatest disaster in the history of humanity - certainly of the past century; has slid-by over the past few days and the media response has been - (all-but) silence.

The current younger generation know essentially nothing about the Russian Revolution - certainly they don't realise that in terms of human death, leave aside intensity and duration of deliberately-inflicted suffering, it was incomparably the worst regime in history.

Not least because the USSR was so extravagently praised and promoted by so many powerful and prestigious people in Britain, France, Italy, Germany the US and elsewhere - and so widely and devastatingly emulated in further communist revolutions worldwide.

Plus it led directly to the reactions of Italian fascism and German National Socialism - hence (among other things) to World War II. No communism: No fascism. No Lenin: no Hitler.

Consequently, because the Russian Revolution led to such a huge amount of evil, my expectation was of a massive celebration - especially from the mainstream Western mass media (especially from the BBC).

But that didn't happen - which seems to suggest that that the evil Global Establishment has decided that the best strategy is to continue to pretend that communism never happened; or at least to keep the whole thing vague and dull and distant.

If They want to 'airbrush' the Russian Revolution from history - then the least that Christians can to is the opposite: keep reminding people about Soviet Communism: including what was quantitatively by far the most vicious and sustained persecution and extermination of Christians in the history of the faith.

Hardly anybody knows about this - and fewer are interested - and the communists did not keep records of their dirty work, as the Nazis did; but the faithful remnant of the Orthodox church - and Solzhenitsyn - collected a great deal of data.

The Russian Revolution is a very big thing to try and shove down the memory hole; but in this current media/ distraction-addicted era, to obliterate from consciousness the biggest and baddest event of the twentieth century is all in a day's work.

*
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.

*

If, as I said yesterday, it is correct that Christianity was bound-to an unsatisfactory (and pre-Christian) metaphysics at an early point in its history - what was the effect?

Well, clearly, for several times and places over the past 2000 years, there have been great, indeed superlative, individual Christians - and there have also been (much more rarely and temporarily) fine Christian societies (albeit of very small scale, by modern standards).

So it could be argued, from its 'fruits' or outcome, that the mainstream Christian metaphysics was true, because it has sometimes sustained good Christians, or that at least it it can't be bad enough actually to prevent someone being a good Christian. Or that Christian metaphysics is irrelevant - because the real thing about Christianity is not metaphysics...


It is quite true that the real thing about Christianity is not metaphysics - otherwise it would not be possible legitimately to discuss the two separately - but that does not make metaphysics irrelevant.

My understanding is that the wrong metaphysics did not matter as much in the past as it does now (and for the past couple of centuries) - although it did have adverse consequences in the long and bitter (and profoundly un-Christian) 'heresy' disputes, wars and persecutions concerning Christology and the Trinity.

The fact that modern Christian churches remain unable to acknowledge the basic wrongness of the early-centuries church reactions to the Monophysite, Arian, Pelagian etc disputes has become something like a fatal flaw at the heart of things. The whole way that these disputes in the early Christian centuries arose, were formulated and conducted is clear evidence of profound wrongness in the way that the Christian churches were set-up from the start...


Christianity was muddling on - sometimes overall-Good, many times Not, until its great challenge began to emerge at about the time of the industrial revolution in the later 1700s: the challenge of modernity.

My understanding is that the challenge was divine in origin - it was the unfolding of Man's destiny that was desired; it was the irresistible pressure to make a Christianity that was conscious, explicit and based in the individual's direct knowledge of God and thus the individual's agency: the individual's autonomous free will.

The impulse behind modernity was the developmental push towards Man becoming more like God, during mortal life.

However, this pressure did not, except in a few individual persons, lead to the God-desired change. Men did not understand the need to develop what I have termed Direct Christianity.

Instead, Western human agency split between reaction and radicalism: between a doubling-down on tradition and conservatism; versus a this-worldly materialist throwing-out of Christianity, and all acknowledgement of the reality of the spiritual, of purpose, of meaning.

Attempts to 'liberalise' metaphysically-unreformed Christianity became assimilated to the secular materialist ideology. Attempts to be spiritual but not Christian very rapidly assimilated to the secular materialist ideology.

Extremely few people apparently understood the need to be both Christian and spiritual, to be individualistic and Christian; to be guided by intuition - but as a tough inner conviction of Good and source of resistance to adverse social pressure - and not merely as an excuse for short term hedonism and careerist or status-seeking self-aggrandisement. 


We now know, 200 years later, that tradition-conservatism failed to prevail or even to defend itself - and the perspective of this-worldly materialism has triumphed in this world. God and the immaterial are excluded from the public realm - and increasingly from private thinking. And the Global monitoring-control system of bureaucracy and the mass media are successfully pursuing goals that are more obviously demonic with each passing year.

The large and powerful Christian churches are by now de facto assimilated into secular materialism and have become fake/ pseudo Christian - while covertly anti-Christian; meanwhile the various traditionalist-reactionary and really-Christian churches are wedded to an indefensible metaphysics, as they have been for up-to 1900 years.
 
(This secular materialism triumphant is 'Leftism' - understood to include all worldly-materialism including the fascism, national socialism, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians etc - as well as the entire self-identified Left. It is the ideology of the entire Global Establishment at its elite level.)


What modernity has done is to probe and probe at the metaphysical flaws and inconsistencies of mainstream historically-dominant Christianity; and because these metaphysical flaws are intractable (they are built-into the assumptions), and because the mainstream theologians are unable or unwilling even to acknowledge that metaphysics is separable from the Christian religion; the mainstream can only double-down on them, and hope that the lethal criticisms will eventually go away.

But whatever (apparently) happens, my understanding is that the deep problem remains that divine destiny, 'the challenge of modernity', has been refused.

We now know in our hearts that while most of modernity-triumphant is evil and evil-seeking; some of the original impulse towards modernity was valid and necessary for man's spiritual development. We know in our hearts that both available sides are wrong - Leftism is wrong and evil in motivation; traditionalist Christianity tries to do Good... but is crippled and poisoned by a kind of fundamental and chronic metaphysical dishonesty.


Since no group in the modern world is prepared to tackle this matter head-on and explicitly - and indeed it is possible that no actually existing group can do so - since in this time and place groups may exist to serve the individual in his spiritual development, rather than the other way around... Then the implication seems to be that each individual person needs to take-on this heavy responsibility for his own spiritual development and theosis.

Our great fortune is that we are children of God the creator of this world and he would not leave us bereft of help. What we need to do we can do.

This is not, and cannot be, a matter of replicating the strategies of an earlier era - building churches, ideologies - persuading via the spoken and written word - getting power and protection... If it is truly individual, and truly based upon direct knowledge of the spiritual and the divine - then we have nobody to 'persuade' of truth, except our-selves.