Bruce Charlton's Notions

There is a deep structural similarity between the psychology of CG Jung on the one hand and mainstream New Leftism (post-sixties Leftism) on the other; which has led the two into a symbiotic relationship. Nowadays it is the broadly-Jungian New Age that provides spiritual depth and a therapeutic rationale to the project of Leftism. 

The structural similarity is that Jung and the Left are both therapeutic in structure - they diagnose problems and prescribe solutions to alleviate and remove the problems. Jungian psychology takes its therapeutic stance towards the individual; Leftism to society. 

Thus, both diagnose a negative disharmony and state of disintegration and conflict as baseline. This negative is the situation in which all individuals and all societies are assumed to exist: already and inevitably. 

Then, both Jungian psychology/ spirituality and Leftism both claim to cure this pre-existing negative situation with therapeutic interventions intended to lead to integrated cooperativeness, wholeness, unity... 

Since the 1960s, the 'New' (post-Marxist) Leftism has 'diagnosed' society (all societies) as suffering from various psychological disorders - such as racism, misogyny and 'phobias' - e.g. of sexual identities or religions. 

Modern environmentalism projects this disorder onto the planetary ecosystem - as a sickness of Gaia ultimately caused by wrongness in the minds of Men. Environmental sickness therefore needs to be treated by the same kind of psychological and therapeutic interventions and restructuring as do the disorders of racism, homo/trans-phobias, misogyny etc.  

The recent birdemic-peck phenomenon has also been assimilated to the Jungian therapeutic model; which is why it has been treated primarily by essentially 'psychological' forms of restructuring at the social level - i.e. by changing human attitudes, understandings, relationships and behaviours - all at a global scale.   

  

Thus we get to the basic assumption of all politics today: That all Men and all Societies are sick and in absolute need of urgent therapy. 

Therapy... but from whom? From, implicitly, an elite of Global Healers. 

Hence the 'need' for a World Government with total powers. Anything less than this; dooms the planet and all its people to terminal disorder and death. 

And since early 2020; an elite of all-powerful Global Healers is exactly what we have got.

Left-politics (which, nowadays, is just all of mainstream, global 'politics' - everywhere in the world) presents itself as a societal therapy by which the innate sicknesses - i.e. the irrational prejudices and hatreds, phobias, delusional beliefs (i.e. the sub-types of 'denialism') etc - will all be cured by a kind of social-level 'psychotherapy'.

This Left-therapy starts with therapeutic 'consciousness-raising'; the intent to replace pathological motivations by the encouragement of 'healing' attitudes and beliefs. 

Such 'encouragement' of positivity is what lies behind the enforcement of correct - i.e. therapeutic - attitudes throughout all mass and social media discourse, and in private life. 

Because the whole of society is seen as sick; the Leftist project sees itself as (in effect) transforming our sick society by rebuilding it into a 'therapeutic community'. 

That is, a community which embodies only examples of healing attitudes, beliefs and behaviours; a community which excludes all attitudes/ beliefs/ behaviours that tend to sustain 'sicknesses' such as racism and other irrational hates, phobias and delusions.

This process is not seen as censorship, manipulation or political propaganda; but is regarded as a common-sense 'medical' intervention to cure disease and restore health in all people, groups and places.  

So much for the theory and claims of Leftism. But Leftism is unmasked to serious Christians as a demonic strategy; rooted in lies. Its basic analysis is false, negative and arbitrary. And its supposed cures and therapies lead to not to healing - but to endemic sickness and accelerating dis-integration. 

Leftism's global 'therapeutic community' turns-out to be variants on a literal prison: with more of the same promised. 

Its Global Elite of self-styled healers and harmonizers lead to results indistinguishable from the activities of parasites and wreckers. 

Its 'consciousness raising' has been the conversion of public discourse into a realm of value inversion, honesty and goodness excluded; instead a tissue of lies and the insidious advocacy of sin and evil.  

Such is our situation. The 'facts' are there: the word-wide triumph of Jungian-Leftism; the totalitarian global governance; the convergence of all public discourse in all social systems. 

What is at issue is whether the current and developing situation is a constructive, therapeutic and existentially necessary response to the innate sickness of this planet and global population and the crises that assail it? Or the stepwise, strategic, deliberate destruction of all that is Good; because it is Good? 

Are we on broadly the right lines, and being led by persons of basically good-intent and will? Or are we being led - deliberately - towards a demonic anti-world?

One or the other. 

*

While in the past it was always emphasized that political views had no relevance to Christianity - and therefore that there was a symmetry about politics and Christianity - with problems distributed on both sides: that is no longer the case.

The situation is no longer symmetrical.

Now being a Leftist entails not being Christian - and Christianity lies on the Right, indeed very far to the Right (while, of course, most of those on the political Right certainly are not Christian - although some seek to use Christianity as an instrument in their politics).

*

Why? Because although honest confusion was possible in the past, Leftism is now old and much developed and multi-national and much repeated; and its is now a certain fact that Leftism is built on and around atheism, that Leftism is intrinsically anti-Christian.

This is now apparent in a way that was not clear and obvious until about half a century ago (excepting to some of the most devout 19th century Russians who immediately perceived the atheist and anti-Christian nature of the Left from the very start of its influence).

Yet to be a Leftist nowadays, in the West, adhering to the New Left in its form of Political Correctness - this is incompatible with Christianity, and there are no longer any innocent Leftists: Leftism denies the reality of reality, has an utterly different model of the world than Christianity - with different aims, meanings, and a different scheme of evaluation - and Leftism creates and enforces the inversion of Good.

*

Whatever kind of Christian you are, Leftism will force you to deny the fundamental grounds of faith.

This can be seen by considering John Wesley's 'quadrilateral' of evidences for Christianity: Scripture, Tradition, Reason, Experience:

*

1. Scripture: the Left treats scripture as if it was just like any other sort of writing - having no special quality or authority. Scripture is dissected with secular historical scholarship, language studies, re-translated and re-interpreted and rewritten; put under a microscope on the one hand and on the other hand mixed-in and compared-with other religious texts from other religions. At the end of all this, scripture has become a problem, not the gateway to a new life. At the end of this, plain scriptural information, instruction or statements can be denied, inverted or ignored.

*

2. Tradition is exactly what Leftism is against. Leftism is rebellion against Tradition, progress away from Tradition, dwelling on the negative aspects of Tradition, discarding and transcending of Tradition, seeking of evidence conclusively to support every aspect of Tradition, characterizing of the past by its abuses and horrors: Leftism is the built-in assumption that Tradition is wrong. 

*

3. Reason. The Left (with its heart in the mass media) has reduced Reason to whatever fits into emotive soundbites; and no substantive challenge can be fitted into a soundbite because hostile brief communications are deliberately misrepresented. Reason is thwarted by ever-changing taboos, by the sentence by sentence need to self-excuse, to express proper sympathies and distance oneself from designated-badness. Under Leftism Reason has become one-sided and subordinated to already-existing Leftism: and reason is never  allowed to compel re-evaluation since when it reaches unwelcome conclusions Reason is relativized - as being just one type of reason among several, and Reason hostile to Leftism is labelled as repressive.

*

4.  Experience. Christian converts often have experiences which convince them of the rightness of Christianity - which assure them of their forgiveness and salvation, that they are being watched and helped. Leftism, however, denies the validity of experience; relabels experience as intrinsically self-serving, repressive, a mass of stereotypes and prejudice. For Leftism, experience is not primary but secondary;  wholly a product of culture, education, propaganda: Leftism sees personal experience as something to be shaped towards a better society, not a basis for knowledge.

*

So, we see that whatever kind of Christian you may be, Leftism will corrode, subvert and (if persisted-with) overthrow every possible basis of Christianity.

What remains from Christianity in a Leftist, is whatever shrinking, dying, ineffectual residue that Leftism has not yet gotten round to destroying.

* 

The actuality of Leftist morality - and that it is inversion of the true, beautiful and virtuous - is revealed by describing the double-negative reality concealed by the pseudo-positive moral 'principles' used to justify Leftist evil. 

Here is the way it works:

To be a 'racist' is = not to be anti-white

To be a sexist = not to be anti-men...

You see the way it works? Leftism is oppositional, being defined as 'against' various 'evils'. Most of the Leftist 'evils' (often expressed as '-ist' or '-phobic') can accurately be described in a similar double-negative fashion:

Not to be anti-native inhabitants of a country...

Not to be opposed to biologically real, reproductively-adaptive sexuality...

Not to be anti-Christian... etc.

The double-negative formulation is a necessity for Leftism, since Leftism is indeed ultimately oppositional (opposing God and divine creation; opposing the true, beautiful and virtuous); thus its 'positive' content (i.e. what Leftists want) is protean and labile, self-contradicting and incoherent. 

After all, there are an 'infinite' number of ways of opposing The Good. 

To be morally excoriated by the Left, all that is required is to be against opposing the Good, in any particular respect.  

Added - Double-negative denialism

For the sake of completeness, and to include two of the biggest recent double-negative global crusades. What do accusations of denialism amount to? 

Climate denialism: Hatred of those people who do not regard carbon as the greatest threat to life on earth

Birdemic denialism: Terror of those who are not afraid of close proximity to human beings

 

Note: This idea was triggered by a post by William Wildblood, where he give a double negative definition of 'racist'. 

This is an interesting question - and the supposed answers I have encountered are unsatisfactory.

The fact that needs to be explained is that the metaphysics, that is the fundamental foundational beliefs of 'Leftism' are not only incoherent (which they are) but incoherent in a way that leads the system to consume-itself.

This self-destroying quality of Leftist metaphysics is apparent in the history of the political Left, and it is also apparent in the personal history of many Left-adherents.

*
(Note: Leftism here includes not just communism, socialism, nationalism, national socialism, liberalism etc - but also all mainstream forms of conservatism, republicanism, libertarianism etc. The true polarity is between Leftism and Religion; and the commonly-asserted Left-Right polarity is interpreted here as merely different varieties of secularism, therefore different varieties of Leftism. In other words, the only way of being non-Left is to be religious. Various religions are possible. To be non-Left is necessarily to advocate that the state be primarily religious with all other activities and functions subordinated to religion.)

*
The temptation, which leads nowhere, is to try and construct a Leftist metaphysical system from some specific attributes - and in contrast with the pre-ceding and rival metaphysical systems of religion (different systems for various religions and denominations).

But this doesn't work, because the Left keeps changing. At one time it was plausible to assert that the Left was about equality, but that clearly is not the situation now. At another time - say 30-40 years ago - it was suggested that the Left was focused on reducing suffering and humiliation -  but again that can now be seen to be merely a temporary phase.

And an historical consideration shows that the root of Leftism is not some positive doctrine, but a negative subtraction.

*
If we suppose that natural, spontaneous human metaphysics is religious and (sufficiently for life) coherent and systematic - then Leftism comes into the life of a person or a culture by subtracting something from this religious metaphysics. What might that be?

The first suggestion might be God or the gods - but I don't think that is necessarily correct: God/s may be allowed to retain their place (for a while) but certainly the definition and scope of God/s is the thing that is change.

I think the specific change is related to the subtraction of purpose - or to 'teleology'. Leftism removes ultimate, objective purpose from the metaphysical system.

In consequence, because we cannot live without purpose, instead of a unity and reality of purpose we get several or many purposes, that are not unified, and are not objectively real or relevant and compelling.

*
The earliest defined form of Leftism, setting itself up as rival to religion, was Marxism - and in that early Leftism there was a kind-of residual purpose that was was taken from the idealistic philosophy of Hegel in the form of an abstraction related to the direction of history. History had an inevitability of progression - and if someone wanted to be on the same side as history - that is, the 'winning side' - then he should be a communist. However, there was a major hole in the system in that there was no ultimate reason why it was good or necessary to be on the winning side - especially in the short term it may well be 'better' (yielding more pleasure and/or less suffering) for someone personally to oppose history.

So, even in its earliest and most 'religious' phase, Leftism did not provide an individual purpose - although it did provide a goal and direction.

*
It seems to be that it is this subtraction of purpose from our underlying metaphysical system characterizes Leftism - but the question arises of why anybody, or any culture or civilization, would want to subtract purpose from their foundational beliefs?

Since we have, most of us, experienced this for ourselves at some point in our lives, I think the answer is available to introspection (after which is can be checked against experience and evidence) - and that answer is liberation, freedom, escape from aspects of purpose that we find thwarting, oppressive, or in some way aversive.

This is the reason why sexual revolution is so often integral to Leftism - a fact difficult to explain otherwise. Because there are few people who do not feel, in some way and to some significant extent, constrained by the sexual rules and exclusions of religion. Likewise, people feel constrained by their social position, class or status; by actual or relative material insufficiency; by their nation of origin or residence; by their appearance or by some deficit... there are many possible reasons.

Leftism offers a liberation from the necessity of such constraints and others by its removal of purpose from ultimate understanding - there can be no ultimate reason for constraint if there is no ultimate and unifying purpose: so that particular problem is solved, whatever the problem may be. Constraint is removed, or else there is hope for this - and there is liberation.

*
Thus Leftism has a universal message and a universal appeal.

Whatever your personal grievance against Life, Leftism offers actual or potential liberation from it by means of the removal of ultimate purpose and removal of our ultimate obligations to that purpose. 

And this seems to explain why Leftism is always unstable, always moves from one liberation/ destruction to another, is always - sooner or later - hostile to any religion; and always ends-up in approaching nihilism.

Because nihilism (which is the conviction that nothing is really-real) is necessarily the end-point of any world view that lacks 1. ultimate purpose and 2. an ultimate rationale for each person to subscribe to that purpose.

There is a lot of misleading stuff which tries to say that Leftism is 'a religion' (usually, implicitly meaning that religion is A Bad Thing) - and there are a bunch of political theorists who like to explain the increasingly anti-Good destructiveness and inversion of Leftism in terms of 'Holiness Spirals' - as if Leftism was a religion, in which there was such a thing as Holiness.

(And as if Holiness was a good thing only 'up to a point', beyond which we would be 'too Holy'?... In Christianity, this is nonsense - and the Holier we are, the better, without limit.)

Such rhetoric is either deliberately or ignorantly subversive of Christianity.

Serious Christians would not be keen on trying to prove that the very obviously demonic ideology of modern Western Leftism is 'A Religion'; nor would real Christians want to call the increasing evil of the Left a kind of 'Holiness'.


Christianity and Leftism are in essence opposites; religion and ideology are opposites, increasing-holiness and increasing-evil are opposites.

(This is surely obvious, yes? Not rocket science!)

A real Christian wants society to be organised on Christian principles (everything else fitted-around); but a Leftist wants society organised on political, economic, sexual, racial, environmental or some other Not-Christian principles.


Now, it is trivially-true that there are resemblances between almost any two things or people or groups - but so what? It is by ultimates that we discern: and between Christianity and Leftism there is opposition of metaphysics, motivation, ideals - they are as different as things can be (despite that there is Good and evil in every person and group, and that there is deception and error in all    understanding).

They are different because Christianity and Leftism are on opposite sides, because Leftism is demonic.

There is no overlap between the view that God is real, and that of materialism; that Jesus was divine versus that he was an ordinary human (and probably did not exist) (and that there is indeed nothing divine); that death is a transformation versus that death is annihilation; that those who follow Jesus will live eternally and resurrected in Heaven with the divine family versus that everybody who dies will merely burn or rot. And so on...

Why then go to such lengths to use religious terminology, concepts, analogies for what is in essence and reality the ultimate anti-religion?


For the modern Christian; we are in a spiritual war, a war between Heaven and Hell, between God and Satan; and this war is hotting-up by the month. The two sides are becoming more clearly differentiated, and more easily detected. The gloves are coming-off...

The Christian side is in favour of God, Good, and Creation - the demonic side is against all of these and not in favour of anything specifically, except what helps (here-and-now) in the strategy of destroying GG&C.

The evil of Leftism (as it exists here and now in The West) is Not about creating some alternative-Heaven; it is not about making a utopia, a Heaven on Earth. That is a lie.

Instead evil is defined negatively; evil is about the subversion and destruction of Good, and ultimately it is about the inversion of Good.


Consider the sexual revolution. The post-middle-sixties developing agenda of divorce, promiscuity, perversion, homosexuality, trans, paedophilia and whatever comes after... is not aiming-at any specific ultimate alternative form of human sex and sexuality.

There is no Leftist utopia of sex/ ulaity towards-which Leftism is moving us. Instead there is merely a series of dishonest, expediently subversive, incoherent stances: adopted tactically, then set-aside when convenient.

The sexual revolution (like Leftism in general) it is a negative program. Any positive elements are merely expedient, temporary, discarded when the next stage of destruction is ready to proceed; just as 60s style 'free love' (heterosexual extramarital promiscuity) was discarded in favour of feminism; and feminism discarded in favour of trans.

The sexual revolution is directed against Christian Goods such as celibacy, marriage, and family. Leftism in general is directed against real Christianity and real Christians ('real' regardless of denomination, church or no-church).

Leftism is opposed to holiness and real Christian religion. So, to deploy religious language and concepts to analyse Leftism is to serve the agenda of evil; to take the wrong side in the ongoing spiritual war*.


*Of course - we all err and sin, and we can find ourselves fighting on the wrong side. I certainly have found this to be the case, more than once. But then the situation is remediable. Any Christian can repent at any time - it is never too late (this side of death).  

*
Metaphysics is the theoretical frame within-which everything is explained.

Leftism, political correctness is not really a religion (it has so few features of a religion, that such a description is misleading) - but it is a metaphysical system.

The word ideology is a partial, confused, incoherent synonym for metaphysics - indeed ideology is metaphysics for those who do not wish to acknowledge the vital role of metaphysics; who want to conceal that they are preaching metaphysics- who want their metaphysical system to be invulnerable because its existence is denied.

*

For example the Left used Science against all religious metaphysical systems, but science itself had depended on a metaphysical system which (for example) regards truth as a virtue (i.e. Christianity or Judaism) - so by using science against religion, Leftism was destroying science: indeed, Leftism was destroying even the possibility of science.

http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk/

Specifically, the theory of evolution by natural selection was used to destroy Christianity; claiming that natural selection was empirically-validated science; when in reality natural selection is formally a metaphysical system: that is, an explanatory framework within which science may be done, but not itself a science.

(That is why the theory of evolution by natural selection formally cannot be refuted. Nor can it be supported.)

Leftism has used (and then discarded) various ethical principles to break-down Christian metaphysics - for instance Equality, or Justice, or Economics, or Freedom, or Democracy.

These are deployed as frameworks within-which reality is to be understood, explained, manipulated - therefore they are functioning as metaphysical systems (albeit small, feeble, partial, incoherent, fuzzy, ludicrous metaphysical systems) - but their real nature is denied, and it is asserted that these principles are derived from experience, knowledge, effectiveness... 

*

When a new metaphysical system has been implemented, when a person or a culture is inside a new metaphysical system - then everything else is constrained by that system - what counts as knowledge, truth, beauty, virtue is defined; the possibility of motivation and purpose; almost everything is constrained by metaphysics.

There is no argument against a new metaphysics from observation, from experience, from logic - which is why the Left never learn.

(Metaphysics does not learn - it is that within-which learning is defined.)

They never learn because they are inside a metaphysical system while denying the reality of metaphysical systems.The fly in the bottle.

Once the new metaphysics is in place - reality is framed by it, evaluations are constrained by it,the battle is won. 

*

Probably, Satan's greatest triumph has been the destruction of real metaphysics: purely free; but with profound and universal consequences.

Satan's greatest triumph has therefore been metaphysical - he is the most successful career philosopher in history (certainly, the most highly-cited).

And the triumph has been made possible by the mass media: the modern metaphysical system derives-from and is propagated-by and enforced-by the mass media.

http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/

*

How should the modern metaphysical system be evaluated? The answer is - only from the basis of another metaphysical system.

All possible evaluations, criticisms, are based on metaphysical assumptions. So if we point-out that modern Leftism is incoherent, that assumes that incoherence is a problem - while for Leftist metaphysics, its own incoherence is not a problem.

If we point-out that Leftist metaphysics is unfit for use: leads to despair, has destroyed science and the arts and education, that it cannot motivate or provide meaning - then such critique is based on the metaphysical assumption that these are bad things; which Leftist metaphysics will not accept.

If, indeed, we point-out that Leftist metaphysics is almost-wholly negative and oppositional - and therefore must lead to a human life and society which is almost-wholly negative and oppositional; then Leftism merely responds that (from where Leftism is standing, which is implicitly inside its own metaphysic) that is just the way that things are - and Leftism is merely honestly reporting on the inevitable reality of the situation. 

*

So Satan has the West in his grip, inside his metaphysics; and part of Satan's metaphysics is to cloak its own metaphysical nature - and to derive its (pseudo-) validity from what were previously regarded as sub-metaphysical domains such as science, politics, economics - even 'ethics' regarded as a free-standing discourse (i.e. 'ethics' when discussed without even an implicit reference to life's nature, purpose, meaning!).

The answer? A different metaphysics.

One can only fight metaphysics with metaphysics.

*

But which metaphysics can beat the Left? Not a made-up thing, for sure. Satanic Leftism cannot be defeated at the level of philosophical discourse - of course not!

It can be beaten and will only be beaten by a metaphysics based on a realer, deeper, more motivated, more meaningful basis... 

In other words, Leftism can be beaten, and can only be beaten, by a religion.

And that is our choice - Leftism or Religion.

*

If not Leftism, then CHOOSE YOUR RELIGION.

Simple as that. 

thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk

*

Note added: The mantra 'choose your religion' is predicated on the fact that only a religion will work, only a religion is capable. Many have noticed that the traditional Western religion of Christianity is substantially a fake among those who profess it (i.e. self-identified Christians are mostly first Leftists, and only secondarily Christian). Others have noted that - as a matter of fact - the West is not re-adopting Christianity, and as a matter of probability there seems little chance that the West will re-adopt Christianity.  However, these facts and probabilities do not affect the argument that only a religion can combat Leftism - they merely suggest that there is little evidence for, and little prospect of, the defeat of Leftism by religion in the West. I is very simple: if people choose to reject religion, then they simply will not defeat Leftism.

Not only do Leftists Not engage in Holiness Spirals - HSs don't exist as a phenomenon; assuming (as Christians do) there is a such a real-thing as spiritual Holiness.

There is no tendency (or, at least, it is extremely rare) for Holiness to spiral out of control. Holiness is too difficult to spiral!

The tendency goes in the opposite direction - to spiral into worldliness, not Holiness.


Of course, if Holiness is equated with hypocrisy; i.e. if all possible examples of Holiness are interpreted as being necessarily hypocritical 'virtue signalling' - then that does indeed spiral out of control, in order to cover for itself.

But if Holiness is a real and spiritual thing; then this is not so.


'Spiral' implies an innate tendency towards positive feedback; the idea that when once something has started, it will not tend to revert to the starting point (negative feedback) nor will it go to the opposite extreme (like a pendulum swing) - but will instead become more extreme with accelerating rapidity.

And indeed there is this quality about Leftism: it feeds-off-itself until...

Well what exactly?


Positive feedback mechanisms can only end by destroying themselves. Does Leftism destroy itself? In a material sense - yes; but for a Christian, the essence is spiritual. And in this spiritual sense, Leftism is a type of evil; indeed the dominant mode of evil in the modern world.

In this spiritual sense, Leftism leads to more Leftism without any necessary end-point - just as evil can always become more evil.

Neither Leftism nor evil more generally can continue to completion - because evil is purposive, and purpose has an ineradicable element of divine creation. A parasite kills itself when it consumes its host - but in the case of evil, the parasite is part of the same creation as the host. But evil can always become more evil, like an asymptotic curve.


So, Leftism may well (almost certainly will) destroy our civilisation, with the death of many billions worldwide who depend on this civilisation to sustain the seven-fold global population growth since the industrial revolution.
  
However, the spiritual harm of Leftism - the value inversion, the self-chosen damnation - could in principle just keep increasing and increasing: as evil feeds upon evil.


In sum, from a Christian (hence spiritual) perspective; Holiness is the wrong term, Spiral is actually a negative attribute; and the common assumption that Holiness Spirals are self-limiting is not necessarily true.

If there is a spiritual limit to the harm of Leftism, it comes not from intrinsic properties of Leftism; but from that which is Not Leftism: that which is Good.

God is the only antidote to Leftism.
  

It is very striking to me, how negative are people's ideals now; compared with even fifty or a hundred years ago. 

And I mean negative in practice - not just in theory; because there have been negative religious theories for at least a couple of thousand years - yet in practice Christians had strong positive motivations. 

Negative Theology (Via Negativa) was prominent in Christianity (substantially inherited from pagan Romans and Greeks) in the early centuries AD. I mean the ascetic path of opposition to the world, elimination of temptation, and repudiation of "the flesh", which was taken to the greatest extreme by the hermit Desert Fathers. 

The Neo-Platonic theology (e.g. associated with Dionysius the Aeropagite) was one of explicit negation; that asserted we cannot know God except by knowing what God is Not, are dragged down by our instincts and desires. This in general down-rated or rejected marriage, family, creativity as paths to God; due to their excessive risk of temptation by fleshly pleasures - binding us to mortal life, its pleasures and pains. 

These desires were to be overcome by prolonged disciplines of deprivation and chosen suffering; so that we may learn control of them, and ultimately independence from them. 

Yet, in practice, there was at this time also a very powerful yet implicit positive desire for communion with God, to emulate (their idea of) Jesus Christ, and to dwell spiritually in Heaven even while on earth.

Therefore, the true situation was one in which there was strong positive desires that were unconscious and implicit; which were disciplined and shaped by the explicit rituals and practices of a negative nature. 

Through human history, these unconscious and implicit positive instincts have dwindled, until many modern people are hardly aware of them, deny their validity, and often altogether deny their presence. People (especially in The West) are no longer guided by positive implicit instincts towards God, the spirit, higher consciousness... 

Instead we are guided by external human-originated ideals - especially the dominant ideology of 'secular-leftist-materialism' that underpins all of social and political discourse and institutions in The West. 

If an individual rejects the dominant ideology, he must (as a rule) do so by an explicit and consciously chosen act of will. 

Interestingly, even the ideology of left-materialism itself has been subject to the same trends in consciousness. It has gone from containing a considerable largely-unconscious and implicit positive element; to being almost wholly negative in its ideals, and oppositional in its practices. 

When it began to emerge a couple of hundred years ago, leftism often shared in the (mostly unconscious) positive goals of Christianity; so that there were many "Christian socialists" in the UK (from the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England, as well as Nonconformist churches), who (albeit misguidedly) saw socialism as a means to the end of a more Christian society. These were a significant cultural phenomenon into the middle 20th century. 

Even among the explicitly materialist-atheist leftists of the late nineteenth century - such as the revolutionary communist William Morris and the gradualist Fabian George Bernard Shaw - there was strong (albeit un-theorized, un-grounded) positive assumption concerning the goals of leftism. 

Such Men would argue that socialism was a necessary/ the best means to achieve the kind of society that was 'common-sensically' (by appeal to universal evaluations) regarded as a good environment for positive virtues. 

For Morris that was a quasi-Medieval agrarian society in which the arts and crafts thrived, and were universal - a world of craftsmen and artists, for whom labour was an altruistic joy. 

For Shaw it was a modern industrial society where all were allocated an equal income that made accessible all the higher things in life (arts, sciences etc). The purpose of universal and equal prosperity was to enable Men to pursue 'mystical' goals; such as attaining higher consciousness - en route to a somewhat Platonic world of pure intelligences whose gratification was contemplation, and untrammeled creativity.

For the likes of Morris, Shaw and other early socialists; the desirability of such a society was self-evident; but it is no longer self-evident in 2022. Indeed, such utopian schemes are all-but off the map, seldom mentioned; and so weakly believed (if at all) that such ideals are unable significantly sustain a life or even (noticeably) to influence behaviour.  

What I mean is that - diminishing, but evident until about the middle-20th century - the underlying, even if unstated, belief even on the Left was that if the obstacles to a better and higher life could be removed by socialism (or feminism, antiracism, an economy of common ownership etc) - then a better and higher life would spontaneously emerge - because that (it was assumed) was what Men wanted.

And it was that better/ higher life that was the ultimate justification of leftism. 

 

Well, that concept has become meaningless, and since the 1960s, as the New Left has focused on negative aims, without any positive sense of where this is going, or what state of society it is trying to achieve, or what people are supposed to do and live-by in a future society. Contra Morris; the arts and crafts, guilds and professions, small villages and farming as a vocation; have all declined catastrophically. And, contra Shaw; Men are more, not less, focused on materialism, consumption and shallow pleasures and dissipating distractions.  

Underlying such changes in both Christianity and Leftism is this waning of the unconscious and implicit, ultimately spiritual and self-justifying, ideal of The Good Life.  

Now we must consciously choose God, Jesus Christ, and to live by the transcendental values of divine creation. These are not longer spontaneously generated from within ourselves. 

On the one hand; we are free-er than Men used to be; because we are no longer subject to uncontrollable drives from unconscious motivations. 

On the other hand; if we do not choose correctly; then we are prone to purposelessness, meaninglessness and therefore despair - in a way that used to be extremely rare, even among the explicit atheists and nihilists of 100-plus years ago. 

The non-Christians who are insightful enough to see the fake and lies of the mainstream System (the 'secular Right') are tying themselves in knots trying to describe and characterize the nature of the ideology that oppresses the world. 

They have nothing positive and motivating to suggest - but they routinely denigrate Christianity... and other religions too - but the focus is naturally on Christianity as the only potentially viable Western religion. 

They persist in describing the Global Establishment ideology of atheist, materialist Leftism as a New Religion - and persistently use religious analogies as a slur against Leftism - on the assumption that because faith, rituals, observances, prayer etc. are religious, that means they are dumb, irrational and/or manipulative.

So they are calling totalitarian Leftism a New Religion because Religion means bad. Yet this is a supposed religion that has - in the past year - closed down, taken-over and thereby utterly discredited not just the Christian churches, but all plausible pretense to spiritual authority of all the large and organized churches. So this 'New Religion' has destroyed spiritual authority... What kind of 'religion' destroys spiritual authority? 

Secular Leftism is also a supposed religion that does not believe in God: it is atheist in its avowed beliefs, and God is excluded as a significant factor from all areas of public discourse. What kind of a 'religion' does not believe in God, any gods, and any abstract deity?

This supposed 'religion' also disbelieves in any positive purpose or meaning to human life; and instead insists that reality is merely a combination of random and rigidly-determined 'physics'; just processes, grinding-on and with no point for humans.  

It insists that there is no soul, no life after death - that all human behaviour is reducible to 'psychology' and that the only kind of morality is based on 'feelings'.  

In what sense is this New Religion actually any kind of 'religion'? Well, only by superficial analogies and not by any deep beliefs or assumptions. 

This idea of Leftism as a New Religion is thus an analysis which makes worse the problem it tries to cure: it exacerbates the belief and harm of Leftism by tarring all religion with the same brush - and implicitly arguing from a standpoint of such total disbelief that religions go down in flames with Leftism because even the feeble negative and oppositional beliefs of Leftism are regarded as of the same nature as the powerful positive motivations of real religion. 

The problem is that the atheist "right" can't help themselves - so long as they remain atheist, for so long they must believe (by assumption) that all religions are false, and therefore all the beliefs, rites, rituals and other 'religious practices can only be made-up for the purpose of population manipulation. And are now being used by the 'New Religion' for the same purposes as they were used by 'old' religions. 

Yet the reality which explains the 'New Religion' is very simple - it is an anti-religion to Christianity; it is in essence the opposite of a real religion (Christianity, specifically) and the rites and rituals of Leftism have the same nature as those of explicit Satanism - they are a subversion or inversion of the Christian truth and reality. 

History teaches us that Real Religion is capable of motivating man more strongly than anything else - nothing else is able to sustain courage and social cohesion like a real religion. 

By contrast, modern Leftism is demotivating; it presides over a society of unprincipled cowards who cannot even oppose the secular authorities in the privacy of their own thoughts and are intimidated into craven obedience by the mere threat of stern looks and harsh words so that actual oppression is not needed. 

Against this, the secular Right have nothing positive to offer. 

Negatively; they are perfectly correct that our civilization is being actively-destroyed; and that all social functionality is being actively-destroyed - and that we are headed for the collapse of modern living and cooperative society; for severe mass human suffering from famine, violence and (real) disease. But negatively not-wanting this to happen is grossly inadequate - it is not a positive motivation.  

No civilization was ever built or sustained by the fear of losing a comfortable and convenient life. To grow and defend a civilization needs that courage and cohesion that only religion can give. 

We are the first and only thoroughly post-religious society, ever. 

By continually pretending we have a 'New Religion' and using religious language as a slur; by sniping at even the possibility of a real religion, by equating the literally Satanic anti-religion of Leftism with real Christianity - the secular Right are de facto fighting on the same side as the Leftism they so much despise. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The diagnosis is that Leftism is (almost) everywhere by now, such that it is the water in which we swim - not least because its basis is in the modern mass media which is everywhere and is the water in which we swim.

A few years ago I wrote Thought Prison which analyzed political correctness (or the New Left, the post-sixties Left of identity politics, group preferences and quotas and the sexual revolution); and traced it back at least to the Great Schism when catholic Christianity divided between East and West.

My interpretation was that the only way to be rid of this cancer was to revert to the pre-modern condition. Another interpretation is that this cannot be done, so the West is doomed.


A further possibility, which has been creeping-up on me for two years or more, is that Leftism is so pervasive that it cannot (even in principle) be deleted, there can be no re-set, because since Leftism is by now almost everywhere and what is more deeply interwoven (including into much of the best and most effective art and thought) so that to try and delete it would be like trying to excise a cancer which has already metastasised all over the body.

If we successfully cut out the Leftism/ cancer- what remained would probably not be viable and would certainly not be desirable.

Is there some other possibility? Maybe.


My idea came from the Mormon Restoration in relation to preceding Christianity. The basis of this is the Mormon belief that from about 100 AD onwards, Christianity underwent a 'Great Apostasy'. As a term, this sounds a lot more negative and damning than it is actually interpreted by Mormons.

The way the idea works in practice, is the assumption that Christianity took a wrong turn after the death or disappearance of the Apostles. For example, it lost some vital doctrines (such as pre-mortal existence) and gained some false emphases and unhelpful metaphysics.

This was not self-correcting; so there needed to be a new prophet chosen by God (i.e. Joseph Smith) who would lead a Restoration that provided recovered/ new scriptures (e.g. The Book of Mormon) and doctrinal clarification (e.g. the Doctrines and Covenants); together with a re-booted priesthood and a church organization suited to the needs of these 'latter days'.


But Mormonism does not reject the previous 1700 years of Christianity - is not hostile to pre-Mormon Christians - does not try to delete it from consciousness or usage - does not try to restart Christianity on the basis of the 'primitive church': quite the opposite.

Of all the serious Christian denominations of which I am aware, Mormons are by far the most positive about other denominations; and up to the very highest level will quote and learn from and revere good counsel from any source and any point in Christian history (and, indeed, from outside of Christianity). This has always been the case from Joseph Smith onwards, and is not a matter of theory - this is a very warm-hearted and spontaneous thing.


In sum, from a Mormon perspective, the Restoration was necessary, but that does not mean that everything which went before could or should be discarded - rather pre-Mormon Christianity (and other modern Christian churches) is subject to addition, subtraction and a different emphasis: but it is not by any means deleted, rather it is willingly, actively and happily used - but selectively.

In a word pre-Mormon Christianity is transcended; or in another word re-framed; or re-interpreted and built-upon what went before.


By analogy, I think it may and should be possible to do the same with Leftism.

Perhaps it is possible not to fight Leftism head-on, in an 'us or them', all or nothing battle unto death; but for Leftism to repent; and for post-Leftism to re-frame, re-interpret, transcend and build-upon Leftism - pick it up and take it in a very different direction (recognizing that it was in error).

After all, this is what we personally do as individuals when we become Christians. No matter how deeply sinful or misguided our lives have been; we do not try to delete our pre-Christian lives; instead we repent what needs repenting, and start from where we happen to be.

That this is possible is core Christian doctrine. Christ came to save sinners; and takes us exactly as we are now: we are saved by accepting Christ; not post-dated until after some micro-surgical process of totally-deleting all our many and deep and ramifying sins.

From that point, we are Christians,but the creative and joyful work begins of embarking on a life of becoming more Christ-like, a life of theosis: striving to become ever-better Sons and Daughters of God. 


Where we in the West happen to be, is inside a state of extremely comprehensive and multi-generational Leftism - which is anti-Good (that is: evil), deeply sin-full.

We need to repent, and start afresh; but this will be by building-upon the good of the past,starting immediately, and without supposing that we can first extirpate the evils of the past.  

We must, in The secular Leftist West culture, acknowledge that we were wrong; we must start living as best we can in light of what is right - but this is (or should be) an essentially positive and creative agenda: just like becoming a new Christian.

Over the past few years, since I spent a year or so multiply re-reading the Fourth Gospel ("of John") in isolation; I have often emphasized the covertly-deceptive way in which double-negative formulations have colonized and distorted our minds and motivations - both in Christianity and in mainstream modern secular 'leftism'.  

On the face of it, there seems little evidence for anything like a divinely destined evolution of consciousness in Western Man. Looking around in the public realm, or even in direct and personal experience; there seems little to suggest anything of the kind. Nothing that looks like 'progress'.

This is because of two things: 1. Materialism and 2. Negativity.

The materialism which absolutely monopolises modern public life means that consciousness appears only in an indirect way. We only see the indirect effect, the consequences, of consciousness change - and we see only its material - this worldly - manifestations.

Abstraction - including the reduction of qualities to the pseudo-materialism of number - is a major aspect of materialism.Indeed, it is more extreme: qualities are denied reality (because qualities are material) yet simultaneously these non-existent qualities are given numbers and used for calculation of decisions. This is the basis of such managerial technologies of quality managements, racial and sexual monitoring etc. 

The negativity means that the change is expressed by criticism, and not by positive assertion. We get some (materialist) version of what people do Not want; but don't get an expression of their goals.

So, the evolution of consciousness can be seen in the dominant aspects of the dominant ideology of Leftism - but reduced and one-sidely.


Take feminism. The positive spiritual ideals of feminism are related to the positive aspiration of a permanent, literally-divine spiritual and creative marriage relation between a man and woman after death and in the life everlasting as Children of God.

But modern feminism has reject the ideal along with the eternal; and the true spiritual impulse has been concretised to this-worldly economics and power differences. The imperfections of mortal marriage means that marriage itself is rejected as oppressive. What remains is only the negative side of anti-Man aggression- and this is implemented materially in laws and regulations. The deterioration in relationships between men and women is then celebrated.


Another aspect of the evolution of consciousness is an awareness of the uniqueness of each individual, and the knowledge that we have a divine seed within each of us - so that we may grow to become a distinct creative deity - each contributing to God's work of creation.

But of this modern culture expresses only the material aspect: we take into account only that which is measurable and mortal - even while refusing to allow the validity of any measure.

There is a negative refusal at accept any rationale for any economic differences - but without any positive desire for actual equality. We reject actual equality, because we demand that differences in individual circumstances be taken into account; but reject any actual method of doing this.

There is a rejection of legal and cultural impartiality, as a sham and a mask for prejudice; but reject individual judgement as also obviously prejudiced.


More generally; modern Leftism generally regards any reference to to the ideals of post-mortal life as merely an excuse for injustices during mortal life ('pie in the sky', 'jam tomorrow').

Another instance: Leftism celebrates racial and ethnic differences, yet refuses to tolerate racial inequalities; and (negatively) there is no acceptable, objective categorisation of race, ethnicity, culture or economics... Race is simultaneously deconstructed and its reality denied - because race is not material; and abstracted into numbers, so as to be implemented in the material processes of modern government.

The same applies to sex and sexual ientity. Modern negativism denies the reality of these categories because they are not material and do not have hard edges; modern materialism simultaneously creates abstract and hard-edged sexual categories for monitoring and control purposes.


In sum; the ideology of Leftism is implicitly trying, but of course failing, to build a positive system from a host of negative rejections. It is always appealing to morality while its materialism erodes the validity of all moral systems.

So Modern Man does indeed show evidence of the development of underlying positive impulses; but because of (covert, denied) metaphysical assumptions these are systematically distorted such that there is not even the possibility of good outcomes, and we get that moral inversion by which bad consequences are regarded as evidence of virtuous motives.

This is why anti-spiritual, mortal-life-focused Leftism has been the main tool of the dark forces; since a system of inevitable, irreconcilable, competing negativities is the perfect seedbed for evil. 

In inducing modern Western Man to accept materialism and reject all spiritual things as impossible; and in making these beliefs a matter of deep, metaphysical assumption - woven invisibly into the enitre realm of public discourse; the demonic powers have created a machine by which even good and necessary impulses can only be manifested as evil.

I think we are all prone to critique, ridicule and dismiss the ideas of others by arguing purely negatively and without being clear of the assumptions from-which we are arguing. 

I've often done this myself, and indeed tend to fall-into it as a kind of Journalistic" default - to the point that I try to catch and halt this tendency, before it gets too established. 

Of course; one cannot always (e.g. in every blog post!) be re-stating one's assumptions; on the other hand:

1. It is obvious that most people do not even know what are their own assumptions; and

2. Even fewer people have subjected their own assumptions to the kind of critique that they so lavishly bestow upon other people. And

3. Even fewer people - having become aware of their own assumptions, and examined them critically - have found these assumptions to be solid to their own honest satisfaction over a prolonged self-critique*...

This is exactly why there is so much attacking of other people and their views in the modern world (including on the internet); and so little clarification of where that attack is coming from.

 When one's own views are unknown, incoherent, or feeble; and also if one's own person is very obviously flawed - then it makes sense to do everything possible to keep negative attention on the other chap and what the other chap is saying.  

But this is dishonest and incoherent. Therefore, unworthy of respect. 

*(This is, indeed, the entirety of the philosophical defense of modern mainstream ideology - the ideology shared by all people and institutions of wealth and power, all major participants in public discourse to the point that it does not even have a name for itself! I call it variously atheism-materialism-leftism-totalitarianism... but it-itself does not acknowledge any of these names, nor any other term, for what is By Far the most pervasive and enforced ideology in human history.)

 

So, I regard negative critique as so much blah blah - unless it is rooted in some, more or less explicitly known and acknowledged assumptions and motivations; some kind of evident self-awareness. 

This applies to critique emanating from what might be termed a Traditionalist Christian perspective, which can be almost any denomination or church - and indeed, almost the same negative critique may emanate from people/ institutions with very different assumptions - But this is not a strength!

After all, we get essentially the same "progressive" negative-critique of Christianity; coming-in from multi-national organizations such as the UN; from all Western Nations, and all the multi-national corporations and social institutions and the mass media - The Establishment. 

Negative critique is, mostly, merely negatively-motivated and ignorant-of-self; and even when it comes from multiple directions, it remains worthless. 

To be worth considering; negative critique must be in self-awareness of a coherent alternative and positive understanding. 

(Recalling that a double-negative is not a positive.) 

In short: we ought to demand (of ourselves, as well as others) If Not, Then What? 

It is my contention that Christianity in the West has been all-but defeated by Leftism - and that Leftism is itself a thing which has evolved as an anti-Christian ideology.

This means that modern Leftism has evolved in what was originally a Christian context to damage, subvert, destroy and invert Christianity. Because Leftism evolved in a Christian context, Leftism is pre-adapted to thwart most of the historical strategies of Christianity. 


In other words, when considering strategies to promote the future of Christianity, if a strategy has been tried and failed in the past, if a type of Christianity has been defeated by Leftism; then it is unlikely to work in the future.

(So long as the Leftist West stands. If any type of Christianity survives until after the West collapses, then it may well be in a position to exploit and thrive in the very different post-collapse situation.)

In other words, an attempt at straightforward revival of some past type of Christianity which is currently failing is not likely to work as a strategy for Christian revival in the current context.

How can we evaluate success or failure?

Biologically, any potentially successful and robust religious group needs to have a viable demographic structure: above replacement fertility, an age profile less than forty, a sex profile with about half men (or higher).

If a type of Christianity clearly lacks these (i.e. if it has significantly below replacement fertility, and age structure dominated by the elderly, and is composed mostly of women), I suggest that this is a sign that it has been defeated by Leftism, Leftism has the better of it; and we cannot hope realistically for a Christian revival from such denominations or churches.

Spiritually, since we cannot look into Men's souls we are forced to rely upon objective indicators. So, the viable type of Christianity will demonstrate evidence of devoutness - adherence to a demanding lifestyle, high levels of tithing, church service, missionary activity, strength in the face of persecution etc.

Such criteria could serve as a basis, as a beginning at least, for understanding of what might work (best to pursue several lines of strategy), and perhaps what ought to be done - to trigger and build a Christian revival.


Note: I also think that success is more likely from scaling-up a small but successful group, than from trying to reform a large group that is mostly a failure but contains minority pockets of success. At least, this is what happens with other human institutions. When the successful parts of an organization are in a small minority, it can be very difficult or impossible to reform the organization - unless there are first massive, majority 'cuts' to get rid of the negative, destructive influence of the failing majority. On the other hand, small successful institutions and businesses can often be up-scaled ten, a hundredfold within a very short timescale.  

From what I perceive, 2016 is indeed unfolding to be the year of reckoning which some have predicted - perhaps best understood as the year of choice; and more exactly the year of branching choices.

Starting from the triumphant domination of secular Leftism, it looks as if looks as if more and more of the Establishment are defecting from the programme - or are on the verge of doing-so, and as if the ruling cabal is afraid - very afraid - of a major backlash. Hence the global conspiracy of evil is trying to strike prematurely with their long-prepared plan of a mega-destructive World War III (starting in the Middle East); before the lower-level Establishment and the population of the West have been brought behind the idea.

The choices of 2016 can be seen as a branching system. Early choices are worth having - but only if the choices follow through (reasonably swiftly) will they do any more than somewhat delay the plan for comprehensive destruction of Good.

The first choice is:

Secular Leftism versus Not-secular Leftism

This is about as far as we have currently reached - a negative reaction against the prevailing trends.

Then there is a choice between:

Cynical nihilism versus Spiritual Awakening

Cynical nihilism is negative - and the Cynical Nihilist decides merely to operate on the basis of his gut-feelings, which he regards as subjective - so it is merely a kind of systematic selfishness. This is better than secular Leftism, because not actively suicidal - but CN is unstable and severely suboptimal. Spiritual awakening is therefore the way forward.

But spiritual awakening has happened before - eg. in the mid 1960s - and it is likely to be poisoned at source by the (Leftist) Sexual Revolution unless it leads to religion. So the next choice is either to retain the sexual revolution - leading to New Age spirituality or to reject the sexual revolution, which leads to religion (of one sort or another):

New Age Spirituality versus Religion

We know from experience the New Age spirituality leads nowhere, so Religion is the way forward. The next step is to 'choose your religion'. For Westerners this means Christianity of something-else:

Not-Christianity versus Christianity

If Christianity is chosen, at this point it refers to real Christianity, not Liberal Christianity - which is merely secular Leftism with some Christian top-dressing.

The re-adoption of Christianity by the West would be a major step in the right direction - but it would essentially be a 'rewind'; hence the question arises: would it be enough to prevent secular Leftism returning, just as it did in the past? I don't think so.

The next step is the most controversial - because there is a choice between one or many churches of Actually Existing Christianity - which is the world of the existing denominations, each of which claims (more-or-less) exclusivity and New Christianity - which does not exist and never has existed even conceptually except among a few specific individuals.

Traditional Christianity versus Evolution of a New Christianity

The evolution of a New Christianity would probably evolve from one or more of the existing churches - but not be exactly the same as any of them currently are; nor would it be any kind of Liberalisation or assimilation to secular norms.

New Christianity would be (would need to be) a correction of those flaws in past Christianity which were exploited by secular Leftism - and would indeed be a restoration of a Christianity closer to the intention of Christ and more in-line with the nature and purposes of God.

That, I believe, is the destined way ahead - that is what Christianity was supposed to do way back around 1800 at the start of the Industrial Revolution and the first outburst of Romanticism - the kind envisaged by the likes of the poets Blake, Wordsworth and Coleridge.

So, with New Christianity I am talking about Romantic Christianity.

So the final destination of 2016 would need to be

Romantic Christianity 

Which comes at the end of a many branched path of choices - so the chances of us getting to that destination seem remote; and anything less will - I believe - fail to suffice.

Nonetheless, any steps along that path would be very welcome - and we are currently seeing the first step being taken by ever more people.

We therefore now have a real chance; albeit a slim chance.

Freedom is, at best, a means to an end - and freedom is only good when the end is good. 

By contrast, totalitarian tyranny (such as now rules the world) is intrinsically and necessarily evil - of its nature it opposes God and creation - so totalitarian tyranny always ought to be opposed. 

But opposed in the name of what? 

That makes a big difference. 

If totalitarian evil is opposed in the name of freedom, that is only to oppose the greater by the lesser evil. 

It is - in fact - to oppose an extreme version of the leftist ideology with a more moderate leftism. 

Therefore... a 2022 protest or movement based on freedom merely aims to return to the world to what it was a few years ago...

Yet that world of a few years ago was already the most evil society in human history. 

Modern Leftism is an ideology of opposition - it is self-identified only by what it opposes - and these 'isms' are many and contradictory. 

Therefore Leftism cannot be fought by adding further negative values - such as freedom. These will, indeed, only serve to reinforce Left ideology as the only available option. 

Ideology is the perspective that the this-worldly, the material - are the only truths and the the ultimate values. 

When ideology is pitted against ideology - then ideology is always the winner - and all ideology is of-the-Left. 

Ideology cannot be opposed by ideology but only by religion. The negative and opposition can only be defeated by the positive and transcendental. 

Negative protest is of value Only when it is the first-step towards awakening a positive and motivating religious, specifically Christian, world view among individual persons. 

Otherwise - as with the Tea Party, Brexit, Trump, and current freedom protests - there will be no lasting and positive social transformation: no reversal of the many decades-long adverse trends in The West. 

So, while I naturally prefer the lesser evil to the greater; I would only actively-support an explicitly* religious and Christian movement - that is, one whose value-basis was explicitly divine, and whose stated aims were directed beyond this-mortal-world. 

*A movement's goals must nowadays be explicit and upfront if they are to be Good; since all inexplicit goals must be assumed evil as of 2022. Where evil is pervasive, incentivized and mandatory; whatever is unconscious, passive and spontaneous will be assimilated to evil. 

The most important thing is life is supposed to be 'religion'. That is how Men are made - spiritually, and even biologically. Because biologically Men evolved in a religious world - and Men's responses, motivations, attitudes and behaviours were always calibrated by a religious environment. 

(I use the scare quotes around religion, because the term is so ill-defined, controversial and indeed tendentious - against Christianity; but you-know-what-I-mean.)

Men are made by God so that our lives are built-around and permeated by considerations such as God or the gods, the spiritual world around us -including matters of contact and communication with that world, life beyond death, the purpose and meaning of life so-considered... and so forth. 

If we look back at any pre-modern society; it is obvious that religion was (almost always, for almost everybody) the most important thing: it provided a multi-level and integrated perspective through-which all else was evaluated.  

After religion was incrementally deleted from both public life, and - in effect - from personal thinking (even among the self-described religious - due to the change towards materialism-positivism-and this-worldly ideologies) Mankind entered an unprecedented world in which there was no integration overall, and where meaning and purpose were confined to micro and specialized domains, short-termist, selfish and pulling apart. 

What took-over as the most important thing in life? Variously (in different times and places) national identity, leftist politics, sex and sexuality, money, status - and sometimes (briefly) idealistic devotion to work: arts, literature, science, scholarship... 

At first after religion there was an age - a generation or two - or idealism and ideology. Even sex was an ideology, for a short while - for normal sex in the 60s, for abnormal sex from the 80s... 

But always, soon, these ideologies became negative, oppositional, incoherent - and much weaker as motivators. None of these replacements for religion were sufficiently powerful, effective, coherent, deep-rooted or motivating. 

Until in 2020 - all ideologies, all utopian hopes (whether for sex-utopia, arts or sciences, for the residual rump of church Christianity - or for any positive ideas), were suddenly discarded; and the whole world of human aspiration replaced by a mass mindless, irrational, panicky, dependent, pathetic craving for short-term personal survival at any cost. 

There was no longer any compelling positive reason to live - but only negative reasons not to die, not to suffer...

Against this global, pseudo-unifying mass effect of fear (also fuelled by manufactured and false fear of climate change due to excessive CO2) - worked many individual and group negative resentments based on sex, sexuality, race, nation, church-religion etc.  

And this is where we are - now. One world system organized around negative motivators concerning the birdemic and climate change; which are Big Lies. And multiple fissile and hostile negative sub-motivators based mainly on race, ethnicity, religion and the other resentments of leftism. 

Absent religion; there is only one terminus, which is despair and the desire for death - which means, to the non-religious - wished-for annihilation of the self, of the soul. 

All because the most important thing in life must be religion. First that must be recognized and acknowledged as a fact. Then people must 'choose their religion'...

But this time choosing religion personally, from internal evaluations, without equating religion with any external assumed-authoritative 'church' (all major denominational churches having by now demonstrated unambiguously that they are a part of the religion-deleting, negative-system of evil).

How may someone choose their religion? On the basis of what is true - of course; but the process should probably start with asking "What would I most want to be true? Now - and, most importantly, forever."

Once that is known - we can begin work to establish whether our first idea of what we most want is really what we most want; and then whether it really is true by the profoundest intuitive evaluation we can discern.

*

The early Leftists, Fabians and Bolsheviks, for example, were very keen on central planning and 'rational' decision making in the economy.

Indeed rational planning was the absolute centre, focus and main plank of Leftism in most of its modernizing varieties. 

This led to the desire for totalitarian dictatorship, and experiments with it.

*

But modern Leftism seems to have dispensed with rational central planning, and embraced uncontrolled chaos with no centralization (instead discipline only by an un-centred mass media) and zero rationality (instead only black-box bureaucratic procedures).

It seems superficially strange - and it would be strange if Leftism really had a positive and constructive agenda - but of course it does not.

Leftism, as it developed, was revealed as a negative agenda - defined by being against this, that and the other (against class inequality, but not in favour of equality, against sexism but not in favour of ignoring sex, ditto race...).

And it turns out that in reality Leftism is against economic freedom, 'laissez-faire' self-regulation and autonomy of economic agents, but not actually in favour of central and rational planning - but actually merely in favour of destroying economic freedom.

*

It turns out that the Left wasn't really all that bothered about the very thing that was placed at the absolute centre of their supposed political agenda.

It turns out that the Left is more concerned to implement destruction than to create anything in particular.

It is long overdue that the real nature of the Left was recognized - because, let's face it, there is by now plenty of evidence.

*

It seems to have been little noticed that for several decades, the West's idea of 'conquest' has been morally to corrupt nations - for the obvious reason that those paid to notice and inform the masses, are themselves among the most corrupt. 

If you follow-up the consequences of any Western intervention - whether an invasion/ occupation; engineered and paid-for 'regime change'; or 'subversion as usual' by means of subsidizing NGOs, 'charities' and funding destablizing leftist groups...

You can see a pattern of Western intervention invariably increasing moral corruption (bribery, theft, sexual immorality, social breakdown with violence); including the destruction of any genuine religion by convergence and suppression (especially Christianity, but also any traditionalist religion with a distinct world-view and morality). 

Thus, the actual and achieved pattern of Western intervention abroad is Sorathic (i.e. doing evil by inducing chaos) rather than Ahrimanic (i.e. evil imposed by systems of totalitarian bureaucratic surveillance and control) - and has been for a good while. 

A clear example is the current conflict involving the Fire Nation - where it seems that (as usual) the main Western 'plan' has been first grossly to corrupt the top-level leadership-class of a nation (by standard techniques of bribery and blackmail); then deliberately - but 'deniably', by proxy - to provoke a war; and now to encourage the maximum of destruction to population and infrastructure. 

By such means has the Western Establishment has pursued the most advanced forms of Sorathic evil abroad - but what about 'at home'? 

Meanwhile, for the past couple of decades and peaking in 2020 with the global coup; the dominant strategy 'at home' in the West has been Ahrimanic. That is, to use a single, linked, increasingly international bureaucracy-mass media, to create a society of omni-surveillance and total control. Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset are some statements of this plan. 

However, there have also been strongly Sorathic aspects in home policy; especially the implementation of mass immigration to the West - including the encouragement of illegal, violent and criminal migrants. 

This inevitably creates social and economic breakdown and chaos; and the chaos has been deliberately concealed by suspending the surveillaince-control Ahrimanic state when it comes to 'multicultural' sub-groups - such as 'no-go zones' of cities, and police policies of 'non-intervention'. 

The actual governance of Western nations (e.g. in relation to the personal behaviour of politicians, and the conduct of elections) has also become extremely, now all-but openly, corrupt - hence chaotic.

Chaos has more recently been fuelled by birdemic-testing-quarantine and the peck, the imposed cult of antiracism and race-sex preferences, and the truly colossal global economic destruction caused by financial and economic 'sanctions'. 

At some point, the forces of chaos become, of their nature, irreversible. Evil feeds upon itself - inevitably, by its nature (when unrepented); and the Sorathic is a more advanced form of evil than the Ahrimanic.   

The triumph of leftism (and it is, indeed, triumphant - worldwide, at the highest levels) therefore turns-out to be the triumph of corruption and chaos. 

That is what leftism is at root, and what it always tended to become over time - because the nature of leftism is oppositional and negative; hence incoherent; and incoherence is another word for chaos. 

In other words; leftism is the ideology of evil, but evil has different forms; and there is always conflict among evil-serving persons and entities.

Yet, over time, evil innately 'progresses' from Ahrimanic to Sorathic; from (partly) constructive and planned, towards very-fully-destructive and chaotic. 

For a while, the most destructive evils of mainstream Western Establishment leftism were mainly exported abroad; where societies were destroyed serially. 

But now, the same chaotic evil is getting a grip 'at home' - overwhelming the bureaucrats, transhumanists, and mind-programmers - and the current triumphs of the left are more about spreading destruction than about increasing control. 

The bad news is that it is much easier to corrupt Men than to encourage morality, to destroy than to create. 

The 'good' news is that the left is - at an increasing rate - destroying its own capacity to inflict chaos.

Yet evil does not destroy itself as it advances, and Good can only arise from Good-aiming Persons - and Good means of-God. 

However, this analysis suggests that there may be coming more spiritual scope for Good, for Christian awakening and conversion, as The System destroys itself... Even though the physical/ material prospects seem extremely bleak.