Bruce Charlton's Notions

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. 

This is a slightly topical post - for once, and I am not setting a precedent (nor am I inviting further topical references in the comments!); because it has been triggered by JK Rowling's rather courageous persistence in making blunt and true public criticisms of the trans extremes of Leftism. 

Similar situations are common, and always have been common - I merely reference 'Rowling and trans' because she has neither backed-down nor apologized - and because she is as famous as anybody in the world at present. 

Note: I have written extensively about JK Rowling on this blog - because I regard her Harry Potter series as a work of genius in its genre. 

It is - of course - proximately A Good Thing for anybody to speak the truth, any truth, in a world of lies; and to do so requires courage. 

For this JKR is to be applauded. But...

The mindset of a moderate Leftist like JKR is interesting. She can see clearly that for the trans agenda to enable and excuse (multiple instances of) rape of women is an evil. She can perceive that rape is morally of far greater seriousness than the imposition of lies about sexuality. She is prepared to say so, despite extreme pressure. 

But...

JK Rowling makes her criticism from a Feminist perspective; and both the trans agenda and feminism are aspects of Leftism: feminism early, and trans coming more recently. 

Nonetheless it is a fact that both feminism and trans share the same political history, have the same ideological roots, and employ the same nature of justification. That is both are utilitarian: both feminism and trans claim to make more people happy, more of the time - both claim to reduce human suffering and diminish injustice. 

Yet both lack metaphysical roots, because feminism and leftism are free-floating ethical systems - they assert their goodness, their justice etc; but with no transcendental basis for doing so. 

Trans is a plain lie and a value-inversion - and a far more extreme form of Leftism - but both feminism and trans originate in exactly the same mind-set, motivations and assumptions. 

JKR has (apparently) not reflected on how it is that such an obviously insane evil as trans has arisen, how it has been internationally been adopted; how trans is supported by all major institutions in government (world and national), finance, corporations, and the mass media. 

Trans is now part of employment and criminal laws; and is coercively enforced worldwide - as Rowling is currently experiencing. 

How does JKR suppose this situation has arisen? A situation where almost everybody among the Establishment - most of whose opinions she endorses, and whose general assumptions she 'passionately' shares and expounds, and who are (or were) her personal friends and associates - has unified so unanimously around such an extraordinarily wicked lie? 

In essence, Rowling (like so many other dissident, 'sensible' Leftists) sees and deplores one or another particular symptom of evil; but shows no serious interest in understanding the underlying cause which has led to this happening. 

Quite the opposite - she endorses almost everything about Leftism - except a few specific points where her own 1990s feminism clashes with nearly-everybody-else's 2021 trans-ism.

Rowling is the one who is out of step ideologically - almost everybody else in Leftism has followed the internal oppositional logic of Leftism through to the trans conclusion. 

And therefore the net effect of her dissent is to support the Leftist System that creates and sustains exactly the evil she deplores. 

Because - where else could the trans agenda possibly come-form - except Leftism? This discernment, this conclusion, is not "rocket surgery": it is about as obvious as anything could be - unless one is self-blinded by exactly that same ideology...    

JK Rowling deplores a real and extreme abuse and moral inversion. Well done! However, she argues from Leftism, without apparent awareness that this evil abuse is a direct and logical product of the assumptions of her own Leftist ideology. 

Just as feminism grew from opposition to traditional sexual roles - first opposing inequality of opportunity, then inequality of training and experience, then inequality of outcomes... But it did not - could not - stop there. 

Feminism soon evolved into denying obvious innate differences in men's and women's nature, disposition, motivations and abilities. And this has been the situation for decades - in all major corporations, institutions, organizations - in government and the media; and apparently Rowling is quite happy with it.  

From this feminism's false and dishonest denial of difference between men and women, it was but a short-step - just another short false and dishonest step! - to asserting that men and women were inter-convertible; and crushing anyone who says otherwise... Exactly as the feminist Establishment has, for the past generation-plus, crushed anyone who asserted true-and-obvious functionally significant sex differences. 

Leftism is 'progressive': it never stands still, it cannot stand still - because it has no structural basis for standing still. 

This is because Leftism is oppositional, critical, subversive - it is not aiming at any particular social end point but at a state of 'permanent revolution'.

Therefore Leftism will always lead to value inversion - that is, to extreme, insane and evil lies - because there is nowhere else for Leftism to go!

Rowling is thus engaged in the futile gesture of trying to stop the cancerous subversions of Leftism at a particular point that rationalizes some specific ethical values which she personally regards as primary.

Implicitly, thereby, JKR operates on the basis that Leftism is the only acceptable and moral ideology. 

Unfortunately, but inevitably, that deeply pro-Establishment, pro-System, pro-Left message is what is communicated by JKR's highly-particular act of courageous dissent.

And this pro-Establishment Leftism is precisely why JK Rowling (and other dissident Leftists of her ilk) remain able to dissent; why their dissent is given so much publicity, and is so widely disseminated by the mass media - and why she has not been excluded by The System; as is anyone who denies the assumptions of Leftism is excluded.

Courage is a virtue; but courage on the side of evil and therefore against God's creation is not something that a Christian can endorse. 

One of the problems for self-styled Rightists is a shocking ignorance of Leftism. I'm not even talking about the centuries long historical perspective, but simply Leftism over the past century - back to the time of my grandparents.

A common consequence of this is the common wrong Rightist idea that Leftism is a religion.

Now, of course there are some respects in which Leftism is somewhat like a religion - but the falsity of the idea that it was a religion would be obviously untrue to anyone who knew what Leftism was like in the early Twentieth century as well as knowing what it has been (increasingly) like in the past fifty years.

It was not so daft to regard Communism as a religion - and like a real religion, the first generation of communists were often very highly motivated to the point of extreme courage and self-sacrifice.

This early type of Leftism was economic, at root. It was about the distribution of wealth and income, economic planning, the ownership of the means of production and so forth.

In Britain (which is where Leftism was invented) many early Leftists (socialists) were Protestant nonconformists of extremely strict morality: sexual morality, and they did not lie, gamble or drink alcohol. Many were skilled native working class men - the Trades Unionists - dedicated to self-improvement by education in the sciences and high art: they founded lectures, libraries, funded colleges, promoted literacy...

Old style Leftism was wrong, and contained the seed of greater wrongness - but it had many good qualities, and many admirable people leading it. 

Compare this with Leftism now. It is almost completely different in almost every respect: no longer based on economics but instead on identity politics, femimism, antiracism, promoting the sexual revolution. It was post-mid-sixties Leftist parties in Britain which most aggressively promoted the culture of gambling, drinking, promiscuity, marriage-and-family destruction, native population replacement, hype & spin (ie. systematic lying). 

Leftist politics is now something which would have been utterly revolting to the old style, high minded communists, Christian socialists and Trades Unionists.

Religions don't behave this way. They are far more stable, and their decline is characterised by corruption and apostasy; but not near-total ideological and social reversal in the space of a generation! (say 1945-75 - of course the generations overlapped and blurred the phenomenon).

Indeed, one has to look deep to discover the commonality of the Left throughout its evolution - it is there, but it is not a surface feature, and not captured by a single core aim. (Indeed, I believe the Left can only plausibly be explained as a consequence of supernatural, demonic leadership - working gradually and incrementally to demoralise, corrupt and invert people over multiple generations. Human agency is incapable of such long-termism.)

I was brought up as an old style Leftist through my extended family; and avidly studied the history of the movement in my teens - and also, time-lagged, participated in the transformation of the Left as it happened from the middle sixties. So I can see that it is not any more a religion - it does not do what a religion does for people; in sum Leftism is now almost wholly oppositional.

A religion must have some fixity of metaphysics, doctrine, scripture, goals, tradition, church structure... something! Time has revealed that Leftism has no positive content - it is merely oppositional, inversional; and ultimately what Leftism opposes is The Good.

That is its only unity. 
   

*
For more argument on these lines see my book Addicted to Distraction:
http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk

*
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.

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. 

Some commentators on 'the right' seem to think it is a clever insight and useful analysis to describe Wokeness/ Political Correctness/ New Leftism as A Religion. They announce this as if it were a strikingly original thesis, a radical and dissenting position - and a basis for effective opposition*. 

Yet, when one Googles "Woke" and "a religion" there are over six million hits - spread across mainstream media as well as dissenting sources (and that is just using the relatively-recent "woke" as a search term)**.  

So the idea of Leftism (or communism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, healthism, antiracism or whatever) as A Religion is very far from original, new or marginal.

Nor is the idea oppositional to The Establishment - indeed the level of official media coverage of this concept makes clear that the 'idea' of regarding Leftism as A religion is one that serves the interests of Leftism, and promotes the Globalist, totalitarian Left agenda. 

How? Well, most obviously because Leftism is, Very Obviously, anti-religion generally and anti-Christian specifically - root and branch and explicitly. So much so that one has to have a very special kind of blindness Not to see such an obvious fact. 

But that that particular blindness to the obvious is common, normal and is atheism. The people who regard it as clever and useful to call woke-ness A Religion are people who regard religions as ultimately false. 

These Woke=Religion people do Not believe that we dwell in a divine creation, do Not believe in a personal God, do Not believe in a spiritual realm that contains, and is greater than, the material, do not believe in a life beyond biological death. 

All of these are core-to and characteristic-of Religion, and without them belief system is Not a religion but merely 'ideology'. To call something that rejects them all A Religion; is merely to deploy a common Leftist subversion that what matters most in an 'institution' is Not its deep and distinctive 'function' or attribute; but something it shares with all others. 

Thus a school or university is Not about education, nor science about truth, nor law about justice - but all are 'really' about Leftism. Likewise when it is asserted that Religion is Not about God, the spirit, life after death, divine creation etc - then the concept of Religion has been hollowed-out and killed.  

To call Leftism A Religion is intrinsically anti-religion, including anti-Christian; because it regards religion sociologically and politically - and an institution purely; in terms of is effects not its causes. 

To call Leftism a religion is therefore a positivist, reductionist, materialist stance; it comes-from a position that is itself one of de facto Leftism. 

This discourse is, indeed, merely an in-house squabble among Leftists, it is merely office politics in which pragmatist-hedonistic Leftists. 

The Woke=Religionists desire nothing more than a comfortable, prosperous and peaceful life; they are pushing-back against 'idealistic' Leftists who are happy to pull-down civilization in order to 'signal their virtue' and feel good about themselves. 

But pragmatist-hedonic Leftists are, after all, Leftists; and have taken the side of Satan against God - chaos against creation; hence rejected even the possibility of coherence in thinking or social organization. 

These are tough times in which we are called to make a binary choice of taking side with Good or with evil; and in which everybody has already made a binary choice (although that choice is not irrevocable). 

The Woke=Religion crew have already made the wrong choice: so they are part of the problem, not a possible answer.    

*Note. Of course, trivially, Wokeness is like a Religion - in some ways. Just as Men are like monkeys, lizards, trees, amoebae in some ways. Any thing is somewhat like any other thing. The point at issue relates to core essential attributes. Religion can be analyzed as a generic social institution - analogous to a corporation, a political party, a profession - or whatever. But the question is whether this captures the distinctive quality. To say Woke is A Religion is to reject exactly that which is distinctive to Religion - to deny (as inessential) that which is distinctive to a religion. It is to argue from assumptions that regard religions as institutions merely.  

**Further Note: The concept of "controlled opposition" (CO) referenced in the title refers to the way that the Establishment promote dissent that focuses on partial specifics of the Leftist agenda - while accepting the core root and basis of that agenda. To be mainstream is to be controlled. 

To be part of the "controlled" opposition does not require that the pseudo-dissenter is aware of playing this role; as I know from experience (i.e. my own self-consciously 'dissenting' writings, lectures, administrative work etc. - up to c2008  about when I became a Christian - were in fact controlled opposition). CO merely requires that the dissenter accepts the basic assumptions of Leftism regarding the nature of reality and what is important (i.e. materialism of discourse and explanation, hedonic-utilitarianism as the aim of life/ policy/ society etc.). 

A recent prominent example of controlled opposition was the meteoric media rise of Jordan Peterson - a Leftist with a few points of disagreement with the mainstream agenda. Another would be the recent attacks on JK Rowling in relation to trans. 

(Interestingly, Rowling was converted from being a Christian to Wokeism by the clever Establishment trick of providing massive mainstream media publicity to the ignorant criticisms of obscure US 'fundamentalist' Christians. She reacted, as intended, by repudiating the pervasive and explicit Christianity of the Harry Potter books.) 

The controlled opposition of Woke=A Religion is core Leftist - the Establishment aim being that popular dissent be channeled into a short loop which sooner or later returns to support the mainstream Left agenda, while quibbling over details. Even the most extreme 'secular Right' attitude is merely a longer loop CO strategy, sustaining that which is maybe 'only' 66% Leftist - but the intended end-result is the same. 

Further extra note: There are some real Christians who have used the "Leftism is a religion trope". These are not necessarily Leftists, but they are mistaken. This is a tactical example of the Boromoir Strategy of Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron! - i.e. they are rhetorically appealing to the anti-Christian/ anti-Religious sentiments of their audience in order to discredit Leftism. Or maybe they are trying to make the more subtle argument of "Leftism is Bad religion". This contrasts real with fake religions: that Leftism is the kind of inadequate fake religion that is sucked-into the psychological-spiritual vacuum created by rejecting real religion. However; subtlety and nuance in rhetoric play into the Enemy's hands. Whatever is intended by this argument, the consequence is almost sure to damage the cause of Christianity - because the argument implicitly accepts Leftist premises: surely the worst possible strategy? So, even when motivations are genuinely good, Woke=Religion-speak is still a mistake.      

The reason why the socio-political goal of Equality is and always was intrinsically wrong, evil, anti-Christian; has been described clearly and effectively by  William Wildblood (I have added emphasis):

Equality is only possible with complete oneness which means either the chaos of unformed matter or the Night of Brahma when the universe has returned to an unexpressed, unmanifested state which is basically non-being. 

Creation is a disruption of oneness which breaks the perfect equality of non-being. 

Inequality is the essence of manifested life, the very foundation of the world, and the current movement to erase qualitative distinction and differences is an attempt to destroy cosmic order and reduce light to darkness.

From this very fundamental, metaphysical-level, argument; we can see that the rooting of Leftism in a quest for Equality always-was an evil motivation - even in the early days of Leftism, when Leftism was mixed with many good motivations, and attracted many good people. 

Of course, as of 2021, the evil of Leftism ought-to-be obvious. Yet, by now Leftism (including the appeal to Equality) are so dominant, so permeated-through global governance, mass media, corporations and institutions; as to be universal and unchallengeable in public discourse (indeed, increasingly, unchallengeable even in private discourse - except illegally). 

Now, thanks to William W, I can better understand that Equality is working against Creation; that Equality is an agent of Chaos - that it tends always to destroy meaning, purpose, human relationship and the possibility of loving God... 

Equality tends to destroy All that is Good, and even the possibility of Good.

Small wonder that Satan and his Lieutenants are such zealous advocates of Egalitarianism! Egalitarian ideology gives the forces of darkness everything they most want! 

Note: I do not, of course, intend to imply that Equality is the master-key principle of Leftism (since Leftism has no principle, and is oppositional in nature); nor that Leftism has ever made any serious attempt to create a genuinely equal world (whatever that might mean). 

Leftism merely uses Equality expediently, whenever it might be effective, as one of its rhetorical weapons in the intended destruction of that which is Good, of God, and from divine creation. 

In practice Equality is made to mean almost opposite things, including the deliberate construction of inequalities, according to whatever is judged to be most effectively destructive in specific context. 

However, by constant use over many generations, the universal desirability of Equality has become a truism, an assumption - to oppose which is regarded as deeply offensive --- and more shocking than even the most horrific means that are deployed supposedly in pursuit of Equality (such as the forcible surgical mutilation and hormonal poisoning of children under the pretense that this 'changes their sex' and is somehow necessary to create 'gender' Equality... which is - of course - supposed to be an intrinsically-ethical imperative).  

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. 

However differently things used to be, the world is now simplified - Good and evil are increasingly without overlap, separating, diverging. 

There are those who affiliate with God and divine creation - and there is the opposite side: the mainstream, common, majority of atheist-materialist-leftist ideology that rules The West (and which apparently includes most self-identified religious people, including most Christians). 

All the leadership class and most of the populations are therefore leftists; which means that their motivations have no genuine positive agenda, but operate via oppositions.

(e.g. As of 2022, leftists - i.e. the entirety of the mainstream of Western public discourse and a majority of the population - oppose 'climate change', or are anti-racist, or keen to protect and promote sexual 'minorities', or eager to transform the world to 'prevent' the birdemic, hate the Fire Nation etc - typically they are all of these. All major policy strategies of the mainstream are primarily oppositional, negative in motivation - and adopting even one of them, is to join the leftist alliance.)

Opposition is easy because it is destructive in nature, therefore leftism is easy: therefore the lefter has triumphed over the less-left, and the trend is ever-leftward. 

Any kind or degree of subversion, destruction or inversion - of whatever is created, divine, of Good - is therefore a triumph of leftism.

Of course, this 'triumph' is itself a value-inversion. To re-label destruction as triumph is to invert the true nature of accomplishment. 

The global triumph of leftism is only real, because value-inversion has become mainstream and dominant.

Creation is difficult in this mortal life, which is dominated by entropy; even sustaining good motivations and effective functionality requires ability, energy, effort...

To make something new, useful, beautiful, happy, complex... these are difficult. 

But anybody - even the laziest and most talentless fool - can destroy what has been made; destroy to a greater or lesser extent, or even completely!

It takes talent and hard work to design a functional machine - but any fool can throw a spanner in its works, sprinkle sand into its gears, or smash it with a hammer... There is just one way to make it work; but innumerable ways to break it. 

The leftist West is now self-weakening rapidly. It can accomplish less and less of the positive, and that only at greater and greater cost (due to massively reduced efficiency and the diminished status of functionality). 

Indeed the West is not even trying to create, grow capability, produce that which is necessary...

Instead; the West's diminishing resources are being increasingly channeled into the infliction of destruction. 

Even as the Western powers are consumed by their own evil; and as their capacity to create good - and even to sustain functionality - declines with increasing rapidity; they can easily destroy - internally and externally, at home and abroad...

Destruction is so easy that the powers of evil can attack simultaneously on multiple fronts. 

...As I write, leftist-motivated Western powers are seeding and nurturing chaos across the globe and in many nations; destabilizing, pouring fuel onto conflagrations; breaking complex systems of design, production, and maintenance; snapping webs of trade, transport, distribution; threatening, lying, blackmailing and bribing; encouraging hatred, resentment and despair. 

What can stop them? 

Well, the first thing is that there is no cohesive desire to stop leftist destruction. We would have to want to stop leftism, and do something else instead. 

The West is leftist here-and-now, and getting more-so. The mass majority are invested in one or several left-agenda items, therefore resistance is neutralized and cooperation widespread.

In the short-term it is nearly-always pleasanter or more expedient to join the left-agenda, than to oppose it; even when its long-term lethality has been recognized. Selling-out has become the single major career path for those with talent and the capacity for hard-work.

  

It is a snare and delusion to suppose that those who oppose the leftist-agenda can succeed in stopping and reversing it. It is too easy to destroy, too hard to sustain and build. 

Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right: double-opposition is futile. 

The problem is not what we shouldn't, but what we should do. 

So, first (before anything else) we must want to stop leftism because we want something-else more - want that something-else as the highest priority in our own life. 

Since this world makes destruction easy, and this mortal life is dominated by short-termism and expediency; the only conceivably effective answer is when people live with their hopes fixed beyond this mortal life and world; and with faith that to dwell eternally in such Goodness is personally achievable. 

Work it out...

It was always an element of Leftism, but from about the middle 1960s, anti-Christian, anti-traditional, anti-functional and anti-biological concepts of sex and sexuality became a recurrent and core strategy of Leftism. 

As a young Leftist; I personally found this strategy difficult to take seriously - and that was because I was of the Old Left persuasion, that regarded politics as properly concerned with economic and social arrangements. 

I failed to notice that Leftism lacked any genuine socio-political-economic goal; and was of-its-nature subversive, oppositional and intentionally destructive; and for this purpose sex/ sexuality is an ideal tool.

(Although the Left also has several other tools of similar value, including healthism, antiracism and 'environmentalism'.)

As I wrote a while ago; in natural Man, sexuality seems to be the second-most powerful motivator. Second, because Religion is - historically, and properly, the primary human motivator. 

But in a post-religious society, such as we inhabit; this means that sex tends to become the strongest motivator for many or most people. 

I think we can observe that this is broadly true, and that sex-as-motivator has been for many decades strongly encouraged, indeed enforced, by the major social institutions and corporations, mass media and the arts. 

Such sexualizing of culture is a self-reinforcing positive feedback cycle; since many of the majority of secular people (including many of those who affect to be religious and identify as-such, but who in practice always put religion in a subordinate place to dominant - therefore Leftist - social mores) are already primarily motivated by something-to-do-with sex - and the encouragement of a sexual focus has the effect of continually adding petrol onto smouldering ashes, and then permanently fanning the resultant flames. 

Even the reluctant and media-avoidant are unavoidably assailed by sexual stimuli and propaganda from all sides, on a daily (hourly) basis; which they cannot really ignore. This is why sex/ sexuality is nowadays primarily a motivator rather than something that someone does. 

In other words, the overwhelming importance of sex in modern life is its role in thought; in imagination and day-dreams and (mostly) in personal and secret 'fantasies' - which are seldom 'successfully' enacted yet still exert a powerful, albeit mostly negative, effect on people's actual lives and decisions. 

The modern sex/uality that so dominates modern societies is Sex In The Head - and may have little or nothing to do with the body; although such themes may (whether directly or indirectly) occupy a good deal of social interaction.  

 

Yet, of its nature, personal motivations to do with sex are unsuitable as a basis for changing social arrangements - therefore sex/ sexuality first needed to be assimilated into a Leftist ideology; directed at society-as-a-whole.  

This ideological assimilation of sex was accomplished from the 1960s (initially as 'free love' with easy divorce, then feminism, then campaigns to support various forms of unnatural sex/ sexuality, now the transagenda); by an army of ideologists, journalists, writers and artists, social scientists, critics, and bureaucrats. 

These sexual commissars were (apparently) mostly personally core-motivated by sexuality, and they were supported (materially and by attention and encouragement) via multiple channels - commercial, official, and overtly political; presumably by those who were similarly motivated. 

Thus, in a post-religious society; we have experienced a continual increase in concern with sex and sexuality; an increase which feeds upon itself - and is especially targeted on adolescents (and the increasing numbers of perpetual-adolescents) who, for biological reasons, are usually spontaneously focused upon sex and sexuality. 

Sex has therefore proved to be the single most effective battering ram used against the residue of religion; almost certainly responsible for most of the epidemic of apostasy that has over the past several generations afflicted and destroyed first The West, then The World. 

This means that - in a society increasingly dominated by Leftism - sex and sexuality are mainly pursued via ideology; and that people are strongly motivated by sexual ideology since (in absence of serious religion) sex represents their most powerful motivator - and they have been convinced that the attainment of their major life-motivations must run through support for Leftism. 

Thus the sexual revolution has been one of the most important Litmus Test issues, determining whether someone is pro-The System, or pro-God (which are, increasingly, the only possible choices). 

To understand this - and why it is that sex is such an important human motivator - yet properly not the most important motivator - is now a vital spiritual task for most people; and a task for which there is no help (but much hindrance) from the mainstream and mass media, and not much help from the mainstream of traditional churches. 

As usual - this is a task that needs doing for (almost) every person; but external sources are corrupted; therefore we must take personal responsibility and do-it-for-ourselves and from-our-selves - which is possible, with guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

 

Note added: It strikes me that I have relied on readers to join the dots here. Current news in the USA is about who gets to impose their sexual values on everybody else; and - in the context of our post-religious, hence sexually-motivated society - this is a set-up by The Establishment/ The System - intending further to undermine, scapegoat and destroy the residue of faithful Christians. But especially (as we perceive from evil-Leftist words and actions) the faithful in the Roman Catholic Church. Non-Catholic Christians should take note that the demonic powers (and despite the horrific extent of RCC corruption) nonetheless regard the Roman Church as a significant obstacle to their goals, worthy of specific attention. This I take as confirmation (for those who doubted) that there yet remains a significant and specifically-Christian force-for-Good in the RCC, as is. 

Further note: As so often in these End Times; if the current situation is looked-upon as a learning opportunity - provided by God in context of the world as people have chosen; it provides a yet further, yet clearer example of the purposive and strategic evil of the global ruling Establishment and The System they control. 

*

"Social Justice” is a religion. It has saints, dogma, and sacraments.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2015/05/guest-editorial-social-justice-as-a-sacrament/

There are some similarities (which the writer goes on to enumerate) but actually, in its core features, 'social justice' (New Leftism, political correctness) is not a religion - because it is essentially negative and oppositional, hence fluid and self-consuming.

The Old Left, such as Communism, was very much like a Godless religion; and it did have saints- such as Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Mao. But the New Left of Social Justice and Political Correctness has only temporary idols, any of whom may be vilified and demonized at any time.

The idols of the Social Justice Warriors are not saints, but merely function as clubs, taken-up to beat the enemy - then usually discarded. 

The evidence is that the majority of hate figures of the Left are themselves Leftists who used to be revered. Most early IQ researchers - such as Cyril Burt - were socialists; most victims of Two Minutes Hate such as James Watson and Larry Summers are Democrats; ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair was a socialist. For Heavens sake, the Nazis were socialists! 

The lesson is that modern Leftism is parricidal (as well as fratricidal), nobody is secure in their Sainthood - indeed nobody and no group is secure in the status: even Marx's 'proletariat' was redefined as evil white males. Today's Gods are tomorrow’s devils.

And this is the essence of the beast: it is negative, oppositional, lives by subversion, inversion and destruction of the Good; its stance is perpetual opposition.

Stability and the status quo and tradition is attacked, but there is no alternative stable state in view; no Social Justice utopia being aimed-at; no end-point at which political correctness will say 'enough', 'this is it'.

This non-religious nature comes from the New Left being located in the mass media, and not in any political organization. The mass media is subverting, inverting and destroying;one thing after another; but it is going nowhere except towards chaos.

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

So, fundamentally the Social Justice Warriors are something new; not a religion but instead something only possible after the death of religion as a political force; after mass apostasy and the forcible exclusion of religion from public discourse.

The New Left is in reality an anti-religion; and its religious aspects are merely tactical accidents of its negative and oppositional stance.

*

I grew-up in a world where public discourse had the built-in assumption that functional systems were (and ought to be) focused on their function! - and any departure from this was corruption.

So that a school ought to be about education, a newspaper about accurate information, a hospital about improving health, a police force about maintaining civil peace and order, an army about military effectiveness and so forth.

Because this was expected, it was substantially true - and this was the basis of the industrial revolution and the expansion of human capability - culminating in repeatedly landing men on the moon and bringing them back alive.

By the middle 1960s, Western societies were composed of multiple functional units - each focused on performing their 'sticker function' with other aspects subordinated to it. The modern world resembled a machine of many parts. If an institution was to put religion or ideology above its function, then this was a corruption.

The first steps in this direction, back in the early modern period (1700s, 1800s) were to dispense incrementally with what might be termed 'religious tests'. Because (as Alasdair MacIntyre made clear in his body of philosophical and historical work from After Virtue to Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry- and was independently argued by Ernest Gellner in books such as Plough, Sword and Book) all 'traditional' societies - that is, all societies up-to and outwith modernity - have been organised primarily around their religion.

Part of this was that all institutions were, ultimately, regarded as having a religious function primarily - because religion was the basis of social cohesion. This was the case most of the time, for internal affairs and in peace-time - during war then the primacy of religion may be displaced by military objectives.

(In Gellner's terms, traditional societies were thus ruled by various combinations of the Sword - or military specialists; and the Book - or religion specialists: soldiers and priests. They were not ruled by other types of functional specialist such as businessmen, scientists, teachers, craftsmen or whatever - nor by the mass of peasants - represented by the 'Plough'.) 

In traditional societies, therefore, it was functional focus that would have counted as the 'corruption' of an institution. For instance, any school or research institute (university) that ignored religion and focused on science would have been regarded as dangerous (because intrinsically immoral, and intrinsically hostile to social cohesion).

This means that the society of my childhood, with its functional institutions, was very unusual in world historical terms  - and that this had been achieved by means of (at the cost of) displacing religion from its central position in public, national life.

Gellner realised that communism, and its variants such as socialism and national socialism, represented a reversion to the pre-modern form of organisation in which all social institutions were primarily ideological (that is with an atheistic ideology replacing religion in the scheme). If modernity was functionally specialised and differentiated, as the basis of its increased capability; then Leftism was inevitably and intrinsically anti-modern - since Leftism entailed all institutions being primarily, compulsorily, Leftist.

(For instance, a metal pipe factory in the Soviet Union was primary about propagating and enforcing Communism; and any production of functional metal piping had to be subordinated to that ideology - such that the actual metal piping might be unusable. A current equivalent is the mass of schools and colleges in which there is a focus on identity politics, and no actual education.)

This is, of course, the world we live in - the world of New Leftism and Political Correctness - a world in which all of societies institutions now have the priority of Left ideology (in its mutating and evolving forms). So all schools, hospitals, police forces, legal institutions, government offices, military units, and media corporations now have the primary and compulsory goal of pursing Left Wing Ideology - the sexual revolution, diversity, equality and so forth.

All current institutions in The West are Left Wing Ideologies first and foremost (and almost - but not quite, exclusively). Any other functions are optional, and must be fitted-around this mandatory focus.

(This failure to be functional requires that institutions be state subsidised to some degree - and this is in fact the case - extremely few modern institutions do not receive a significant portion of income from the State - either directly or indirectly, explicitly or covertly. There are no 'markets' - we inhabit a 'command economy'.)

Any institution which does not put Leftism as its primary focus is now, and has been for several decades, regarded as immoral and dangerous to cohesion. Opposition is not necessary - simply to dissent from - to fail-to-subscribe-to the ruling ideology will block your appointment and lead to your removal from any position of high status power and influence in Western Institutions now.

This is a major underlying reason why current societies do not work as well as they did 50 years ago, when it comes to the primary social functions.

So, functionality was a blip - and it was a blip because it was unsustainable. At a deep level, the mass of people do not want to subordinate their lives to functionality - they do not want to be cogs in a national machine. But what has happened is that over the past century or two - religion has been replaced by Leftist ideology as the primary focus of human activity.

This applies everywhere in the developed world and without any exceptions - the differences are merely differences of degree. There are no functionally-orientated societies remaining in the developed world, nor are there any religiously-focused societies in the developed world. 

But Left Wing Ideology is unsustainable - not least because it is self-destroying. Opposite to religion - Leftism is anti-cohesive, intrinsically negative, oppositional and a state of perpetual revolution. We live, therefore, in the paradoxical, nonsensical, auto-destructive situation of a society which places as its primary focus ideological coherence on the basis of an ideology of anti-coherence. All developed societies have broadly this same ideology of self-hatred - differences (conservatism, libertarianism, nationalism etc.) are merely 'heresies' within one secular Left ideology.  

Communism - in various versions - has conquered the entire developed world - where all nations are secular and Leftist in their ideology, and all have placed ideology above any functional priority. You may be one of the best scientists, doctors, chief executives, editors or generals in the world - but you will still be removed from your institutional leadership position (or not appointed in the first place) if you not not put Left ideology above all functional considerations.

 The future is therefore inevitably that of religion. We may pine for an era in which functionality could be a priority - but that has been decisively rejected by the mass of people who neither understand nor support it. We have returned to the traditional world where beliefs and ideas are primary - except that our beliefs and ideas do not make sense and fail to motivate the cooperation and altruism upon which society depends.

Leftism has collapse built-in; in the end, secular ideology simply cannot replace religion. Historically, all secular ideologies are, like functionality, merely a blip. 

The future is therefore religion, again, at the centre of society and all social institutions - the only question for each nation or human group to determine is: which religion? 

(The above condenses the argument of my book from 2011 - Thought Prison: the fundamental nature of political correctness - which is now available free online: http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk.) 

It has been characteristic of my reading since mid teens that I read several to many books at a time. My mother used to be driven crazy by the way I carried a small/ medium-sized pile of books around with me - planting them wherever I wanted to sit. 

In those days it was mostly fiction that I read, but from my middle twenties I was more likely to read non-fiction including biographies. 

These are often disillusioning - even when they are (more or less) good (and most biographies published are terrible (far worse than most novels) - as you can see from the bio section in bookshops). Yet I continue to explore them - and will often read many or all the available biographies of someone who interests me. 

At present I am reading The Oxford Inklings by Colin Duriez - which I found in a secondhand bookshop in Glasgow; volume two of Rudolf Steiner's life by Peter Selg; a biography of Michael Tippett by Oliver Soden; and am expecting delivery of Sun King's Counsellor - a biography of Cecil Harwood by Simon Blaxland de Lange. 

The Inklings bio is primarily intended for a popular audience, as compared with the other available Inklings books - but the author 'knows his stuff' and writes in an enjoyable style. For someone like me there is not much that is new - but Duriez takes a different angle and highlights different aspects from other biographer, so it is nonetheless interesting. I was also pleased to see myself referenced!

The Tippett book is more revelatory. I have read several previous biogs of Tippett (incluyding a big one by Ian Kemp in the 1980s), and the composer's autobiography; but Soden has done a more thorough job. Unfortunately, the book also exhibits the common defects of modern biographies of a glib/ facetious tone, and pervasive leftist assumptions and propaganda. 

Cecil Harwood was best friends with both CS Lewis from when they were undergraduates, and Owen Barfield from schooldays; and Barfield and Harwood were appointed Lewis's literary executors. Harwood was an anthroposophist, headmaster of a Steiner school and became the leader of the main group of the British Anthroposophical Society. 

Blaxland de Lange wrote an enjoyable and valuable  (albeit eccentrically organized) biography of Barfield; so I am looking forward to this new one. 

One interesting aspect of the Tippett book that reinforces an insight that grew upon me only gradually is that Leftism (which grew mostly in Britain, and was led from Britain until the 1960s) was always mainly about the sexual revolution - and only secondarily about economics. 

(Tippett, in his youth, was actively involved in organized revolutionary communist politics = widely, recklessly sexually promiscuous with men - mostly. The personnel/ networks involved were all-but identical.) 

So the New Left of 'identity politics' (sexual 'liberation', antiracism, feminism etc) which emerged and took-over the Left leadership and socio-cultural mainstream from the middle 1960s (and which now rules the world) was from the later 1800s and increasingly through the early twentieth century - a hotbed of both promiscuity and 'nontraditional' sexuality among both leadership and many of the followers. 

In one sense I have known about this since my mid teens, through reading biographies of English Fabian Society leaders (Hubert Bland, GB Shaw, HG Wells, CEM Joad...), Socialists and Communists (the circles of Pre-Raphaelites, Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde). 

But - misled by the strong nonconformist Christian tradition of Leftism - I used to suppose that the economics came first, and the sex was secondary and optional. That the desire for radical social change - and the alleviation of poverty and deprivation - was the driving passion; while the desire for more sex with more kinds of people was a consequence of the economically-driven new society. 

Now I would say that the truth of Left motivation was more often, and more powerfully, sexual - and the complex apparatus of theoretical and activist Leftist politics was an elaborately indirect excuse and rationale for the desired sexual 'liberation'. 

Partly the economic/ political theory served to disguise the true motivation from individuals themselves, and partly it served to disguise a long termist strategy from the general public; because one clear factor that emerges is the degree to which the sexually radical colluded to promote and defend each other; the extent to which (from the earliest days) they operated as a cabal, a mafia, a conspiracy of interest. 

This has become obvious now; but a century ago was much less obvious - and the 'idealism' of Leftist economics and activities was more evident on the surface. 

What happened is evidence of corruption. The demonic side of Leftism worked mainly through sex and sexuality; and had its inevitably corrupting effect on those who embraced it; with attitudes, motivations and behaviours causing personal degeneration that would have been much more evident had it not been covered up and explained away by the collusion of other Leftists...

Until such a point of moral inversion was reached (after the middle 1960s) where the sexual revolution could be celebrated, promoted, subsidized - and finally enforced by legal and employment regulations; and biological, traditional, Christian sexuality could be demonized and excluded from public discourse (including education and 'science').

I now perceive that the Left was always about sex, because it always was demonic in its most powerful and pervasive motivations. Of course the Left (i.e. evil) is not only about sex and sexuality - because resentment, fear, and despair are now becoming even more dominant sins than sex. Modern Leftism is becoming more and more negative as it become more evil - because the deepest nature of evil is purely oppositional (against God, divine creation and The Good - and not 'for' anything). 

But while the masses demanded some positive and pleasurable motivation - it was mainly the prospect and promise of sex that took the place of religion as the main drive.

Economic, political and social Leftism provided (for a few generations) the necessary 'cover' to make this sexual behavioural priority into something that was - for a more Christian, and more moral, era - psychologically and sociologically plausible and defensible. 

Now that we live in a society where the Christian churches are all-but destroyed/ dwindled and corrupted; and where Big Lie based inverted-morality is globally dominant and mandatory - there is less and less need for the sexual revolution to retain its lures of promiscuity and novelty for the masses; who now live in a world of sexual lockdown and sexual distancing without any planned end.  

But for the ruling Establishment at its higher and secretive levels, I have no doubt that the sexual revolution - in more corrupt and more evil forms - retains its role as a primary covert motivator.

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.

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'. 

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. 

I am sometimes astonished by people's blindness to the obvious fact that their whole lives are based on double-negative motivations; and that therefore they can only motivate themselves to get-through life, by maintaining a continuous state of frothing anger and seething resentment...

And then they develop a scheme of inverted values by-which this state of angry resentment is regarded as right, proper, praiseworthy!

Of course; in this totalitarian-secular world, where all major institutions are left-affiliated - double-negativity is inevitable, since that is the basis and nature of leftism. 

But, sadly, a great deal of Christianity (as well as other religions) is also mostly negative and oppositional in its theology, hence its motivations. 

So we are all surrounded by encouragements to base our lives on negativity, on oppositions; and to value only this...

What eventuates is a public, social, political, media world in a waxing-and-waning (but never-ending) frenzy of opposition to... something or another (mostly or wholly made-up, invented, manipulated)...

And this being resisted and opposed by Christians on a point-by-point basis; such that the end-result is a Christianity of triple-negation! 

(That is, group Christian life substantially consists of Christians opposing the secular-leftists, who are themselves motivated by one or many of the oppositional leftist ideologies such as socialism, feminism, racism, climate change, healthism, anti-Fire-Nationism...)

And public discourse is consequently oppositional in nature - consisting of ginning-up personal disputes, and escalating the interpersonal rhetoric; presumably in an attempt at avoiding self-awareness of the sheer flimsiness, feebleness and radical incoherence of one's own motivations.

This has been going-on for more than three decades even in science, and for more than sixty years in general culture; and so most people know nothing different. They apparently imagine that such spiteful scapegoating and schoolboy scrapping always has been the underlying nature of discourse on ideas, morality and the purpose of life. 

In such a world; a serious Christian who engages in public discourse will be corrupted by the process - one way or another: either by its becoming a demonstration of ritualized submission of Christianity to leftism; or else by him being dragged into the melee of name-calling, face-scratching and hair-pulling enacted as spectacle in front of a contrived media-cheerleading audience and its dopey addicts. 

Luckily for Christians, none of this is necessary. The powers of evil are very concerned to distract Christians from, or to deny, the spiritual power and effectiveness of the single soul. Very concerned to corral and corrupt the single soul, by insisting Christianity is only valid when engaged in group or corporate activity.  

Yet, on the contrary; any individual who achieves clarity in his thinking, clarifies thinking for Mankind. Any Man who is well-motivated, even for ten minutes!, creates a positive spiritual template for others. Someone that seeks and attains guidance from his real-divine self or from the Holy Ghost, makes it easier for this to be repeated by himself and others. 

All true thinking makes possibilities and alters the balance of powers. 

Why? Because although our experience is one of alienated consciousness and solitude, the fact is that all Men are spiritually 'linked' in vital respects - or, more exactly, Men share in a condition of inhabiting a "spiritual thought-world" - a world of mutual knowing and interactions.

Ancient tribal Men knew this innately - and lived by it; and we each personally spontaneously used-to know this as young children - we knew that some of our thoughts could be known by others, and that we could know the thinking of others; that we were never alone, that our dreams and thoughts potentially affected the world for better, or worse. 

CG Jung got it partly-right but distorted, with the Collective Unconscious - his basic point that we inhabit a kind of spiritual underworld was correct; and that this accounts for the very possibility of communication and knowledge.  

The personal is political; but not by material means (as leftists suppose) but because 'the spiritual' is public - potentially.  

In 'making the world a better place', or indeed in helping a neighbour; it is not just that we don't need to use the material mechanisms of human society - but that these mechanisms thwart betterment, and twist it to evil ends. 

The only proper reason for public discourse (like this!) is insofar as it contributes towards personal clarity and strengthens positive motivations. 

That work is done by the spiritual act of composition; as the benefit of thinking is done by the spiritual act of having right-thoughts. The achievement is at that point - and not by the later possibility of its physical spread and 'influence' of words, images, concepts...

We really do not need to worry about access to media or the levers of power; about accuracy or misrepresentation; about communication, about persuasion, about winning (fake) arguments! 

(Indeed we must not worry about such things - because such things work precisely by the corrosive effect of such worry. Worry about the material manifestation of communications is therefore a sin, that requires to be recognized and repented. Writers and other public discoursers need to be aware of this, or else the spiritual good of their activity will be undone, and they will be corrupted by their activities: as is so often evident.) 

We 'only' need to take care of our side of things! 

Anything we say that is right and Good will (insofar as it is helpful) be taken-up and woven into ongoing-creation by God. 

Anything we think right; any needful discernment, any repentance or other decision to reject an evil, will have its positive effect on the spiritual world. 

Since Modern man is blind and insensible; Our first and most important job is to become aware: to understand, become conscious, make the right choices and clarify our desire to follow Jesus Christ, for resurrection into Heaven, to live eternally and Sons and Daughter of God. 

Nothing is more important than this, nothing is more effective.

Everything we require for the job is supplied us; nothing else is needed that what we have and can get; and nothing external can stop us from doing the job.