Bruce Charlton's Notions

*

It seems that it is a core belief on the secular Right, including Neoreaction, that modern Leftism, political correctness, was caused by Christianity; and that Christianity is intrinsically pro-Left.

This is just plain wrong; and I and others have refuted this on many occasions and argued the (almost) opposite view with a piling-on of evidence - that Leftism was anti-Christian in its very foundations, and continuing (very obviously - in materially supporting and concealing the almost complete obliteration of Christianity in the Middle East over the past decade); however, this is one of those many situations when argument does not make any difference.

So, accepting that Neoreaction cannot share the following analysis; what is  Neoreaction from the perspective of the (real) Christian Right? 

*

(The (real) Christian Right being the shared political perspective of all 'real' Christians - as contrasted with the fake pseudo-anti-Christianity of 'liberal Christianity' - which is the religion of the majority who self-identify as Christians. This distinction between real and fake Christians is about motivation rather than doctrine; and in this respect liberal Christians are analogous to the vast majority of dishonest, career-orientated fake-pseudo-scientists who self-identify as scientists but are in reality merely docile bureaucrats. Real science is about the honest intention to understand the natural world; not about hype and funding, power, prizes and peer review. http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.co.uk . By analogy, real Christianity is about aspiring to structure society by Christianity, aiming at that goal using whatever means - and there are large disagreements here, rather than the opposite liberal (pseudo-) Christian goal of structuring Christianity by society.)

*

Neoreaction is (it now seems) founded upon anti-Christianity - but not in the sense of 'being nasty to Christians'. Neoreactionaries aren't usually nasty to Christians, quite the opposite - they try to enrol Christians on their side. But anti-Christian in genuinely blaming (their definition of) Christianity for causing what Neoreactionaries themselves regard as the greatest evils in the modern world. 

From the Religious Right perspective, therefore, Neoreaction shares the anti-Christian foundational belief of the Left.  

Ergo Neoreaction is of the Left.

*

But clearly Neoreaction is not of the politically correct mainstream Left - to whom Neoreaction is very hostile. 

So if anti-Christianity was historically the primary belief of Leftism, then it is probably at the secondary level of belief that Neoreactionaries differ from the politically correct New Left. 

Historically, anti-Christianity was the primary doctrine of Leftism, and the secondary doctrine was being against the King: was anti-Monarchial (i.e. Leftism was 'Republican' in a broad sense that includes English, French and American Revolutions).

And this is exactly where Neoreaction diverges from the modern mainstream PC New Left: Neoreaction is pro-Monarchial forms of government - when Monarchy is conceptualized in terms of a unified, formal and mandatory hierarchical structure of social organization with a single Man at the top.

Of course, being anti-Christian means that the Man at the Top cannot be divinely sanctioned - so Neoreactionaries think in terms of a society run by a Dictator, or a Chief Executive rather than a real King.

But this pro-Monarchial foundation is the explanation for some of the most striking aspects of Neoreaction where they most sharply diverge from modern Leftism - such as being explicitly pro-slavery (because absolute opposition to slavery, with no regard for cost or consequences, was a very early dogma of the Left).

*

So here is a terse definition of Neoreaction seen from the Christian Right perspective: 

Neoreaction is Monarchial Leftism

*

(Alternatively, Neoreaction is in favour of non-Christian Monarchy - i.e. a dictatorship, or a society structured like an ideal-type of an effective modern institution or corporation.)
*

*
Neoreaction is wrong, and is in fact speaking nonsense, when it says that Leftism is a Christian heresy.

What they should be saying is that Leftism is Christian apostasy.

Apostasy means to abandon the faith; whereas heresy means contrary to orthodoxy. That clarification should be enough to show the error of Neoreaction.

Heresy can only be defined from one particular concept of Christian orthodoxy - so a Roman Catholic, a Russian Orthodox or a Calvinist could define some other person or group as heretical - indeed each would define the others as heretical - but strictly there are not generically Christian heretics, because there is no generically Christian orthodoxy from which to define heresy.

If somebody dissents from a generically Christian position, then they are not an heretic, they are an apostate - which is to say they are not merely unorthodox Christians but reject Christianity itself (for example, if they deny that Christ is their savior and Lord, but merely a prophet, teacher or good example).

Some Liberal Christians, who are always Leftist, could be described as heretics from the perspective of other specific Christian positions - but some are apostate since they deny basic, core Christianity.

Neoreactionaries logically cannot define, detect nor ascribe heresy, nor can they describe some person or group as heretical, because they are not arguing from any orthodox Christian position; they are in fact (qua Neoreactionary, and even if they themselves happen to be Christians) arguing from a secular position.

However, although Neoreaction cannot ascribe heresy, because it is neither Christian nor orthodox in any way, Neoreaction can legitimately detect and define apostasy: it can recognize that some person or group has abandoned core Christianity.

Neoreactionaries as individuals can only define heresy if they are doing so from a specific orthodox Christian position - but this will not merely relate to Leftism, but a Calvinist Neoreactionary will then define a Roman Catholic Neoreactionary as heretical and vice versa.

Anyway, enough has been said to demonstrate that the Neoreactionaries 'Leftism is a Christian heresy' meme is not just causally incorrect, it is logically incoherent.

Not just nonsense, but double nonsense!

*

*

Following from:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-does-neo-in-neoreaction-signify.html

A quick distinction:

*

Neoreaction (secular right, alt-right etc) focuses on social institutions - indeed, neoreaction regards institutions as primary.

Neoreactionaries say the problem with modernity is in the social institutions - (e.g. corruption by Leftism of The Cathedral of elite media, civil administration, educational organizations).

(Neoreaction regards religion as an institution, like any other.)

To fix modernity, the neoreactionaries say: first, fix the institutions.

They say: nothing good can happen unless we first fix the institutions.

They say: if (somehow, and that somehow is a major focus of discussion) we can fix the institutions - then things can, and probably will, improve.

*

Reactionaries (that is Religious Reactionaries) focus on religion.

Reactionaries say the problem of modernity is apostasy - the abandonment of religion.

We say: none of the above will happen without, first, religion.

Reactionaries say that religion is absolutely and unavoidably necessary (but not sufficient) to fix modernity.

*

Neoreaction disagrees because they see religion as an institution (just like any other) and corrupted by Leftism (just like any other), therefore: first fix the institutions.

*

Reaction regards religion as hierarchically-above other institutions, and something which cannot therefore be fixed by other institutions; but only by religion.

Reactionaries say: to fix the institutional basis of corrupt religion, we need real (not corrupt) religion, therefore: first, religion.

**

This is a question asked at:

http://foseti.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/topics-of-interest

To which there is a short and very simple answer: 

The 'neo-' in neoreaction signifies 'not-'. 

*

If there ever was any serious doubt; every passing month shows more and more clearly that the neoreactionary, secular-right, alt-right, dark enlightenment movement are just a type of Leftism.

You can actually track the corruption of neoreaction, happening before your very eyes; in the going-down-the-tubes attitudes, style, focus and behaviour of individual bloggers. 

(If it looks like Leftism, talks like Leftism, and in general behaves like Leftism - that it is Leftism - not least because the rare Western non-Leftists stand-out from modernity like a beacon, or a sore-thumb.) 

*

Neoreactionaries dislike many aspects of mainstream Leftism, but not so much as they dislike religion.

Proof?

That the only real-life reactionary societies have been and are religious - and if reactionaries were serious about being reactionary they would simply choose their religion.

*

Instead they prefer the cut-and-thrust, snark-and-sarcasm of (characteristically Leftist) speculation on how, somehow, it might be possible to construct a sustainable non-religious reactionary society of a kind that never was seen (but which includes all they stuff they like best, and not the stuff they hate: no need for hard choices here!).

*

But why are neoreactionaries they so hostile to religion?

There are many possible reasons for being personally non-religious, as I know from recent personal experience (especially a reluctance to abandon your preferred freedoms derived from the Leftist sexual revolution); but the answer (if you cannot yet be religious) is to become a religious seeker.

It is hard to rationalise or even excuse anti-religiousness in anyone who wants their self-defined 'reaction' to be serious, or to be taken-seriously.

However, whichever anti-religious reason applies in each particular instance, the conclusion remains the same: neoreactionaries are more serious about their anti-religion than about their pro-reaction - hence the 'neo-'.

See also: http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/neoreactionaries-versus-religious.html  


**

But what about the cadre of supposedly-religious neoreactionaries? What indeed... What do they hope to get from this unequal alliance? Could be they are simply mistaken in their assumption of a possible synergy between tough-minded- this-worldly hedonism on the one hand; and religion on the other. Or it could be they are led astray by the daily excitements and distractions, the status fun and games, the guilty pleasures of swearing and salaciousness - and the opportunities and inducements to hatred and hard-line-ism 'in a good cause'?

*

Since 2010, I have been trying to infiltrate (unconcealed, upfront, in full daylight) and convert the secular Right movements such as Alt-Right, Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, the Manosphere...

This began from when I started work on my book Thought Prison - the fundamental nature of political correctness (http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk) and has continued. I published a few Essays in the original Alternative Right webzine - and perhaps as a result was put onto the Dark Enlightenment 'map' among the  Christian Traditionalists (http://neorxn.com/introduction). Indeed, for the past few years I have gotten most of my blog traffic from the aggregator neorxn.com.

All this suggests to me that there must be a considerable spiritual hunger, indeed a specific interest in Christianity, among the secular Right - but, aside from a few individuals, the movement remains secular, and indeed net anti-Christian.

Why should this be? There are two reasons - one good, the other an error. The good reason is that the bulk of visible and self-identified Christianity - including the main Western denominations - is thoroughly corrupted with the worst kind of Left/ Liberalism: indeed it is not just 'corrupted'; rather these churches are primarily Leftist, and their Christianity is just a matter of jargon and 'lifestyle.

The error is that Christianity (or The Reformation) is blamed for Leftism (as in the 'Leftism is a Christian Heresy' meme). The truth is that Leftism was in its primary origins a mixture of atheism and apostasy - caused not by Christian devoutness, but by its lack.

However, the stark fact remains that the Organised Western Christianity which confronts a new Rightist is elderly, feeble, feminised, cowardly, and unspiritual. While there are some smaller corners and cells of Western Churches that are young, vigorous, patriarchal, and family-oriented; these are hard to find, and (rightly) exclusive and excluding with regard to membership  - so not everybody can find a niche in any of the available alternatives. (I can't.)

All I can say is that people should not be put-off Christianity by any of this. Christianity is of immense power and potency - a deep well of courage and love - even when pursued as a personal faith - outside the churches.

I therefore say to anyone on the secular Right - don't wait to find a church: become a Christian first; and only then look around for a suitable congregation and denomination.

As Christian - explicitly, to yourself and others - your whole outlook on reality will be positively transformed in ways you can scarcely imagine; and then... who knows?

I summarised my views three years ago, at a time when the Alt-Right was being called Neoreaction:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/what-does-neo-in-neoreaction-signify.html

In a nutshell, there is no such thing as 'The Right': there is only Religion (or Religious systems) or The Left.

(i.e. The Right is an incoherent concept.)

A nation is either run with a religion as the bottom line; and politics, economics, law, the military and police, education, science, health the media etc - all other human activities - being ideally and ultimately subordinated to that goal. Religion is the organising principle...

Or else a nation is run on Leftist lines with 'mortal utility' as the bottom line - that is to say: the utilitarianism of mortal life is the Leftist goal; under the assumption that nothing else exists, or matters.

In sum: A nation can be run on Religious lines (as all nations were in the past, and many still are); or else it can be Leftist - which means it pursues mortal utility

And that is The Left, in its various guises - communist, National Socialist, socialist, fascist, New Left/ Political Correctness, Democrat, Conservative, Republican, Libertarian, and all the flavours of Alt-Right/ Neo-conservative/ Neocameralist/ Dark Enlightenment or whatever.

What makes something The Left is that what is ultimately aimed-at is human psychology - e.g. maximising economic 'utility' during mortal life; and its proxy-measures such as subjective happiness, reported or inferred human flourishing, well-being, self-esteem; or proxy objective measures such as wealth/ income/ consumption. Or the inverse goal/s of minimizing pain, suffering, violence, humiliation...

Even if military glory, national pride, or racial supremacy is being pursued - these are merely version of mortal utility and therefore types of Leftism - based on a different theory about who most matters and what counts as maximum utility. 

In other words all the Leftisms are types of utilitarianism in some kind of groupish abstraction - universalism, humankind, the nation, state, class, region, a sex or race, or some other unit.

The disagreements on the Left, the differences between the secular Leftisms listed above - which may be very bitter - are merely concerned with the identity of the group for which utility is to be maximised, and how best to maximise utility - that is all.

Since the only way of not being Left, is to be Religious: then we are each faced with the a choice of a Religion - with different views of what (other than mortal utility) we ought to be aiming-at. And there are, of course, huge differences in this respect between religions, and even within religions.

If you do not accept The Left, and reject its ideology; then you must put a religious goal into the place of utility.

Step back from politics - cease having it as a central interest and concern in your life. Because from where we are now, there can be no genuine improvement in politics. Better politics can only come on the other side of a spiritual revival: a revival both personal and civilisational. 

Therefore, unless you already are religious, you need to embark on a spiritual quest to find your religion.

*
So many of the major hazards of modern Western life - whether the Ebola epidemic, of one of the chronic problems of the economy, crime, education, mass migration... - could simply be solved by the simple application of simple common sense.

And the secular Right are the party of common sense, and within the secular Right Neoreaction is the party of hard-nosed engineers who know how to fix things - and both and delight in explaining that the problems of modern Leftism are caused by insufficient common sense, and could be cured by the application of more common sense.

Indeed the bulk of secular Right and Neoreactionary discourse is precisely the use of common sense to ridicule the Left. 

But they fail to ask why common sense is not, in fact, actually applied.

*

This is the 64,000 dollar question.

Any explanation for the triumph of the Left which is fundamentally rooted in the history of ideas, has to account for the ability of propaganda (per se) - but in this instance emanating from a small, localized, fluid, and far-from-cohesive (mutually competing) elite - has been and is is able to overcome common sense - a psychological attribute which is solidly located in everybody, does not change, and is the default state.

*

The more that the secular Right/ Neoreaction expose and mock and dissect the ludicrous incoherence and inefficiency and ineffectiveness of Leftism - using a baseline of common sense evaluation - the more extraordinary the continued existence and dominance of Leftism becomes.

The weaker its common sense basis, the stronger must be the real strength of Leftist ideas; else they would not have won. It is he source of the strength of Leftism that needs to be known and analyzed, not their weaknesses - which are clearly irrelevant!"

*

The basic fact is that Leftism does in practice, and now, overcome common sense arguments - so it is futile to try and use common sense as a knock-down argument against Leftism.

Indeed, it must be that Leftism feeds-off common sense arguments - otherwise Leftism could not have grown-up and thriven in a context of universal common sense - therefore common sense arguments are worse than futile -

Common sense analysis actually fuels the engines of Leftism.

*

*

The word Antichrist refers to an evil phenomenon that is a fake Christianity, something that takes some elements of Christianity but either omits Christ, or else makes him into something other than Lord and Master. An Antichrist may be a person such as any modern mainstream politician in the West advocating Christian language or concepts, or a movement/ ideology such as communism.

The Secular Right movements listed above are Antichrist phenomena because they take elements of Christian morality - especially related to social organization - as a basis for gaining support from Christians, and to make their agenda seem Good.

But at root the agenda is simply a different blend of Leftism - the Secular Right is anti-Christian, pro-pride and with a bottom-line hedonic moral calculus (i.e. good is what makes you feel good, evil is what causes you pain and suffering). Since it is Secular - their ultimate weapon, the One Ring, is hatred (the second most powerful motivator in the universe, but the most powerful one available to secular ideologies): and it will not long resist deploying it.

*

The Secular Right uses Christianity as a means to an opposite end; similarly some Christians hope to use the Secular Right as a means to Christian objectives. Both strategies will fail, both will end in disaster, and of the same (secular) variety.

The Secular Right (ie. the common-sense Left) hopes to use the impending collapse of modernity to grab power from the socialist pathological-altruism Left, with the help of Christians and other religions whom they then intend first to enlist then to betray, when that becomes expedient. (Obviously betray! since they don't want a religious society.)

*

How do you know which you are?

Easy - Ask yourself what comes first: what is your priority; is it religious or political; is it repentance and revival, or is it swift and tough action to stop the rot?

(Is it not-of-this-world or this-worldly?)

Simple question: unambiguous answer.

Now you know which side you are on.

*

(And the pressure to focus on 'this world' as the first priority will only increase as the crisis deepens.)

*


Note: Commenter Ingemar (below) has dubbed the Secular Right, Alternative Right, Neoreaction, Dark Enlightenment, Manosphere blogplex by the name: 

The Boromirosphere 

with the attributed mission statement: 

"Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron!" 
*

The 'Dark Enlightenment' cluster-linkage analysis

I feel that I ought to note the passing of the blog aggregator site neorxn.com, which was the all-time top referrer to this blog - accounting for 130,000 page views over the years. 

The site was called Reaction Times, and had the insightful subtitle "The restoration will not be televised". 

It was one of a group of a briefly-trendy neoreaction/ alt-right/ 'dark enlightenment'/ manosphere-type blogs from about a decade ago (I don't remember exactly when it began). 

It did not include many Christian bloggers, but I was one of the handful. It is possible that some of the current regular readers originally found this blog via the neorxn link. 

Anyway - since February 15 the site has been inactive and down - with the message "Service Unavailable - Server currently undergoing maintenance".  I sent an email to the administrator, who used to run a blog called Free Northerner - but got no reply. So I guess it is all dead. 

Did it fall or was it pushed? I don't know. Certainly, few of the original blogs that it originally aggregated, remain active - and that whole 'secular right' movement (often associated with Mencius Moldbug) has all-but fizzled-out; either from despair, convergence or (at best!) religious conversion (as was inevitable, and necessary). 

Anyway, I thought that someone should note the passing of a once-vigorous web presence. For all its faults as a not-specifically-Christian aggregator; nothing better than neorxn has replaced it - so this probably counts as another loss. 

In reflecting on the (apparent) demise of neorxn.com, that legacy of the middle-late noughties neo-reactionary, dark-enlightenment, alt-right movement; I was reminded of that movement's critical built-in falsehood with a poisonous legacy - which was to state that Christianity led to Leftism. 

This idea probably originated with Nietzsche - but was propagated by Mencius Moldbug and seems to have spread from him. 

I have often explained why this is wrong, and I cannot be bothered to re-hash it now. Christianity-causing-Leftism is one of those inverted-truths that is so very obviously false (to those whose assumptions are Christian and who are informed about history), that explanations have no traction. 

Indeed - because those who believe this are not Christian and are not informed about the history of Leftism in relation to Christianity - to explain seems actually to reinforce the error.

(Much like trying to 'explain' or prove why men and women cannot really change their sex. Anyone who believes they can is already too far gone to respond to explanations.) 

The real truth is that it was the decline of Christianity that led to Leftism, Indeed, the only two sides in The West are Leftism versus Christianity (i.e. Satan versus God) - there is No political 'Right', distinct from Christianity - it simply does not exist, as has become apparent over the past year.

This is why neo-reaction cannot accurately be described as a half-way-house to Christianity (a 'gateway drug' to use that false analogy), or supportive of Christianity - even though some individuals traversed that path to some extent. 

(There are innumerable paths to Christ - including alcoholism, crime and sexual debauchery - this does not justify any of these activities; any more than having-been a route to Christianity for some people endorses the Secular Right - or the validity of someone like Jordan Peterson!) 

The Secular Right movement was founded-upon the same 'anything-but-Christianity' assumptions that have generated mainstream Western culture for the past century; and which continue to sustain the evolving sexual revolution and the other Litmus Tests of the past year.  

The truly staggering behaviours of modernity go unremarked.

That decent well-meaning people can find nothing they regard to be valuable to do with their lives in their own country and culture (which they say they favour), and their bureaucratic and mass media saturated environment (which they always end-up supporting); and so they feel compelled to travel thousands of miles in search of real poverty abroad (clearly not really believing the propaganda that the West is full of material poverty) so as to find something they regard as 'worthwhile' to do.

And all the time this supports the idea that real important poverty is material, and the spiritual famine and mass mental deaths from religious starvation in the West is not really real or significant. 

And these same people who - if they don't exactly approve, can think of no compelling reason why their own nations should not obliterate itself by mass and indiscriminate immigration. Perhaps aiming at a kind of moral leverage by which 'people' (their own people, their own families and children - if they have any) will be forced to change their ways by the tide of alien and demeaning humanity; and will be coerced to act altruistically in giving up land, housing, resources, jobs, tax money, time and effort to support this self- displacement.

Presumably they think unilateral state extraction and compulsion is and will be good for people?

How worthless do people feel, how worthless do they regard their own society as revealed by their actions and inactions! - Yet how tenaciously they cling to their ideology: their mushy, leftististic, democratic, feministic, diversitistic slop - a systemic poison - so deep, so pervasive as to be ineradicable by any external agent.

How solidly they resist their own ancestral religion - such that the only fixed cultural conviction is 'Anything - any-thing at all! But Not Christ! Anything but Him.'

People seem willing to do anything to go along with anything - but not to examine and change their fundamental beliefs - somehow, in a world of palpable change, the fundamental nonsense they base their lives on is regarded as sacred.

Sometimes there are so many bad choices that they become mutually self-reinforcing. Clear, simple opportunities and possibilities for change and repentance come along, from time to time; but are rejected using complex and tendentious arguments based on a deep and self-aggressive suspicion.

Read Tolkien's legend of the rise and downfall of Numenor, and you will see the whole thing set out, the whole process of lies built on lies; corruption feeding on corruption, evil and incoherent hopes fuelled by self hatred - and its end. The facts are different, the shape is the same.

*

The conclusion of all this is that people are making really massive and counter-productive errors in terms of deploying their effort - and directing everything at manipulating their external environment as if that was going to address their main problem: which is the meaninglessness, purposelessness and disconnection of their lives.

What they need to do is seek genuine connection (with people and with things) and deep motivation - and this can only come from purpose: and that purpose must be spiritual not material.

To find this requires an opening of the heart - an opening of channels of communication now kept firmly sealed; and this requires a recognition that their own most fundamental assumptions are wrong: very wrong indeed. The facts of the world can always be disputed - but the evidence of spiritual malaise ought to be clear because personally experienced.

In trying to help this situation - there must always be a positivity - an imaginative depiction of a better state - which is better in the necessary ways.

It is NO USE AT ALL to depict and promise a world that is more comfortable, convenient, safe, peaceful,  prosperous, free, exciting and so on. These have been present in gross abundance (by world historical standards) and they are the backdrop to the current spiritual collapse.

Thus any form of Leftism and Secular ideology is irrelevant - whether it be mainstream political correctness, socialism, social democracy, communism,  libertarianism, conservatism, republicanism - or whether it be New Right/ Alt-Right/ Neoreaction/ or overt Fascism.

What we absolutely must have is extremely spiritual, romantic, imaginative - something that addresses the malaise in the deepest possible way, that taps into profound wellsprings of meaning and purpose, that offers the potential of reconnection in a way that goes beyond the normal channels of communication. 

I say 'offers' - whether such offers can actually be delivered is a second problem: but if such necessities are not at least on the table, then they will not be attempted and certainly will not happen by accident.

We need, spiritually, to shoot for the stars even if we must be prepared to settle for the moon - but we must at all costs escape being earth-bound and crushed; suffocated by our own clinging to our own pathetically mundane aspirations.

*
From Byzantium by Judith Herren:

Historians regularly ask why Christianity succeeded, how it won the loyalty of those who previously worshipped many gods, and what factors ensured its permanent presence in the ancient Mediterranean world. 

As an offshoot of Judaism it inherited the conviction that there was only one creator God, which was universalized by preaching to anyone who would listen. But the old cults had satisfied most needs for centuries. Why did the adherents of Apollo, Isis, Zoroaster, Mithras and other established gods adopt Christianity? 

Unlike their contemporaries, the followers of Jesus were confident that death was not the end: they would rise again into a heaven of peace and light. 

This belief motivated them to behave in a correct Christian fashion, avoiding sin and encouraging faith, hope and charity, so that God would judge them worthy of eternal life in the next world. 

It set them apart from the Jews, polytheists and members of other cults that flourished in the early centuries AD. 

It also prompted them to prefer death to denial of their faith, which the Roman authorities found most extraordinary...  the Christians opted for martyrdom rather than give up their belief. 

*

This passage make the crucial connection between the Christian belief in everlasting life of happiness, and Christian motivation.

Under pressure of persecution, and the corruptions of power and desperation to deal with apostasy and wilful sin; this soaring, inspiring, positive and gloriously joyful vision of Heaven - which ought to be primary for Christians - was soon (and has since been many times) in practice inverted into an emphasis on fear, on avoiding Hell, on escaping torment: an emphasis on being saved from unending horror - rather than being rewarded with everlasting happiness.

Thus Christianity - which was primarily a positive and joyful religion (the word Gospel means good news); has often, in reluctant practice or by wilful corruption, become a negative and misery-avoiding religion. 

Sometimes this negative emphasis is necessary; in some situations and with some people, it is the only thing that works (just as children need to be punished, as well as rewarded) - nonetheless a negative focus must always be regarded as a secondary expedient and temporary measure - and never as the core of the Christian message.

*

The question of motivation is always crucial; and is a matter widely neglected and denied in the modern world. There is very little interest in what actually does motivate people; and instead a foolish and false assumption that if people 'ought' to be motivated, then they will be motivated.

Indeed, the whole of atheism and Leftism, including mainstream secular Conservatism and shades of libertarianism and the secular Right (including Neoreaction) is plagued by this fundamental unrealism, this neglect of psychological fact.

Thus the primary modern miseries are demotivational and demotivating: despair and nihilism. And the tendency of secular ideologies to accept despair and nihilism as if they were necessary and fundamental realities (which all intelligent and mature individuals ought to believe) - rather than terrible enemies who must be fought and vanquished.

*

But so much of Christian discourse is in practice de-motivational. There is a profound unrealism about motivation in some Christian discourse, which seems unable to learn from experience. Grossly distorted and inadequate versions of Christianity are held onto by churches, versions which have proven themselves incapable of generating the necessary motivation to be a real faith.

For instance, there has, for several generations, been the idea abroad among many 'mainstream' Christian churches that for Christianity to encourage and respond to the spontaneous human yearning for everlasting life and happiness is a low kind of activity - something to be avoided as akin to exploiting the childish fears and desires of vulnerable people; something equated-with spiritualism, mediums, ouija boards, and contacting dead deceased.

So, in trying to avoid this 'taint' or excess, what is in fact the 'unique selling point' of Christianity - the factor that perhaps primarily caused the faith to sweep the ancient world and displace all other religions - gets down-played, treated as a subject of embarrassment.

Eternal happiness beyond death is not dis-believed, but it is certainly not emphasised; it is not much talked-about. That would be regarded as low-brow, populist, disreputable, 'salesmanship'...

*

On the other hand, the types of Christianity which have actually been most successful at inspiring strong motivation in the modern world include those which emphasize 'up-front' and in practice the happiness of that eternal life they offer - such as the Mormon church, and also (so far as I can tell) Jehovah's Witnesses.


The hope for an eternal life of happiness is not regarded as something to be mentioned and then set aside; instead it is something which needs to be nurtured, built-up, reinforced - given that such belief requires faith, it ought surely to be a frequent focus of devotional activity, a topic of conversations and sermons and prayer? 

The Mormon church does this, ultimately, through the Temple activities of the most devout members of the church. And, on the whole, it works - the CJCLDS have a achieved a very high level of faith in eternal life among active and Temple-worthy members (as described and documented in The Mormon Culture of Salvation by DJ Davies, 2000).

*

A strong, solid belief in eternal life is only one aspect of the distinctive appeal and strength of Mormonism, and it is only one aspect of Christianity in general - but it may be the single most important one to emphasize in practice; because such belief can be the underpinning motivation for a changed life, a devout life in face of a hostile culture.

And what is more a positive life; a life which has the proper, primary, joyful focus which is intrinsic, native and spontaneous to Christianity.

*

Blue Pill = Wormtongue's whisperings

Red Pill = Orc Draught

Christianity = Mirovor: The Cordial of Imladris

*


[Gandalf]: Ever Wormtongue's whispering was in your ears, poisoning your thought, chilling your heart, weakening your limbs... Dulling men's wariness, or working on their fears, as served occasion.
[Theoden]: Indeed, my eyes were almost blind...


Ugluck thrust a flask between Pippin's teeth and pured some burning liquid down his throat: Pippin felt a hot fierce glow flow through him. The pain in his legs and ankles vanished. He could stand.


As soon as Frodo had swallowed a little of the warm and fragrant liquor he felt a new strength of heart and the heavy drowsiness left his limbs. The others also revived and found fresh hope and vigour.

Lesson: Red Pill thinking is to Christianity as Orc Draught is to Miruvor: both awaken from debilitating delusions, give energy, and get you on your feet - the one with searing anger and aggression; the other by a sustained warming of the heart.

When I began this blog on a frequent basis, in the middle of 2010, there was (supposedly) a new, vigorous, and intellectually-rigorous movement of the secular "Right" - variously termed Alternative/Alt Right, Neoreaction, and similar 

(The 'rump' of this movement is sometimes nowadays termed "based" - and can be sampled via this branch of Synlogos.) 

One of my earliest themes was that this movement was not actually "Right" but was just part of the Left; because they wanted essentially the same thing as the Left (i.e. optimal happiness and minimum suffering in this mortal life - the 'hedonic' calculus); and the secular "Right" therefore only differed in terms of their priority groups (eg. white native men) and the methods employed (e.g. new kinds of monarchy). 

Same ends, different means. But is the end that is definitive. 

I then argued that the only genuine alternative and opposition to The Left was religion. 

So, the truth was that the Left-Right axis was all-Left; and the only true axis of opposition was Left-Religion. 

For those who opposed The Left, I said; their only valid choice was: which religion? 

This has proved to be correct over the following decade, as evidenced by the fact that the self-identified secular Right are still merely negatively responding to what the mainstream Left are advocating or doing; much as 'fascism' did in the 1920s and 30s; . 

Since the Left is actually a negative and oppositional ideology; this means that the secular Right are a double-negative ideology. 

And since the Left's policies are already double-negative - e.g. anti-racism anti-men (feminism)  - the secular Rights policies are triple-negative anti-antiracism, anti-feminism...

Something like this explains the astonishing obsessions of the secular Right; who remain utterly focused-on everyday mainstream politics such as elections and the Twitter takeover by Musk (what!); but in this extra-negative way of opposing the destroyers instead of proposing positive creation; which the secular Right cannot do because they are secular.

The amount of internet-ink spilled over the Musk-Twitter business is especially gratuitous. Twitter is a Bad Thing, Musk is a Bad Thing - why discuss the business as if some Good would come out of it? 

The answer is: one regards this as a major issue, only when one is operating on the basis of mainstream assumptions of Good.

Just as the election-obsessives implicitly, by revealed-preference, believe (whatever they say) that we can vote our way out of trouble; so the Musk-Twitter obsessive believe we can Tweet our way to a Better World.      

So that Better means, for them, just more of the same stuff - but directed at groups they like. 

And they believe this because they have nothing better to offer. 

But what of the proper opposition to the Left: I mean The Religious? 

Well... In 2020 the major churches of the world - of (apparently) all religions and denominations - overwhelmingly made clear their convergence with the this-worldly and hedonic values of the Global Left: they made this clear by massive closures and cessations of their core activities. 

(It may be that the Government and Orthodox Church of the Fire Nation has since reversed that convergence with global Leftism: where that may lead has yet to be seen; but anyway, such a direction is not a possibility, nor desirable, for The West.) 

So the churches, of all religions, were revealed as just another part of The Left.  

So the situation is that even the Left versus Religion axis, which seemed a possibility back in 2010; is not a possibility. 

My hoped-for (albeit slender, pessimistic) possibility of a church-rooted religious revival to become culturally dominant; has since been revealed as a false hope. False, not merely because of the political weakness of the churches, but mainly because the churches do not even desire it, but instead seek assimilation to the Left (and as fast as the church leaders can persuade the laity).

Therefore; these times are far more desperate than the "secular Right" imagine; and far more desperate than church-orientated Christians acknowledge. Because (at least in The West - albeit the Fire Nation in the East may have chosen a different path of destiny) there is nowhere to turn in the world of powerful, high status, influential public discourse. 

We can neither vote-in a saviour (because none are available to vote-for, and because the bureaucracy-media control everything of social significance), nor can we engineer a way-out by participation in high-impact social media (because the medium is intrinsically evil-promoting; in form as well as its allowed-content).     

What we can do is at the individual level, not in institutions; is spiritual, not material; and is rooted in understanding correctly - which means honestly and with full acknowledgment of its scope - the nature of our situation and responsibility.