Mercy Killings and Suffering

 As the arch- liberal and secular British Parliament looks at legalising mercy killings, the main opponents rely only on pragmatic arguments.  They point to the very real risk that in a society as materialist and focused on gain as the United Kingdom, elderly parents or sick relatives may come to be regarded as burdens and that pressure subtly would be brought to bear on them to “choose” to be killed.  This is a very real risk, but the chief reason to oppose this change in the law is deontological - life is a sacred gift from God and not our own individual possession to be disposed of as we see fit.  

This is a difficult and sensitive subject, where good points made too coldly and logically will only alienate the reader.  Our freedom is precious, as is our gift of life and suffering can be very cruel, but crucially it is permitted although rarely inflicted by divine authority.

While Man must be free from an oppressive political State he must also be protected from harming himself, because his sovereignty is not unlimited.  He holds his life on trust as a gift, not as an absolute possession.  Otherwise self harming, sexual sado-masochism, suicide or anorexia would merely be a matter of personal choice.  We have a telos, that is to live virtuously and find our full participation in the divine.  Of course participating in the divine cannot be forced, but neither should acts that completely desecrate what God has given us be tolerated.

We owe it to God first not to desecrate our souls and bodies, but also owe this to our community.  If we behave badly or in a depraved way, we do not only harm ourselves, but the communal body, the common weal.  And this gives society rights over our “freedoms”.  If we become so enslaved to our passions that we change the moral life of the society then society has the right to stop us.  Sexual vice, greed and avarice, are not to be immune from collective sanction.  We can see where the liberal nihilism of the West has led - to the Pride parades and the destruction of the wholesome family.  As a consequence, Western society itself is disintegrating and everyone is suffering.  There is a clear negative externality to everyone else if libertarianism and moral anarchism is permitted.  The permissive society of the West has led to more misery, more suicide, more mental disorders for all its material wealth.  Each person suffering is a victim in one way or another of permissiveness.

In that context we can now approach the difficult topic of human suffering from illness leading to the desire for death.  We do not need to be distracted by liberal arguments about individual autonomy on such a serious question.  It is clearly a mercy to relieve suffering and if we take a more shallow utilitarian position of maximising pleasure a case can be made that unhappiness will be reduced by allowing others to assist a suicide.  Of course this is based  on a very simplistic and shallow analysis of happiness.  We must rely on the superficial  Benthamite definition of happiness as hedonism or pleasure.  Such an understanding of happiness is far removed from Aristotle’s eudaimonia, a type of joy based on virtuous living.  It seems by contrast that this Benthamite utilitarian view of maximising happiness and of minimising unhappiness is too superficial.  It takes no account of the resulting guilt, the feeling of transgression of a deep moral law, or the fear of eternal consequences that would inevitably result.  It would be like saying a woman who has an abortion to pursue her career is not deeply wounded internally, even if she is in denial about that.

We could rely then on Aristotle’s account of doing the virtuous thing as being the way to true eudaimonia.  But the real question here is not addressed.  With life-preserving medicines, people can live much longer and suffer therefore more from their terminal conditions and degenerative illnesses.  Is it right or compassionate seemingly to force people to suffer?  Are we simply imposing a rule with no regard to the specific situation?  Would a loving response not be to relieve suffering?

Herein though is the Promethean move.  Even while acknowledging the developments in medical science means people just as much as having symptoms relieved will also suffer illnesses for longer than nature would have once allowed, to take the positive step of ending a life does surely cross a deontological line.  It is  a case of us taking power into our own hands as to whether we or our relative should live or die.  Are we really saying it is for us in the modern West to decide how much we should suffer?  Does this not in some profound way disrespect all the suffering around the world?  Is it as though we as First-world Europeans do not deserve to suffer like other people?  What gives us the right to shake off trust in Providence and declare that we are exempt from the law of suffering?

For our collective human life has been all about suffering since the Fall.  We are all both mortal and susceptible to physical suffering.  Suffering seems cruel indeed, but it would not be permitted if not for some deep reason that is to our benefit.  Suffering shapes our lives every step of the way.  It in a sense is the way to glory for the fallen human, dominated as he is by his passions and death.  And we are aware we are promised God will not put us under any trial that is beyond us.  Life is not and never has been about pleasure, it has rather been about how we grapple with suffering.  Technological and medical advances, combined with a hedonistic utilitarian philosophy have perhaps led us to misunderstand what life is about.  In the midst of life we are in death.  All around us is decaying, its beauty fleeting - a mere hint of the Transcendent.

It is all too easy to pontificate on a deontological rule in the face of the suffering of others.  There is, though a reason for doing so - if we believe life has a sanctity over and above mere individual choice, then we must see life as the embracing of suffering as a way to change us and lead us to virtue and to God.  Once we take life and death into our own hands in such a way, it is a Promethean move, it is a claim to an authority we cannot and should not have.  It is a revolutionary grab.  It is the atheistic Stephen Fry attempting to hold to account Almighty God for the child with bone cancer.

This is not just about God as a powerful authority though, but that the ultimate Authority over the cosmos is all-loving and all-good.  It is about trusting while suffering in this fallen world, full of distractions, temptations and hubris, that God really does know what is best while not compromising our free will by eradicating the consequences of our Fallen state.  Suffering was not given in Paradise, but after the Fall suffering became a part of our existence and ultimately, in a mysterious way, this will all be to the Good. 

If we juxtapose it to the alternative brave new world the advocates of scientism and our eugenicist elites advocate for, a world with no physical suffering or want, but Man remaining fallen and in a state of rebellion, we can then easily envisage by contrast a world where love becomes impossible, control absolute and temporal existence the seeming totality of life.

Instead, we should resist any move to such a temporal utopia that claims to eliminate suffering and its dread lessons about our own nature, our own capacity for love and kindness, for faith, for hope, our own susceptibility to despair, to anger, to human frailty.  Suffering may well be the route to our spiritual transfiguration - the reason we are all here.  We should not make such a Promethean move against the law of the cosmos, written by the hand of God.  .  

Judaeo- Christian - Contradictory or Complementary beliefs?

 

Politicians in the Anglo Saxon parts of the West frequently refer to our common Judaeo-Christian values.  What does that really mean?  Certainly theologically there is a vast chasm between the Christian and Jewish faiths.  

In these current times one should make clear that identifying any difference or separation between Jewish and Christian values is not a comment upon racial difference, does not imply any eugenicist agenda or must entail hostility to one religion or the other.  The purpose instead is to identify how this attempt to synthesise two Abrahamic faiths can be used to justify a particular political or cultural agenda, namely the Post-War liberal settlement, founded on a reassertion of Enlightenment values.

Let us go back tot he very beginning, the point of separation of Jews and Christian.  Following the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in AD 70 a new form of religion emerged from the Hebrew tradition, the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism that over the next few centuries developed a new sacred collection of writings in opposition to the New Testament - in particular the Talmud.  Those Jews who did not accept the Resurrection and did not become part of the Church from 70 AD, as Christ had warned, lost the Temple.  Instead, in replacement of  a faith centred on the physical Temple, the focus was on the Rabbinic tradition and the synagogue.  Over the following centuries the Talmud and the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, where prophecies about Christ were revised became the sacred texts. Only after some centuries had passed did Rabbinic Judaism emerge as a coherent and fully-fledged religion.

The Church emerged following the Resurrection and before the sacking of the Temple.  The Church was in a sense the continuation of the Temple after the physical building was destroyed.  The Christian Old Testament was the Septuagint, with an older history, where prophecies relating to Christ were clearer..  

There are fundamental differences between these faiths that both claim to be the continuation of the Hebrew faith.  The Rabbinic Jews revised and rejected the earlier multi-person Godhead, as found in Genesis and the Book of Daniel, emphasising instead a radical monotheism, as would later be found in Islam.  The Church, in the tradition of the three angels visiting Abraham and the Son of Man appearing in the fire in the Book of Daniel, and the many other Old Testament theophanies of God's energies, believed God to be triune - Three Persons in One Godhead.  The Rabbinic Jews saw the Messianic prophecies as to be about a future Messianic political state.  The Church interpreted the prophecies as being about Christ directly.  In a sense Rabbinic Judaism defined its theology against the Church.

And so in theological terms Judaism and Christianity are contradictory.  In terms of religious praxis, because of the Incarnation, iconic representations of Christ are permitted and condoned in the Church.  Rabbinic Judaism is hostile to the religious image.  Christians are freed from the dietary laws, Jews must follow kosher.

In terms of eschatological beliefs the two religions oppose each other.  For many Jews the Messiah will come when the Temple is rebuilt.  For many Christians the rebuilding of the Temple is the harbinger not of the Messiah, but of antichrist.  

In terms of ethos, Christ taught to love our enemies.  For Jews revenge on the enemy is a sacred duty.  We have seen this following 7th October 2023 in the mass killing of women and children in Gaza.

How then can these two faiths be seen as complementary?  Advocates of Judaeo-Christian “values” from Nigel Farage, Jordan Peterson and Douglas Murray see Judaism as a fundamental building block of Western values.

A well-known advocate of the importance of Judaism to the West is the homosexual conservative writer Douglas Murray.  For him it is a more significant blow if Jews die than Christians, because there are more Christians.  Despite Jews being on the edge of European society historically, he regards their values as fundamental to what it means to be Western.  Throughout the history of Christendom, the Jews were though regarded as the “other”.

The reason centre-right thinkers value Rabbinic Judaism does not lie in the contradictory theologies.  For Murray and his like, it is rather that Enlightenment values and modernity emerged from the chemistry between the two religions.  The separate religions have different ideas of the sacred and the sacred is what holds each faith in its own unity.  For Murray, who is an atheist, it is the “values”.  This becomes a somewhat nebulous concept.  There is very little that can be seen as Chrsitian in the current actions of the IDF in the Middle East.  Neither was the dispossession of Palestinian families from their ancestral lands during the Nakba a Christian approach.  Nonetheless a reductive approach can find commonalities if the sacred is removed.  Indeed the reduction of us all to atomised individuals might be seen as the lowest common denominator of the two cultures denuded of their ideas of the sacred.

Protestantism was a significant factor in the injection of a more Jewish flavour to European culture.  The new world after the Reformation saw the growth of the banking sector, the importance of compound interest (usury had been forbidden by the Church).  In the translation of the Bible the reformers relied on the Rabbinic Masoretic text. As we moved towards the market economy and a more revolutionary society, our culture found common links with Judaism.  Much of what had been regarded with suspicion in Christendom - banking, revolution, trade - and linked to the Jewish other, was now endorsed and promoted in Protestant countries such as England and Holland.

The European secret societies that grew in power throughout that period were fascinated by the Kabbalistic texts of esoteric Judaism as well as other forms of the occult and esoteric.  It was then as we moved both towards an economy based on banking and a revolutionary political and cultural position that the specific variant of Western society emerged, which would later be defended by Western Judaeo-Christians.  This is what is being defended when we hear about the Judaeo-Christian culture.  It is not about the sacred, where the two religions are in contradiction.  It is about a liberal secular society, with its roots in the revolutions of the Eighteenth Century - revolutions in thought, values and politics.

A fundamental change occurred in the Nineteenth Century when the Scofield Bible was published.  This was funded by Zionists at the time who wanted the Protestant Churches to support the creation of a Zionist State.  The Bible was annotated in a way to suggest the prophecies about Christ were more to do with the creation of a Messianic State of Israel.  Christians were (conveniently) to be moved out of world history through a so-called rapture.  This heresy of dispensationalism spread throughout American Protestantism and shaped the folk view of Jews and finally the Israeli State, regarded almost as fellow believers in a sense.  This was a vital ingredient in the American popular political support for Zionism.

The secular values that link cultural or civilisational Christians and Jews are not about the sacred, but about secular liberal shibboleths such as individualism, rights, equality, liberation.  The very beginning of the USA was in the foment of the Enlightenment and the milieu of various secret societies focusing on throwing off traditional hierarchies and institutions.  

In this sense Judaeo-Christian is not a meaningful idea from a traditional perspective.  It dismisses the ideas of the sacred that are incompatible as irrelevant - looking only for materialist answers.  It focuses on the worldly and revolutionary values of the Enlightenment West, not Christendom.

In terms of geopolitics, the idea of Judaeo-Christian values has put the West on the side of revolution and progress, not tradition or an idea of the sacred.  It is not simply about Israel, but in a topical matter our way of forcing change on the proxy of Ukraine we force them to abandon their Church and their more conservative values.  Judaeo-Christian is a phrase uttered by Western conservatives who are merely yesterday’s liberals, who have little sense of tradition, hierarchy or the sacred.  They are the dull men of business and money, not the heroes of honour and virtue.  Their conservatism is the conservatism of an enervated culture, emptied of its true values and sacred beliefs.  The conservatism of the bottom line, profit, the mercantile class.  True conservatives stand for our own sacred, our hierarchies, our traditions.  This older conservatism, supplanted by the Judaeo-Christians, is about the Church and the institutions that flow from it in the Christian world. 

The Sky Daddy and Anthropomorphism

 Two famous accusations, with an underlying tone of mockery indicative of bad faith, are often made by New Atheists.  One can be easily dealt with - that there is as much reason to believe we are created by a personal, triune God as by a “spaghetti monster”.  The suggestion of arbitrariness is perhaps somewhat credible against Protestantism and even Kierkegaard’s anguished leap of faith, notwithstanding the disrespectful and deeply blasphemous tone.  In terms of traditional Christianity, which, like the Neoplatonists, sees a transcendental order to the cosmos, this somewhat childish accusation does not hold.  Indeed, the advocates of scientism, such as Russell, have more explaining to do, when they claim the cosmos, finely tuned as it is, is simply there with no cause or reason.

A second accusation against Christianity that can also be made by Neoplatonists and Buddhists, who do believe in the transcendental, but not a personal Creator, is that the Christian God is a consequence of anthropomorphism.  As the disrespectful New Atheists put it, we have a need for a Sky Daddy.  Orthodox theologian Christos Yannaras would not disagree, referring to the erotic yearning for God.  The Neoplatonist sees the One as impersonal, the Buddhists acknowledge the transcendental meaning of reality, without accepting the personal nature of the Creator.  

In a recent debate on Youtube, between esteemed cognitive scientist John Vervaeke and Christians Jonathan Pageau and Jordan Hall, Vervaeke builds on this perspective, arguing there might be a latent crypto-egotism in Christianity.  For all its claims about kenosis, the person survives and has a relationship with God as a Father and Lord.  This means it is not true self emptying and instead preserves my existence and anthropomorphises God.  Vervaeke is of course not as crude or reductive in his arguments as someone like Dawkins.  He recognises love and care participate in transcendental reality, but rejects that it works both ways.  Contrary to Jordan Hall’s reciprocal openness at a divine level, Vervaeke sees the care of God for us and our personal existence at an eternal level as unnecessary and unjustified.  Further it contradicts agape as the highest form of love - we have a secret vested interest in our faith - selfishly we want to live forever and be loved by the highest reality.

The discussion can be found here:  https://youtu.be/Vp_08T0Ucik?si=_IH0L9q5pnun-uaK

In this we see the great divide between Eastern religions and the Greek philosophy of Neoplatonism on the one side, where the person is completely absorbed to the point of benign annihilation, versus the Christian belief that the personal is central to reality.  God created the cosmos as a personal god and Man as a person is the imago dei.

This really is all about Being.  We can see how this sanctity of humanity has degenerated in the secular West into liberal individualism - a true cult of egotism.  There is no intention here to make a case for that perspective.  Nonetheless, there is a different and fundamental point - yes the Fathers recognised God is both Being and non being.  God is above existence so it is in a sense true to say God does not exist, not in an ontological sense.  Indeed God is something more like Beyng as opposed to Being, to use Heideggerian terminology.  God is non-dual, above the divisions into Intellect and Soul of the Neoplatonists.

On a more fundamental level then, the personal exists.  God is Three Persons, in part because he overcomes duality and also is One as an aporia.  

It is somewhat arrogant to attempt to compete with the intellectual ability of John Vervaeke.  All that can be said in unsophisticated and laymen’s terms is why this simply does not ring true for me.  Yes God is in a sense above all superlatives.  Included there is love, goodness, truth and beauty.  But all of these participate in God.  The personal is the highest level of existence.  In human beings it is the person that makes us more than a mere sum of our parts (and more than the passions that lead to the consumer individual of liberalism too).

Yannaras points to our encounter of the personal energy of other humans as indicative of the Supreme Personal of God.  What is fundamental to understanding any of this is the separation of energy and essence.

What happens in most Eastern faiths is in one way or another, the human person is dissolved in the divine essence.  True Christianity does not accept this, because Creator and Creature are of different natures on a fundamental level in an unbridgeable way.  Nonetheless, participation in the divine energy is not only possible, but the purpose of our existence.  This was always the orthodox perspective, but was most clearly articulated in the arguments St Gregory Palamas made in defence of the monks of Athos and their practice of hesychasm - specifically the Jesus Prayer.

It is surely the case that love is only possible if personal identity is retained and through the existence of energy.  Energy is what is personal.  Yannaras refers to the capacity we have to recognise the distinctiveness of Mozart’s music or Van Gogh’s art - neither are the substance of the person, but both are expressions of the unique energy.  We find God, we find faith, not through propositional arguments, but in recognising the divine energy expressed through creation, which is not in itself God.  Relationships are in the realm of energy not essence.  This is how Orthodox Chrsitian philosophy saves the human person from annihilation.  It is also how love is real.

In our personal human relationships, true love is the intermingling of energy without dissolving the other person - they retain their fundamental existence, their being.  This is why the so-called “sky daddy” is so central, so important and worth defending as that which Christianity is about,  The relationship is all made possible through the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Logos (the principle, the wisdom, the Logos, the Sophia) as man - God in the flesh in time and space.  We can thereby overcome the barrier - our fallen nature.

Is this crypto egotism?  Not so, it is rather what makes love possible.  It is in recognising the eternal sanctity, through eternal being of the person, we can truly self empty through love.  The Three Persons of the One Godhead and the personhood of the Imago Dei are why there is being and how we can achieve kenosis, because persons are real and eternal and can be loved. 

Liberal Totalitarianism

 Liberalism  defines itself as anti-totalitarian, it is the ideology of freedom.  There are certain qualifications here.  Freedom is the freedom of the individual and the nature of his freedom is freedom from oppression rather than freedom to possess or have something.  The word “liberal” in the United States is associated with the Left, whereas in Australia or the United Kingdom tends to refer to classical liberalism of Locke and J S Mill, which in the Anglo Saxon countries at least is associated with conservatism.  In any event the argument here is that all ideologies have a tendency towards totalitarianism and that liberalism is not immune from this tendency.

It must be acknowledged that the thinker in the vanguard of this is Alexander Dugin, whose Fourth Political theory is predicated on the claim that all three ideologies, Fascism, Marxism and Liberalism have a totalitarian logic to them.  We have seen recent manifestations of totalitarian moves in Anglo Saxon countries.  Canada froze the bank accounts of protesters against Covid measures that would affect the livelihood of their trucking businesses.  Australia was notorious for its Covid lockdown measures.  The United Kingdom is imprisoning people for expressing controversial opinions on social media in the wake of a brutal murder of innocent little girls.

The classical liberal would argue that these moves were contrary to the principles of liberalism, but that does not change the fact that liberalism is by definition reductive.  It does as someone like Robert Nozick argues have certain transcendental principles that come from a mysterious origin - property rights have a real as opposed to nominal existence for example.  He derives this from Locke who was a nominalist on every aspect of reality bar rights of property.  This aberration is not usually explained.

We have noted above the distinction between classical liberals and those liberals of the Left.  This is only a relevant nuance from within liberalism.  All forms of liberalism reject the old hierarchies of value as oppressive and preventing individual self expression.  What seems a fundamental difference to liberals, as they argue amongst themselves, in terms of negative and positive liberty is merely a fine detail from other perspectives.  The key point is, apart from the anomaly of property rights having real existence for classical liberals, real metaphysics have no claim upon our ethical behaviour.  We are not participating in a higher or collective meaning, but pleasing ourselves alone.  The one standard that unites liberalism of Right and Left is the individual is the measure of all things - that might be to withhold his possessions from others or it might be to impose obligations upon others for my own right to certain things - such as restricting freedom of speech so as not to be harmed by offensive comments.  The person concerned with imposing upon others is still concerned about themselves as an individual and not about  higher Good.

So liberalism sees any higher Good as oppressive and the enemy of individual liberty.  This is because the liberal atomises the person as an individual neither linked to any vertical or horizontal good.  He is disconnected from God and his neighbour.  In this sense that other Enlightenment ideology, Marxism, has an unexpected family resemblance to liberalism.  Marx too rejects any higher principle other than the materialist physical laws of science whereby yes at first collective action throws off the oppression based on the false consciousness of higher values, but this is to attain eventually pure individual liberty unencumbered by the demands of tradition, society or religion.  Marx was at heart a liberal too.

This liberalism is rooted in nominalism and the idea of each individual being his own isolated monarch.  In other words the cosmos follows the law of power not of any higher value such as Dante’s motivating love.  Hobbes was as much of a liberal as Locke.

The liberals reduce all to a mere contract, relying on a fictitious or imaginary state of nature that provides the basis for a contractual form of government.  This is the ideology of the money-driven mercantile class.  Any sense of a higher meaning to our world is rejected and the powers and thrones and dominions of the heavens are ignored.  Instead we exist in an arbitrary world where the only solid fact is supposedly the individual.  Here the person is imagined as the modern buffered as opposed to the porous self of the ancient and Mediaeval worlds.  This distinction is set out by Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor. In the enchanted pre-modern world people were participating in higher meaning and vulnerable to infiltration by infernal forces.  Human life was a microcosm of the cosmos, holding the cosmos together as the imago dei, not an arbitrary random individual disconnected from everything and everyone else.

How though does this contractual state, protecting us from the arbitrary state of nature, lead to totalitarianism?  Well Hobbes is the first to provide an answer.  For the sake of freedom from the misery and state of war that the state of nature leads to, we surrender to an authoritarian state.  Underlying every liberal perspective is the secret belief that the State is there to protect individual rights and we have therefore contracted away absolute freedom.

Whether it be to protect property rights or protect my rights to self determine my gender (given only the individual perspective counts - realism is rejected), the State is there to enforce those rights.

We can see two trends in the modern West - the growth of private property rights in every aspect of life that can be enforced and also the enforcement of the individual’s right to determine reality in restrictions to freedom of speech.  Without any sense of a higher reality above the individual there is no limit to enforcement potentially if individual rights are violated.

The negative liberty of private property rights comes to have power of legal enforcement over public areas.  Monopolies occur and public goods become private without individual rights being violated, but we find ourselves trapped in a world of enforcement.  There is no hope of everyone having the private property envisaged by Chesterton of three acres and a cow - most of us end up as tenants subject to private enforcement companies.  ON the other hand, in the world of woke liberalism, the statement of a true fact can lead to legal sanctions through cancel culture, or the destruction of one’s career.  The State has the right to take children who want to change their gender from concerned parents on the basis of the sovereignty of the individual.

What happens with liberalism, as with all revolutionary movements, is that to secure liberation the ends justify the means and higher principles can be violated.  It is no accident that the liberal ideology of utilitarianism, where individual pleasure, hedonism, is the measure, all principles can be violated to achieve the end in sight - there is no deontological limit to Bentham’s consequentialism.  In the end we have the Panopticon of prisoners living according to their pleasure under absolute surveillance.  Here the individual can be sated but observed, while higher ideas of human dignity are ignored.

It is the case that J S Mill with his rule utilitarianism tried to lever in a sense of value not really compatible with pure utilitarianism and that Nozick tried to synthesise Locke and Kant with a deontological emphasis on the metaphysical realism of individual freedoms, particularly private property rights.  Both fall into the same problem that they have to rely on a level of metaphysical realism to reintroduce value and once that step is made, how does one avoid the scaling up to the Good, the True and the Beautiful?  How does one avoid the case that there are real things of value, there is a real meaning over and above mere individual desires?  Once we distinguish between pushpin and poetry or assert there is a metaphysical reality to property rights we are acknowledging the legitimacy of philosophical realism and a hierarchy of value.  The individual is no longer the measure, there is instead a transcendent level over and above the individual.

The liberals were seeking a limit to arbitrary power, but their whole metaphysics are arbitrary and rooted in a radical scepticism that in the end can find no argument against oppression in the name of abstract and arbitrary individual rights.

The Inauthenticity of the Left - applying Heidegger’s existentialism to the modern progressive Left of the West.

Those who subscribe to the Left regard themselves as having special insights, a particular progressive morality and a deep authenticity.  Here we will show how this outlook is really a narcissistic temptation in the tradition of Babel and a manifestation of what the Greeks called hubris.

The building of Babel in the Book of Genesis was a Hebrew tale of what the Greeks would call hubris. It was a belief Man could build the perfect globalist city without God. In that sense it was a Promethean project - that which the ancients understood was doomed to failure.

When we come into this world, thrown in Heideggerian terms, we find a world around us and at a deeper level we encounter in its hiddenness, Being itself.  This is a very Heideggerian account, but that is because we need to highlight the inauthentic nature of Left wing politics and Left wing movements.

The Left is motivated by a sense of outrage, indeed it is moved by what it sees as the call of justice.  In this it is imposing a veil of meaning over the world that clouds our capacity to uncover Being.  We are determining how the world should be and not respecting what it actually is, how it presents itself to us.

The world is full of mystery, tragedy, beauty, goodness, evil.  The desire to impose a new world order is a wilful denial of what is there to be discovered and uncovered.  There is an impatience and arrogance in declaring this theoretical alternative is how the world should be, in accordance with my imagination of a system.  

Again the same mistake is being made in the very idea of justice.  Of course the world we discover is full of cruelty and injustice, but a systematic replacement through drastic and violent revolution or even progressive reforms is a particular idea of justice that is inauthentic.  We see now the rejection of the world we uncover in the promotion of denial of gender, but that is only the latest and most absurd manifestation of a journey into denial of formal categories or reality as preceding us.  Justice itself pre-exists us in a formal sense and it is manifested in prescriptive rights and religious dogma prior to our theories.  Here English common law is a useful illustration, based as it is upon precedent.  Nonetheless even Justinian’s codification looked to precedent and the divine - that which is before us.

History shows how alienating and perverse supposedly enlightened ideologies turn out to be when imposed.  The theory quickly dehumanises and destroys the very human aspects of culture.  Family, friendship, loyalty, respect are usually undermined in favour of an abstract theory.  The Communist guest in a bourgeois household finds he likes these people, but then must remind himself for the sake of the revolution they must be liquidated.  He understand the family is a capitalistic imposition of domination, but finds himself loving his own parents and children.  Either he allows his own family to be the exception or he crushes the feelings of human sentiment for the sake of progress.  He falls in love with one woman, but continues to advocate for free love and the abolition of marriage.

This is the inauthenticity of the Left - the progressive putting his own theories above his personal interactions, his encounter with the real world.  And for the sake of progress he works to destroy all that is most sacred to human beings.  And all for his own theory of a just system.

He renounces the call of his own family, his own fatherland, his own gods of his home.  In all this he imagines himself somehow superior to the reactionary mass of men, not realising he himself is becoming ever more alienated from the authenticity of Being and becoming less and less human, while loving Man only in the abstract.

Political shibboleths become the idle talk of the they-self, which exists in the inauthenticity of Being that precludes real life.  As long as the correct opinions are held one is not at risk of becoming real - which is a terrifying prospect.

We see this trait not only in the murderous Marxists of the Twentieth Century, but in the progressive Fabianism of Britain’s Sir Keir Starmer, a man who cannot relate to his own people, his own customs and traditions - instead in a move of deep authenticity he places a veil over the human life he is born into with all its particularities and calls to affection.  The veil is a system, a system that produces justice in the abstract, but miserable resentment and conflict in reality.  Ideology, particularly from the Left is as great an imposition clouding our vision and breaking our connection to the authentic world as any scientism or codified and rationalist theory of religion. The only authentic politics is the defence of that which makes us human - the politics of reaction.

The Whore and the Beast

 The Orthodox iconographer and public intellectual Jonathan Pageau has pointed to the carnivalesque subversion being intrinsically linked to an impending level of control, of which covid was a foretaste.  Russian philosopher Aleksander Dugin has argued that liberalism as the third political theory will also have its totalitarian stage.  Why should absolute licentiousness be linked to control?  It is all to do with the metaphysics of liberalism and the disconnection not from an arbitrary but a transcendental view of the Good found in traditional Christianity, in which man is not a little tyrant in his own liberal empire, but the imago Dei.  It is also connected with a blind faith in historical progress that has replaced the divine and that must extirpate reaction and obscurantism from the society.  Links can be drawn with the absolute control of Communism or the French Terror that as religious symbols were desecrated high levels of totalitarian control were being introduced.

Jonathan Pageau uses the language of Revelation whereby the licentiousness of the Whore of Babylon brings in the Beast of absolute control and domination:

“I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.” Rev. 17:7

Saint John the Divine with inspired intuition on Patmos understood the link between immorality and totalitarian control.  And how is it they go together?  The reduction of men to mere slaves of passion is rooted in a metaphysics of violence, as John Milbank put it and as Milbank made clear is linked to Machiavelli’s reinterpretation of the meaning of virtue as power.  When we are reduced to little tyrants exercising our own passions, even if we remain within our own individual boundaries as Nozick might put it, there is no ontology of love, but only one of violence and power.  John Locke, seemingly softer and more optimistic than Hobbes, also framed a paradigm of individual power.  When power is all there is, rather than the common good or the Platonic Good, then there is no real moral case against the enforcement of power by the Empire or the State.  Just as individuals exercise their power to sate their passions, so even at the level of government there is no participation in a higher good.  Instead the ideology is really just about power.

Today’s globalist Left uses benign language of equity (as defined by the American Left, not equity as protected by the Lord Chancellor in English law) to cloak an agenda of power through technocratic control and cancel culture.  While we must be careful in how we refer to what is happening in the United Kingdom, control is the other side of the coin to a permissive culture that reduces us to our passions.  The globalist ideology is one of disintegration, “diversity is our strength”.  It is about breaking down ideas of higher goods and higher meaning.  Instead everything is reduced to the bestial - we are simply advanced apes after all.

Progress is in a sense allowing us to indulge our inner ape, with freedom to be driven by lust and not be restrained by higher principles.  When they regard us animals though, it is a thin line before they start to manage us as animals.  The figure of the Whore of Babylon casts her shadow.

Nonetheless this all starts for “good” progressive reasons.  The enemies of this positivist idea of progress are on the wrong side of history.  With their atavistic prejudices, their attachment to tribe, their love for exalted institutions, their “superstitious” religion, these atavistic obscurantists must be eliminated for the sake of process.  And soon it is not only kings and aristocrats being slaughtered, but the peasants of the Vendee region or the Kulaks of Russia are being murdered en masse.  The Beast also overshadows the actions of revolution and eventually becomes dominant.

Accompanying the underlying narrative of liberation (which is nothing more than a power narrative blind to higher meaning) is an ever increasing level of brutal control, for the “greater” good of this notion of historical process.  And all this is consequent upon the hubristic heresy that our telos is manifested in the here and now, not the hereafter.  It usually manifests as some form of global government, from Babel in Genesis to the WEF today.

With caution one mentions the show trials in the United Kingdom.  The Labour Government is busy imprisoning rioters and protesters from the class it claims specifically to represent.  While not for one moment condoning violence, there are clear signs here of this pattern of the ideology of liberation leading to control and punitive enforcement.  Those who rioted or supported riots in England are facing custodial sentences and being sentenced summarily.  The punishment of these rioters differs in its severity from different rioters who are not resistant to the ideology of the powerful - that is that diversity is our strength.  The Fabian Government of the UK understands that a residue of traditional values, both ethnic and nationalistic remain within the working class.  How it has manifested is disturbing, but there is a determination now to extirpate these human feelings from the public realm, not simply to punish those who clearly broke the law.

The breaking down of any metaphysical hierarchy, a perspective that underlies globalism, whether manifesting in the Ukraine or the United Kingdom, means anything goes in the cause of liberating progress, whatever the cost.  Whether that cost be to human life in conflict or to prescriptive liberty and freedom of conscience, all is justified if you are on the "right side" of history.  The scientific rightness of the cause of Progress means to liberate control has to be introduced.  It is the age-old story of revolution from the Puritans banning Christmas to the Fabian cautious but determined revolutionaries of today’s U.K.

It is also of significance how the Post-modern Left interpreted Nietzsche. While Nietzsche was of the Right his ideas allowed a moral relativism that was promoted in the revolutionary spirit of 1968. As this manifests in woke politics, we see control appearing very early on with cancel culture. There is no reason to obey any code of the marketplace of ideas or freedom of speech and thought, because there are no higher principles, only the new table of subversive values you are creating.

What must be understood here is that as we cut ourselves off from Truth and higher values in a manifestation of pride, we instead find there are no restraints on what we are allowed to do.  The globalists are writ large what Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment was, who understood with no God “everything is permitted” for the sake of history, in his case of great men such as Napoleon or himself. Those who impose control are ideologically possessed.  They are driven by a revolution of liberation.  And so LGBT marches parade through the streets and the flag of sexual liberation becomes more important than the national flag.  This liberation is one side of the story, the other is penalties and punishment for those who express doubts or opposition to sexual liberation.  

And therefore liberation is progress, but the final goals of that liberation are a subversion of all that the human race has ever held dear in its traditional values.  Consequently for the sake of achieving this progress, our worldly telos, the human reaction against it must face punitive levels of control.     

English Riots and the Luciferian Revolution

 England has been seeing violent riots in response to the incomprehensibly evil murder of three innocent children and wounding of more in Southport and the weak response of the UK’s political leaders.  This crime was carried out by a black man whose parents were migrants from Rwanda.  It occurred in the context of the national government failing to control the borders against a surge of bogus asylum seekers, mainly male and Muslim who have been given special treatment, put up in hotels and who have shown a tendency to violence and sexual harassment and worse towards English white women.  England feels like a place where its establishment holds its own people in contempt and wants to impose new and violent cultures on a sleepy and peaceful country.  The Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, knelt in deference and submission to violent Black Lives Matter rioters, but is now intent on introducing a police state in response to the riots of indigenous people in reaction to the murder of three innocent children.

The English rioters are a manifestation of a cry of anguish at the betrayal by its ruling class.  Their position is confused.  They attack mosques and hotels housing so-called asylum seekers from the safe country of France, when the murderer himself was born here and was probably not Muslim (the establishment is very secretive about this).  Nonetheless, we all understand why there is anger - the open borders, the refusal to deal with illegal migration across the Channel, special treatment for ethnic minorities of non-English origin, even the way the advertising industry tries to demoralise people by making it seem like we live in a non-white country.

There has been a deliberate attack on English identity for at least a generation.  Those in power have used tools of psychological demoralisation and those politicians selected for power are fully brainwashed into the ideology of hating their own people.  Sir Keir Starmer was overtly sympathetic to the violence of Black Lives Matter, but from the very beginning showed contempt for the concerns of the native demonstrators.  Undoubtedly, his priggish and arrogant attitude fanned the flames of protest leading to a chance for more violent elements to become the driving force.

In reality though the progressive ideology that rejects the natural order of things is completely dominant - it is the paradigm.  It does not simply attack people of white ethnicity, particularly the working class, who retain some residue of traditional values.  It attacks Christianity, traditional country sports, farmers, men of any ethnicity, and it has filled the traditional and established institutions from the House of Lords to the Church of England with people who hate our traditions and identity.

Progressivism is the zeitgeist and there is not any real leadership for those with traditional values.  The most right-wing party in Parliament has given itself the nominally progressive name “Reform” - the Right has to adhere to left-wing terminology to be credible.  Any talk of hierarchy, tradition or authority is strictly verboten.  Instead the Right talks of freedom, choice and democracy.  It has also been reduced to advocating the revolutionary economics of free-market capitalism.

Why are progressives so dominant?  It goes back to the secret societies of the American and French Revolutions.  We witnessed their triumphant pageantry at the 2024 Paris Olympics opening ceremony - not only the obscene blasphemy against the Last Supper, but the mockery of the French Queen Marie Antionette.  The revolution is politically and culturally victorious.  It simply needs to stamp out those residues of traditional values to achieve the total new order - these residues are to be found mainly in the working classes who did not pay so much attention at school where the education system is more tailored to brainwashing the bourgeois ruling elite.  It is for this reason that the British establishment loathes one violent protest far more than another violent protest.  BLM, Just Stop Oil, LGBT are given a blessing, while the EDL or anti-vaccine or pro-life demonstrations are treated by the forces of law and order and the media as beyond the Pale.

This revolutionary doctrine is a full ideology.  To be fair for many it simply manifests as shibboleths that must be recited for the sake of career, being regarded as educated or as a decent person.

However, this ideology is deeply subversive and at higher levels of societies, through the Lucis Trust or other secret societies, the full doctrine is understood.  It aims to turn the old world, the ancien regime, upside down.  Authority must be overthrown as oppressive - monarchy, man, husband.  The ultimate target is the highest authority - the divine. This is the real cause for this prideful rebellion.  It is a Luciferian doctrine.

How though does this esoteric dogma relate to Sir Keir Starmer’s bringing in a police state to control working class riots?   Because Starmer, perhaps unknowingly, adheres to this dogma to a degree.  He probably just regards himself as enlightened and progressive.  He is though a low-level adherent and a useful idiot.  He understands that in the riots, quite apart from the violence that is of concern, older loyalties and beliefs are manifesting.  Within the English working class there remains a strong patriotism to the nation state.  The nation state is a modern invention of course and was in its time advocated for and championed by the progressives.  For the progressive the nation state has served its purpose in disrupting the Christian empire.  For the English working class though it is a chance to express older virtues of loyalty, solidarity to ethnicity, masculine strength and ancient identity.  Having once designed the nation state, for the progressive revolutionary establishment today it has not only served its progressive purpose, but is providing a refuge for old values that must be extirpated from society.

In terms of the Labour Party the influence of Fabian ideas should not be discounted.  Their slow-paced revolution, without directly confronting the Hannibal of Tradition, is linked to Luciferianism.  The Luciferian revolution is about Man’s rationalism being of more authority than and in conflict with God’s natural order.  As Lucifer rebelled in pride, the angel of light rejecting God, so enlightened Man tries to throw off obscurantist beliefs thereby to construct a new globalist Babel.  He pridefully and hubristically believes in his own rational capacity to redefine culture and ethos in a new world of enlightened progressivism.  This is why the atavistic tendencies of the white working class must be stamped out by the Fabian Labour Party.  It is why these particular violent protests are far worse than any other in their view.

In overturning the rights of the ethnic majority by failing to enforce immigration laws, by removing symbols of national identity, by discrediting patriotic history, there is another step towards the new upside down world of liberation.  Because Luciferianism is at core about liberation from the supposed constraints of traditional values.

It must be understood that from Sir Keir Starmer with his famous two tiers of one rule for migrants and another for the English working class to foolish lady Anglican vicars protesting with Just Stop Oil, there is no self recognition of the Luciferianism.  Instead their new “Christ” is a progressive and revolutionary figure, who would happily accept and welcome the sexual perverts and predators.  He is for them indeed a revolutionary.  Of course the reason Christ was persecuted by the Jews is because He outright rejected political revolution and exposed them for their modernisations of God’s Law.  This though is a new “Christ” they serve, who might better be compared to an antichrist.

We must understand that many powerful figures are not connected to or fully aware of the whole agenda.  Their vanity is appealed to and they are then manipulated.  We have all met them.  People who cannot consider an alternative perspective as anything other than evil or regressive, because to see things from a more conservative point of view would mean they had been entirely duped and were not more moral and intelligent than everyone else.

Those who are not participating in the agenda will inevitably find they are accused of obscurantism, reaction, prejudice.  Such slurs should be worn as badges of honour in these times.  It must be understood that the progressive agenda, in its hubristic spirit, is a manifestation of the doctrine of Luciferian enlightenment.  It was initiated by the esoteric and revolutionary societies of the Eighteenth Century that fomented revolution on both sides of the Atlantic.  It has taken over the institutions of the West.  It manifests not by explicit declaration of its doctrine, but by an intellectual grooming that flatters the bourgeois class as rational, enlightened and progressive.  It teaches a real hatred of the actual people who are poor, while promoting the “interests” of an abstract poor.  It betrays Crown and Altar, empire and nation all in the name of progress.  It has a new Christ who is antichrist and represents the egalitarian values of the Enlightenment against the traditional values of the Church and Christendom.    Its ultimate revolution is not against the Crown, not against Empire, not against the husband, not against the European, not against the family - all these it opposes and attacks dressed up in the enlightened language of “progress”.  The ultimate revolution though, in its hubris is against the highest transcendental authority - it rebels against God with the weapon of its myopic rationalism.  Unknowingly many bourgeois Europeans use their power to further the Luciferian agenda of revolution and progress.  Now we reach the final stage - the restoration of Babel in mockery of the Church’s Pentecost  - the Global Government that destroys all cultures, all identities to be replaced by the rationalised and atomised individual.