Francis Berger

Jesus's Mission Was a Direct Assault Against Ontological Totalitarianism

11/5/2025

Expanded and edited from a comment I left at Bruce Charlton's Notions:

The motivation to align with God the Creator because of his power or his totality is the expression and acceptance of a sort of ontological totalitarianism.

Christians regard this ontological totalitarianism as part and parcel of the Christian revelation, namely, that all humans (and every other being and "thing" in Creation) are subject to God.

Christians regard this subjection as subjection to reality, as reality "really" is, despite any personal insights, assumptions, or discernment that may point to something different.

Part of the subjection to this ontological totalitarianism is the understanding that there is no way out of it. Even the demons who rebelled against God the Creator remain subjected to the ontological totalitarianism of the Christian revelation.

The willing acceptance of ontological totalitarianism entails the acceptance of viewing God as an all-powerful dictator who rules over an intrinsically and necessarily totalitarian system. Of course, God allows people the "free will" to reject his power and rule within such a system, but will ultimately and eternally punish any free-will choice that does not align with ontological totalitarianism.

Within such a framework, obedience and submission to power and totality are the only viable and rational choices Christians can make. Seen from this perspective, the choice to align with God is hardly heroic or loving.

On the contrary, the choice may stem from fear more than it does from anything else.

I have a difficult time accepting that God the Creator would set Creation up in such a way.

Anyway, on the matter of Christian revelation, I would assume the revelation somehow involves Christ, that is, Jesus.

Jesus's primary mission or revelation was the creation of Heaven and making Heaven accessible to those who chose to follow him. Oddly enough, the creation and offer of Heaven does not seem to support the ontological totalitarianism of the Christian revelation.

On the contrary, the creation of Heaven draws such assumptions into question. The dispelling of assumptions about God the Creator as dictator was very much among Jesus's secondary aims during his mission in this world.

Put another way, Jesus's mission was a direct challenge to assumptions of ontological totalitarianism. I sense that a big part of Jesus's mission involved changing the way people thought about and understood God the Creator.

Part of his mission involved shifting consciousness away from ontologically totalitarian assumptions and toward something else entirely.

Most Christians appear to have missed this, at least as far as I can tell.

1 Comment

The Supremacy of Society or Personality? A Pressing Question

11/2/2025

4 Comments

Dr. Charlton has written an insightful post that emphasizes a self-evident truth that civilizations and societies (and to a great extent, organized Christianity) have all conspired to deny—Every person is unique - a plain fact of experience, contradicted by nearly-all theories (including religions).

Rather than excerpting excellent points from the post, I will focus on a comment Bruce left in response to Laeth:

The fact that "civilization" (i.e. all large scale human societies) can only operate on the basis of denial of uniqueness is an intrinsic evil - something we therefore need to recognize and repent -- even though we cannot - this side of salvation - eliminate it.

Such depersonalized thinking is something that - no doubt - we must be ready to set-aside permanently in ourselves and agree to eliminate forever; in order to want to choose salvation.

Bruce’s mention of depersonalized thinking reminded me of Berdyaev’s insistence on the ultimate significance of what he termed personality, which I equate with the True Self or Primal Self.

In Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev went to great lengths to explain what personality is and why it is crucial:

The entire world is nothing in comparison with human personality, with the unique person of a man, with his unique fate.

The secret of the existence of personality lies in its absolute irreplaceability, its happening but once, its uniqueness, its incomparability.

As Bruce points out in his post, the uniqueness of each being in Creation is an undeniable reality, yet the operation of civilization/society precludes recognizing this reality, at least in practice.

That civilization/society can only (apparently) function when the uniqueness of personality is denied leads to a pressing and unavoidable choice.

Should the supremacy of society over personality be considered something inherently good or evil?

Bruce lands on the side of considering it an intrinsic evil—a state of affairs that cannot be resolved this side of salvation; however, the fact that it is apparently unresolvable on this side of salvation is not reason enough to declare it good on this side of salvation.

Quite the contrary. As Bruce notes, the supremacy of society over personality is an intrinsic evil that must be recognized as such and repented if we ever hope to set aside and eliminate permanently on the other side of salvation.

Berdyaev also regards the supremacy of society over personality as, at best, a “necessary evil” that poses the risk of being an enslaving force that can, and often does, lead to spiritual death. Unlike most traditional Christian philosophers and theologians, Berdyaev does not consider civilization, society, or even religion itself to be superior to personality.

Personality is a subject, and not an object among other objects, and it has its roots in the inward scheme of existence, that is, in the spiritual world, the world of freedom. Society, on the other hand, is an object.

From the existential point of view, society is a part of personality; it is its social side, just as the cosmos is a part of personality, its cosmic side. Personality is not an object among other objects and not a thing among other things.

It is a subject among subjects, and the turning of it into an object or a thing means death.

A bit later in Slavery and Freedom, Berdyaev states:

Personality is the absolute existential center. Personality determines itself from within, outside the whole object world, and only determination from within and arising out of freedom is personality.

Personality as an existential center presupposes the capacity to feel suffering and joy. Nothing in the object world, nation, state, or society, or social institution, or church, possesses this capacity.

Berdyaev then outlines how and why personality is not defined by its relation to society:

... personality is defined above all not by its relation to society and the cosmos, not by its relation to the world which is enslaved by objectivization, but by its relation to God, and from this hidden and cherished inward relation it draws strength for its free relation to the world and to man.

Nor by external society/civilization obligations:

Personality is bound up with the consciousness of vocation. Every man ought to be conscious of that vocation, which is independent of the extent of his gifts. It is a vocation in an individually unrepeatable form to give an answer to the call of God and to put one's gifts to creative use.

Personality that is conscious of itself listens to the inward voice and obeys that only. It is not submissive to outside voices.

The greatest among men have always listened exclusively to the inward voice and have refused to conform so far as the world is concerned.

For Berdyaev, personality transcends all this-worldly considerations:

Personality in man is not determined by heredity, biology, and society; it is freedom in man, it is the possibility of victory over the world of determination.

Many traditionally/conventionally minded Christians might interpret the above to mean that Berdyaev (and Bruce and I) advocate for solipsism, but Berdyaev dismisses these concerns by stressing the communal aspect of personality:

Personality is communal; it presupposes communion with others and community with others. The profound contradiction and difficulty of human life are due to this communality.

In a nutshell, Berdyaev regards society/civilization in their past and current forms as objectifying forces:

In objectivization, we may find only symbols, but not basic realities. The objective spirit is only a symbol of spirit. The spirit is real. Culture and social life are symbolic. There is never reality in an object: in an object, there is only a symbol of reality. Reality itself is always in the subject....

The idea that reality is social, through and through, top to bottom, is only really “real” through the supremacy of personality over society—through the spiritual communion and relationships established and nurtured by persons through love, not through relations dictating by an objectifying, depersonalizing force that denies the uniqueness of personality as a spiritual and existential center in its own right..

The supremacy of society over personality remains, sadly, at the core of much Christian thinking and provides the basis for reactionary thought. The bulk of such thinking stems from an earlier mode of religious consciousness with assumptions that regarded this-worldly society as part and parcel of the celestial hierarchy and the heavens.

Valuing society over personality is the hallmark of reactionary thinkers like de Maistre and de Bonald, who regarded society organically, as an organism of which a person was merely a part. For de Maistre and de Bonald, a society/civilization that denied personality was inherently good, and they regarded persons hierarchically rather than personally.

Within such assumptions, the body as a whole is worth more than any of its individual parts. Thus, part of the body’s function involved ensuring that all the individual parts were working properly, even when or especially when the uniqueness or personality of the individual parts threatened the whole.

Reaction may have served some positive purpose in the past, but its assertion of the supremacy of society over personality is no longer simply unviable—it may prove to be spiritually lethal. After all, Auguste Comte was a reactionary in his own right. Like de Maistre and de Bonald, Comte also believed in the supremacy of society over personality. The only real difference between the three reactionary thinkers is that Comte favored the establishment of a secular, scientific elite rather than a religious elite to rule over personality.

Believing in the supremacy of society over personality from a Christian perspective entails believing in the rule of an authoritarian God presiding over a hierarchical Creation that denies the uniqueness of its beings and values the hierarchy over such personal uniqueness. It entails believing that heaven is run the way Christendom was run in the Middle Ages.

I do not believe heaven is run that way, even though the world once was. I also do not believe that returning to some Christendom mode of governance would do much to improve things because it would merely be another version of supremacy of society.

Moreover, I believe that any Christian who assumes heaven is run the way Christendom once was may have a difficult time recognizing and repenting the evil inherent in believing in the supremacy of society over personality, to the point that it may act as a formidable obstacle to salvation.

4 Comments

Criticism Evasion as a Means of Defending “Christianity as a Package”

10/29/2025

2 Comments

The responses to my recent posts criticizing logos-centered Christians tend to have one thing in common—they avoid the criticism within those posts altogether.

What were the criticisms in those posts of mine?

My chief criticism in Essentially Leftist Logos-Lovers Railing Against Leftism focused on the observed tendency of trad-minded Christians to overemphasize externals at the expense of internal personal discernment, making such externally-oriented Christians prone to getting embroiled in leftist political and social narratives in the predetermined manner those leftist narratives dictated. I suggested that trad-minded Christians would do well to temper their external orientation with a little more internal focus, particularly in this time and place, where the left controls virtually all that comprises the external.

In On the Matter of Discerning Babies and Bathwater, I made specific reference to a trad-Christian blogger who had posted a positive account of engaging with AI on the subject of God. I bluntly opined that asking AI about God amounted to spiritual perversion—as in, the spirit being turned in the wrong direction—and implored those who had interacted with AI on the subject of God to reflect upon their motivations and actions. I cited the lauding of AI as another example of the trad-minded becoming enmeshed in leftist paradigms. Oddly enough, the same Christian blogger agreed with my criticism but then simultaneously and unceremoniously dismissed my observation—which he had wholeheartedly agreed with— as lacking authority.

The Facts and Logic to Which Logos-Lovers Submit concentrated on the recent assassination of a so-called right-wing political and social commentator and the subsequent and, sadly, predictable reaction logos-centered Christians displayed following the event. Behaving precisely like the push-button automatons the left knows them to be, logos-centered Christians dutifully reacted in the exact way the leftist narrative wanted them to—by fomenting fear and declaring war.

The criticisms in the three posts above could best be summarized as follows:

Many trad-minded Christians pride themselves on submitting to the authority of fact and logic, which they often refer to as the Logos and then equate with Jesus; however, their thinking and behavior suggest that they are far more prone to submitting to the authority of leftist “facts” and manipulative leftist narratives than they are to anything remotely related to the Logos they promote and hold so dear.

None of the responses to my posts about the blind spot inherent in most logos-centered Christians dealt with that criticism directly.

On the contrary, they avoided that criticism altogether and focused instead on misrepresenting Romantic Christian “concepts” in the following way:

Romantic Christians reject all external authority and fact, including things like math and the coffee shop down the street.
Romantic Christians live entirely in their heads.
Romantic Christians are innately anti-social and anti-society.
The Romantic Christian position of tempering authority through personal discernment leads to solipsism.
The Romantic Christian position of examining and questioning tradition lacks intellectual and spiritual humility and is just plain nuts.
Personal discernment ultimately leads to isolation and atomization.
Because they question and/or reject most Christian externals, Romantic Christians cannot “really” be Christians. In fact, they are worse than Gnostics and are essentially atheists.
Romantic Christians don't believe in the classical theist definition of God; hence, they don't believe in God at all.

The above are all criticisms in their own right, I suppose; however, none of them address the core criticism of my “logos-lovers” posts.

Now there has to be a reason for this, and there is, as Dr. Charlton succinctly explains below:

Most Christians are first-and-foremost institutionally-led; and they assume and assert that Christianity is A Package.

Therefore, it is regarded as a stark choice between either affiliating to a Christian church and supporting totalitarian evil, or else rejecting totalitarian evil and therefore rejecting "Christianity".

Note: This is the last I will say about this matter for a while. The thing the trad-minded don't seem to understand is that I am not out to mock them "for the hell of it." I criticize because I hope to inspire self-reflection -- but it seems that such self-reflection will likely never occur. Such is the nature of freedom.

2 Comments

Berdyaev Leaned Heavily in Favor of Romantic Christianity

10/28/2025

4 Comments

“I have come to Christ through liberty and through an intimate experience of the paths of freedom.

My Christian faith is not a faith based on habit or tradition. It was won through an experience of the inner life of a most painful character.

I knew no compulsion in my religious life, and I had no experience of authoritarianism either in faith or in the sphere of religious devotion.

Can one oppose to this fact dogmatic formulas or abstract theologies?

I answer No, for in my case, they will never be really convincing.”
~ Freedom and the Spirit

4 Comments

The Facts and Logic to Which Logos-Lovers Submit

10/19/2025

0 Comments

Many trad-minded Christians pride themselves on submitting to the authority of fact and logic, which they often refer to as the Logos and then equate with Jesus.

They claim that this submission to the authority of facts and logic guides all of their acts and behavior and proves their allegiance to Christ. Furthermore, they vehemently deny any suggestion that this sacred stance of theirs may “in fact” be leftist in inclination or, at the very least, easily manipulable by the left.

Case in point—the assassination of the so-called right-wing political activist that occurred over a month ago.

Within minutes of the event, the media lit up in its usual manipulative manner, encouraging the public to take a side on the “issue.”

Within hours, the media had succeeded in convincing those on the so-called right that the left was out to kill every single one of them.

Many logos-loving Christians and other self-professed “rightists” fell for the blatant manipulation and behaved like the push-button automatons the left know them to be.

They enthusiastically assumed the role the left had predetermined for them by heartily contributing to the psychotic and spiritual contagion the left had generated -- to the point that many trad Christians exuberantly encouraged their supposed rightist brothers-in-arms to “gird their loins” because the left was indeed out to kill them all.

In light of the recent event described above, logos-loving Christians would do well to ask themselves a few germane questions concerning their supposed submission to facts, logic, and Jesus Christ.

Those on the right are supposedly aware of the leftist control of the media. Why then do they insist on submitting to the “facts” in leftist narratives in precisely the way the leftist narrative instructs them to do?

In connection with that, how does such willful submission to leftist narratives and "facts" prevent one from being a leftist?

Experience informs us that fomenting hatred and fear is an essential component of any leftist narrative. The recent assassination was no exception. Knowing this, why did the logos-lovers actively and energetically submit and contribute to the fomenting of hatred and fear? Where, exactly, did they find the logic in that?

Logos-lovers insist that everyone tests his private notions against his apprehensions of fact, trusting that they are more or less veridical. How did the logos-lovers test their private notions against the supposed facts of the recent assassination narrative? Moreover, where, precisely, did they locate the veridicality in such tests?

As stated above, many trad-minded Christians pride themselves on submitting to the authority of fact and logic, which they often refer to as the Logos and then equate with Jesus; however, their thinking and behavior suggest that they are far more prone to submitting to the authority of leftist “facts” and manipulative leftist narratives than they are to anything remotely related to the Logos they promote and hold so dear.

0 Comments

The Authority of Facts is Secondary to the Authority One Grants Assumptions

10/11/2025

4 Comments

In a recent post, I suggested that a big problem with contemporary traditional Christians is their assumption that

. . . Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."

Some traditional Christians interpreted this to mean that I reject things like facts and logic outright and embrace a purely solipsistic approach to life and Christianity (as if such a thing were possible).

Nevertheless, the same Christians then went on to basically affirm that my assessment of their assumptions was accurate by proudly declaring that they do indeed submit to the authority of facts and logic and could not do otherwise even if they wanted to.

A quick note about facts and logic.

We shape reality through our metaphysical assumptions, not facts or logic.
Metaphysical assumptions are the core beliefs and postulations that people use to form their explanations about the fundamental nature of reality.

Put another way, it is our metaphysical assumptions that allow us to search for facts and, subsequently, determine what we accept as facts or logic.

Thus, our assumptions shape reality, and no knowable reality exists without such assumptions.

Facts, therefore, are downstream from our metaphysical assumptions. They are secondary—not primary.

Moreover, facts and logic are symbolizations of reality, not reality itself. They offer potential symbolic knowledge about reality but are not a substitute for reality.

Thus, any declaration about submission to the authority of facts or logic is just a disguised expression of the authority granted to metaphysical assumptions.

Traditional Christians tend to regard reality as objectively given. Unfortunately, their core assumptions leave them with few other options. For them, reality basically boils down to the thrown-back knowledge of objects or beings “out there.”

I assume reality to be a co-creative, spiritual endeavor and achievement. Reality is creative transfiguration, not mere submission to objectively imposed facts.

4 Comments

The False Assumption in the Either/Or Dichotomy

10/7/2025

7 Comments

The following is an excerpt from an incisive comment Dr. Charlton added to a recent post of mine:

People are absolutely stuck in their assumptions that either reality is objective and out-there and to which we ought (both expediently and rationally to conform): or else (the only other option allowed) reality is subjective, something somebody feels and claims at this moment.

But BOTH of these alternatives are *incoherent* nonsense.

Instead of looking hard to find something that is (at least!) not-incoherent; people choose between the two species of nonsense - but in practice flip back and forth between them, whenever things get inconvenient.

Insofar as Christianity chooses to yoke itself to "reality is objective, out there, I do not contribute substantively to it, I must conform to it - then Christianity renders itself unfixably incoherent and irrelevant.

When this attitude is dogmatically (in the literal sense) combined with an ignorant insistence that this irrelevant incoherent metaphysics is the Only possibility - we get (inter alia) the lifestyle-level affectations and macho-posturings of trad/ orthodox Christianity.

What is so frustrating is that the false metaphysics has really nothing substantive to do with what Jesus said and did according to the IV Gospel and most of the others!

Two points.

First, assumptions asserting that reality is purely external (objective) or purely internal (subjective) are indeed incoherent. Christianity is not an either/or dichotomy. When I criticize traditional Christians for their externality, I do not assume that they or Christianity exist purely as externalities.

Christians of all stripes agree that there is more to reality than the external. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Christians tend to heavily favor externals over internals, often at a heavy cost to internal/subjective aspects of what it means to be a Christian. I suspect much of this arises from overemphasizing the sociopolitical aspects of Christianity (and faulty, incoherent metaphysics and theology, but I won’t go there in this post). That is where the bulk of my criticism originates, particularly as it pertains to obedience to questionable external “authorities,” be they religious or secular.

Second, my critical stance on externals in this time and place does not imply that I reject all externals since the dawn of Creation and live purely within my mind, in some sort of mental/spiritual pod or bubble, completely detached from everything and everyone, relying on nothing but my own feelings for guidance as to what is real and what is not.

I mention this only because this is the most common and most ridiculous criticism others tend to lob at me. “Hey, look at Francis. He rejects math! Hardy-har-har.”

So, reality is neither purely external nor purely internal for the simple reason that both alternatives, on their own, lead to incoherence, implying that coherence requires another way to “realize” something that, as Bruce puts it, “is at least not-incoherent.” The above should rank among a Christian’s primary motivations in this time and place.

If God wanted us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, he would have created us to exist in solipsistic bubbles, utterly unaware of anything external to us. Since we do not exist in such bubbles during mortal life, there must be something significant about "the world out there." However, this does not imply that only the world out there is significant but that you, essentially, do not count for much.

Simply stating that one must have intellectual humility and let tradition or some other external force judge what is best because one does not possess the internal resources required to discover “the (at least) not incoherent” is to state that God provides us with no reliable internal guidance whatsoever and instead forces us to be entirely dependent on the “authority” of the external, via elders, institutions, and so forth.

7 Comments

On the Matter of Discerning Babies and Bathwater

10/6/2025

1 Comment

The traditional Christian insistence—fully endorsed and promulgated by their respective churches and supposed metaphysical assumptions—that they fully comprehend the significance of personal discernment to distinguish the baby from the bathwater leaves much to be desired.

Case in point—AI. Over the past few months, I have encountered several pieces written by traditional Christians in which they asked AI about the fundamental nature of reality and God and then extolled AI for displaying the logical acumen to wholeheartedly agree with the theist position the bloggers had fed it.

I responded by stating that any motivation to ask AI about God was severely perverted, as in, turned in completely the wrong direction, spiritually speaking, and that if the trad bloggers in question really wanted to contemplate the nature of reality and God, then AI was probably the last place they should look.

To my surprise, I received resounding agreement from one of the trad bloggers; however, he quickly hedged his acknowledgement of my observation by pointing out that my insight lacked authority.

Put another way, my observation was valid but carried no weight because it was not supported by any authority (apparently) other than my own, rendering it a self-consuming form of authority or, more precisely, no authority at all.

My observation then was denigrated to the level of, “You’re right, but who are you?”

Well, I’m a Christian, which means I must follow my discernment and conscience above all else and, if necessary, even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.

Because I am a Christian, I do not believe that my discernment is a solo effort, alienated and isolated from the Holy Ghost. I believe that the Holy Ghost guides my discernment and helps form my conscience. I do not believe that my discernment and conscience are infallible; however, I do my best to learn from my errors and repent whenever my discernment falters or fails.

And when it comes to discernment, it is precisely this kind of authority that most trad Christians conspire to deny.

Anyway, I will resist wading into the enormous flip-flop said blogger displayed by lauding the logical acumen of AI one moment (he still refers to it as his personal research assistant), to contradicting that praise by agreeing with my criticism of AI the next, but I will touch upon one point.

The blogger in question had granted the power of authority to AI when it agreed with his views of God, yet denied me the same consideration when he (mysteriously and rather inexplicably) agreed with my dismissal of AI as a spiritually viable means to seek answers about God.

I believe the above reveals much about the insincere posturing some trad-Christians exhibit when confronted with the significance of personal discernment in Christianity.

On the one hand, they are quick to emphasize that personal discernment is vital to the faith, even when it justifiably conflicts with church doctrine or dogma. Mention personal discernment, and they agree that it forms the very foundation upon which Christianity is built.

On the other hand, any expressed personal discernment that conflicts with church doctrine, dogma, or traditional Christian metaphysics is callously dismissed as insane solipsism, unanchored in anything save for personal, individualist feelings and selfish, questionable intuitions.

The bottom line is simple—if your personal discernment does not line up with the doctrine, dogma, and traditional metaphysics, it is all rainbows and soap bubbles, and you are basically mad because you dare to pit yourself against the Magisterium, or whatever.

In connection with the above, I am not sure how the personal discernment of the trad bloggers who asked AI about God lines up with traditional doctrine, dogma, traditional metaphysics, or following Jesus (aka, the Logos), but it obviously does, in ways I obviously cannot comprehend.

And that is but a sample of how trad Christians who pride themselves on being anti-modern and anti-left end up engaging in, being used by, and are ultimately consumed by leftism and leftist discourse.

By interacting with and granting the status of authority to AI—on the subject of God, of all things(!)—the trad bloggers willfully endorsed the System’s newest and latest top-down-endorsed and implemented (re: enforced) anti-spiritual, anti-God, and anti-human technological innovation.

How sublimely logical of them!

Of course, said trad bloggers do not see it that way. To them, AI is both bathwater and baby, and their only task is to discern one from the other, implying that AI has something intrinsically valuable to offer Creation, even on the subject of God.

To discern otherwise is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Or, more plainly, to declare that this particular aspect of officially endorsed and enforced modernism or leftism (or whatever you wish to call the totalitarianism we find ourselves in) has nothing inherently good to offer.

What an unbearable thought.

1 Comment

Knowing When to Stop

10/4/2025

3 Comments

Knowing when to start something is a vital part of life. The same applies to knowing when to stop.

Regular readers of this blog know I have spent the better part of nine years renovating, updating, and remodeling the house I purchased in northwestern Hungary shortly after moving here.

It’s been quite a journey. I would even call it a labor of love. Yet today, as I was installing polystyrene insulation on the last uninsulated wall on the back of the house, I experienced a mild epiphany of sorts.

I was thinking about the steps to finish the house by the end of next summer, mentally compiling a list of those final tasks, when I became aware of the pressing need to hire those tasks out to others, not because I could not complete the work myself, but because I no longer want to.

I had accomplished what I had set out to do. It was time to stop.

Granted, no homeowner ever really stops working on a house because there is always something to repair, maintain, replace, or upkeep; however, my days as the primary contractor and renovator ended today.

Come spring, I will hire others to render the exterior, lay the paving stones, and tie up the odds and ends.

Me? I plan to begin really living in the house, for a change -- and be in the yard, planting the most magnificent vegetable garden my little village has ever seen.

And more reading, thinking, praying, family time, and blogging.

Definitely more blogging.

3 Comments

Essentially Leftist Logos-Lovers Railing Against Leftism

10/1/2025

6 Comments

It took me a long time to realize that all contemporary politics and virtually everything that connects to politics—economics, finance, culture, society in general, business, institutions, art, and organized religion—is of the left. And when I mean “of the left,” I mean exactly that. It’s leftism—all of it.

Yes, even the most conservative of conservative political parties, the most foaming at the mouth alt-rightist nationalist, and the most pious trad Christian clergyman are basically of the left for the simple reason that they continue to operate within an exclusively leftist framework under the delusion that some semblance of “the right” still exists there.

Newsflash. There is no “right” in contemporary politics. It’s all the left. All of it.

Rightists, conservatives, and so-called traditional Christians can’t seem to wrap their heads around this simple fact and continue to doggedly participate in a perceived left-right paradigm that simply does not exist.

Among the worst offenders are logos-centered Christians—you know, the ones who enjoy reminding everyone that Christ is Logos, the universal principle of law, order, and reason that underpins the reality of Creation and through which all things were created.

The metaphysics of most logos-centered Christians are easy enough to discern and grasp. For them, Christianity and reality are fundamentally objective. Reality does not submit to individuals; individuals submit to reality. Reality, then, is logos as law, or, more precisely, logos as supreme authority.

Within such metaphysical assumptions, the authority of the objective always takes precedence over the authority of the subjective for the simple fact that the subjective contains no real authority but is instead detached from “real” authority and, thus, self-consuming. If it were otherwise, there could be no objective facts; hence, no order, no beauty, truth, or goodness. No reality “out there.”

Along the same lines, Christianity is not and cannot be a predominantly private, personal, and spiritual matter; it must be rooted in submission to the external authority—to facts, to churches, to doctrines, to the Bible, to society, to tradition, to authority, to “reality”. Christianity has to be mostly "out there."

Anyway, the biggest beef logos-loving Christians have against leftists is the latter’s outright refusal to submit to the unavoidable authority of the Logos as an external authority.

The crux of the ongoing conflict resides in opposing the left’s relentless campaign to impose external unreality upon external reality and call it “reality”.

The war most logos-loving Christians wage against the left is an exclusively external affair, and it is through this externality, through this “out there” focus, through this purposeful choice of battlefields, that the left has already won and will continue to win.

Put another way, logos-loving Christians will never win the war against leftism if they continue to focus almost entirely on the authority of the Logos as an externality because any exclusively external focus is inherently leftist by default.

Thus, actively engaging and participating in leftist narratives by loyally showing up and filling the external role of “the right” does little more than positively fortify the left’s external unrealities.

Claiming rightist victories and progress in certain political, social, or economic matters that are wholly externally organized, promulgated, and dictated by the left is itself a form of leftist delusion.

Everything in the external is of the left today. Politics, economics, art, religion, culture, society, and everything else that comprises the System.

Of the left. All of it.

Thus, any spiritual submission to external “reality” today is submission to the left, not the Logos.

This should induce a pause for thought. Perhaps the Logos is not entirely about the external. Perhaps it’s more of an internal matter in this time and place.

Moreover, reality may require much more from us than mere submission to external authority.

Much, much more.

6 Comments

<<Previous

Archives