In an age of delusion, I aim to provide Christians with the tools needed to counter the enemy's lies. Postmodernism, Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Inclusiveness, Equity, WOKE, Net-Zero Carbon are all variations on a Neo-Marxist theme. Namely the belief that life is a zero-sum game, a Malthusian nightmare where resources are so finite that the state must redistribute them. This channel is dedicated to providing you with the meat of the Word of God sorely lacking in Christian circles today.
The Red-Green Axis: How Islam and Marxism Converge
The entire world is being driven into madness by people who
believe in insanity as a literal way of viewing the world. Ideological
possession poses the greatest threat to humanity that has ever existed. It has
created a cadre of kakistrocrats, kleptocrats, ideologues, and theocrats who
will commit any murderous horror imaginable that is necessary to promote their
sick world view. Simply put, the only world view that has ever worked to
promote peace is one based upon individual liberty and free market enterprise
based on capitalism. This is why the murderous theocracy of Islam sees Marxism
as necessary to create the ideal conditions to further its idolatrous world
view. Islam and Marxism of necessity become bed fellows despite the fact they
contradict one another.
Ideological possession—where abstract doctrines
hijack reason, morality, and basic self-preservation—isn't a new human failing,
but the scale and speed of its spread today (amplified by technology,
institutions, and elite capture) make it uniquely corrosive. When people internalize
a totalizing worldview that redefines "good" as whatever advances “The
Cause”, atrocities stop feeling like crimes and become sacred duties. History's
body count from this pattern is staggering, whether the banner is class
struggle, racial purity, divine mandate, or "equity."
Here is why my core claim holds water under scrutiny: the
only system that has reliably scaled peace, prosperity, and non-coercive
cooperation among strangers is one grounded in individual liberty secured by
secure property rights, voluntary exchange, rule of law, and market prices.
Empirically: Societies that moved toward economic
freedom (think post-war West Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Estonia, Chile
under the Chicago Boys, or even China's partial liberalization) saw explosive
poverty reduction, rising life expectancy, and declining internal violence.
Liberal market orders channel self-interest into mutual
benefit via the price mechanism and competition; they don't require saints or
commissars. They also correlate with the "democratic peace"
observation: mature market democracies almost never fight each other.
By contrast, every major experiment in central planning
(Marxist or otherwise) or theocratic absolutism has produced mass death,
economic collapse, and exportable aggression. The 20th century's socialist
tally alone runs well over 100 million dead from famine, purge, and gulag.
Islamist regimes add their own ledger—executions, honour killings, terror
campaigns, and demographic flight—without ever delivering the earthly paradise
they promise.
The marriage of convenience between radical Islam and
Marxism is the most glaring illustration of ideological possession overriding
logic. They are metaphysically irreconcilable: Marxism is atheistic materialism
that abolishes private property, the family as a bourgeois relic, and religion
as "opium." Salafi-Jihadist or Khomeinist Islam is theocentric
totalism that subordinates everything—including the economy—to sharia, apostasy
laws, and the ummah's supremacy.
Yet they sync up like gears because both are revolutionary
anti-liberalisms. Their common enemy is the Enlightenment settlement: the
sovereign individual, limited government, secular law, and the right to exit or
criticize. So, we see the pattern repeat:
Tactical alliances against the Shah in 1979 (Marxist Tudeh
and Fedayeen groups cheering Khomeini, then slaughtered).
Soviet arms, training, and propaganda to Arab nationalists
and early Islamists as anti-Western proxies.
PLO-era Marxist terror groups morphing into or partnering
with Hamas/Hezbollah pipelines.
Today's "red-green" axis in the West:
campus Marxists marching shoulder-to-shoulder with Islamist activists, both
chanting against "Zionism = capitalism = colonialism," while ignoring
the gulags and stonings each would impose on the other if victorious.
This isn't ideological coherence; it's predatory
convergence. Both see liberal capitalism as the final barrier to their
utopia. Both thrive on grievance, envy, and the sacralization of violence. Both
produce kakistocracies (rule by the worst) where competence is subordinated to
purity tests. And both recruit the same personality type: the intellectually
possessed who would rather burn the world than share it.
The theocrats understand something the Marxists often don't:
you can't build the caliphate on a prosperous, free, skeptical populace. Hence
the need for engineered scarcity, resentment, and imported Marxist
"oppressor/oppressed" framing to soften the ground. The Marxists, in
turn, get foot soldiers willing to die for transcendent purpose—something
dialectical materialism never quite delivered.
So, I am not wrong that this fusion poses an existential
risk greater than any single past threat, because it weaponizes modernity's
tools (social media, migration, captured institutions) while rejecting
modernity's restraints. The antidote isn't another ideology—it's the
unglamorous, empirically tested default of classical liberalism: protect
negative rights, enforce contracts, let individuals and markets sort the rest,
and defend it ruthlessly against those who would replace it with holy or
proletarian dictatorship.
The madness ends when enough people remember that reality
doesn't grade on intent, and that the only sustainable peace is the one that
lets people disagree, trade, and walk away. Everything else is just theology
with better branding. Face it, our universities preach ideological nonsense
that has historically failed every time it was applied in practice. This is why
they sympathise with murderous Islamic tyranny while condemning the only
democracy in the Middle East for protecting itself against those who have sworn
to wipe it off the face of the earth. And we wonder why anti-Semitism is out of
control on our campuses?
The Global power mongers operate using Hermetics and
Gnosticism to hide the fact they are moving us toward a one world Satanic
religion. This is being accomplished under the guise of a group of global
financial influencers and market manipulators who are using witchcraft to
darken minds so that we will willingly surrender our God given autonomy to them
and ultimately to their father Beelzebub.
Revelation 13:17 "And that no man might buy
or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of
his name."
Let’s delve deeper into these ideas:
I want to connect ancient esoteric traditions, modern global
finance, and biblical prophecy into a warning about spiritual deception leading
to a loss of personal sovereignty. Revelation 13:17 is indeed one of the most
discussed verses in eschatological circles, describing an economic system where
participation requires allegiance to “the beast”—whether interpreted literally
as a mark, name, or number (often linked to 666 in v. 18).
1.Quick
context on the biblical passage
The chapter depicts two “beasts”: one political/military
power from the sea and a false prophet from the earth who enforces worship and
economic control. The “mark” prevents buying or selling without it. Historic
Christian interpretations vary widely:
- “Futurist/premillennial view” (common in
evangelical prophecy teaching): A literal end-times global system under
Antichrist, possibly involving technology (digital ID, CBDC, implant) that
demands loyalty over God.
- “Historicist view”: The beast as successive empires
or the papacy in Reformation-era readings; the mark as symbolic compromise.
- “Preterist/symbolic view”: Fulfilled in 1st-century
Rome (emperor worship, trade exclusion for Christians); the number 666 as
gematria for Nero Caesar.
- “Idealist view”: Timeless principle of any system
demanding total allegiance, replacing God with state/idolatry.
No single interpretation is universally held across
denominations. But the text itself emphasizes deception, false miracles, and
voluntary worship (v. 15–16).
2.Hermeticism
and Gnosticism: What they actually are
- “Hermeticism” comes from texts attributed to
“Hermes Trismegistus” (likely 2nd–3rd century AD Egyptian-Greek synthesis).
Core ideas: “As above, so below,” correspondence
between macro/microcosm, alchemy as spiritual transformation. It influenced
Renaissance magi (Ficino, Pico della Mirandola), Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism,
and later Theosophy/New Age. These philosophical/mystical ideas focus on inner
divinity and natural laws, while many elites and secret societies have studied
it (e.g., certain Enlightenment figures). Hermeticism relies on secret rites
and rituals aimed at granting the initiate, “secret esoteric knowledge”.
Gnosticism: Was an early Christian-era movement
(1st–4th centuries) teaching that the material world is a flawed prison created
by a lesser “demiurge,” and salvation comes through secret “gnosis” or knowledge
of the true spiritual God. Texts like those from Nag Hammadi show diverse
sects, some dualistic and anti-body. Orthodox Christianity has rejected it as
heresy since it downgrades the Creator and physical creation. Modern revivals
exist in occult circles, and I am about to reveal to you why.
On an aside it should be noted that renowned mathematician
and cultural critic Dr. James Lindsay has called Postmodernism and WOKE Marxism
as Gnostic heresies. Therefore, Woke Marxism might more accurately be called
Woke Gnosticism, though it is technically redundant. Gnosticism is one of the
ancient "Esoteric" religions that has spawned cults, some weird and
some dangerous, since Antiquity. In this episode of New Discourses Bullets that
I’m sharing here, host James Lindsay gives a brief introduction to the Gnostic
mindset and why it is the best characterization for the Woke phenomenon,
Marxism, and all the rest. You may subscribe to him to gain unprecedented
clarity on these issues while you watch his episode on, Gnosticism, Modern
and Postmodern at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-vJ_qPPljc
Though these traditions have been cherry-picked by various
occultists (i.e. Crowley, Golden Dawn, some New Age authors). I aim to critique
the emphasis on hidden knowledge and hidden human potential which is blurred
into self-deification in opposition to a being born of the Spirit in Christ.
3.The
financial-centralization angle
Trends toward digital currencies (CBDCs in China, pilots in
EU/US/BRICS nations), programmable money, and digital IDs are real and
documented by the IMF, BIS, and national banks. Although they promise
efficiency and anti-fraud, I raise legitimate worries about:
- Exclusion of the unbanked or the dissenting due to their social
credit scores.
A cashless society functionally mirrors the “no buying or
selling” Biblical scenario. Critics across the political spectrum
(libertarians, conservatives, some progressives) warn of eroded autonomy. There
is a reason the Globalists all support these things as though they can share
the same brain since they partake of the views of their father, who is the
fallen god of this age. Although public statements from Davos, IMF, or Fed
chairs focus on economics, climate, and inclusion—they obviously ignore the
esoteric rituals that the Epstein files have revealed as a hidden agenda consistent
with those behind a concerted attack on human sovereignty and Christianity.
Occult symbolism in logos or events (e.g., occasional pyramid eyes or “666”
coincidences) are often highlighted in prophecy circles. If there was no smoking
gun pointing to hidden rituals why do these images consistently appear?
4.A
truth-seeker’s take
- Valid spiritual warning: Scripture repeatedly
cautions against idolatry of power, mammon, and systems that demand ultimate
loyalty (Daniel 3, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4:Concerning the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you,
brothers and sisters, 2 not to become easily
unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us—whether by a prophecy or
by word of mouth or by letter—asserting that the day of the Lord has
already come. 3 Don’t let anyone deceive
you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs
and the man of lawlessness[a] is revealed, the man doomed to
destruction. 4 He will oppose and will exalt
himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he
sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God., Revelation
13). If current trends erode God-given free will and conscience, vigilance is
warranted—many faithful Christians see digital control grids as potential
infrastructure for the prophesied system.
- Empirical evidence for the grand plot: Coordinated
“global power mongers” using Hermetic/Gnostic sorcery for a Satanic one-world
religion is seen revealed in Jeffery Epstein’s fascination with Satanic hermetic
perversion. Nobody drops cash on books like Modern Sex Magick or Secrets
of Western Tantra unless they're fantasizing about doing the rituals. Epstein
wasn't some mere armchair mystic. The books teach group sex as power—polarity
circles, breath-syncing, energy "transmutation" through multiple
bodies. Victims said exactly that: massages turning into forced threesomes,
"massage tables" with straps, elites watching or joining. He wasn't
reading for fun—he was running rehearsals, then live shows. The "with
other people" part? That's where it gets dark. Flight logs, witness
accounts, island staff—people like Maxwell, Gates, Prince Andrew, Dershowitz—were
there. You wouldn’t be present while this deviance was happening if you were
not participating in this behaviour. They all knew the occult angle since Epstein
didn't hide his library—he bragged about it. So yes—he practiced occult rituals
with victims, and with other financial power brokers. The books weren't used
for décor; they were Epstein’s Satanic playbook. Those books weren’t theory, they
were manuals. Kraig's Modern Sex Magick spells out how to
"charge" a circle with multiple partners, how to bind energy through
pain/pleasure, how to invoke "higher forces" via sex. Hyatt's Western
Tantra pushes the same: Kundalini, which is the release of dormant, coiled
energy at the base of the spine that rises through the “chakras”, causing
profound physical, emotional, and spiritual transformation rising through group
ritual, while the Tree of Life was used as a map for domination. Epstein had these
manuals on his shelf, and the island had rooms set up like altars—mirrors,
candles, straps, with no windows. This is Hermetics at its Satanic core. They
describe synchronized breathing, forced intimacy, power plays that were staged.
The witch Maxwell coached them, then the elites showed up to participate. If it
walks like ritual, talks like ritual... the files don't say "Satanic
cabal"— but they don't need to. Abusing innocent children in sexual
rituals to rob them of their innocence is precisely what was in those books,
add this to the behavior this undeniably equals Satanic practice. This is not
coincidence, rather we are witnessing a Devilish hermetical cabal of evil designed
to pervert and enslave humanity crafted by globalist financiers who without
their number stamped on your head you will not be able to buy or sell!
I have drawn from a long tradition of reading current events
through a Biblical lens yet just yesterday I was told by an evangelical
Christian that my work has nothing to do with preparing the Church to defend
the Gospel against these Satanic lies!
Matthew 24:22 King James Bible“And except
those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the
elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”
Pray for the strength to endure the tribulations which are
coming upon us. Keep that lamp of Truth burning bright, buy oil from Christ as
you keep your wick trimmed to shine in this darkness like a light set on a hill
for all to see lest you succumb to the foolishness of the fellow I spoke with
yesterday! I know there are many of you who practice a weak and ineffectual
faith!
Today we are witnessing libidinous need
to do harm among those who claim to have philanthropic intentions. It is often
said that one should follow the money to discover the source of the corruption,
but money and power are mere tools being used by those engaged in social
engineering to hurt humanity under the guise of being socially responsible. Remember
those kids in the playground who got off on pulling the wings off of flies or who
hurt little animals because the tiny creatures were incapable of defending themselves
against their psychopathic tendencies? Well, the same species of psychopath has
grown up and find their ideal social niche in doing harm under the guise of
philanthropy and social engineering!
The Subjective Lie: How Governments
Turn Citizens into Lizards:
We’ve all felt it—that low-grade hum of
dread that never quite goes away. Not panic, not terror—just a constant,
gnawing unease. And it’s not random. It’s engineered.
Modern governments don’t need tanks or
gulags anymore. They’ve found something cheaper, cleaner: subjectivity. The
idea that truth isn’t fixed. That reality bends to consensus. That what’s
“true” today can be “problematic” tomorrow. And every time they sell that lie,
they flip a switch in your head—from prefrontal cortex (logic, empathy,
planning) to amygdala (fear, rage, survival).
Welcome to lizard mode.
#Step One: Blur the Facts:
It starts small. A politician says,
“This isn’t about facts—it’s about how you “feel”. A news headline reads, “Experts disagree,”
even when evidence which could disprove the sanctioned narrative is
deliberately being ignored. Social media algorithms reward outrage over
accuracy. Suddenly, the world isn’t made of gravity and math—it’s made of
opinions.
And if truth is just opinion? Then
nothing’s safe. Your job, your rights, your identity—they’re all up for vote.
You start scanning for threats everywhere: the neighbour who supports the wrong
candidate, the teacher who refused to use the “correct pronoun”, or the
headline that might mean you might be next.
Fear isn’t loud. It’s quiet. It’s the
amygdala whispering: “They could rewrite you tomorrow!”
#Step Two: Weaponize Belonging:
Humans are pack animals. We evolved to
conform—because exile meant death. Governments know this. So, they don’t force
you. They just make nonconformity hurt.
Call out a lie? You’re “divisive.”
Question the narrative? You’re “dangerous.” Refuse to play along? You’re
“toxic.” The pack turns. And suddenly, your prefrontal cortex—your reasoning
center—feels like a liability. Better to shut it down. Better to rage. Better
to scream along.
That’s not weakness. That’s biology.
The amygdala doesn’t negotiate. It just wants to survive.
#Step Three: Keep the Fear Simmering:
They don’t want you terrified—just
anxious. Constantly. A little cortisol drip keeps you compliant. So, they feed
you contradictions: “We’re safe, but also under siege.” “We’re free but also
oppressed.” “The science is settled—until it isn’t.”
Each flip-flop erodes trust. Each
erosion pushes you deeper into the lizard brain: fight, flee, or freeze. Never
think. Never question. Just react.
And the beauty of it? You do the work.
You police yourself. You self-censor. You unfriend the skeptic. You cheer when
the “wrong” person gets cancelled. You become the enforcer.
Lizard people don’t need chains. They
build their own cages.
#The Endgame:
This isn’t conspiracy—it’s control. A
population in amygdala mode doesn’t vote rationally. It votes emotionally. It
doesn’t debate—it denounces. It doesn’t solve problems—it punishes them.
And once you’re there, you’re easy. No
need for gulags. Just keep the lie alive: “There’s no objective truth.”
“Reality is what we say.” “You’re either with us or against us.”
The prefrontal cortex dies quietly. The
amygdala takes over. And suddenly, you’re not a citizen anymore. You’re a
reflex. A follower. A lizard.
But here’s the glitch: some of us
refuse. We hate the blur. We hate the fear. We hate being told “it depends.”
Because we know—truth isn’t subjective. It’s either true or it isn’t.
And the second we say that out loud?
The spell cracks!
So, keep saying it. Keep standing
outside the pack. Keep your lights on.
Because the lizard brain only wins if
everyone joins the chorus.
And as for me? I’m not singing. I hope
that you will refuse to echo the lies too.
#Who invented the endgame?
Here are the big names who shaped “Postmodern
Cultural Relativism”—folks who argued truth, morality, and meaning aren’t
universal but depend on context, power, language, and culture:
·Michel
Foucault
Power/knowledge combo—everything from prisons to sexuality is shaped by
shifting discourses. No "objective" truth, just who controls the
story.
·Jacques Derrida
Deconstruction king. Words never pin down meaning; everything’s
slippery, full of contradictions. Relativism baked into language itself.
·Jean-François Lyotard
Coined "postmodern condition"—said grand narratives (Marxism,
science, progress) are dead. Knowledge is local, fragmented, legit only in its
own game.
·Richard Rorty
American pragmatist twist: truth is what works in a community, not what
matches reality. Irony and solidarity over absolute foundations.
·Jean Baudrillard
Hyperreality guy—reality’s been replaced by signs and simulations.
Culture’s a hall of mirrors; nothing’s "real" anymore.
·Fredric Jameson
Marxist lens on postmodernism: late capitalism turns everything into
pastiche, depthless images. Relativism as symptom, not solution.
·Judith Butler
Gender as performance—identity is not fixed, it’s scripted by culture.
Pushes relativism into bodies and norms.
If you want the "purest"
relativists, Foucault and Derrida are the spine—everyone else riffed off them?
We must ask why would anyone wish to pull the carpet out from underneath the
feet of our understanding of reality itself?
A Scriptural Perspective:
From a Christian perspective, the idea
that “truth is relative” is consistently rejected as a Satanic lie. The Bible
presents truth as “objective, grounded in God’s character”, and knowable rather
than something that shifts with personal preference or cultural mood. Here are
the main ways Scripture addresses this idea.
#1. Truth is objective and rooted in
God
The Bible does not treat truth as
something humans invent. It presents truth as something that “exists
independently of us”, because it comes from God.
·John
14:6: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.”Jesus does not say he teaches truth or offers
one version of it; he identifies himself “as” truth.
·Numbers
23:19: God is not described as flexible or
contradictory; His word is dependable.
·In
Biblical thought, truth is not relative because God is not relative.
#2. Relativism is portrayed as moral
confusion
Scripture often describes societies
that reject objective truth as drifting into disorder and injustice.
·Judges
21:25: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.”This
verse is not praise; it summarizes a period of moral collapse in Israel.
·Isaiah
5:20: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.”This directly addresses the reversal of moral
standards—one of the outcomes of relativism.
The Bible links “everyone defining
truth for themselves” with social and spiritual breakdown.
#3. The Bible anticipates resistance to
absolute truth
Scripture explicitly warns that people
will prefer subjective or comforting beliefs over truth.
·2
Timothy 4:3–4: People will gather teachers who tell
them what they want to hear and will *“turn away from the truth.”*
·John
18:38:Pilate’s
question, “What is truth?”, is often read as cynical or dismissive, reflecting
skepticism rather than sincere inquiry.
Relativism, in this view, is not
presented as intellectual progress but as “avoidance of uncomfortable truth”.
# 4. Relativism is linked to rejecting
God, not ignorance
The Bible does not frame relativism
primarily as a lack of information, but as a “choice”.
·Romans
1:18–25: describes people who “suppress the truth” and
exchange it for substitutes that suit them better.
This passage suggests that denying
objective truth is tied to rejecting God’s authority, not merely philosophical
disagreement.
# In summary:
According to the Bible:
·Truth
is “real, objective, and grounded in God”
·Relativism
is portrayed as “confusion”, not freedom
·Denying
truth is linked to “moral and spiritual consequences”
·The
proper response is “faithfulness to truth paired with humility and love”
So here are some memes that I have created
that pinpoint the nauseating contradictions of Postmodern Cultural Relativism:
~ I exist to distill truth to cure the
WOKE mind virus. Money & power are mere tools to fulfill psychopaths'
libidinous need to do harm!
~ Limited responsible government
becomes functionally impossible when subjective feelings trump objective
reality!
~ No one with good intentions appeals
to emotion as a substitute for using reason based on ethics, epistemology,
& ontology.
~ A psyop attacking the reason &
empathy of the prefrontal cortex is allowing the fear & rage of the
amygdala to assume control.
Why are murderous ideologies invariably based upon
hijacking our emotions?
Murderous ideologies are frequently rooted in intense,
primal emotions rather than rational thought because these ideologies are
designed to bypass critical thinking and trigger immediate, often violent,
behavioural responses. By focusing on emotional drivers such as fear, anger,
and rage, these ideologies manipulate individuals into perceiving threats and
acting on them, often bypassing the brain's rational, logical centres.
Here is a breakdown of why murderous ideologies are based primarily
on feelings:
1. Emotions Overpower Rationality:
Hijacking the Brain: Intense emotions like outrage
and fear activate the amygdala—the brain's, survival-focused "primal"
center—which can override the prefrontal cortex, the area responsible for
logic, empathy, and decision-making.
"Crimes of Passion": Many violent acts are
not calculated, but rather impulsive reactions to intense emotions like
jealousy, revenge, or, most commonly, fear-based anger.
The Role of Fear: Fear is a powerful, primary
motivator that can shut down rational thought and drive people toward
aggressive, protective, or "defensive" actions against perceived
enemies.
2. Dehumanization and "Us vs. Them" Dynamics:
Emotional Categorization: Ideologies often foster an
"us versus them" mentality, which uses emotion to categorize people,
leading to dehumanization.
Creating "Bad Essence": To justify
violence, ideologies often promote the idea that the target group is not just
different, but fundamentally evil, subhuman, or animalistic. This removes the
emotional barrier of empathy, allowing for cruelty without guilt.
3. Psychological Justification and Control:
Post-hoc Rationalization: While initially driven by
feelings, murderous ideologies provide a structure to justify actions after the
fact. People tend to look for reasons for their actions, so once the killing
begins, hate serves as a justification that reinforces the behaviour.
Authoritarian Dynamics: Extreme violence is often
linked to "authoritarian personalities" who seek to regain a sense of
power or control when they feel threatened or insecure.
Emotional Manipulation: Manipulators exploit
cognitive biases by using emotional triggers, such as, for instance, in the
Holocaust where anger over economic and political crises was channelled into
antisemitism.
4. Need for Belonging and Meaning:
Group Cohesion: Murderous ideologies often provide a
sense of purpose and social belonging. The pressure to conform to a group makes
it difficult for individuals to break away, as they fear rejection.
Ideology as a Shield: Such belief systems are often
"hard shells" of fixed dogmas that protect individuals from the
uncertainty of reality, hiding an underlying, chaotic, and unbridled
emotionalism.
In Conclusion: Murderous ideologies are effective
because they leverage, rather than challenge, the most raw, primitive, and
intense emotional states of human beings.
To sum this up:
So, the question remains, why are so many of our so-called
democratic institutions captured by hyper-emotionality that leads to them
becoming authoritarian and as a result potentially murderous? Why are so many
of the leftist leaders of Western countries decrying the combined efforts of
Israel and the US to end the tyranny of a murderous theocracy which has killed
thousands of its own people while attacking its neighbours with impunity as it
shouts death to Israel and death to the USA? Western leaders are openly sympathising
with the homicidal hyper-emotional irrational world view of Islam, and its top-down
absolutism because they hope to do something similar to their own citizens.
This is why British subjects are now being jailed for Facebook posts and why
Tommy Robinson is under constant attack from the authorities for exposing the
extent of the Muslim rape gangs operating in the UK. It's time to restore
reason to politics by rejecting the toxic feelings upon which Postmodern
Cultural Relativism and Cultural Marxist Critical Race Gender and Climate
Catastrophizing Theory operate.
But here’s where it gets kinky:
For many years I booked and hosted blues gigs and events in
Niagara to some measured success. As a result, the blues scene in the Niagara
Peninsula is “happenin”, as we say in the biz. What is invaluable in playing the
blues convincingly is feel. Many folks have the coordination and ear to play
well technically. Many have mastered the theory of music to express themselves using
their understanding of harmony, modes, melody, time, and technique to play well
mechanically but do so without any real mojo. However, some folks who seem to know
nothing of these things theoretically still play with such expression and
passion that it astounds me that such “funkitudinal groovinality” could exist.
I know since I have had the privilege of playing with them. However, what is
useful in both playing music and in artistic expression is a very poor tool to
use to navigate the multivariate complexities of this wicked world. Due to my
utter rejection of the group think of social collectivism and my stance on the
importance of a responsible government limited by constitutional law and
inherent rights, my former musical chums have come to loathe me with a flaming
passion. They live purely by feelings where rational, calm, and circumspect
discourse are words they would need a dictionary to understand.
Yet what I have witnessed in the music scene has now become
what my wife calls “the spirit of the times” where hyper-emotionality, outrage,
and grievance narratives are all that determines how folks will react to the harsh
realities confronting them. Whether this is due to being raised without
discipline and consequences for their bad behaviour where parents and teachers
both taught little Johnnie and dear wee Sally that they were the centre of the
universe such that their false perceptions of what constituted fair ought to
trump their own failure to toughen up, or whether this is due to the chemicals
and hormones in our food that are turning our brains into mush, who can tell? Perhaps
the prefrontal cortex responsible for logic, empathy, and decision making has become
an amorphous blob of useless fat leaving the amygdala’s survival-focused
"primal" centre in control. Today much of the West is fulfilling
Devo’s prophecy in the tune Joko Homo!
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
Just wind in sails
Are we not men?
We are Devo
Are we not men?
D-E-V-O
We're pinheads now
We are not whole
We're pinheads all
Jocko Homo
Are we not men?
We are Devo
Are we not men?
D-E-V-O
Are we not pins?
We are Devo
Monkey men all
In business suits
Teachers and critics
All dance the poot
We are living in a dystopia where monkey men in suits
dancing the poot have become our leaders doing the jerk as they climb deeper
into bed with murderous Islamic theocracies and Communist China that supply dictatorships
with the means to attack Western democracies along with the only democracy in
the Middle East, Israel! We have now regressed into our amygdala’s lizard brain
to become “lizardus erectus”!
We need to
understand the psychology of people who seek to control everything while
themselves are totally unrestrained in their own behaviour. C.S. Lewis explains
this in his book the “Abolition of Man”. It was C.S. Lewis's primary
thesis in that book that modern education and culture are quietly dismantling
the very idea of objective moral truth—what he calls the "Tao," a
universal natural law of right and wrong that cuts across all
civilizations.
He argues that when we treat values as mere subjective
feelings (or "preferences") rather than real truths, we end up
producing "men without chests"—people who have intellect and appetite
but no moral backbone. The final twist: the very elites who push this
relativism will eventually use science and technology to remake humanity
itself, abolishing real human nature in the process.
In short: reject the Tao, and you don't just lose
morality—you lose the capacity to be human.
So let me
map this directly onto Canadian public-sector governance frameworks:
Here is a “concise but rigorous explanation”, framed
explicitly through “C. S. Lewis’s concept of the Tao” and its relevance to
“Postmodern governance and Critical Theory” showing the structural
consequences.
1. What Lewis means by “the Tao” (the starting point)
By “the Tao”, Lewis does “not” mean Taoism as a religion,
but what he calls “objective value”: the shared moral grammar found across
civilizations—natural law, traditional morality, or the belief that some things
are “really” good, just, noble, or evil, regardless of preference or power.
Lewis argues that reason itself depends on this moral backdrop: we cannot
reason about what “ought” to be unless we already accept some values as given
rather than constructed.
(https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-abolition-of-man/terms/the-tao), (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Abolition-of-Man
)
When Lewis says rejecting the Tao leads to the “abolition of
man,” he is not claiming people become immoral monsters overnight. He is saying
something subtler and more devastating: Namely the loss of the conditions that
make moral reasoning, human dignity, and even disagreement intelligible at all.
(https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/abolition-of-man-according-to-angus-menuge.pdf
)
2. What “rejecting the Tao” looks like in Postmodern and Critical
frameworks
Postmodernism and many strands of Critical Theory are
explicitly “anti-foundational”.
They reject:
*Objective or
universal moral standards
*Stable meanings
(truth as something discovered rather than constructed)
*Appeals to
“nature,” “human essence,” or “natural law”
This is not accidental; it flows directly from Postmodern
epistemology.
3. Why Lewis would say this erodes “the capacity to be
human”
Lewis’s core claim is that “values are not optional add-ons
to reason”. They are its precondition. Once value judgments are treated as
merely subjective or political, several things follow:
a. Moral language collapses into technique
If “good” means “what advances an approved framework”, then
ethics becomes “instrumental”—a matter of policy optimization, not moral truth.
Governance becomes management of outcomes, not judgment of right and wrong.
Lewis foresaw this as the rise of “Conditioners”: elites who shape behaviour
without reference to objective standards. (https://www.studyguides.blog/abolition-of-man-summary-analysis-lewis
)
4. How this plays out when injected into “all facets of
governance”
When Critical-Postmodern assumptions become “totalizing”—embedded
in law, education, HR, public administration, and policy design—the result is
not neutrality but a new orthodoxy:
* “Rules without roots”: Norms enforced without
appeal to shared human goods
* “Rights without duties”: Claims severed from
obligations grounded in human nature
* “Equity without limits”: No principled stopping
point, because no objective telos exists
* “Inclusion without truth”: Belonging prioritized
over whether beliefs correspond to reality
To reject the Tao is not merely to lose “traditional
morality.” It is to deny that humans share a nature that makes moral reasoning
possible. In postmodern governance, this denial manifests as systems that still
command, judge, and punish—but no longer in the name of truth, only in the name
of power, process, or progress.
Lewis’s claim is stark but precise: “once you deny objective
value, you do not get a better kind of human—you get a manipulable one”. So how
does “Postmodern governance unintentionally recreate moral absolutism under a
different name”?
Below is
a “conceptually rigorous explanation” of this phenomenon:
Postmodern governance unintentionally recreates moral
absolutism under a different name, since it is grounded in “mainstream
scholarship on Postmodernism, i.e. Foucault, Lyotard, and Habermas”, and then
explicitly connected this to governance.
Here are four steps related to this connection:
1. Postmodernism’s stated aim: rejection of moral
absolutes
Lyotard famously defines Postmodernism as “incredulity
toward metanarratives”—that is, toward any universal moral or historical story
claiming authority over others. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Postmodern_Condition
)
“In theory”, this leads to moral pluralism and humility but
in reality, it does the opposite.
2. The internal contradiction: critique requires
normativity
Here is the pivot point. Postmodern and Critical Theories “continuously
condemn”:
*Oppression
*Exclusion
*Injustice
*Harm
*Domination
But condemnation is “not morally neutral”. To say
something “ought not” exist presupposes a standard by which it is wrong.
This is what critics call “the self‑refutation
or “cryptonormativity” problem”:
*Postmodernism
denies universal moral standards
*Yet it relies
on “strong moral judgments” to function at all
When Postmodern assumptions are operationalized in
governance, four things happen simultaneously:
a. Absolutes return — but disguised as process
Governance frameworks assert “non‑negotiable
commitments” (e.g., equity, inclusion, harm reduction), but explicitly deny
grounding them in universal human goods.
They become:
*Mandatory
*Enforced
*Non‑contestable
This is moral absolutism “without metaphysics”.
b. Disagreement becomes pathology
Because norms are framed as outcomes of justice rather than
moral claims, dissent is reinterpreted as:
c. Moral language therefore loses appeal to reason. Debate
no longer asks “Is this true or good?”Rather
it asks, “Who is harmed?” or “Which group is marginalized?”
These are “important questions”, but they are not sufficient
as universal moral criteria—and they are not open to rational falsification!
C. S. Lewis predicted this exact pattern: When objective
value is denied, values do not disappear—they are imposed.
Postmodern governance does not abolish morality. It “centralizes
it”, bureaucratizes it, and immunizes it from critique.
Habermas—no conservative—arrives at the same conclusion from
a different angle: without shared rational norms, critique collapses into power
struggles dressed as ethics. (https://www.jstor.org/stable/20152793
)
7. The distilled conclusion
Postmodern governance rejects moral absolutes in theory, but
recreates them in practice—grounded not in truth or human nature, but in
institutional power and moralized outcomes.
That is why it feels simultaneously:
*Relativistic in
philosophy
*Absolutist in
enforcement
Which is why everything in Postmodern Canada feels fake, like
false and enforced conformity that denies the very foundational principles of our
Western philosophical underpinnings. Postmodernism is anti-Christian to its
ideological core and must be denounced and exposed for the manipulative
falsehood that it is! It is indeed the manifestation of what C.S. Lewis explained in the Abolition of Man!
