02. Civilisation and the New Enlightenment.
The intellectual and cultural world of our times is tired – to put the matter gently
No sensitive person could be unaware of this pervasive fatigue
Following some magnificent human achievements of the last millennia we now seem to be spent
But at this moment in history, we cannot afford to indulge in this malaise, for humanity is threatened by the darkest, mightiest, forces that history has ever witnessed
Here I will start by reflecting a little more deeply on the inadequacy of our culture to put itself to rights, leave alone confront the evil forces at play
NEED FOR A NEW ENLIGHTENMENT
Then I will look to one of the great moments of human history – broadly what we call the Enlightenment – and show how we can draw anew from this experience
Of course, the “Enlightenment” is controversial in many quarters. It is also ill-defined for the most part and it is from this that the Enlightenment as a concept suffers
This confusion I will seek to correct and so reveal the Enlightenment as absolutely fundamental to the realisation of humanity and human values
We need the inspiration of the Enlightenment now as never before.
But we need to re-evaluate and reform our ideas of what the Enlightenment is, all the time drawing of the genius of the true Enlightenment of old
Most of the theoretical work we have at present in the fields of economics, political philosophy, philosophy of life and the theory of constitutions and law, or jurisprudence, is either inadequate and in need of extension or needs to be jettisoned entirely, only having interest for us for its historical significance.
I say “most” because there are certain solid achievements that we will refer to and build on. It is likely that most of these will be unfamiliar as they have been buried beneath much fallacious and disingenuous writings by those who serve the direction that our unseen controllers wish to pursue.
That is not to say that people do not sincerely believe them, but, sincerity is not enough. However sincere you may be if you ingest poison you will become sick.
And you will spread this sickness to all around you and society will be fatally degraded. In what follows be prepared for some household names being taken down
We will arrive at many definite conclusions along the way that will then form pieces of the puzzle or, to mix metaphors, will make up the bricks from which our whole model of the world we live in and the problems we face can be built.
For this we will need new theories to provide new and more exact insights to the situation we face. This means a new theory of economics, a new political philosophy, a new philosophy of life and a new theory of constitutions and law. All of these must be underpinned by a strong ethical sense.
BEYOND GLOBALISM
I discuss in other posts the state of the world today and how the globalists exercise immense control on we the people and our nation through their deep world government
But here I want to look forward to the world that awaits us once we find the strength and the means to put it in place.
Elsewhere I discuss the nation and explain why the nation, wherever you abide, is the route whereby we throw off the shackles of the globalists and their phoney international organisations
But as I emphasise in speaking of the nation, the nation does not stand entirely alone spiritually and culturally. The nation is part of civilisation
Civilisations are not legalistic constructs and nor do they have anything resembling a government or a bureaucracy.
They result simply and only from the overriding sense of humanity that all humans of good will share. They are based on nothing more and nothing less
I discuss elsewhere this great subject of civilisation but here I will speak to what I call the New Enlightenment But first let us look at what is wrong with what stands for civilisation at this moment
CIVILISATION DENIED
We are dominated in our culture by theories and principles that are completed wrong-headed and do immense harm to our civilisation. They certainly comprise an important part of the problems we face.
Familiar names that fall into this category are Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Le Corbusier, the architect and theorist of Modernist architecture, but those are just the giants.
There are many others in the ranks that contribute to the intellectual and artistic poverty of our times. We must understand exactly why these need to be taken down and replaced.
If there is one characteristic that all these figures share it is that their ideas are anti-human. All seek to characterise society and human beings from an over-rationalised, positivist point of view that leaves no room for individuality or a spiritual outlook on life.
Few people today would contest the view that our society is becoming more functional and degrading to humans.
There are to be sure still high spots and talented men and women producing great contributions that will endure, but the overall thrust that we witness everywhere is in the downward direction.
At the turn of the nineteenth century, prominent writers, such Max Nordau, in “Degeneration” and Gustave le Bon in “The Crowd”, warned us of the oncoming decadence that we faced.
These thinkers enjoyed considerable vogue at the time but with the onset of the twentieth century were held up to ridicule for their supposedly, reactionary, morally narrow ideas.
Today we could well recall their warnings and read their books. Written in the quaint but elegant style of their day, the truth of their predictions, nevertheless, resonates today.
All this is by way of saying that we do not now live in an age of enlightenment.
Where today can we find the great lamps of creativity, intellect, spontaneity and inspiration that might represent a society advancing into the future sure of itself and happy in its demeanour?
One could cite the immense technological achievements of the twentieth century that are still in the twenty-first century ongoing and attaining even greater heights.
Many of these, too numerous to mention, are often regarded as retrograde and damaging but others are indisputably of benefit to mankind.
But what they all have in common is that they have nothing to contribute to the moral and intellectual health of the people. Their goals are singular, narrow and materialistic.
Technology is about machines and, in spite of what is argued by some, especially the servants of the deep world government of the globalists, humans are not machines and never will be and will never in their essence have a mechanistic or digitalised component.
THE ARTS
As regards the elite arts the assessment in most fields is almost wholly negative. These have fallen under the sway of anti-humanism as a cheap rhetoric.
Few people can be bothered with currently produced modern classical music. High literature may exist here and there but its durability has not been tested and its promise is in doubt.
Philosophy now serves only academic philosophers who discuss and complement each other on the latest nuance of abstraction regarding a pointlessly remote question that in any case is unanswerable.
The public intellectual is all but a thing of the past. In the field of architecture in which I received my university, the results produced by an elite minded profession are horrible. I refer to Modernist architecture and planning.
Worse, their efforts are spread across our towns and cities throughout the globe fatally disfiguring the environment and bringing us down emotionally so that we have to fight against this internally to maintain our courage and morale.
I believe this is not just an unfortunate mismatch between makers and public but part of a deliberate plan to bludgeon our sensibilities into submission and numbness.
This parade of ugliness serves the purposes of the global elite to maintain their control through dehumanisation and stamping out any real civilisation. This is the character that has determined the thrust of many elite artistic fields of the twentieth century following the First World War.
There are exceptions and these lie in the fields of art as painting or sculpture which achieved a high degree of excellence and genuine originality early to mid-century and jazz music which can be considered a semi-elite art form.
As well as some technological and scientific innovations of the twentieth century we should give due prominence to popular culture.
The popular music and cinema of the twentieth century riding on the back of the new technologies of the phonograph and moving pictures often attained durability and greatness where the elite arts failed so miserably.
I was brought up in the twentieth century and I can imagine how dull and sad the world would have been without this popular culture.
A lot of it was rubbish or only ephemerally entertaining but the best of it stays with you and stays vigorously in the public realm and always will.
The best artists carried something beyond entertainment into our lives and acquired iconic status. Today, the popular arts are still capable of great things and above all they know how to blamelessly entertain us and occasionally uplift us. Bravo to pop culture.
The medium serving popular culture that has let us down badly is television. Predictably human creativity has ensured that there were high spots but overall there is a preponderance of mindless dross.
The formula uniquely suited to television is the reality show. The reality show must be a strong competitor to computer games in the drive to dumb down the people and, entering as it does into the heart of our homes, operates as a powerful persuader.
Television news is now official propaganda and lies and is best avoided.
THE GLOBALISTS PUSH FOR POWER
The central theme of my political thought is that the attempted imposition by the globalists of New World Order, that we are now so openly and directly experiencing and that threatens our lives as we know them must be combated, if we are to have any kind of civilisation in the future.
The New World Order, as I have suggested, has no human values in its agenda, not as a basis, not as a conciliatory add on. It simply does not recognise humanity in its plans.
Its creators have drifted so far from the original human identity that they were born with that they cannot conceive of a human content in their plans and would never understand even what that means.
The nature of this isolation from the rest of humanity and how it arose will be important to future posts.
The people in general, if they can be released from the soporific state, they have slid into due to endless propaganda by the servants of the deep world government, need to find a way to challenge and defeat it.
Accommodation is not a word I will use. It is not an option, if we want to preserve our humanity. Their overwhelming character is as parasites.
They have nothing good to offer, they only subtract from the quality of life and civilisation. They suck our blood.
The separation they have achieved from the rest of humankind is due above all to great walls of parasitically accumulating money and the power that goes with it.
The nature of the economic and social structure of contemporary society has meant that the sheer quantity of money they have been able to accumulate is beyond imagination.
Thus endowed, they don’t feel privileged but rather blessed. Surely, they must think, they are special individuals that have been selected for the role of masters of the universe and the right to rule the world has been conferred on them by superior force.
Matters are now being brought to a head as the New World Order has raised its head above the parapet. Starting in March 2020, the attack being rolled out across nations comes from direct orders from the New World Order elite.
This is the first time the New World Order has come out into the open and declared all-out war on what it sees as its natural foe – the human population of the world.
It is not that it has not wrecked comparable suffering on humanity in the past, but until now it has remained largely hidden and only those who took the trouble to research the matter were aware of its existence.
There have always been plenty of visible signs of its presence but it required putting the pieces of the puzzle together to identify the underlying cause of them.
So, in this way we have reached a juncture. Either the Globalists will carry through their plan for impoverishment, enslavement, and destruction of our way of life, or humanity will find a way to rise up and combat it.
This is one of those exceptional, moments in human history where the outcome of the conflict will determine the state of the world for a thousand years.
So, we, who believe in humanity, must not fail. The course of the future is thrust on our shoulders to determine.
A PLAN
But it is not enough to say “Stand up and fight”. We need direction. We need a plan, just as they have one. But we need more than just a rigid plan or programme.
At the present moment, we are not short of analysis of our plight on the internet and in books – much of it from alternative viewpoints is excellent and indispensable – but this does not provide us with a response, except for more hopeful representation
And street protest, which although inspiring and important, does not actually provide a means for bringing them down.
Nor is such a means easily found. New political parties in the nations of the world may be necessary as a means but in themselves can only work within the narrow channels provided by electoral systems.
Plans for constitutional changes of a major nature to make the emergence of these powerful parasites impossible are also a requirement.
And economic reforms are vital to ensure a fair society and one in which a vigorous entrepreneurial dynamism can develop.
Fundamental and necessary as all these may be to the remaking of civilisation, free of the evil of the New World Order in all its forms and guises. We cannot accurately formulate them unless we can see the big picture and have a vision of the society we want to have and how to make it.
This society will not be strange or new. In many ways it will be familiar for it will and must conform to the values that real human beings, that is you and me, have always shared.
Some of us of today have been lucky enough to have lived through a few decades when society felt good and positive. Even if it was not perfect it seemed to contain the possibility within it for improvement and advance.
But it is now clear that there were underlying sinister forces at work. Below our clear bright world, the dark underworld lurked.
We now know we did not have the benefits we enjoyed as a guaranteed right, as we naively assumed, but we had them because those who secretly controlled us, for their own reasons, tolerated our seemingly benign existence.
The signs were there but we underestimated their importance. The good life was as fragile as a butterfly’s wing - beautiful in its finest manifestations but ephemeral and insecure.
So the question we face in going forward is how we will construct this grander vision that will characterise and embody the best of human aspiration and character and enable us to not just be happy or satisfied but above all to regain our humanity with all the infinite possibilities that go with that.
Well, we have seen periods in history when the human spirit appeared to stand at its finest, when creativity in every department thrived as never before and where the goal involved all humanity, not just a narrow elite.
Ultimately these periods may not have themselves endured. Time always marches on.
But there are definite reasons why they capitulated to circumstances and these I will be exploring.
Nevertheless, they stand as beacons of hope and aspiration and still provide us with ideals that we can see are worth striving for.
Indeed, we must strive for them if we want our children and their children to have the lives, they, as humans, deserve, and were meant to know.
Such periods we know about in antiquity, and the Greeks who provided so much enduring bedrock for future society must stand out, although we must not let their achievement crowd out other claimants of old for a place in our pantheon of inspirational cultures.
The Romans are already well recognised for their indispensability to subsequent culture right across from the New World to the Old, and the great civilisations of Asia, who have their own parallel story, are also indispensable to the whole human story.
THE ENLIGHTENMENT
Our modern sense of history places the periods of the European Renaissance and the European and American Enlightenments as outstanding in contributing to human understanding and development across all fields from science to art to the humanities to politics.
I say “European” Renaissance as all too often the Renaissance is too heavily identified with Italy when in fact other countries had their own parallel very rich Renaissances - England, France, Holland and others.
I say “European and American” Enlightenments, for the Enlightenment was not a purely French affair of the eighteenth century which others followed, as it has been depicted.
The Enlightenment extended across Northern Europe from the Atlantic to Russia and the United States of America contributed its own original Enlightenment when it bravely created a large new federal republican nation – something that had never been done before and that many at the time said was impossible.
We should be wary of delimiting the so-called Enlightenment in time as well as space.
Too often the phrase “eighteenth century” is attached to the word Enlightenment, making that century, not just a necessary condition for inclusion, but also a sufficient one.
As a result, some figures are normally included in the Enlightenment when they have no place in it - the Scottish economist and moralist, Adam Smith, being an outstanding example.
Others are excluded when they are essential to any overall understanding of the Enlightenment, the seventeenth century English political philosopher, John Locke, falling into this category.
We should seek to correct a similar error in defining the scope and encompassing epoch of the Renaissance.
In a sense the Renaissance never finished but merged into the Enlightenment that followed it and there are plenty of important figures whose lives and work lie on the cusp between the two.
Notably I would cite the political philosophers, Grotius, Puffendorf and philosopher of science, Francis Bacon, not to mention the colossus of Sir Isaac Newton who somehow never normally quite makes it into the Enlightenment.
This long list of major figures who often drop out of either Renaissance or Enlightenment suggests that these very concepts may lack some legitimacy.
But I don’t think they do, for the very ideas of Renaissance and Enlightenment form an indispensable mapping of the landscape of history and their names fully express the positive values we associate with them.
Of course, many today, particularly on the liberal or “woke” side of the political spectrum, seek to devalue or even invalidate completely the concept of the Enlightenment but this is always a result of a fallacious interpretation of history and human thought.
A CONTINUOUS THREAD
If we are proposing a New Enlightenment as necessary to the defeat of the New World Order, as I believe we must, we need to have a reasonably clear idea what we mean by “new enlightenment”.
For this, first we must clarify our notion of the “enlightenment” of old.
From what has already been said, it is established that I want to move away from the idea of an Enlightenment represented by a handful of so-called “philosophes” in eighteenth century France.
That particular phenomenon will not be the subject of our renewal although it will undoubtedly be a component.
That, as a basis, would be too narrow and, I would argue, historically inaccurate.
I want to picture an enlightenment that runs right through human history that has by turns manifested itself more or less clearly.
I have referred to Greek and Roman antiquity and the various European Renaissances as representing moments of high achievement in forming genuine human civilisation.
However, the last thing I would wish to do is to over emphasise their positions in this regard. We should not see them as large secure stepping stones in time and space that leave us having to bridge a void separating them.
Between these conspicuous rocks of civilised value were many well developed centres of cultural exceptionalism even if they do not figure so often in the history books.
More significantly than all these, were those powerful threads of belief, running between the fixed cities and countries, that were equally important as the civilised high spots.
Above all, in European terms this means Christianity, and, when I say Europe, I mean Europe from the Atlantic seaboard to the Urals - what we once referred to as Christendom.
I would argue that the Christian message deserves to be considered as Enlightenment as much as any enlightened culture of the modern age.
This being so, how do we define “Enlightenment”? What exactly are we talking about when we refer to an, or the, Enlightenment?
The enlightenment has four aspects and these I will now describe
ONE. HUMAN CENTRALITY
Firstly, enlightened thought places humans or humanity at the centre of everything.
Now straight way this statement will bring howls of disdain from a vast swathe of current opinion. “Wokists” will be in uproar.
How could we be so arrogant as to put humankind before the rest of the world with all its non-human inhabitants and its grand natural phenomena?
Is this not what is so wrong with the world today – that we forget the planet and all its fauna and flora in favour of a selfish regard for our own kind, that we overexploit natural resources to the detriment of all.
The New World Order Agenda 21 would make the same case. It describes a use of world resources that definitely allots humankind a secondary even tertiary position.
Although supporters of this view may not realise it, this is making the planet a kind of god to which we as humans must subjugate ourselves.
There are plenty of cultures past, and maybe present, that have identified this same hierarchy.
Planet earth worship is a common phenomenon in human history as is the sacrifices that go with it. This last element is very much part of its contemporary manifestation in modern form.
We all have to pay extra taxes, restrict every kind of consumption and deny the cheap energy available to us to appease planet earth which we are supposedly putting in danger.
Humans are undoubtedly causing unnecessary destruction and havoc in the world they have inherited, but we have to be circumspect in assigning blame.
I would argue that it is the New World Order and much that flows from it, notably globalisation, that is causing this damage, not the general population that lives on planet earth.
Beyond these material considerations, the prioritising of human and humanity in our world view contains within it a deep spiritual message and point of faith, that I hold to.
Humans are not here by accident, as the prevailing creation story represented by Darwinism would have it.
Humans have a central, necessary and inevitable place in the world order. The full philosophy, I expound as Philosophy for a New Enlightenment, gives substance to this point of faith and gives an account of exactly how humans inevitably occupy this central place.
Even more boldly, I show how humankind is the inevitable summit of the evolutionary process we see all around us. That is not to say that humankind will not evolve further, but it does mean that it will evolve as humankind, not as some new unimagined species.
That is more the stuff of the New World Order, which imagines humans taking on the aspect of technology – usually referred to as “transhumanism”.
This is rank nonsense and attempts to further such a process will lead to Frankenstein creations that assault any sense of real humanity.
Real naturally directed evolution, if it occurs, will occur within the confines of humankind.
TWO. RATIONALITY
The second fundamental principle that belongs to enlightenment thinking is that our basis of enquiry into the nature of the world in all its aspects must be founded on rationality.
This has created as many problems amongst many people as the prioritisation of humanity.
All these problems derive from a misunderstanding of what is meant by rationality - what true rationality is.
Rationality, certainly as it is understood in enlightened thinking, is much broader than is commonly imagined.
It does not just imply a tight logical discipline that thrusts the world, as we experience it, into narrow categories, all related in a fixed framework.
It may indeed include that, but that is not what rationality in its total sense should mean.
The confusion and negative appraisal of rationality, and the enlightenment thinking it is associated with, arises because people equate rationality with positivism and this mistake gives rise to a woefully misguided view of the history of human thought.
It means, for instance, that many view the Enlightenment in a bad light and it means that thinkers that have nothing to do with any enlightenment are wrongly included in it so distorting fundamentally the understanding of what enlightenment really is about.
POSITIVISM
So, what is positivism? If the following account of positivism seems rather negative, this is because it has been allowed to invade areas where it has no place.
But positivism properly applied in the fields in which it is not just suited but necessary, is part of the essential intellectual apparatus we need to understand the world and act within it.
Positivism stands for being able to establish positively and without error or distortion truths about the world.
This runs through all enlightened thought of any era, but it was most articulately represented in the eighteenth century when men and women in general, not just a few intellectual elite, were visibly and consciously emerging from the grip of religious dogma.
This was the start of the dominance of rationality as being the central reference for describing the reality we live in and know.
This of course continues today and it is safe to say it will never cease.
As we shall see, this does not mean that rationality has replaced religion. It does not work like that, but commonly that is what people think.
And it is not a matter of religion adapting to accommodate science and rationality for that would devalue religion and undermine the former’s importance and undermine its nature.
The two coexist in a way that people experience but do not understand.
Mine is an account of how this truly occurs and I believe it has great value in that it clears a lot of air. However, we have a long way to travel before we can broach that.
So, although eighteenth century thinkers were correct in distinguishing rationality from religion, they were incorrect in thinking that the former would replace the latter, insofar as they did hold to that.
That this was a vain hope is clear to we who now have the advantage of first hand observations in the twentieth-first century were religion is robustly alive and probably extending its grip on people.
There are two ways of looking at positivism and although they may at first appear different, they are in fact two sides of the same coin and integrally related.
The first method, which is broadly scientific, is to formulate a theory in abstract terms and then test it against the real world to verify it or not. This is the empirical method.
Newton was its great original master and his scientific theories stand as a monument to its success.
Before him Francis Bacon had described what he saw as the empirical method but he got things backwards. He said the scientist looks at the world and derives a theory from it.
Common sense tells us this is impossible. You have to use your imagination to come up with a theory, albeit one that is informed by your empirical observations, and then you test it – to destruction if necessary.
Nature does not deliver the theory to you on a plate.
If an abstract theory when applied to the real world consistently avoids inconsistency or rejection then it can be said to be positivistically established – at lease for the present. It is taken as true.
If we find just a single case where it fails, then the whole theory fails and we must start again. A theory may stand its ground for many years or centuries but eventually get found out.
This usually happens through the technical development of the means of observation and measurement, such as, for instance, more powerful microscopes or more exact, more detailed, methods of measurement.
Newton’s laws of motion had to be replaced by Einstein’s relativity when more accurate means of measuring velocity and mass were developed.
Newton was not thrown out but his laws were only applied at a certain level of approximation which it happens, for most general purposes, is quite adequate.
So, this first sense of positivism gives us abstract theories which we can confidently assert are positively true or objectively true.
The second sense refers to facts about the world that equally we are sure are true. That the earth is round and not flat is an objective, positive, truth.
It is not a general abstract principle with universal application but a fact about one particular object – the planet earth.
Positivism is part of rationality to be sure but the problem arises when people equate rationality with positivism making them identical. In doing this they distort fatally the character of the eighteenth-century enlightenment seeing it as a dangerously rigid set of ideas when it is anything but.
It may be rational to be positivist but it also entirely rational to use our intuition in order to understand the world.
Indeed, we must for positivism on its own is a dangerously oversimplified model.
To cite just one massively important case, Darwinism attempts to use positivism to understand the unimaginably intricate of complex processes of the evolution of life on earth. The result is a travesty.
But in our age Darwinism has become the orthodoxy and approaches being a religion – certainly it challenges directly some religion beliefs.
More catastrophically than that, it depicts a world empty of any sense of morality or love for the central activity that all life engages in, including that of humans, boils down to one thing - simple survival.
From this simplistic notion, Darwinism makes very large claims about how the world works. But it is a foolish fallacy.
If people would only employ in respect of evolution that other side of rationality which I have just mentioned, intuition, their intuition would tell them immediately that Darwinism cannot be true.
That does not mean that creationism, to which Darwinism is usually opposed, is true, by the way, but we don’t have to know what is the truth to see that any claims we are presented with are untrue.
Darwinism is an example of “scientism” which is to say it applies the scientific or positivist method where it has no place.
The result is fake science.
INTUITION
Unfortunately, in the world we know we are surrounded by scientistic fakery and it determines much of people’s general world view with disastrous consequences.
What I wish to emphasise for the present is simply that true rationality uses intuition as well as positivism.
Due to our modern upbringing we tend to see intuition as a useful add on to positivism in our ability to understand the world.
Intuition however is absolutely fundamental to our very existence.
All highly developed life on earth has intuition but in humans it is developed into a massive, all-embracing, faculty.
If positivists say it is insecure and cannot be trusted, this is because they have never learnt how to use it.
THREE. PROGRESS
The third fundamental aspect of enlightenment is progress and here again we find ourselves immediately being put on the defensive.
Progress for some has becomes a dirty word.
This is indeed understandable as there are many adverse results from, for instance, technological change that appear more negative than positive.
Progress it is argued has got out of hand. It is running away from its original aim which was to benefit mankind and doing the opposite.
Not only that, technology is despoiling the planet, creating environments that humans reject and that animals and plants cannot survive in.
More radically, it is highly doubtful that, spiritually, culturally and in the humanities, we have achieved real progress in, say, the last fifty years.
High spots there certainly are but the overall assessment many would see as negative.
And we have the looming attack by the New World Order that looks like it will return us to slavery and feudalism with all their consequences, some of which I have already referred to.
But behind this awareness we all value progress in many ways and cannot ignore the benefits that it has indeed brought.
Progress or the lack of it can be looked at in different ways, but what concerns us here is what the enlightenment means by progress.
It is for progress, but in what sense is it for progress?
OPTIMISM
The enlightenment tells us that real progress of civilisation is possible. It is above all optimistic and life-affirming and so contrary to resignation and doom and gloom.
Through optimism and life-affirmation we realise an essential aspect of our humanity and belief in progress in this world is part of this.
To depend on the afterlife to compensate us for the suffering we have seen and endured in this life, as religion sometimes insists on, is not the way of enlightenment.
The world here and now that we inhabit is the object of our ambitions and our hopes.
What masquerades as progress may disappoint us, but that is no reason to abandon the belief in progress in general as a human aspiration and that we are capable of effecting the kind of progress and change we desire
The reason why progress over the last 200 years or so appears such a mixed bag of benefit and backsliding is because progress or change has been uneven in different aspects of civilisation.
On top of that, the last century killed more people through war than any before and, indeed, none other came even close.
Exceptional and unprecedented progress in technology and science has not been matched by progress in the more spiritual and ethical sides of life.
Overall, politics may have advanced prosperity but there are giant caveats to that – none being greater than the emergence decadence and moral decline.
Quite simply the world we have created is out of balance. The new enlightenment must address this and seek to correct it.
PARASITISM
In this task, there is a monster problem to overcome that does not figure in most assessments of what is wrong.
This is parasitism. I will not expound on this subject here but it will be fundamental to our understanding the true nature of the New World Order.
They are parasites and nothing else and we need to understand how and why.
Like all parasites they can be removed with no detriment to the rest of the body of humankind, but to unimaginable benefit.
If we did not believe in progress there would be no point in following the direction of this publication which is to show how we can create civilisation anew, based on the civilisation we know
The New World Order can have no place in an enlightened civilisation.
Any enlightened people from the past would recognise the view of enlightenment they shared with each other and share with us.
But it cannot be overemphasised that we need to build on previous achievements to make the New Enlightenment more robust and to more truthfully address reality.
If the old enlightenment seems to have failed then it did so because it did not protect us from evil enhancing itself and enriching itself to construct the enemy of the New World Order that we now face.
Make no mistake the New World Order would destroy civilisation and it has not been shy of advertising this fact.
FOUR. INCLUSIVENESS
The fourth aspect of enlightenment brings it close to uniquely present day attitudes and this is inclusiveness – the belief that whatever beneficial idea we propose must benefit everyone not just an elite.
Everyone will share in Enlightenment. It is here that the notion of the Enlightenment being above all of the eighteenth century makes most sense.
Before the eighteenth century the secular view of society assigned each person a rank in society which they could not expect to migrate from except under exceptional or lucky circumstance.
Class was built into the identity of each individual.
The doing away with class was hardly changed in the eighteenth century but the idea of equality, whatever that is taken to mean, certainly was.
One of the very highest achievements of the Eighteenth-Century Enlightenment was the Unites States constitution and the belief in absolute equality between individuals in rights, law and standing is firmly built into the US constitution with a clarity that had never been seen before.
That constitution, and the many others that followed that were modelled on it, now has been proved wanting for the constitution should protect us from overbearing power in a minority elite.
That is exactly what we are seeing now and it has become explicit all over the world. It is not so much that this form of constitution is wrong but that it is not enough.
Mainly it does not address a fundamental feature of all human societies and this is the emergence of powerful parasites as I have already referred to.
That as we shall see is not the only problem with current constitutions but the point I wish to emphasise now is that constitutions need radical extension not radical overhaul of the principles that already contain
This new political philosophy must form the basis for any new constitution.
I deliberately use the word “inclusiveness” and steer away from equality.
Equality as a principle means nothing without a lot of qualification but we do not need to explore that here. Whatever it is we certainly do not have it in our present time and we certainly do not have universal inclusiveness in any sense that that idea can be envisaged.
The elite govern us and decide what we think. The wealth of the nation is either stolen or massively unevenly distributed. What we see everywhere today is exclusion not inclusion.
WORLD AND LIFE AFFIRMATION
So to sum up, these are the four essential elements that make up enlightenment
1. Human centrality
2. Rationality
3. Progress
4. Inclusiveness
When we talk about a new enlightenment for the twenty-first century, we mean these four principles must be included. They must be part of our goal and our methods.
These four come together to embody a single idea that is as old as human history and this is “world and life affirmation” or to put it more succinctly “optimism”.
Optimism is human and pessimism and negation of life counter the human spirit
All four essential elements have almost completely dropped out of the mainstream dialogue.
Human centrality has been replaced by Mother Earth centrality.
Rationality has been replaced by scientism.
Progress has been hijacked to mean pure technological progress in science and puerile notions of avant-gardism in the arts.
Inclusiveness no longer forms part of the political vocabulary unless employed as a lie and a sop. It has been replaced by identity politics or “wokism”.
The centrality of these four ideas to our New Enlightenment fully justifies our abrogation of the name.
But we will expand and develop the New Enlightenment beyond the previous periods of Enlightenment.
Society and civilisation is now so far off track that we clearly need some fresh thinking about what we mean by Enlightenment.
CHRISTIANITY
In spite of inclusiveness being an essential modern idea, recall what I said about the need to trace what we refer to as enlightenment ideas through our long history.
The four ideas fundamental to enlightenment, human centrality, rationality, progress and inclusiveness, can all be traced back to the beginnings of human history and civilisation.
That is not to say they always exist everywhere – far from it. But the point is these ideas have rarely been totally foreign to human development.
I also spoke about continuous threads that wind themselves through human history that also bear a strong enlightened aspect, even if they do not embody all the four fundamental ideals. Prime among these must be Christianity.
Christianity practically invented the concept of human centrality and no other religion has ever done this and this is no doubt a great part of its appeal.
The gods of all other religions are remote and do not declare openly their commitment to humans.
The only possible exception to this is Judaism but it is compromised on this point by god limiting his blessings to Jews, and even then, the Old Testament stories, which are taken from the Jewish bible, the Tanakh, tell of a fractious relationship between god and the Jews.
Only with Christianity does god promote humans, all humans, to a special place in his affections and this is proven by the sacrifice of his own Son in the service of humanity.
Inclusiveness is one of the bedrocks of Christianity for it teaches that God loves all his children without exception and inclusion in the religion is just a matter of declaring faith in it.
Christianity holds out no punishment for apostates but simply waits for them to return to the fold where they are welcomed with open arms.
The belief in progress, that is, the ability of humans to improve the lot of humankind, is intrinsic to the original message of Jesus, otherwise why would he have come down to earth?
Rationality was what the early debates that creating and perfected the Christian theology used to arrive at a conclusion. The point is they did not rely solely on revelation but argument, so even if rationality is not a prime message of Christianity, the religion is certainly not anti-rationality.
Christianity’s rational side undoubtedly was derived from Plato
This makes Christianity an optimistic life-affirming religion as it is told in the New Testament.
Later theologians, notably St Augustine, introduced a pessimistic life-denying message and the Catholic Church chose to run with St Augustine against the Bible.
The Post-Reformation churches of Western Europe followed with pessimism, emphasising human original sin and even predestination, but they did free believers from the corrupt Catholic Church organisation, and recognised individual responsibility and will.
In this they were liberating and also propelled the new idea of a constantly advancing science. They prepared the way for a return to enlightened thinking.
So, can we justifiably include Christianity in enlightenment thinking? I prefer to apply a looser term to it and this is “enlightened humanism” meaning quite simply that it sheds optimistic light on the human condition.
CIVILISATION
In this post I have indicated a direction of the thinking to embark on.
The New World Order that controls us through the governments of almost every advanced nation is evil and it will consume us entirely, and destroy civilisation, if we let it.
These are its declared aims and it came out into the open in 2020, and is rapidly advancing to its goals – more rapidly than anyone could have imagined.
We counter this with anti-globalist principles. But in order to bolster these we need is to look to human history and draw strength from “enlightened humanism” as it has manifested itself down the centuries.
More than that we need to build on this to create a New Enlightenment that will improve on the originals. That they have been found wanting is proven by the state of the world today.
It is clear that previous realisations of the enlightened ideas have not been successful enough to protect us against overbearing evil.
This New Enlightenment is part of the process of defeating Globalists’ New World Order and everything that goes with it