Introduction

Whether this overture manifests to any materialized success coming to pass, I know not as of typing in this very moment, but nevertheless, I am going to articulate this just as an open window while time and opportunity still remains.

In this late-stage rotting empire you and I live in, we are each behooved to mature and come to an about-face reckoning of the futility of the various offshoot binary narratives that are easily adhered to out of longstanding earthly dogmatism. One bitter corollary is this: no single earthly “liberation movement” by itself can perpetually sustain its human adherents’ livelihoods materially without learning to shed its self-magnifying ambitions of utopian maximalism and learning rather how to offer—cross-aisle—the selfless human solidarity it wishes to be beneficiary recipients of.

I: two realms to ‘unify’?

My proposal here is very simple: kenotically pious religionists ought to find common ground with anti-imperialist leftists and socialists on the basis of mutual human support and solidarity to offer to each other, in the face of being swallowed up and outnumbered by the ugly mass majority of empirical Zionist-Nazi controlled opposition mobs and willing useful idiot dupes.

This would be a rough delineation of the schematic idea:

1. devout, sincerely pious religionists (including and not exclusive to):

   1. Christians—actual sincere Christians who seek to walk in the path of Jesus and accordingly do good unto other human beings from a pure heart

   2. Muslims—actual devout and pious Muslims, i.e. quietist traditionalist (non-Khomeinist) Shi’a and traditionalist Sufi/Ash’ari (non-Salafist) Sunnis

   3. Jews—anti-Zionist religious Talmudic Jews, i.e. the Neturei Karta/Satmar esque type

2. ideologically aligned and (primarily self-defined as such) leftists and socialists: both secular and religious—I’m referring here to traditional and more basic tenets of left-wing and socialist currents from the standpoint of actual selfless human solidarity and mutual support to uplift the downtrodden, not self-egotistic LARPers and ideological visionary maximalists

Please bear this in mind: I am NOT promoting a “left-right alliance,” because:

1. there is no point trying to elevate and magnify an earthly “conservative” cause of such a gloriously portrayed image, because everything overtly aligned with the banner of being “conservative” and “right-wing” is bound to be corrupted into a supremacism-bootlicking and condescendingly paternalistic trajectory that undercuts the goal of mutual human solidarity (at the same time, this does not mean that all self-proclaimed “leftist” currents are good by default)

2. what I describe here of authentically pious religionists is one that indeed “conserves” “traditional values,” albeit not in the earthly human sense as defined generically by “conservatism,” because actual kenotic piety is inherently seen as atavistic by modern-day corrupted mainstream binary expectations and Overton window framings, and therefore while arguably to the ostensible “right” of de jure defined left-wing and socialist thought, is not the same thing as the common earthly definition and conceptual framework of “right-wing”

3. this endeavor in of itself is not to right off the bat propose a formal alliance that is expected dogmatically, but rather is simply a general conceptual framework on how to attain mutual human understanding in spite of viewpoint differences, on the basis of authentic support to one another to prepare for times of crisis

Likewise, I want to emphasize this clear: I am NOT promoting a syncretic ideological fusion. This proposal is NOT one that calls for forcing secular leftists to become religious, nor is this in any way for mandating pious religious traditionalists to reshape their theologically guided framework into any “leftist” ideas that would normally be considered aberrative or deviating from orthodox norms. Individual human freedom of conscience should be respected, a.k.a.:

• “atavistic” religionists should not demand agnostics and atheists—from among their left-wing socialist interlocutors—become religious, and even if they want to discuss religion from their own theological understandings, should be mindful of conversational context so as not to inadvertently give the impression that their theological guidance inherently sounds off-putting or crudely paternalistic

• secular leftists and socialists should not promote any form of dogmatic “militant atheist” generic denigration of religion whatsoever in a way that categorically treats piously kenotic religious believers as automatically in the same camp as theocratic fundamentalist perverters, even if such secular leftists and socialists personally don’t care for viewing religion positively in generic terms and/or aren’t interested in religious discussions

Hopefully these terms so far are not unreasonable.

II: popular front?

Due to inevitably diverse viewpoint disagreements that will culminate from various individual human perspectives who each think critically within their own capabilities and arrive at diverging conclusions, such a loose coalition is not tenable to be established as a united front. A “popular front” strategy is—IMO (from me, E.G.), at least—far more tenable.

The critique here of united fronts is not necessarily one against the orientation and standing of the components comprising a united front itself, nor is the preference for a popular front tantamount to endorsing the expected ideological standing of the components comprising a popular front. After all, I am not promoting a popular front alliance between socialists and liberals, but rather between socialists and atavists.

As far as I have come to understand, the “united front” strategy is problematic not because of its core motives and goals, but because its nature inherently endangers it to corruption and co-optation, whereby its zeal for destroying a “common enemy” is hijacked via Jesuitical “end justifies the means” distortion tactics to push them into self-destructive excesses facilitating the conditions that ultimately converge toward the very abomination it supposedly exists as a rampart against. “United fronts” give the impression—as far as I (E.G.) am concerned—to rely upon and fuel reductionist binary narratives of simplistic “you are either with us or you support the enemy” crude framings which become reinforced as cynical self-fulfilling prophecies.

Of course, even if such a human solidarity proposal of mine here relies on a “popular front” general strategy, a coherent rework presumably must be charted out, and it is not a matter I can say I have coherently formulated in succinct detail yet.

III: ‘revolutionary’ (but not in the way you would expect)

This is very crucial to highlight: such a human solidarity coalition between religious “atavists” and left-wing socialists is NOT for the purpose—IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER—of expecting to gain earthly institutional prestige at a societal level and take over civic power structures.

One must be practical and realistic: all revolutionary-maximalist zealot movements vying for material power inherently are prone to being corrupted, infiltrated, and co-opted into sliding down the slippery slope of believing that “the end justifies the means” and believing that inherently destructive actions can be excusable if they are (delusionally) believed to be capable of ushering in their long-term utopian expectations, thereby duped by agent provocateurs from governmental intelligence agencies into becoming enlisted as dupes in false flag operations which end up being seized upon to secure the hegemonic consolidation of the very neofascist syncretic authoritarianism they imagined themselves to be effectively quashing.

An atavist-leftist popular front is not for the material purpose of expecting to usher in an earthly human utopia at a systematic level, but rather to be able to survive by offering each other much-needed mutual human support in times of incoming dire need to stay nourished, find shelter, help each other through physical ailments, evade paramilitary death squads, etc. It is only “revolutionary” if effectively coming to exist in a robustly kenotic sense of self-sacrificing willingness toward mutual human support as understood through a covenantal two-way framework of goodwill.

Closing words (for the meanwhile)

Obviously, there are unmistakable enemies who must never be allowed in as part of non-negotiable conditions, i.e.:

• genocidal Zionists and their bootlickers/trivializers/promoters of ANY flavor

• “sh*tlib” virtue-signaling Occupy Democrats/Robert Reich type of hypocrites

• theocratic fundamentalist extremists of any sort (i.e. Catholic integralists, evangelical fundamentalists, pan-“Islam”-ist jihadism promoters)

• neo-Nazis, neofascists, or Hitlerite/Nazi-Fascist bootlickers of any sort

• militantly anti-religious brands of pseudo-“leftism”

• neo-Marxist-offshoot jeniuses who believe that “things just randomly happen” and who are presumptuously quick to denigrate sound analysis of geopolitics and political manipulation as “conspiracy theory”

The key overarching point here is SELFLESS mutual human solidarity: it must be authentic from each individual partaker and never cynically instrumentalized/weaponized in a superficial image pretense for vested ulterior motives.

Ultimately, don’t expect this blueprint—even IF practically implemented to any meaningful extent—to stave off your problems in the long run and hold off earthly troubles indefinitely, because this simply is just a remedial approach simply for individual human beings of a common yearning toward sincere goodwill to survive communally in the face of incoming manufactured systematic collapses.