Renaissance to the Second Advent - Day 5

I want to share my screen with you. This series is looking from the Renaissance up until the Second Advent. The Second Advent requires a foundation to see the Messiah. To recap this a little, receiving the Messiah requires a foundation of faith, which is a spiritual community living a life of prayer, studying, and worship. The foundation of substance focuses on overcoming a fallen nature. The fallen nature is this desire to look at things from one's own point of view and becoming proud or arrogant. With Cain, it was Cain killing Abel, so foundation substance is about creating a society in which that kind of fallen nature cannot express itself. This means there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech, so when people come along with radical ideas, others may disagree, but they cannot cancel them or imprison them because they are protected by the rule of law. This is very important; the idea of the rule of law and justice means people are only punished if they break the law. This foundation is necessary to see the Messiah, so the spiritual community can respond to the Messiah and protect him.

Coming around to the Second Advent, the principle states that God's two thousand-year providence has prepared us a democratic social legal environment which will protect Christ at the Second Advent. This foundation of substance is a democratic social legal environment where Christ will be protected. This means there is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of the press, and these basic freedoms ensure that the Messiah is not only protected but can carry out his mission. He can travel, speak, meet people, attract followers, and start a movement towards bringing about the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. This is what God wants to prepare, and we know that this only happens to the extent that people follow their original mind and conscience. Sometimes God's providence moves forward, sometimes it gets stuck, and sometimes it even goes backwards, depending on whether people respond to their conscience and original nature, even at the risk of their lives. If they do not have the courage to do that, bullies and dictators come to power, and totalitarian states are established where there is no freedom whatsoever. This has nothing to do with God; it is all about human responsibility to create this kind of environment.

Looking at this a bit more, the principle states that only by Cain-type Hellenism, which we looked at before, submitting to Abel-type Hebraism could Satan be separated from the prevailing spirit of the age. Sometimes Satan wants to invade these situations to create a dictatorship or totalitarian oppressive regime. When we talk about Satan's rule, we are not just talking about something spiritual; we are talking about something incredibly substantial—dictatorships and totalitarianism. That is Satan's rule, where you have oppressive regimes dominated by power, not by law. The foundation substance necessary for receiving Christ at the Second Advent could be established worldwide. Both of these movements are good because they are about restoring original human nature and both are necessary. It is not enough just to have people praying in monasteries; God also wants to create a nice and pleasant living environment. These need to be integrated, so all the science, technology, art, culture, and architecture need to be infused with and express spiritual values.

We saw how this was developing in the medieval synthesis, which first developed in Islamic Spain. The synthesis there between Islamic thought and Greek thought led to an incredible flowering of culture in the Islamic world. This was inherited by Judaism with Maimonides and created the foundation for Orthodox Judaism until today. It was also inherited by European Christianity, with great thinkers like Aquinas creating a medieval synthesis where the whole of medieval Europe was infused with Christian spirituality and values. The whole culture was deeply Christian in every way. During this time, there were many successful movements for renewal. Even though there was a tendency to fall into corruption and abuse of power, there were continual renewals coming from figures like Cluny in France, along with saints like Aquinas, Francis, Dominic, and Hildegard, who were able to renew European Christian culture and tradition even when it became corrupted.

Eventually, however, it became stuck, leading to the development of the Renaissance. We saw how it became corrupted, particularly with the execution of Jan Hus at the Council of Constance, and everything became ossified. Then there was a new infusion of culture or recovery of ancient Greek culture with the Renaissance. All these Hellenistic values and skills in architecture and art were infused with Christian spiritual values, informing all the cultural and scientific changes that took place during the Renaissance. There was a unity of science, religion, and art, but then the Renaissance started to reform and renew the cultural sphere. When the spirit of the Renaissance came to renew and reform the Catholic Church, the Church would not be reformed. Great Christian humanists like Erasmus tried to do this, but it wouldn't happen. Then Luther came along; instead of a reformation, what happened was the breakup of Europe, which we still have today, almost 500 years later, along with a huge amount of cultural vandalism, the destruction of Catholic monasteries and churches, and religious wars.

We looked at how many intelligent people were disgusted and outraged by the consequences of these religious wars and sought to find an alternative basis for truth and ethics other than the Bible or the teachings of the Church, which they recognized could no longer be accepted universally. They wanted to find an alternative universal basis for ethics and morality grounded in reason. We saw the rise of the rationalist tradition, but also the empirical tradition, which developed particularly in England, where truth came from experience. However, experience is always different; people have different experiences. This led to the question of whether there is such a thing as universal truth. The English and Scottish traditions became very skeptical, with David Hume being the most radical skeptic, incredibly skeptical about everything. In reality, all Christian Europe should have made a foundation for the Messiah. Last week, we looked at how the foundation to receive the Messiah was made in England and Scotland and how this spread through what later became known as the British Empire. However, this foundation should have been established throughout the whole of Europe and maintained through the Renaissance, despite hiccups during the Reformation. The Enlightenment should have continued within Europe to maintain that Christian foundation.

We are going to backtrack a bit and see how things developed in France, particularly with the Carolingian dynasty established by Charlemagne. The Carolingian dynasty replaced the Merovingians. The first Merovingian king defeated the last king of the Romans, and with the support of the papacy, he became the king of the Franks. However, the Merovingians became weak, and Charles Martel defeated the Muslims at the Battle of Tours. His grandson, Charlemagne, became king, and his authority was granted with the support of the papacy. To establish a new dynasty, one must have authority from somewhere; it cannot just be because of a coup d'état. Kings always feel insecure and seek a legitimate basis for their political authority. The Merovingians and later the Carolingians sought the support of the papacy to claim legitimacy. They set up an efficient civil service and ran Francia effectively, starting with Charlemagne's Carolingian Renaissance, which, while not comparable to what was happening in Spain, was a start to recover something. Charlemagne was succeeded by his son Louis the Pious, but after his death, Charlemagne's empire was divided among his three grandsons: Charles the Bald, Louis the German, and Lothar the First.

The decline of the Carolingian Empire led to significant instability in the region, prompting discussions among the nobles about the future of monarchy. They debated whether to continue with a weak monarchy or to seek a stronger monarch. This resulted in the emergence of the Robertians, a family that would eventually establish a new dynasty in the East Franks. As the East Franks faced threats from the Huns, they recognised the need for a strong leader, leading to Henry Fowler becoming the king. He was a Saxon, not a Frank, and is regarded as the founder of the German state. His son, Otto, later became known as Otto the Great and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by the Pope, marking a significant shift in power from the West to the East.

In the West, the decline of the Carolingians resulted in power struggles among the nobles. Hugh Capet was elected king of the Franks in 987, marking the beginning of a new dynasty that would rule France for about 400 years. Although he was elected, Capet aimed to establish a hereditary monarchy. He requested the Archbishop of Reims to crown his son, which initially shocked the Archbishop. However, after Capet expressed concerns about his potential death on a crusade, the Archbishop eventually crowned his son, solidifying the Capetian dynasty's claim to the throne. Despite this, the French state remained quite decentralised, with powerful nobles like William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, holding significant authority.

The Capetians sought to establish royal authority by implementing the principle of primogeniture, ensuring that the eldest son of the king would inherit the throne. This was crucial for political and social stability, as it reduced disputes over succession. The Capetians, particularly Hugh Capet and his descendants, formed alliances with the Roman Catholic Church, which played a significant role in supporting the Crusades. This alliance helped to strengthen the monarchy for several centuries. However, the last monarch of this line had three sons who died without male heirs, leading to a crisis of succession and instability in France.

With the absence of a male heir, the Salic Law, which prohibited women from inheriting the throne, became a focal point of contention. Edward III of England claimed a superior right to the French crown, leading to the Hundred Years' War between England and France. This conflict was rooted in the complex claims to the throne, and even today, English monarchs retain titles associated with France. The House of Valois emerged as the next dynasty in France, with Philippe claiming the throne and consolidating power around Paris, further centralising authority in the French state.

In contrast to England's powerful Parliament, France's Estates-General was less influential. It was a consultative assembly that included representatives from the clergy, nobility, and commoners, but it lacked the authority to legislate or approve taxation independently. The Estates-General first convened in 1302 during a conflict between Philip IV and Pope Boniface VIII, marking a significant moment in French history. However, the Estates-General was often summoned at the king's discretion and did not hold the same power as the English Parliament, which had a long-standing tradition of asserting its authority over the monarchy.

The centralisation of power in France coincided with the dominance of Roman Catholicism as the official religion. However, heretical movements like the Cathars emerged in the south, leading to violent suppression by the Church. Following the Reformation, conflicts arose between Catholics and Protestants, culminating in events like the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in 1572, where thousands of Huguenots were killed. Many Huguenots fled to England, bringing valuable skills that contributed to the Industrial Revolution.

During this period, significant philosophical developments occurred. One notable figure was René Descartes, who famously stated, 'I think, therefore I am.' His reflections on doubt and existence laid the groundwork for modern philosophy. Descartes' rationalism paralleled the mathematical axioms of his time, influencing the intellectual landscape of Europe. His work exemplified the shift towards reason and inquiry that characterised the Enlightenment, shaping the future of Western thought.

Basic axioms can build up all of geometry, and it's all based upon these absolute axioms. For Descartes, that was his absolute truth: 'I doubt, therefore I am.' From that, he was able to conclude that he exists, therefore this exists, and also that God must exist. He developed a proof for the existence of God that was different from the proofs of Aquinas, for example. Descartes was a sincere Christian, but the church itself didn't like his philosophy because he was too rationalist. Shortly after he died, his books were banned by the Roman Catholic Church. This is quite significant; you have one of the greatest French philosophers, a devout Christian, whose works were banned despite his attempts to demonstrate that it is reasonable to be a Christian, just as John Locke and other English philosophers did. This illustrates the drift and separation between the French Enlightenment and the church in France, which is really important and fateful.

At this time, the monarchy was quite corrupt, and the church was also very inefficient and ineffective. With rationalism, truth comes from reason. Mathematics, for example, is based upon logic; you can prove something using mathematics. When you solve quadratic equations, you work out 'a equals this, b equals that,' and you can prove it. It's all very rational, and it's not a guess; it's not based upon experience. With truth coming from reason, the nature of mathematics shows that there is only one right answer. In that sense, it's easy to slip into dogmatism: this is the truth, and you have worked it all out from these basic axioms of geometry. This dogmatism can easily spread to universalism, as mathematics serves as a universal language. No matter what language someone speaks or what nationality they have, the math always works out to the same answer. This sense of the universality of truth is a significant idea, which I mentioned before with Machiavelli, who was the first to doubt this.

Along with this development of rationalism, critical thinking emerged. Rationalism is very much about thinking and the rational critique of tradition. When we look at traditional practices, often they appear illogical or irrational. People might say, 'I can't give you a good reason why I do it; it's just the way I've always done it.' With rationalism, there came a logical critique of tradition and doctrines, trying to make everything conform to reason. If something is true, it must be rational and logical; otherwise, it cannot be true. This approach can easily become dogmatic and universalist. John Bodin developed the idea of the Divine Right of Kings. Someone asked me recently where Charles I got the idea of the Divine Right of Kings, and I mentioned that he came from a Scottish background. The Scottish monarchy was always very much connected to the French monarchy, and these ideas of the Divine Right of Kings came from France into Scotland, which also had a weak parliament.

When James VI of Scotland moved to England and became James I of England, the idea of the Divine Right of the monarch also came to England. This was a very alien concept in English political philosophy, which is why Charles I faced such resistance and ultimately lost his head. Political rulers needed to find a legitimate basis for their authority. At this time, rulers legitimised their power through the doctrine of Divine Right. We saw how, at some stages, it was justified through election, particularly in Germany with Henry Fowler. That tradition continued in Germany, where certain princes had the authority to elect the Holy Roman Emperor, who was then crowned by the Pope. In France, however, they did not want that. Hugh Capet wanted his son to inherit the throne, so rulers legitimised their power through the doctrine of Divine Right, claiming that political power is a divine responsibility, a gift from God. This meant that rulers could say, 'I am the ruler because God appointed me,' and therefore, no one had the right to challenge their authority.

The Catholic Church supported the notion of Divine Right by including it in church doctrine. You might wonder why the church would do that. The papacy saw itself as having authority over kings. The Pope was considered the vicar of Christ, possessing absolute authority. If the Pope had the authority to appoint kings, it meant that those kings derived their authority by Divine Right. This support increased the church's own authority and power to appoint and oppose kings within Europe. Because the power of kings and emperors came from God, it was beyond challenge. To engage in rebellion or disloyalty against one's king was seen as disobeying the will of God. In biblical history, we saw that the Pharaoh was regarded as a god in Egypt. In the ancient world, the king or ruler was seen as a divine being. Criticising or disagreeing with the Pharaoh was akin to criticising God, which was a fearful thing to do.

The biblical tradition, however, rejected this notion. From the time of Moses, there was a separation of church and state, with Aaron as a priest and Moses as a prophet. There was always a separation between the king and the priest. People could criticise the kings, and that was the role of the prophet. In the Bible, kings never had divine authority; they were never above the law and could always be challenged. This represents a very different kind of idea compared to the pagan view in Rome, where the emperor was considered a god. The Divine Right of Kings is a throwback to Roman imperialism and the pagan state. Louis XIV of France was a significant exponent of this belief. Interestingly, he was a devoutly religious leader. These leaders were incredibly sincere in their faith and worked to expand and strengthen the doctrine of Divine Right in France. However, at the same time, intelligent people could see that the church was corrupt and the monarchy was ineffective, leading to a lot of corruption within the state as well.

The question then arose: what if one rejects God? If you do not believe in God, you do not accept the whole idea of Divine Right as a legitimate source of political authority. This movement towards rejecting God occurred in France, along with the idea of Divine Right as a source of political authority. Those who did this were called philosophers. They raised objections against the decadent lifestyles of leading church representatives and the church's persistence in collecting exorbitant taxes and tithes. The philosophers were not philosophers in the traditional sense; they were more like public intellectuals or opinion makers. One particularly famous figure was Voltaire, who went to England and encountered deism. He stayed with David Hume, which caused some friction. The deist ideas that developed in England were imported into France and became incredibly popular among intellectuals.

In England, figures like Bishop Butler and William Law engaged in arguments defending traditional Christian doctrine against deist ideas. The English Enlightenment developed entirely within the Church. When deist ideas reached France, they were embraced by the intellectual class. These philosophers critically analysed the church and the monarchy, observing that many leading church representatives lived decadent lifestyles. At that time, the church owned a significant portion of the land in France, and the bishops lived in palaces while the priests were also quite wealthy. The church was taxing the common people, demanding tithes that funded the extravagant salaries of bishops and other church officials. The philosophers were highly critical of this situation. What they found most appalling, however, was the control the church held over the impressionable commoners by instilling fear of eternal damnation. Priests and bishops would threaten excommunication or deny last rites, which meant that individuals could not be buried in the church cemetery and would face damnation in the afterlife.

This kind of power was deeply shocking to many, as illustrated by a personal anecdote about my mother. When my grandfather died, she went to Westminster Cathedral to pray and was told by a priest that because he was not Catholic, he could not go to heaven. This was in 1968 and was shocking beyond belief. The philosophers objected to the power that priests and bishops held over ordinary believers by threatening them with eternal damnation if they did not comply with church teachings. These intellectuals may have had mixed feelings about the common people, but they were very strong in their opposition to the church. They were incredibly anti-clerical and critical of the church's authority and behaviour. As a result, they provoked the church by challenging doctrines such as the existence of miracles, following the deist tradition that deemed miracles impossible and unscientific. They also criticised divine revelation by pointing out contradictions within the Bible and disproving specific tenets with simple science. The church became increasingly angry as they saw ordinary people losing faith and questioning the authority of the church, bishops, and priests. This conflict between the church and the educated intellectual class intensified, as the philosophers were not atheists but rather critics of the church.

You can see very easily how they became atheists. A little bit more about these philosophers: I said they were the intellectuals, like the intelligentsia of the 18th-century French Enlightenment. They used to meet in salons and coffee shops; they didn't meet in churches. These salons were run by hostesses who were members of the aristocracy. They would gather in these dining rooms to talk and chat, quite separate from the church and the clerics. Some of the more famous names include Rousseau, Voltaire, and Montesquieu, who is, of course, mentioned in the Divine Principle. None of them were of the stature of Descartes; they were more like public intellectuals or thinkers. Many of them contributed to the first encyclopedia produced during the Enlightenment, which was based on atheistic and materialistic assumptions, as opposed to a Christian framework.

These philosophers were very critical thinkers, always looking for weaknesses and failures, but not in a bad way. Many of them were good people trying to improve things. They weren't just criticizing for the sake of it; they wanted to improve society according to the canons of rationality and reason. Their empirical approach was very different: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. In other words, it may be completely logical and understandable, but if it works, don't interfere with it. They were very confident and optimistic that human society could be improved through rational thought, analysis, and the application of reason. These ideas of progressiveness are very common in the world today, and this is how progressives think.

As I mentioned before, they were influenced by deism, Locke, and Newton, adopting a scientific approach and method. They were very anticlerical and anti-religious, which became quite destructive and led to atheism and materialism. In England and later in America, deists like Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who proposed five principles of deism, were Christians seeking a more rational and simplified version of Christianity. While they were critical, they remained believers. However, when Locke and Newton went to France, they were received poorly by the Catholic Church, which made them more anticlerical and anti-religious, eventually slipping into atheism and materialism.

The key point here is that the French Enlightenment developed outside the church. Unlike the unity of Hebraism and Hellenism, which was crucial for receiving the Messiah, there was a separation of these traditions in France. In 1764, for various political reasons, the Jesuits were suppressed. They were intellectual shock troops of the Roman Catholic Church, developed after the Reformation to combat Protestantism. In France, however, they were suppressed, and there was no one within the Catholic Church who could engage with the deists and defend Christianity intellectually, unlike in England.

The philosophers were not revolutionaries or radical democrats; they had no desire to destroy the authority of kings or dismantle social hierarchies. They were critics who wanted to improve things, not destroy everything. Nevertheless, they did not believe that political power emanated from God. This raises the fundamental question: if political power does not come from God, where does it come from? In their view, the role of governments is to guard the nation, protect the people, and secure their individual rights. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. They were concerned about what was happening and wanted to sponsor and initiate social and political reform.

Voltaire is notorious for mocking religion, but some of his writings are worth reading. In his book 'Candide', he states that it is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong, as it leads to persecution. He famously prayed, 'Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous,' and he felt that God granted this wish because no one could respond intelligently to his criticisms; they only made fools of themselves. He advised to cherish those who seek the truth but to beware of those who find it. He believed that one should judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers, which is a fundamental statement of liberal education. The right to free speech is more important than the content of speech.

Voltaire is alleged to have said he would defend your right to say something even if he disagreed with it, to the death. It would be nice if people acknowledged this in our present woke cancel culture, where what you say can lead to being cancelled. Free speech is going out of fashion in most of the Western world and has been discredited as being right-wing. We can see this happening today, as governments often use the excuse of internal security or national security to restrict people's basic liberties and freedoms. Many measures implemented during the COVID crisis lacked a rational, scientific, or legal basis.

Voltaire's cynicism is evident in his observation that it is forbidden to kill, and therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. He had a sharp sense of humour, as seen when a priest asked him on his deathbed to renounce Satan. He replied, 'Now, my good man, this is no time to be making enemies.' In other words, if he was going to hell, he didn't want to offend the devil. Another influential philosopher was Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote 'The Social Contract' and 'Emile', the latter being about education for children. Despite being a terrible father who handed his children over to others, he wrote an incredibly influential book on children's education.

Rousseau argued that people were born free but everywhere in chains, and he did not believe in the idea of original sin. He thought people were corrupted by their parents and society. His political philosophy has been accused of sliding easily into democratic totalitarianism. If the general will, as he called it, decided something, then those who did not conform should lose their rights. This reflects a lack of belief in individual rights, which is evident today. Rousseau would argue that if there is a certain political correctness, you do not have the right to be politically incorrect because the general will dictates otherwise.

Another philosopher, Saint-Simon, was an influential economist who justified state technocratic socialism. Many of these thinkers were socialists who believed in equality, being critical of the feudal society in France and its inequalities. They wanted to promote socialism through the power of the state to recreate and change society. These ideas were fermenting during a time when Louis XIV needed money and called the Estates General, similar to what Charles I did a century earlier. The Estates General were unhappy with him, leading to his eventual arrest. The French Revolution became very bloody, with many aristocrats and members of the royal family executed.

The revolutionaries themselves ended up being executed, leading to chaos. The quality of the revolution, due to the way the Enlightenment developed in France, became increasingly atheistic, materialistic, and violent. This resulted in a dictatorship and numerous wars, as surrounding countries were unhappy with the situation in France, which undermined their monarchies. The revolutionary wars ensued, and Napoleon, a successful general, eventually became consul and later crowned emperor by the Pope, seeking legitimacy from the church.

The Napoleonic Wars spanned a generation in Europe, with the French Empire expanding under Napoleon. He invaded various territories, including Germany and Russia, suffering greatly during the Russian winter. The only country that consistently stood against France was Britain. Napoleon formed alliances with Austria and Russia at different times. The extent of these wars was comparable to the scale of the First and Second World Wars, engulfing much of Europe. Other conflicts were also occurring in the Americas between England and France during this time.

The Napoleonic Empire relied on alliances, with Napoleon even crowning his brother as king of Italy. Tragically, in France, there was no unity of Hebraism and Hellenism, leading to profound consequences across continental Europe. This development was often referred to by political theorists as totalitarian democracy, which emerged from the French Enlightenment. This, in turn, inspired figures like Karl Marx and laid the groundwork for modern political philosophy underlying the European Union.

The Moravians had a significant influence on various religious movements, particularly through figures like John Wesley, who was inspired by Pietism. This movement contributed to the development of the Methodist Church in Britain, which emerged as a response to what was known as Latitudinarianism, a form of dry intellectualism prevalent in the Church of England at the time. Shortly after, the philosopher Leibniz, who was also a religious believer, introduced a religious philosophy known as Monadology. He posited that reality is composed of spiritual atoms and that the universe is a manifestation of a perfect God, suggesting that everything is coordinated by God, which can be interpreted as a form of determinism.

Immanuel Kant, a prominent professor of philosophy, encountered the skepticism of the empirical tradition through David Hume, which he described as a wake-up call. He sought to synthesise rationalism and empiricism, leading to the development of Transcendental Idealism. Although Kant was a Christian and believed in God, he was not particularly interested in Christian theology. This period saw the German Enlightenment evolve outside the church, with figures like Goethe, who wrote profound works such as 'The Sorrows of Young Werther' and 'Faust'. Goethe's philosophy, while acknowledging God, drew from alternative traditions rather than strictly biblical teachings, leading many young intellectuals to despair, with some tragically committing suicide after reading his works.

In contrast to Goethe, Shakespeare's works are deeply rooted in Christian and biblical traditions, reflecting a coherent worldview. The emergence of Romanticism, influenced by thinkers like Herder and Haman, marked a shift towards mysticism and emotion, distancing itself from its Christian roots. This movement was partly a reaction to the rationalism of the French Enlightenment, which imposed a singular way of thinking across Europe, exemplified by the metric system and attempts to standardise legal codes. The German response, termed the Counter-Enlightenment, emphasised emotion and pluralism, arguing against the universalism of the French approach, leading to a cultural identity that sometimes veered into irrationalism.

The rise of German nationalism can be traced back to philosophers who reacted against Napoleon's conquests. This nationalism was often authoritarian and included anti-Semitic ideologies, which were rooted in notions of racial purity. Hegel, another significant thinker, developed a religious philosophy that was not Christian, and his ideas influenced many disciples who, upon encountering French atheism and materialism, established left-wing Hegelianism. Thinkers like Feuerbach, who argued that humanity projects its best qualities onto God, laid the groundwork for Marx and Engels, who inverted Hegel's dialectical idealism into dialectical materialism, applying it to history and establishing a worldview that encompassed atheism.

Nietzsche, a profound critic of Christianity, famously declared that 'God is dead', arguing that people's actions reflected a belief in a dead God. He viewed Christianity as a slave morality, unsuitable for modern society. This idealism, inherited from the French tradition and developed through Kant and Hegel, easily transitioned into communism. The intellectual foundations for fascism and Nazism also emerged from this milieu, with anti-Semitism growing alongside these ideologies. The tragic reality was that in Germany, there was no solid foundation to receive the Messiah, leading to the rise of nationalism, fascism, and communism, which would have dire consequences in the 20th century.

The seeds of the First and Second World Wars were sown in the Enlightenment's atheistic and materialistic tendencies, particularly in France and Germany. The failure to establish a foundation to receive the Messiah in Europe allowed for the rise of totalitarian regimes. The conflict between different aspects of the Enlightenment contributed to both liberal democracy and totalitarianism, with the latter emerging from French rationalism and German idealism. The consequences of these ideas were profound, leading to the establishment of totalitarian democracies in countries like East Germany and the Soviet Union, which falsely identified themselves as democracies. The liberal democratic tradition, in contrast, remained connected to spiritual and intellectual traditions, particularly in England and Scotland, where movements like Wesleyanism flourished.

The foundation to receive the Messiah should have been established in all Christian countries. However, the invasion of Judeo-Christian foundations by Satan in France, Germany, and Russia led to the rise of dictatorship, fascism, and communism. The horrors of the Great Terror in France and the death camps in Germany and the Soviet Union were direct results of these failures. The establishment of Satan's sovereignty in Europe through totalitarianism necessitated wars to restore freedom and break this hold. The high price of these ideas and their consequences is evident in the millions who suffered in concentration camps. The seriousness of the Enlightenment's impact on society cannot be overstated, as it paved the way for totalitarianism and the loss of countless lives.

Reflecting on my university experience, I remember the prevalence of leftist ideologies among students, despite most lecturers not being Marxists. The radical ideas that emerged during the student uprisings of 1968 in various countries were largely unsuccessful at the time. However, many of those students have since risen to positions of power in society, shaping the current landscape with their progressive ideas. This raises questions about the origins of today's radical movements and the enduring influence of those earlier philosophical currents.

Marxism was understood by many as a pathway to communism, but a significant number of young people had no clear idea of what communism entailed. The older generation was aware of the dangers and did not want it, but the youth were largely uninformed. The Marxists from the late 1960s and 1970s returned to universities, where they studied, graduated, and earned their PhDs. They became lecturers and professors, infiltrating not only academia but also the media and politics. Now, they are effectively running the world.

This rapid implementation of the politically correct agenda is not being driven by young people; rather, it is being enforced by those who are supposed to govern the country—politicians in their 60s and 70s. This reality is shocking, especially when I realised that these are the very individuals I attended university with. They have transitioned from students to the leaders of our society. It is crucial to be aware of these dynamics, as many of us have been complacent.

We believed we had triumphed with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but in hindsight, we missed significant developments. The complacency of our generation has allowed these ideologies to take root and flourish in our institutions and governance. It is essential to remain vigilant and informed about the influences shaping our world today.