The Progressive principle of “self” that binds soul to body and establishes the person’s orientation towards “self-esteem” would be, according to my previous nomenclature, “faith^Progressive” as a species of “faith^Christian”.

The fact that Peters could not identify the “unfaith” of the public Progressive Movement (which, by 1994, dominated politics in California) underscores several important points.

First, his treatment of sin, in Sin: Radical Evil in Soul and Society, was limited to a narrow definition of “radical evil” as “an individual’s conscious awareness of intent and form in the harming of others”.

Second, this narrowness was a consequence of his focus on Satanism as the “dark magic” complement to the “light magic” of the New Age Movement (which has been a popular topic since the 1970s and was the subject of a prior book).

Third, the Progressive Movement’s denial that it was a “religion” constituted an effective deterrent (maybe, provided a convenient excuse) against examining sovereign policies as “evil” or “sin”.  After all, Progressive Institutions have produced more systematic harm than any of the criminals that Peters mentioned.  In fact, in 2012, they are just getting started.

Simply put, the Public Cult of Progressivism that grew alongside the private cults of the New Age Movement was simply “invisible” by definition.

Fourth, if Peters had examined the Public Cult of Progressivism as “religion”, he would have been in deep trouble.

“Regulatory capture” entails infiltrating and controlling sovereign (or “state”) institutions.  In 1994, Progressives were well on their way in the State of California, especially in the legislature, the various media, and in education.

If Peters had extended his treatment to the Public Cult, he would have injured someone’s “self-esteem”.  Then, the lemmings would have had an excuse to eat him alive.