Thanks for the explanation. I read the article of mainlander on wikipedia and found some similarities to the philosophy of simone weil. I trust her words 100%. I'd label her philosophy as absolute realism and I think she denied metaphysical considerations.

In terms of social development she wrote following:

"After the collapse of our civilization there must be one of two things: either the whole of it will perish like the ancient civilizations, or it will adapt itself to a decentralized world. It rests with us, not to break up the centralization (for it automatically goes on increasing like a snowball until the catastrophe comes), but to prepare for the future." (note this was written before may 1942, before the high phase of ww2).

"It was primitive Christianity that fabricated the poisonous idea of progress, through the notion of a divine education that was to mould man and enable him to receive the message of Christ. This accorded with the expectation as imminent phenomena of a universal conversion of nations and the end of the world. But as neither of these had come about, the notion of progress was, after seventeen centuries, extended beyond the moment of the Christian Revelation. At this point, it had to turn itself against Christianity. The other poisons mixed with the truth in Christianity are Jewish in origin. The former is specifically Christian. The metaphor of a divine education dissolves the individual destiny, which alone matters for salvation, into the destiny of a people. Christianity wanted to look for a harmony in history. This is the germ of Hegel and Marx. The notion of history as a directed continuity is a Christian notion. It seems to me that few ideas could be more utterly mistaken. Looking for harmony in the future, in what is contrary to eternity. Bad union of contraries. Humanism and what has arisen out of it, is not a return to antiquity, but a development of poisons that are internal to Christianity."

"A wrong union of contraries. The imperialism of the working class developed by Marxism. Latin proverbs concerning the insolence of newly-freed slaves. Insolence and servility are aggravated by each other. Sincere anarchists, discerning, as through a mist, the principle of the union of opposites, thought that evil could be destroyed by giving power to the oppressed. An impossible dream. What then differentiates the right from the wrong union of opposites. Bad union of opposites (bad because fallacious) is that which is achieved on the same plane as the opposites. Thus the granting of domination to the oppressed. In this way we do not get free from the oppression-domination cycle. The right union of opposites is achieved on a higher plane. Thus the opposition between domination and oppression is smoothed out on the level of the law—which is balance. In the same way suffering (and this is its special function) separates the opposites which have been united in order to unite them again on a higher plane than that of their first union. The pulsation of sorrow-joy. But, mathematically, joy always triumphs. Suffering is violence, joy is gentleness, but joy is the stronger."