The owl in the night, age five - memories of residual Original Participation

I have again been thinking-over a clear childhood memory, from approximately age five; about awakening in the night and hearing an owl in the woods. 

This was related to having recently made the move from Devon to Somerset, and finding the new place bigger, stranger and with more unknowns - one of which were the woods visible across the fields and above the house opposite. These seemed large and mysterious, and contained strange noisy creatures such as peacocks cries, donkeys braying and (at night) Tawny Owls hooting and screeching.

I have a very clear picture of being awake in the depth of night, the house silent, and terrified by the repeated calls of an owl. I could not block out the sound - even hearing it through a pillow wrapped around my head and under the blankets. 

In desperation I would utter 'prayers' that were more like spells; multiply-repeated pleading for my safety, as if God was a malevolent tyrant who could (sometimes) be mollified (temporarily) by sufficiently exaggerated and abject grovelling...

But the most significant aspect of this memory is that it captures the residue of Original Participation - that passive, immersive, spiritual way of being that characterizes the youngest children - and the earliest stages of man's cultural development (as nomadic hunter-gatherers).

It is not full Original Participation, because my 'self' was somewhat separate; but the main context was that I felt myself immersed on a spiritual communication with all significant beings in my world. 

The owl out there in the woods, and myself in my bed, were directly aware each of the other - our minds open to each-other - and in a way that could not be blocked.

I knew that the owl knew all about me; including that I was scared, where I was; and the owl knew that what I most feared was that the owl would be perched on the window sill, outside the closed curtains, staring at me through the fabric and waiting for me to get out of bed and pull open the curtains. 

And I feared that I would not be able to resist doing so!

When I consider my earliest childhood memories I am struck by how relatively few of them concern people, human beings; and how many are - like the owl incident - about other Beings - including places. 

I had a personal, mutually mind-reading, relationship with places and 'things': I knew them, they knew me - and I knew that my own fears would be known to Them and would attract exactly what I most feared*.

I took for granted as a basic assumption that the world was alive, had consciousness and intent. 

But also vice versa. At other times I knew that all would be well and all manner of things would be well, because I was immersed-in the sentient world, and therefore - as part of that world - I knew when things would be well. 

I knew that my Mother and Father loved me and would protect me against... every possible threat; I knew this because I knew 'everything' that was relevant to me, all possible threats.

I also knew that, therefore, I was my own worst enemy. There was evil intent in the world, I was protected; but if I was to invite evil then I was vulnerable, and my greatest fear was that I would bring-down the evil upon myself. 

The fear that I might, in a moment of insane weakness or absent-mindedness, go to the window and draw back the curtains and see that owl, sitting and waiting for me. 

 

*Another incident from the same era was when I confronted my fear of the boys outside toilets. The reason for being afraid was obvious - they were located in a dark, smelly and very grimy shed. The urinal was simply a tiled wall with a drain, about seven feet tall, and with a high 'ventilation' gap leading over to the mysterious unknown that was the girl's toilets block. When we went to the toilets as a group of boys, we could laugh in its face; but that only made things worse when I had to go alone into it, as happened one morning during a lesson. But if only I could show the place I was not frightened, then it would not get me. (I took for granted that the toilet was a bully who would pick on the weakest.) So I did this by emulating the big boys, and peeing as high up the wall of the urinal as possible - trying to reach the ventilation gap and spray it over onto the girl's side. Unfortunately, I lost control of things, leaned-back beyond the vertical, and ended-up by showering my-self... This was, of course, deeply humiliating and a source of great amusement for the toilet. From then onward I was a beaten Man, the toilet knew I was a beaten Man; and I became afraid to enter the toilets alone - whatever the consequences (which, of course had the usual, predictable, result...). 

The last leader has gone - what now?

It now seems that the 'moment' has passed, and President Trump's courage failed at the last. 

But I feel grateful for what was done by DT to expose the depth and breadth of evil, in those weeks after the election, and while his courage survived. Very few Men would have done as much. 

And, in consequence, I believe that many tens of millions in the USA had their eyes opened and their hearts convinced of an important reality, during that time. 

A leader can march on ahead, intending to inspire and en-courage support - but unless supporters fall-in behind, then he will simply be walking to his doom. 

If too many hang-back from joining the march - then the leader will look around and find himself isolated inside enemy territory. 

And if DT's courage failed - then, more importantly, so did the courage of the mass of American-dwelling people and of many more people around the world. 

These have failed to take personal responsibility even seriously to consider the vast evidence of vast fraud. They would not look evil in the face when evil was so Big and so very Bad. They would not sustain the Man who tried to hard, for so long, to expose the lies. 

Theirs is a far greater and more significant failure than that of a leader who did not see-things-through.

Others would not discern and act to recognize and support (spiritually) a leader who had bravely risen to respond to perhaps the largest and most blatant evil-motivated conspiracy in history. Too many people feared to 'make a fool of themselves' by backing a flawed leader; they hung-back mistrustfully, waited to see how things turned-out. 

Too many feared to back a losing cause; feared to end-up on the losing side. They lapsed into an affected world-weary cynicism. 

And, of course, by so doing (and by communicating their view and arguing for it) they made defeat certain; passively aided the triumph of evil; and now find themselves arguing that the triumph of evil was maybe, 'for the best', after all... 

In other words, those who failed to discern the spiritual dimension of Trump's weeks-long refusal to submit to fraud; excusing themselves by dishonestly affecting an unworldly detachment (while nonetheless holding and expressing political opinions); have - by their lack of spiritual courage - themselves taken steps towards surrender-to, and embrace-of, the dominant global evil agenda.  

I seem to sense there will be no more leaders: Trump was the last. 

We now know that the world does not want to be rescued from the clutches of Satan; and when a chance comes to follow a leader away from those clutches, the world (for many and various reasons) chose not to follow. Chose indeed to ignore, mock and fight their would-be liberator. 

So now Christians are now each alone, without a real church, and opposed by all the institutions of the world and all the leadership-class (among whom there are no longer any 'leaders'); and this fact must be faced. 

And must means must, because if reality is not faced, but is eluded and denied, then we will fall ever-deeper into evil - by following fake-leaders who serve evil. 

One against the world sounds like impossible odds, but that would be nonsense given that we all are (if we choose - albeit few do so choose) eternal beings; already children of God the creator (ourselves creating-gods in part, and in miniature).

So, "one against the world" actually means One Immortal God against a world of temporary and squabbling, spiteful little devils. 

They can certainly make life nasty, while we inhabit Their territory - but They cannot win unless we choose to allow them to win. 

We are all equipped (if we seek it - a Big 'if') with inner divine guidance, and with the possibility of guidance from the Holy Ghost. 

God creates our lives (you life, mine, everybody's), moment-by-moment; such that there are always possibilities for choosing salvation, and for learning from life's experiences in ways that will be of everlasting benefit. 

This has not changed and will not change - except for those who choose to change it for them-selves.  

The world did not take what was probably the last chance of triggering a counter-revolution against the successful 2020 Satanic coup. 

We are now living in Satan's world, staffed by Satan's willing and devoted servants, and it is exceedingly unlikely that anyone with significant power or influence is again going to try and help us in the slightest degree. 

By rejecting Trump we have made any further optimistic developments much less likely. Even if such a person arises again, he will be a lesser Man, with fewer possibilities, in a more-corrupt world. He will be even-more ignored, ridiculed and opposed than was DT. 

OK, fine; life just got a lot simpler, a lot clearer. 

Since group strategy is off-the-map, we need not consider it further. 

We can legitimately concentrate, and thereby increase the strength of, our scope of activity and aspiration; and the measure of our success will be directly apparent to our-selves.

 

Death and the Dead: the proper work of old age

This is aimed mainly at the elderly among my readership. 

Who are the old? It is approximately the last quarter of life when a Man is 'old'. Since the natural human lifespan is about 70 years, then the last quarter commences at about age 53. 

So, if you are that age or older you just-are Old, and ought to acknowledge the fact because there is work to be done!

What kind of work? If he is wise - a Man's thoughts will (and should) begin to turn towards death. Death is the work. 

The nature of 'work' in old age is provided-for by our natural disposition, and by the waning of other concerns and capacities. Modern people see old age in terms of loss of abilities (and appearance). 

This is because biological ageing does not generate any genuine 'compensatory' increase in other abilities - so the phenomenon seems wholly negative. 

So much for biology... It is  when we include the spiritual as our focus that we can see 'compensatory phenomena'. 

What old age brings is not capabilities but possibilities. There is a spontaneous tendency for a change in patterns of activity, sleep, and interests that are suited to the tasks of old age. 

These tasks are, broadly, a coming to terms with mortal (finite) human life, and the implications for the nature and meaning of death. 

This is why older people are spontaneously interested by the past - especially their own past, and by those who are dead. These natural changes provide clues to the spiritual task of the old. 

I get the impression that very few of today's old people are engaged in these proper and necessary tasks; essentially because they have decided that death will be an end for them and everyone, an annihilation. 

(Probably this is why modern old people are (in general) such a vain, foolish, and selfish bunch of parasites - as revealed so graphically by their terrified, hysterical and resentful response to the birdemic fraud.)

But if we instead assume that death is a transformation, we can begin to work on the nature and implications of that transformation...

The implications for our-selves, for those who have already died (the 'so-called dead', as Rudolf Steiner called them), and for those who love who will (at some point) face that transformation. 

That is (or should be) the primary work of the elderly. And, unlike many activities, it is something that the old are naturally equipped and inclined to do.  

Of course, this work cannot and should not be the whole of life; any more than going-to-school, playing, finding-a-spouse, raising kids, or making-a-living, or any other single activity can be the whole of life in earlier years. 

But it is something we ought to be doing in old age - and if we aren't doing it, then we will almost certainly experience old age as a net-negative phenomenon, a life-phase of overall-loss - and respond with an escalatingly desperate and delusional clinging to the activities and appearances of youth. 

Tolkien nods again - the dwarves are biologically not viable

"Dis" (Fili and Kili's mother) as imagined by Ancalinar - but I suspect she was (even-) less feminine than this, since Tolkien said dwarf-women were indistinguishable from the men. 

The Dwarves' numbers, although they sometimes flourished, often faced periods of decline, especially in periods of war. The slow increase of their population was due to the rarity of Dwarf-women, who made up only about a third of the total population. Dwarves seldom wedded before the age of ninety or more, and rarely had so many as four children. They took only one husband or wife in their lifetime, and were jealous, as in all matters of their rights. The number of Dwarf-men that married was actually less than half, for not all the Dwarf-women took husbands; some desired none, some wanted one they could not have and would have no other. Many Dwarf-men did not desire marriage because they were absorbed in their work. 

From Tolkien Gateway, summarizing the available 'canonical' information from the Appendices of Lord of the Rings and History of Middle Earth Volume 12.

JRR Tolkien clearly wanted his dwarves to be dedicated to their craft; and not interested in sexual relationships; but he went too far in this and inadvertently made dwarves biologically non-viable. 

He describes the 'slow increase' in their numbers; but from the information given dwarf numbers could not increase at all over the long term, but would inevitably decline - since dwarf fertility was far below the minimum rate needed to replace those who died. 

The fact that dwarf women were only about 1/3 of the population means that each woman would need to replace herself, and two men - plus a margin to account for death before the age of fertility. So minimum replacement fertility would be three-point-something. 

But we are also told that not-all the dwarf-women took husbands (and it is implied they did not reproduce at all) meaning that women were effectively less than 1/3 of the dwarves. 

Therefore each dwarf women who did reproduce would need to have considerably more than three-point-something children. For instance perhaps only 1/4 of the dwarves were women who reproduced - meaning that the minimum replacement level would need to be four-point-something children per dwarf women. 

However, we are told that dwarf-women only rarely had as many as four children; and the tone of the passage suggests that four children was an upper limit and the usual number was considerably less.  

Putting this all together; this means that the dwarves fertility was less than the minimum required to replace those who died.  

There could be a modest increase before the first generation of dwarves began to die out. Their 'average' life expectancy was given as 250 years. However, this number did not take account of premature deaths; and it is described in Tolkien's writings that large numbers of dwarves were slain in battle, through all the ages of the world. 

And Tolkien also says that dwarves married later than 90 years old - so only a couple of new generations could be fitted-in before even the first dwarf generation began to die out (even if only a small proportion of these founders were slain prematurely). 

Pretty obviously this was a mistake of Tolkien's - and he would have wanted to revise it had the problem been pointed-out. 

The simplest solution would be to state that those dwarf women who did have children had enormous families. 

Alternatively, we can imagine a tragic scenario where a large first generation of dwarves was created - but after a couple of hundred years, the race began inexorably to go extinct... 

Nothing has changed - what am I waiting for?

Considering that I keep advocating an explicit dependence on intuition, the 'thinking of the heart' I suppose that I should not be too surprised to discover that despite the evil-accelerating potential of 'recent political events in the USA' - my feeling is that nothing has changed. 

Yet. 

This is not a matter of politics, but of the spirit. We can all choose to participate consciously in the spirit of Man; and I am pretty sure that there has been no change there; and also that grounds for spiritual optimism remain, as before - although I cannot be any more precise about how or why.

In other words, I feel that the window of opportunity for the powers of Good remains open (as of this time of writing). 

God has arranged things through 2020 such that some large number of people have found themselves in the best situation when they may chose to 'awaken'; to recognize evil, to become aware of the reality of Good - and to make a choice. 

(God can lead a Man to the water of life  - but cannot make him drink.)

In addition; I believe (over the past weeks, and largely thanks to ?President DT) significant numbers of people have become clearly aware of the two sides in earth's ongoing spiritual war. 

Significant numbers (I think) have chosen to take the side of God.

This means that henceforth these people will become able to discern the presence and activities of evil - and will reject the moral authority of bureaucracy and the media - and will be able to discern the pervasive evil-directed dishonesty of The System. 

It is hard to keep ahold of the solid fact that a single soul who accepts Jesus's gift of eternal life will outlast all the nations of the earth and the earth itself. 

What is good in this earth is that which is in-harmony-with life everlasting; which enhances and contributes to that eternal world. 

Whatever happens from here; there already has been a great opportunity for Good over recent weeks. 

God, with the aid of some men, has been able to do a lot. 

If most people have failed to grasp that opportunity, but have instead doubled-down on their support for the demons, hardened their hearts, and moved further away from repentance; that is their own responsibility, and the inevitable consequences of actively-rejecting salvation will fall upon them.

It is always thus. 

The more clearly that we are able to perceive Good and evil, the clearer and larger the distinction between them -- the clearer then is the choice between them; and the stronger will be the personal commitment to whatever is chosen. 

Those on the side of Good are now more strongly Good; but also vice versa.   

Why are *so many* people affiliated with evil? (And how can you tell those who are affiliated with good?)

Many serious Christians have noticed that they know of extremely few people, as a proportion - and indeed in absolute numbers - who are Not aligned with evil. 

That is the case whether you accept the broad validity of the Satanic litmus tests as an indicator of spiritual affiliation, or if you simply go by those who accept the truthfulness, virtue and authority of the Global Establishment.

But if it is trivially easy to see that most people of whom you know are on the side of the demons; how can you discern those who are on the side of God, Good and creation? 

Well, for a start, there are several things which do Not work:

It does not work to look at what people say about such matters - evil people lie. Whereas - apparently - in the past it was not possible for demons to speak the name of Jesus or recite the Lord's Prayer - that does not apply now. Demon-servants will spout orthodox theology, and swear on the Bible that lies are true. 

And 'good' behaviour is not a useful discriminator either - indeed most of the most well-behaved (law-abiding, decent, kind) people are very obviously on the wrong side. Conversely, God-affiliated Christians will certainly be sinners - and will know they are sinners; having recognized and repented their sins - although we may not know this. Indeed, it is quite likely that those on the side of God will - in worldly terms - be worse-behaved on average than those against God. 

On the other hand; a serious Good-allied Christian will not consistently deny or advocate sin. Yet he may do so when under duress, from weakness, or in dark moods - since mortal Man is a fragile and changeable being... 

In other words, perhaps nobody is on the side of God 24/7 without any doubts or lapses. But this is not a cause for despair, because the fact was perfectly explicit from the very beginning of Jesus's ministry. And, after all, the core of Christianity is about what happens after we die, rather than in this mortal life; so any mortal life behaviours can only be proxy correlates of that spiritual choice.  

How, then, can a Christian tell an ally from a foe? The answer is: by the intuitive discernment of the heart. 

This works very well (if we let it) in real life personal relationships - where we can infer if this particular person really wants (here and now, at the time of evaluation) to follow Jesus through death to immortal resurrected life in Heaven. 

Such a person may change their mind in the future, such is the nature of human agency - but we can know about Now. 

And when it comes to evaluating people we have not met, who are not in our environment; it is (here and now, in 20201) easy to discern that nearly-all such public figures are evil-affiliated - because they make that fact very clear indeed. 

...And will support each other in their evil - while ganging-up to attack and (in some way) destroy any of their own who make any single or slight statement in support of truth, virtue or beauty. 

Yet those who are thus attacked for 'hate facts' are nonetheless nearly-all themselves unrepentantly evil affiliated - so we cannot use that as a way to identify those aligned with Good.

I personally look for the virtue of courage, as a preliminary way of identifying those who are affiliated with God - in particular self-sacrificing courage - so long as that sacrifice is genuine (and not a media trick, as so often). 

In a world of mass demotivation and cowardice, courage stands-out as being possibly sustained by God - so long as this type of courage can be distinguished from psychopathic-selfish recklessness. 

The greatest courage is, perhaps, the courage to behave (by choice) such as to be humiliated and regarded as a dangerous-fool by those with the most power, wealth, status and influence. The greatest, because this is a genuinely dangerous situation. 

Not much can sustain a person in such a situation except that courage which comes from faith in God and trust in Jesus Christ as saviour; therefore it is unlikely that anyone would place themselves in such a situation unless they were on the side of God. 

 

However, even self-sacrificing courage can be simulated for public consumption; so in the end we must rely on the thinking of the heart - on that intuition which combines our own inner divine nature with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

We make a discernment (and this may need to be swift): and then make our commitment. 

We must and will judge; and act on our judgment - and be prepared to repent our judgment if it turns-out to be mistaken. 

But let us not feel crushed or intimidated! 

With light and high hearts - with warm hearts - let us embrace the necessity to discern our allies, make the right choices, and accept the consequences with courage.

(...Whatever those consequences may be; and that, Nobody knows.) 

Fear of 'making a fool of myself' blocks creative thought and true insight: "The cursed conceit o' bein' richt that damns the vast majority o' men"

The fool card from Gareth Knight's Tarot

The great Scottish poet Hugh MacDiarmid wrote a profound phrase in his A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle when he vowed to avoid "The cursed conceit o' bein' richt that damns the vast majority o' men". 

The dialect bein' richt = being right and you see this 'cursed conceit' everywhere; in real life and on the internet. It is what fuels the evil of cynicism (and cynics make the best bureaucrats, all senior managers are recruited from ex-cynics).

It is also the habit that blocks so many Christian conversions. An atheist feels that people would regard him as stupid, naive, gullible if he was to accept an 'obvious' fairy tale ('flying spaghetti monster') like Christianity. 

Supposing, he thinks, I anm wrong about this? What will happen?

Then everybody will think I am a fool, and nobody will ever 'respect' me again! 

For intellectuals, especially, not being thought a fool seems to be the prime motivator. 

Yet, being prepared to be thought a fool is the basis of genius! 

A genius essentially does not care if 'people' think he is a fool - because his motivations and convictions are inner (and divine). 

Being prepared to be thought a fool is also the basis of sainthood. 

Most real saints were widely regarded as fools (or else frauds) - some even courted the status - but they did not allow that fact to stop them doing what they regarded as most important. 

For anyone publicly to affirm the side of God, Good and creation; of truth, beauty and virtue; of spirit, soul and the supernatural - is (nowadays) to be generally regarded as a fool (as well as evil). 

We should not be deterred by the fear of making a fool of ourselves in the eyes of Men - otherwise we have already joined the other-side. 

Nearly everybody I respect as being on the right side in the spiritual war is, or would be, regarded as a fool by most. 

All truth-seekers and truth-speakers must (here, now, 2021) be prepared to make fools of themselves: this is not an option. 

Conversely those who regulate their behaviour so as Not to be regarded as fools (and who advise others to regulate their behaviour likewise) are - by that fact - self-destined for damnation.

"Artificial Intelligence" and "Sustainable" technologies are just money laundering

Untold trillions of dollars are being extracted from tax-payers and poured-into projects that claim to be developing forms of AI (Artificial Intelligence) such as driverless cars and robotics; and 'sustainable' technologies such as bicycle lanes, wind turbines (subsidy-generating mills) and solar panels.

None of them work. None ever will work. They are not intended to work.  

From an engineering perspective these are futile non-solutions to non-problems; and there is nothing more that needs to be said. Don't be duped into arguing the technologies: they are not serious - they are not even intended to work. 

But the real function is to create sufficiently-plausible excuses for channeling massive resources into Establishment funds. (Some small proportion being invested in constructing Potemkin devices illustrated by fake videos pretending to show breakthroughs.)

AI and Green-Tech are merely a rationale for coercive confiscation of enormous amounts of money from productive working people, for use in funding The System. 

'Nuff said.

On tenterhooks...

I feel tense with expectation that we are very near to a crux moment - a moment prepared by destiny. The tension is ramping up and up; in a way that could only happen when the outcome (the direction taken) has not yet been decided. 

As always, the timing of this moment is not knowable - and certainly neither definable nor restrictable by human will. 

The way I think it works; is that God the creator is continually re-making the world (in many tiny details) to push towards a decisive situation - at which point human agency will, as always, decide. 

But that decisive situation is not a pre-decided blueprint - rather it is continually being revised on the basis of human decisions, as they are made. 

On the one hand, God is preparing something thing that is intended to 'put Men on the spot'; and on the other hand, as this 'moment' approaches, human decisions may advance or may retard that moment.

This is why predictions, timings, of decisive moments are never exact and cannot ever be exact; plus, Satanic powers are working to try and delay, blur, keep as brief as possible any 'crucial moment' of clarity and self-knowledge in individual Men's souls. This the situation wavers and sways. 

What I find extraordinarily exhilarating about these days (at the times when I can clear my own mind and rise to this occasion) is the absolute conviction that I personally am involved; that I personally make a difference to what is coming. 

I am a participant, not merely a spectator. 

This is simultaneously a privilege, a necessity and a responsibility - but, on the other hand, I do not find the situation at all difficult to discern. It is terribly obvious which is the side of God, Good and creation - and equally obvious is who is working against the side of Good (and how numerous; how rich, famous and powerful they are). 

The side of evil are out in the open, have taken the field, and are wearing 'uniforms' - displaying identifying armbands (those ideological Litmus Tests) by which they declare themselves: each to the others - and to us.

Although there is a tendency to hold one's breath and to count-down to human-defined deadlines - both are an error. We will know when It Happens - and not before. 

On the plane of self-aware primary human thinking (the thinking of our true and divine self) we need to be active - there is work to be done!. 

And in terms of knowing the moment, when It Happens? - that is something which will be known in our hearts, and not by the clock, nor from being told about it by someone else.      

"Non-judgmentalism" - an anti-Christian ideal; but one where atheistic-leftism joins with Western "oneness" spiritualities

Mainstream modern atheist-leftist discourse has tried (all-too successfully!) to impose non-judgmentalism on Christians - largely by 'proof-texting' with Bible passages, removed from their 'supernaturalist' and salvific context. 

But the truth is that "non-judgmentalism" is a profoundly non-Christian notion; instead it is an anti-Christian - indeed Antichrist - idea, which will first subvert any attempt to lead a Christian life - then ultimately invert Christian values to lead to the ex-Christian actively taking the side of Satan. 

Christians not only can but must judge - as does everybody, all the time - even/ especially those who affect to advocate non-judgmentalism. 

In particular, we must choose either to affiliate-with God, the Good and divine creation and the values of truth, beauty and virtue --- or else (as of 2021, and things having-come to a point) we will (whether passively and unconsciously - or by conscious choice) find-ourselves on the (dominant and pervasive) demonic side, which opposes all of these. 

A neglected aspect of the need for judgment is that those Westerners who advocate an 'Eastern' spirituality of non-judgmental 'oneness' (mostly selectively derived-from Buddhism or Hinduism) have converged-with and joined the mainstream materialistic left-atheists. 

The convergence is not simply due to the intrinsic dishonesty of making the judgment that judgment is wrong - then denying that a judgment has-been made; but is a very fundamental problem deriving from the detachment of an Easter 'spiritual philosophy' from that taken-for granted context of a traditional Eastern way-of-life - within-which all actual Eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Hinduism) have operated. 

This is how it works: Having extracted the ideal of oneness from its real life context of pervasive traditional morality - the advocate must deny anything and everything that discerns (discriminates). In the modern world, this cashes-out as lumping-together every-thing as one-thing; and (most crucial) opposing all who try to detach them-selves from that one-thing. 

Since all serious Christians must detach themselves - spiritually - from that unifying evil which is The System; oneness philosophy always (sooner or later - but nowadays typically sooner) reserves special contempt and condescension for Christianity (any serious form of which, oneness demonizes as 'fundamentalist'). 

In particular Christians are demonized for the sin (but they deny sin!) of being judgmental - for example when Christians recognize the existence evil in the world, and identify those persons who are serving the evil agenda. 

What this means is that - as of 2021, when major church leaders have apparently all joined or support the Satanic Establishment - the serious Christianity of individual persons is all but alone in its opposition to the operation of evil in the world...

Because (pretty much, in The West) only Christians will discern, identity, name, expose and oppose evil. Almost everyone else - whether atheist or Western-Eastern-spiritual - prohibits the discerning judgment that is necessary to know and reject the operations of Satan. 

What is the "group ego" - then, and now?

Yesterday I used the concept of a "group ego" - but I did not clarify what this means. Indeed, the group ego (or collective consciousness) means  something different in the past than it is at present, or potentially in future. 

First, it needs to be clarified that the group ego comes historically (and developmentally) before the individual ego. Developmentally, we may dimly recall that in early childhood we did not recognize our-selves as distinct from the consciousness of others; and we had an innate belief (recognition) that our thoughts were knowable (i.e. experienced) by others, and that we could access the thinking of others. 

This was very similar to the situation in hunter-gatherer tribal people, and - it is assumed - all humans at an early stage of history. This stage of Original Participation was also a time when Men had direct, spontaneous awareness of the world of spirits. 

As of the past couple of centuries (but increasingly for many centuries before that) the individual adult ego separated-out from the group ego - until it reached the point of being utterly cut-off and isolated; with the resulting experience of modern life as alienated both from the spiritual world, and from the consciousness of fellow Men. This modern adult state is termed the Consciousness Soul. 

Thus modern Man regards himself (and all other Men) as a Thing, and not a Being.  

The destined (i.e. divinely intended) future is that modern Man rejoin the collective consciousness; but this time - because it comes from the cut-off-ness of  by free choice; through a recognition of the aliveness and awareness of all 'things'; i.e recognizing that 'things' are - and always have been - really Beings. 

But this 're-joining' of the group ego is Not a return to the earlier state of spontaneous and passive belonging; because Now Men's souls are free and self-conscious - which means that the re-joining needs freely and consciously to be chosen.

In practice this means that modern men experience the group ego in the state of conscious and voluntary thinking.  

In brief; modern Man chooses the nature of that group ego which he joins. Ahrimanic demonic possession happens when Man regards himself as a Thing - living in a 'dead' and non-conscious world of other Things - and surrenders passively to that. 

But the destined state of Final Participation is almost the opposite: a Man who regards himself as a being living in an alive world of Beings, consciously and actively chooses to join-with the thinking of other Beings. 

And that is a joining-with the ongoing 'process' of God's creation.

On the one hand is the demonic, on the other hand the divine; and the choice is ours. 

The nature of giants

A giant helping to build Stonehenge

As I have previously noted; the original inhabitants of Britain were said to be giants; and there is considerable 'documentary' evidence for the reality of giants. 

But if we accept that there once were giants, then of what nature were they? Presumably not gigantic Men - since that seems biologically impossible - but if not that, what were they? 

Bearing in mind that the age of giants was also the age in which magic was a part of everyday life; one interesting idea comes from John Michell in his beautifully-written superbly imaginative New light on the ancient mystery of Glastonbury (1990) - edited excerpts of pages 51-2 follow:

**

The giants of old undoubtedly symbolized natural forces, but we are repeatedly informed by early historians that sometimes they were visible in monstrous and grotesque forms. They belonged, therefore, to the cryptic category of beings which includes the yetis, Sasquatch and Bigfoot.

These creatures are occasionally seen and heard, but essentially they are phantoms. They represent an aspect of the 'genius loci'; the indwelling spirit of certain mountains, lakes and wild places. Their forms are fluid and adaptable, being determined by the collective imagination of local people. 

In traditional societies, magicians and shamans know about such things, and are sometimes able to invoke them. 

It is often easier to produce phantoms than to dissolve them. Like all 'technologies' they had unwanted side effects. In the course of time, they become more solid and may even bleed when wounded. 

Therefore, not all the spirits raised by magicians were properly laid to rest, and some lingered about the countryside to establish a breed of monsters. This may be the origin of the giants which were apparently still to be found in Britain in the second millenium BC. 

**

Ego-denial and the nature of Ahrimanic-demonic possession

Modern demonic possession is qualitatively different from that of the past. For a start it is a mass phenomenon, and enormously more common than in any previous era. And secondly possession nowadays is much less personal, far more abstract, then before...

So much so; that "Ahrimanic-demonic possession" is taken-for-granted as the attribute of a good employee, an obedient citizen; a nice and decent person with all the right opinions. 

Traditional demonic possession was an individual phenomenon. In return for greater power and/or lustful pleasure; the host sets aside his own ego and allows a demonic spirit to inhabit the space. 

In terms of responsibility; an individual refuses to take responsibility for his own choices - and hands-over his will to the demon. 

The consequence is that proud, often brave; spectacularly selfish, violent, sadistic and individualistic evil of the past; which I have termed Luciferic. 

Mass modern evil is very different; and anything-but spectacular: it is the grey evil of grey Men. 

Modern evil is detached, impersonal, cold, grey - bureaucratic. This is Ahrimanic evil. Instead of being short-termist and self-indulgent; Ahrimanic evil is characterized by pathological pseudo-altruism, self-hatred, and a suicidal despair.  

Ahrimanic possession is driven by a self that refuses to be a self; an 'ego' that refuses to take responsibility for its own freedom; and instead hands-over ultimate authority to 'the system' - that is to an abstract 'group mind' which functions by impersonal procedures and processes (such as committees and votes). 

In different words; the individual-ego submits to a group-ego*; and the negated individual passively-absorbs values from the group-ego. 

Or; Ahrimanic possession is a consequence of deliberate surrender of Being, a result of regarding oneself as an acted-upon thing, rather than an intrinsically free Being. 

Mass modern Ahrimanic demonic possession (which is so common as to be statistically-normal in the West: it is indeed the New Normal) can therefore be conceptualized as a form of group-possession.

Ahrimanic possession is when the group-ego is colonized by demons - and the individual ego merely submits to that group ego. 

So, mass modern demonic influence is at one remove and indirect; its motives abstract and procedural; which is probably why the vast and pervasive extent of modern demonic possession is so seldom recognized, so easily denied.

* For more on the group ego, see this post.

What do I look like?

William Wildblood has updated his blog photo, which previously showed a decade-younger self; but added this provocative challenge - squarely directed at people like me:

You might ask why I include a photograph of myself at all. The reason is similar to why I use my real name online. I think people reading the blog should know who they are dealing with, and a person's face does say something about that person. This seems particularly appropriate at the present time when faces and the vital human element they represent are being increasingly banned from public view.

I did not previously post a photo of myself partly because many of the best authors didn't include picture of themselves on their books, so I saw no compelling reason. Also, anyone who wanted to see what I looked like could just go to the Images section of a search engine. 

But suppose that the reader did not already know what I looked like, and just had to guess from the images? What would they discover? What might they infer?

DuckDuckGo Images seems like a reasonable place to start. Leaving out duplicates - which looks most like it would be me?

Well the first chap is too young (it actually is me, but about 13 years ago); the second is too cheerful and fit looking (it is the 'other' Bruce Charlton - a premier US golf course architect); the third is suitably smug and self satisfied, but too 'foreign' looking (it is NN Taleb); the fourth too genuinely 'spiritual' (William Arkle); the fifth is a possibility (but is actually the vlogger Keri Ford); the sixth is too young, handsome and suave (?); and the sixth is too young and red (Ben Stokes, England cricketer). 

So - none of these pictures are suitable. 

If I was forced to choose one of the Images, it would be the following; but - really - I Am Not Worthy to be mistaken for Everard Proudfoot, the archetypal grumpy hobbit...

So, at present, I will leave the picture section a blank...

The press gangs - (sad) Steeleye Saturday

Two sublimely beautiful songs from Steeleye Span about the horrible practice of coercively 'pressing' men into the Royal Navy; both told from the perspective of the woman left-behind. The first song has an implied happy ending, the second is characterized by tragic resignation. 

Both exhibit the special power I find in my native folk music - melodies as poignant as anything by the great composers; lyrics with that distinctive, ambiguous, nuggety, fascinating quality that comes from oral transmission - resulting in something beyond the powers of even poets of genius 

First, Maddy Prior does an unaccompanied, multi-tracked version of Weary Cutters - a song from my part of England (Tyneside) which suffered the Press Gangs more than most, because of the seafaring and fishing traditions. 

This astonishing arrangement is literally hair-raising; I cannot listen to it without tearing-up. 

(Note, the very last chord is slightly spoiled by a too-rapid segue into the next track.)

 

And now, from Steeleye's first album, All things are quite silent, where Maddy Prior's lead is supplemented by alto harmonies from Gay Woods. This magnificent song was, fortunately for us, collected in Sussex by Ralph Vaughan Williams (in 1904). And I cannot imagine anything better than Steeleye's delicate and strong arrangement.  

"Yes, the world is going to Hell - but what can I Do about it?"

"What can I do about X?"

This kind of question is much asked - with much affectation of hand-wringing concern; but without honesty or intent. Because behind such a question lies a framework of assumptions that excuse the asker from doing anything At All. 

One assumption is that there is an It which - if done - would set everything right (or, at least, rolling the the right direction); secondly the assumption that this It could be done by Me. 

So the asker is asking something like: "What single thing ought I to do, that I really could do, that would decisively fix the problems of the world?"

And when they do not receive such an answer - then this is taken to mean that they need do... Nothing. At. All.

(Which means, in practice, never saying or acting in any way that is inexpedient to them over the short term, or might upset anyone who has power to hurt them - or indeed anything that might offend or annoy anyone in their social circle.) 

And here we have the basis of a helpful answer. Because the answer to "What can I do about it?" is that there are innumerable small things that can be done on the side of Good which resist and push-against evil. 

So many things as to be uncountable. And operating at many levels. With many possible good outcomes (but none of them 'guaranteed').  

In fact - the first thing that can be done is to cease actively-supporting the Hell Agenda by innumerable expressions, words and deeds; on a daily/ hourly/ minute-by-minute basis... 

Even though such expressions, words and deeds are socially sub-optimal. 

(That, in itself, is a great deal more than most people are doing.) 

More profoundly and spiritually; try to think with clarity and truth about things. This means noticing, challenging, and working to break your own bad habits of evil-aligned, Satan-supporting thinking.

(For example the practice of constructing excuses for evil; explaining it away, attributing non-evil motives. This behaviour is very, very common; almost automatic for some people - especially women.) 

And make your-self, thereby, a potential conduit for divine help; because God can do good in this world only when there are Men who are open to his guidance. 

Be one of those Men. 

And for modern adults; to seek and be open to God's guidance, with intent to follow such guidance; in those innumerable daily acts by which one aligns either with the divine side, or the demonic side, in the spiritual war of this world.

What can you do? What should you do? 

Make it possible for God to do good through you.

Leaving to God all strategic plans; including The Big Plan of coordinating all his dedicated helpers into an effective force for a good outcome.

You personally cannot fix the world; but you can (in ways that you cannot foreknow) become a vital part of the work by which the world starts getting fixed.  

Crossing the threshold, spiritually... Is it a helpful metaphor?

The idea of crossing the spiritual threshold seems to be associated with such ideas as initiation, enlightenment; and the attainment of higher levels of consciousness. 

Much spiritual teaching of recent generations has been about the satisfactoriness of  typical modern consciousness; and the need, therefore, for us to cross a threshold to a higher level. This need has often been regarded as urgent, and related to the millennium. Failure to attain such a transformation has been linked to many undesirable personal and societal outcomes. 

I broadly accept this analysis. However, while these concepts (threshold, initiation, enlightenment) have value; they can also be misleading: creating false expectations, disappointment and disillusionment. 

Such ideas seem to imply a once-for-all personal spiritual attainment - that by crossing a threshold/ being initiated and becoming enlightened - a person moves into a new way of being. Having attained these; a person is expected to be lastingly-transformed - he (presumably) 'will never be the same again'.  

And yet it is seldom (or never) the case - at least not nowadays, with modern-developed consciousness - that someone has an experience by which he is transformed - qualitatively and permanently - to a higher spiritual state. 

By contrast; in the past (at various times and places), it seems clear that permanently-transforming initiation was a Real Thing; and that a cadre of such persons could be prepared and assembled (i.e. a 'magical' priesthood). 

This was possible when Men's individuality was less and his capacity to immerse into the group was greater; when Men were already half-in (and therefore only half out-of) the spiritual world. 

Under such circumstances; it seems that a suitably sustained effort, prayer and meditation, rituals, learned-symbolism, and extreme physical experiences etc. - could indeed lead to a threshold-crossing that lasted the rest of that persons' life.  

But modern Man has developed such that (from adolescence) he is completely detached from the spiritual, and he experiences himself as an 'alienated' individual - cut-off from the group-mind. 

Such Men as us cannot attain lifelong 'enlightenment' from a single spiritual experience. 

 

Nonetheless; many modern people do have experiences during which (or after which) they believe themselves to have attained a higher state of spiritual being. Those who value such experiences, and are open to them; may have many such - perhaps daily. 

Yet typically, and often very quickly, such states wear-off, and the person reverts to something very similar to what they were before. 

The profound experience becomes just-a-memory (and that memory may be indistinct, and may fade). 

So, if permanent-lifelong higher spirituality/ initiation/ enlightenment is being sought - failure is apparently certain. 

If crossing the threshold is to be judged by remarkable spiritual consequences - then it begins to look as if the whole idea is bogus! 

Are such spiritual experiences - then - illusory, or even delusional? Are such claims mere wishful thinking, or an attempt to manipulate or exploit others? 

My understanding is that such spiritual experiences are potentially valid and indeed vital to modern Man: they ought to be a focus of our lifelong striving. Also that such experiences may be quite usual, even common, among those who value them, are open to them, and consciously seek to live in such a way that they happen. 

The problem lies with the expectation of 'permanent' spiritual transformation. 

This mortal life is characterized by change, and that change is often 'entropic' in nature: a matter of decay, degeneration, disease - and eventually there will be death. 

So it is a mistake to expect the consequences of spiritual experiences to be 'permanent' within mortal life. 

When someone crosses a threshold and attains a higher level of consciousness, the expectation should be that this will not last, and - since human memory is biologically-based - we should not be surprised if memories of such events are insecure. 

I find it valuable to recall that our actual, lived mortal lives are set-up by God for our personal benefit. From which I infer that - overall - we our-selves and this earthly world are such that higher levels of consciousness are not, and should not be, a constant and life-long way of living. 

The inevitable times in-between spiritual experiences (which is most of life) are necessary and of equivalent (albeit different) eternal value... If, that is, we do indeed learn from them those lessons what God intends us to learn.

In sum - we should learn one kind of thing from spiritual experiences; and other kinds of things from our (long!) periods in-between living at a higher level of consciousness. 

This puts the discussion into another framework. We may acknowledge the truth and validity of spiritual experiences - but we should not look for their significance within this mortal life. We should instead look for their significance in the life-to-come: specifically in resurrected, eternal, Heavenly life. 

(This carries the implication that if one has Not chosen to accept Jesus's offer of resurrected, eternal life - if one rejects Christianity; then spiritual experiences are Not of lasting significance: they are merely more or less pleasant, but transient, psychological events.)

To me this is an altogether healthier and more optimistic way of regarding qualitatively-enhanced spiritual experience. 

We need not worry about remembering them, need not worry about communicating them to others (which usually proves impossible anyway) - the thing is to have such experiences: to live in such a way that we value higher spiritual states, and know when we have had such an experience...

And then leave it at that. 

Because: the value is the experience, the value is located beyond death.

Therefore we have done our work by living such as to have a spiritual experiences; after noting which, we move on to living well henceforth in hopes of more of the same. 

What is intuition? Wildblood explicates...

I have tried to explain intuition myself, many times, over the years; but William Wildblood's analysis may make matters clearer than I could. 

Here are some edited excerpts, but: Read the whole thing: 

Spiritual knowledge comes from spiritual perception. It is not acquired through reason or deduction or calculation or even thought as ordinarily understood. It is intuitive. 

It is knowing by seeing. Seeing with the mind but from the heart. 

It is the very opposite to what drives much thinking in the world today which is ideological, meaning the mind attaches itself to an idea and frames its thought around that. Ideology is a kind of dark distortion or inversion of intuition, a false perception heavily contaminated by opinion, desire, resentment, envy and a host of other fixations and disturbances of the lower mind, the lower mind being the mind that can only operate in the material world because it is closed to the transcendent. 

Intuition is not a quality only accessible to a privileged few. It is open to all but it must be developed. It starts off in a small way but eventually becomes the dominant mode of cognition as one opens oneself up to the reality it reveals. 

The development of intuition is the most important task for any spiritual aspirant. However religious you are in terms of faith, however many good works you do, however much you may pray or meditate or whatever practise you engage in to become more aware of higher reality, whatever metaphysical knowledge you may possess, if you have not properly developed intuition you are on the outside looking in and therefore cannot truly be called a person of spiritual understanding. 

Of course, none of us can be called that really but there are degrees of understanding in the context of this world and so, within that context, this proviso can apply. 

Every state of being can be described in terms of its means of apprehension of reality. The animal state is instinctive, the human state is mental (intellectual/rational). The spiritual state is intuitive. 

Develop intuition and you see the world for what it is. Fail to do so and you remain in ignorance, however clever you might be.

 

Will King Arthur save us?

Sewingshields 'castle' beside Hadrian's Wall, Northumberland - our local site for Arthur's sleeping army

I have been reading and thinking about Arthur, as I often do! And it led me to wonder about the old prophecies that he and some knights are magically asleep under some hill (such as South Cadbury in Somerset), or in a cave' (such as Alderley Edge in Cheshire) and waiting the call to arise and save England.

To my mind, England is now in greater danger than since the Norman conquest, because in 2020 we have already experienced a near-total destruction of our culture. It has Already Happened... The only open question is whether this is permanent. 

But almost immediately I realised that the measure of England's plight is that - even if we assume that Arthur is ready and waiting the call - the call will not come, because the people have consented (often embraced) their own annihilation. 

This situation has, of course, been building for several generations. England created the industrial revolution, invented socialism, and for more than a century has been abandoning Christianity. 

The net result has been a pervasive nihilism, self-hatred, adoption of a system of inverted-Christian values, the embrace of ethnic replacement - and now 'finally' (perhaps) a clamouring zeal for the Global Establishment program of generalised social-economic destruction and psychological crushing. 

The signs are that They will not be content until most people are reduced to an extreme state of groveling terror and despair. 

The mass of the English  - and in particular the ruling and professional classes - have given-up, and now seem unconsciously to seek their own deaths - and will defend this death-seeking stance with extreme, angry, hysterical and almost frenzied tenacity. 

The birdemic has enabled people dishonestly to disguise their pursuit of national and personal suicide as a concern for life and health - by the simple expedient of an insane (literally psychotic); monomania concerning the birdemic, combined with a reckless (and lying) indifference to the major (and increasing) causes of suffering, sickness and death. 

So, if Arthur and his knights were to awaken and try to save us from incipient destruction and death; they would be met by the united defiance of the entire Establishment, backed a large swathe of the masses, who would certainly regard liberation as an attack.  

Arthur was, after all, a divinely-anointed King, and vicegerent of God on earth. Naturally those who serve the powers of darkness would oppose him!

So, fantasies of National rescue - even of divine rescue - are false; so long as the people do not want to be rescued; and have, indeed, chosen to be damned. 

What is my attitude to the idea of alternative mass media platforms?

What is my attitude to the idea of alternative Good/ Christian mass media platforms? My attitude is that there can be no such thing, at least not in the medium term. 

In a world (i.e. this world) where mainstream mass media platforms will exclude and suppress the truth (I mean, the Christian truth), then there can be no alternative mass media platforms - over the medium term. 

Of course the main mainstream will be the first to exclude and suppress; but in the kind of world that can and does convert the main-mainstream to the mouthpiece of Satan, there cannot be any alternative platforms at the mass level. Alternatives are trivially easy to find and destroy - and there are a million mechanisms by which they can be destroyed.

In the short term, They cannot do everything at once - and some Christian-compatible platforms will survive for longer than the main-mainstream - but we are talking in terms of a few weeks or months lag, being optimistic. 

My belief is that overall all mass media are intrinsically net-evil. Good can never be more than a counter-current; and the media are getting overall more evil, more rapidly.  

The lesson Christians ought to draw from their exclusion by the mass media, is that they ought not be getting their information from the mass media - because they imbibe such information only via mass media's conceptual interpretation which is (now and increasingly) an inversion of Christian values. 

This has, of course, been the situation for a long time - but people are slow and reluctant to acknowledge the fact. 

There do remain a few, a very few, Christian counter-currents still in the mass media (I hope this is one of them); but - if present trends continue - this cannot long remain the case. 

And - if present trends continue - there will be nothing that can be done about it, because mass media are a core part of The System; and The System is Satanic in its methods and goals - that is anti-Christian.    

If the short-term makes a decisive difference, then perhaps alternative platforms may make a decisive, overall positive difference. Maybe that is why They are engaged in a frenzy of exclusion, just now?

But at some point soon, there will be no possibility of making a decisive positive difference to The System. 

The System will soon have become too thoroughly evil for any 'reform' and Good can only be found on the far side of that destruction. 

Myself, I think we passed that point many years ago; but even if that point still lies ahead - surely that point is coming soon? 

Even if the tide is turned against Satan, and I believe that is still possible (that is indeed the big news of this day) - the turn of the tide will start small, and become evident from the wholesale transformation of that vast mechanism of damnation that we call The System... Including The System being massively downgraded in its power and significance (which would, of course, have many devastating material effects - including Satanic sabotage - en route to a better world).  

But if not, then what? 

If not the mass media, then what should we do instead? 

For example: Look out of the window, go from personal experience and common sense; rely on guidance from the Holy Ghost, our inner divine self (our conscience) and intuitive direct knowing. 

Make knowledge personal and inter-personal; trusting only those who are known to be honest and competent - no matter how few these may be.

What we thus learn will be simple and few compared with the deluge of media; but that is the nature of true knowledge. 

In sum - we should regard the exclusion of Christianity from the mass media as a wake-up call, belatedly to wean ourselves from its spiritual domination; so we should not try to replace it with alternatives - which endeavor is, anyway, futile... 

A world that needs alternative mass media is a world that will not tolerate alternative media.

Magic and will-power across the ages (or, How to do White Magic - as of 2021)

I feel it is necessary to clarify the status of magic from a Christian perspective; and specifically from a Romantic Christian perspective that sees human consciousness as having developed (evolved) through human history. 

Necessary, because if we regard magic as (something like) the attainment of human will by supernatural (non-material) means; then magic is real, important; and may be white or black. 

I define white magic as in accordance with God's will; that is, in harmony with ongoing divine creation. 

White magic is done by loving alignment of an individual's will with Good...

Whereas black magic is the attempt to impose one's detached and personal will upon other persons, other beings, or the world generally. 

Black magic can only be done with demonic assistance, and therefore (overall, eventually, inevitably) actually is done in pursuit of evil.

Black magic has not changed very much through history - it has always been possible, and apparently always follows the same 'Faustian' trajectory. Some person or group wants to impose their personal, selfish will upon the world; seeks to do so by supernatural means; and actually does so by means of employing demonic power. 

The black magician believes he can control the demons (despite that they are supernaturally magical, and he is not); by means of some technology or bargain. But the whole thing is actually a demonic snare by which the demon comes to control the black magician - who is therefore either a dupe, servant or slave to the Satanic agenda. 

And the end result is the same - the unrepentant black magician is damned; and apparently suffers more than the usual torments of the damned, for his presumption.

A somewhat conjectural history of white magic (which, nonetheless, I believe is broadly correct) has it that in our pre-historical hunter-gatherer past, God-aligned white magic was simply part of life.  

The individual human's will was neither detached from the human group-will and the group-destiny; and was immersed-in the divine will and having a mostly un-conscious direct knowledge of divine destiny.

Apparently, some individuals had a greater aptitude (what we no term the 'shamans') but the essential activity was universal: everybody did their bit, and contributed magically in some way - spontaneously and mostly unconsciously. 

As human consciousness developed, and humans became more free-agents, as in the Ancient Egyptian empire; this spontaneous knowledge and alignment with the divine was also lost. 

For the Pharaoh and priest-magicians of Egypt, magic required elaborately-selected and -initiated priests; who employed complex systems of ritual, symbol and many other 'technologies' (such as divination) to align their wills with the divine. 

These were overwhelmingly white magicians, who used the supernatural to benefit the society rather than themselves; and who (under the semi-divine Pharaohs) guided the society in harmony with God's destiny - and were able to accomplish (by magic instead of technology) advanced material achievements that still astonish the world. 

The development of consciousness continued, and as well as becoming more free, more of an agent; the individual Man's will became more separate from the divine will and the community will alike. 

As a result, white magic became more difficult, less powerful - and Men (detached from the divine) became more prone to black magic. 

The (all-but) end of the era of strong white magic was at the start of the modern era (Renaissance - 15th and 16th centuries in Europe); with the last of the white magicians (e.g. Paracelsus, John Dee and the Alchemists most of whom had ambivalent reputations or kept their activities secret (like Newton, Hooke and Ashmole). 

This darkening of magic was probably due to contamination of motive by the magician's more-detached personal will. This was the era when the Faust legend of black magic became archetypal; and the negative views of witches (motivated by spite, desiring to harm individuals and society) also became more dominant. 

In the fully modern era, white magic became almost impossible. 

Attempts to revive it in the 19th century, and increasingly through the twentieth century, were only partially successful (skeptical outsiders saw nothing). 

The practitioners found that the power and scope of magic was dwindling almost to nothing; and eventually was almost wholly limited to the psychological realm of the practitioners themselves. 

For example; in the last 19th and early 20th century magical rituals could change the consciousness of participants and sometimes produce quasi-objective 'manifestations'  - but by the late twentieth century this power was greatly reduced, and ritual magic work was all-but merged with imagination (art, narrative, music and drama) as technologies of consciousness. 

So, where from here? The way ahead to a resurgence of white magic was explained (albeit not implemented) by Rudolf Steiner and his 'disciple' Owen Barfield. 

Group magical work is rare, weak - and at present illegal (because groups are illegal for the masses --- although not among the Establishment, who continue to perform their black magic in groups); so nearly all modern white magic must be individual. 

Now that human consciousness is spontaneously and naturally detached from the divine; white magic requires conscious choice. 

White magic now does not attempt to influence by will the appearances of the world, or the behaviours of persons. Furthermore, it happens in thinking rather than (as in the past) by perception. 

This, because the white magician is no longer immersed in the divine - he must meet the divine halfway. 

Indeed, white magic needs to become detached from the individual's will; instead the individual's will needs to be aligned to God by conscious, chosen effort. 

In sum: White magic now should not try to operate at the level of changing God's primary creation - we should not be looking to change our sensorial-perceptions of reality. 

We should not be motivated by a desire to impose our will; nor to attain any particular end-result in this world (such as a change in human behaviour, or society, or weather). 

Instead, white magicians need to attain (and this will, of course, be temporary and usually very partial) alignment of their own conscious thinking with God's ongoing creation.

And if this is attained then white magic will 'Just Happen'.

What we will then be doing is contributing to God's creation; and contributing from our own unique divine Real Self. 

We will therefore be contributing some-thing (some Good) that nobody else could have contributed. 

We will be adding to the total sum of eternal actuality; adding some-little-thing from our own small corner of that actuality. 

Is this worth the effort? It may be. Because sometimes even the littlest contributions turn-out to be vital to the Big Picture.