Christmas - the season for murdering traditional songs

In my family we have often used the term murdering to describe what most singers do to a well known classic song - and Christmas is the season when such musical homicide becomes wholesale. 

There are various ways of committing this crime - one is to slow the tempo and draw-out the 'deep meanings' in a lyric such as... Jingle Bells. 

Another is when the singer pulls the tempo all over the place - dragging-out some of the phrases and falling behind the beat, then catching-up with the band by gabbling a few words. 

The tune itself is, of course, ripe for killing - by adding decorations to the basic tune that have nothing to do with its meaning, but are supposed to show-off the singer's technique. Howling the highest note is a further mutilation, or adding extra-high notes ("just because I can!"). 

The there is the orchestra - and there are innumerable ways this can destroy a song. The Americans used to be keen on interjections from syrupy, mixed-voice choirs. Jokey little phrases on novelty instruments such as xylophones or sleigh bells. Or just sheer over-production - layering on more and more instruments until the texture turns to mud. 

When it comes to Christmas songs (or carols) - less is more. The plainest arrangements of the most straightforwardly performed songs are the best; and these are often the earliest, or the one's that made a song popular in the first place... 

(And what a superb song! As well as its haunting tune, which subtly builds, mainly by the rhythm enhancements - the arc of the lyrics is absolute perfection.)

But then again, so many of the songs are themselves dire! Including many of the most famous; such as the glutinous White Christmas, or the inept and creepy Happy Holiday - or... well, there are too many to mention...

Except for the one I hate most of all: "I wish it could be Christmas Every Day" by Wizzard - which has it all... an idiotically wrong sentiment and lyrics, a swampy arrangement, a nasty tune that sticks in the mind like a burr - and something that gets repeated ad nauseam every year without fail, on every supermarket PA system. 

Space 1999: most exciting opening theme and titles - ever?

 

Space 1999 was a live action show by the puppetmeisters Gerry and Sylvia Anderson with music by the great Barry Gray 

The theme alternates grandiose-epic orchestral chords with a guitar-driven rock tune. The arrangement is typically Gray-esque: no-holds-barred and completely over-the-top!

But it is the way that the music is rapidly cut in time with snippets of action and reaction from the show which makes it classic.

Can you imagine the excitement generated in the mind of a kid of the right age, confronted by this? Sadly, my recollection is that the show itself was rather turgid. 

The basic idea of this music and fast, rhythmic cutting is so good that it has since been applied to the early Star Wars movies, with equal success:

One-off 'enlightenment' does Not happen (for Christians) - because of the pluralist nature of reality; and because mortal life is for learning

Anyone who has been a Christian for more than a few months will realize that our state does not bear much resemblance to the idea of 'enlightenment' which has floated vaguely into Western Culture from the East. 

By enlightenment I mean, the idea that someone attains a permanent insight, realizes the one fundamental truth about reality; and thenceforth is transformed positively and for the better ...

Or else, if there is backsliding, the path back to enlightenment consists in remembering and repeating that same original enlightenment. 

Such ideas are a part of oneness spirituality; for which there is indeed (at least potentially) a single insight of enlightenment:

Which is (approximately) that 'everything' is one - and all appearances to the contrary are maya (illusion). 

That (or, what the words point-at) is regarded as the single truth; and all possible enlightenments are of this same insight; and if one loses grasp of it, then any true future enlightenment must be a repetition of that single reality. 

But for Christians, in this mortal life, it is not like that - not even in theory. Because this life is Not one thing but many; and life is Not an illusion, but a reality from-which it is intended that we will learn. And any such learning during our mortal lives will be eternal - for all those who accept Christ's offer of resurrected and everlasting life. 

For Christians, this mortal reality is plural - not one. For Christians there ought to be many specific enlightenments. 

After all - why else would God sustain us alive unless there was more for us to learn from this life? 

When God decides that we have learned enough, or learned what we most need, then he will allow us to die; but (surely?) not until then - and of course, many leave this finite mortal life without having learned what they most need.

Therefore, in total contrast to oneness spirituality: Christian 'enlightenment' (or its equivalent) consists in many and different insights, each related to a specific need and learned from a specific context; after which we are confronted by different specific contexts from which you are intended to learn different specific lessons. 

This can lead to the dispiriting feeling of 'one step forward, one step back' - as if we are learning nothing, and there is no kind of genuine spiritual progress. 

But this is a consequence of false expectations. It is not true, or not necessarily true. A Christian who is making spiritual progress in one thing will still be confronted by the need to learn many other things.  

And any genuine spiritual 'progress' that we do make is - obviously - not primarily in terms of this mortal life; since earthly mortality is dominated by entropy (that is by decay, degeneration and death) - therefore any such progress would inevitably be temporary... 

The only durable spiritual progress is that which is 'stored' in our potentially-immortal soul and can be carried-through from this realm of inevitable loss into a realm of pure creation; where all that is Good will last forever. 

Experience versus theories - sometimes theories win...

I was thinking about how having theories about The World can be confused with actually experiencing the world in line with the theories. 

This can happen in deep theology - for example discussing the nature of God; we may have an inspiring theory, but our experience may be very different - or non-existent. 

Or ghosts - there is the matter of whether we 'believe-in' ghosts - but another matter of whether we have had personal experience of ghosts - e.g. if we have 'seen a ghost'. 

It is natural, and probably right, to regard experience as higher than theory - because that is what we want from life. 

Yet in fact the two are not separable. For instance, 'seeing a ghost' entails seeing some-thing and concluding it was a ghost - and this means that in order to se a ghost (and not just some pattern of light) we must already believe a theory that ghosts exist and can be seen. 

So, although what we want most is some types of experience; in fact we will not have the experiences unless and until we have the theory. 

Because if we do not believe in the reality of ghosts - we will not perceive a ghosts but instead... something else, or nothing at all. 

And if we happen to experience the kind-of-thing that is traditionally considered to be a ghost - we will explain it away as an illusion, maybe the result of sleepiness or just wishful thinking ('fooling ourselves')... but we will Not experience a ghost. 

And we would anyway soon forget such an experience; or regard it as trivial, or pathological (a momentary hallucination, maybe). 

Conversely, if we believe-in ghosts and believe that ghosts are important; then we will almost certainly experience ghosts (later, if not sooner). And if we do not personally perceive ghosts, then we will experience ghosts in fiction, movies, 'news' stories... 

Such 'media experiences' may take a role in memory and conviction; indeed, in the modern world it seems that media-experiences are primary (that is; we live mainly in virtual reality) - and media-experiences lead to more powerful memories and deeper convictions than one's own personal experiences. 

A pertinent example is related to the trans agenda. Because people believe the theory that sex can be changed (man to woman, woman to man); they experience multiple confirmations of the reality of their theory - experience it via TV and newspapers, confirmed by official assertions and the structure of law. 

If a person considers undergoing trans changes, he will be 'counseled' by 'experts' all of whom assume the reality of changing sex by personal choice; and the moral imperative to support such change in every way. 

And if such a change happens to someone (drugs, surgery etc); any inconsistencies of their expectations with reality will be attributed to the ignorance and malice of hostile persons - not to falseness of the theory that sex can be changed.

So, the falseness of such a theory is not discoverable through personal experience; because what counts as relevant experience, and what counts as falsifiable, are both controlled by the theory itself - and this theory is endorsed by the Global Establishment and all it controls.  

And what of this created world, God, Jesus, the soul, divine providence, Heaven? Theories are necessary to experiencing them. Conversely, if the theories of creation/ God/ Jesus etc are believed to impossible, nonsense, delusion - none will be experienced. 

Therefore our basic theories about Life (i.e. metaphysics) are what determine our experiences of Life; and experience cannot overturn our deepest convictions. 

Therefore... we - each and all - need first to recognize and then to evaluate the truth (and virtue, and beauty) of our most basic theories-about reality. 

Such an evaluation can only be intuitive (heart-thinking, direct-knowing) - since no possible 'evidence' counts either for, or against, a basic and fundamental theory (because, as illustrated above, the theory-believed dictates what counts as evidence). We need to determine whether or not - once we have identified them - we really do believe the theories that we have come to regard as basic. 

This is absolutely vital; because so many people do not know what they have (unconsciously and habitually) come-to believe. Others discover that they do Not really believe the assumptions that actually govern their lives - assumptions that govern their very experiences.

Some will discover that their deepest, structuring and governing, theories have been implanted into them by covert propaganda and aggressive socialization. Once isolated and examined, these theories are immediately seen as false to intuition, and evil by motivation.

But the first step must be to discover them.   

The moon in daylight

Click on photo for larger, crisper image...

A rather shocking number of people (including authors) seem to believe that the moon comes-up and is seen at night; whereas it can rise at any time and (given the right conditions) be seen during the day in all its phases - as shown above in a sequence from Taiwan which was collected over a period of five years by Meiyng Lee. 

The crescent moons (old and new) are at a small angle to the sun, and can only be seen at dawn or dusk - which is why the pictures have a brighter background; and the full moon can only be seen in daylight during afternoon of the summer months (and apparently these are usually misty in Taiwan). Easiest daytime viewing of the moon is when it is about half - afternoons for the waxing-, and mornings for the waning-moon. 

England commences its next wave of (fake) birdemic-excused totalitarian coercion: What will happen next?

What will happen next? Who knows - but history does Not repeat itself! 

One thing we can be sure of is that this time around, it will be different. 

In England (but not the other - more leftist hence compliant - parts of the UK) there has been a very substantial easing of life-restrictions over the past four months; and a substantial proportion of the population especially among the young adults) have liked it. And don't want to go back to 2020-1.  

At a deep level - and at last - many people no longer believe the official birdemic narrative about the level of dangers and the nature of the 'solutions'. 

Of course there are plenty of people - especially the older middle aged, those who work in the public sector and leftist/ atheists in general - who are now permanently phobic. They have (willingly) developed a literal phobia, with obsessional rituals (especially around masking and social distancing) being used to manage their acute anxiety symptoms, and stave-off always incipient panic attacks. 

(These disorders are likely to be permanent, due to them being delusionally-supported and subjected to mainstream inverted moralization. Although phobias are nearly-always curable by behavioural therapy; these will not get-better because they do not want to get-better. To all appearances, these are Lost Souls.) 

But there are plenty of the English population who will not be so compliant this time around - including in the privacy of their minds. Anyone with commonsense (not all that many, admittedly) has come to regard the birdemic rigmarole as increasingly absurd - even though few recognize it for the deep evil that it truly is. 

In other words, the 'polarization' of the population will continue to become more extreme, and the two sides move further apart - which is A Good Thing; because the alternative to polarization is convergence; and when the Establishment are ever-more-deeply rooted in their service to evil, 'unity' means a unity-of-corruption.

My tentative prediction is that yet more people in England will continue to awaken (or begin to awaken...) to the nature of these times and especially the reality of the 2020 global totalitarian coup. 

The big question relates to how many such people will be able to work their own way towards a genuine spiritual awakening to the reality of God and creation, the possibility of salvation, and the transformed perspective which comes from faith in eternal resurrected life. 

I really don't know, because such a thing has never happened before - and probably was never possible or necessary before. But the abdication and treachery of the once-Christian churches has perhaps clarified the picture for some people. 

Each currently awakening individual who might be tempted to seek external guidance; finds himself surrounded by a majority of (obvious!) liars, slave masters, prison guards and would-be exploiters. If he can find among his circle of acquaintance even one person of wisdom who deserves to be trusted in relation to ultimate spiritual matters - he is probably unusual and fortunate. 

The self-styled churches are so obviously worse-than-useless that maybe people will eventually take responsibility for their own ultimate beliefs and assumptions; and realize that they themselves must do the necessary spiritual work - because there is essentially nobody who can or would help them.    

And that just happens to be exactly what they ought to be doing, anyway. 

So, overall - from a long-term and ultimate perspective - the new wave of oppression is to be welcomed as another chance for more people to begin to understand. 

It is perhaps an example of tough love from divine providence; but, after all, several decades of mass comfort, convenience, and pleasurable distraction have been a spiritual disaster of unprecedented depth and severity - and led us to... well, exactly where we now are. 

Nobody knows what will happen next; but the situation represents another chance to choose the side of Good, God and creation; and to look beyond this temporal life and to take a cosmic perspective.

Note: On the physical plane of socio-politics; I cannot see any way out from where we, in The Developed World, have placed ourselves (and therefore Mankind). Huge numbers of people over many generations have made evil (as well as stupid) choices; and our civilization is now painted into a corner with all exits blocked by multiple bad habits of expectations, motivations, thinking and behaving. In terms of material factors and at the mass level, we have asked for it; and will presumably get-it sooner or later. Some kind of mega-disastrous collapse seems unavoidable. But spiritually and for individuals, it is a different matter. Any person can be saved at any moment - if they so choose; and it is at these individuals where my hope is directed. Thus; if disaster in this mortal life and on this temporal planet is indeed inevitable regardless of politics and lifestyle; it makes an eternal difference whether this or that individual chooses eternal life. It is what matters most.  

Modern converged totalitarianism: creating chaos leading to demands for order; crushing with order to foment chaos

I have often discussed the evil dichotomy of Order versus Chaos (or Ahrimanic versus Sorathic). 

This derives from a false but popular and influential analysis that regards order and chaos as extremes, and goodness as a middle way in between them; so that the cure for too much order is a bit of chaos, and excessive chaos needs to be tempered by a moderate degree of order. 

There is a prevalent notion that 'the good' lies between these extreme; and another that creativity is a middle path - ordered-chaos, or chaotic-order (the edge of chaos...).

 

Such is the basis on which the current global totalitarians are running things: they impose crushing levels of coercive control that lead to chaotic resistance; they encourage (i.e. fund, organize, facilitate) chaotic outbursts which lead to demands for the authorities to re-impose order; and these two false options of order and chaos oscillate back and forth.

Such cycles of 'oppression' and 'liberation' amount to a vortex of evermore destructive evil. 

In truth both order and chaos are evil, neither is good; and neither mixture nor average of the two is good. 

Therefore sequential oscillations, or dynamic compromises between order and chaos are destructive of good: which is also destructive of creation. 

(...Which is to take work on the side directed against God.) 

I feel that more people need to notice this; and to attain the insight that the good (truth, beauty and virtue) come only from those who are motivated towards good. 

In other words: good cannot (therefore will not) come from any possible alternation or combination of evils; but only grow from actual good.

Tearing-down or blowing-up an evil system in order to produce more chaos (aka 'freedom) does not lead to good; any more than does 'clamping down' on chaotic violence and short-termist and selfish dysfunctionality by imposing a New (World) Order. 

And God works-with any and all good motivations; amplifies and weaves them into sequences (behind the scenes, as 'providence') that advance the divine agenda.  

All that is good, all that is creative, has its roots in the divine: in God's primary creation and love for Men; and in Man's innate divine nature including the choice to be a son or daughter of God. 

We need to be aware that merely negative resistance to specific evils fuels the enemy's strategy by powering the vortex of order and chaos. 

Yet when resistance is positively-motivated and on the side of God, the Good, and Divine Creation; every thought and act (no matter how small) will become of eternal value.  

To get rid of ghosts, you may need to 'kill' the house...

There is a fascinating discussion of ghosts in JRR Tolkien's The Notion Club Papers; which may have been based on similar real life discussions in The Inklings.

It emerged that the club seems to acknowledge that 'all houses' are haunted in the sense that 'haunting and atmosphere... are something added by accident of history... not part of the house itself, qua house.' 

How to get rid of ghosts? This is regarded as possible, but not easy. One member says: 'if you destroy an actual house, qua house, you also destroy, or dissipate, the special haunting. If a haunted house were pulled to pieces, it would stop being haunted, even if it were built up as accurately as possible again.' 

But another member points out that 'you can go a long way, short of destruction, without wholly banishing atmosphere or laying ghosts (...). Bricking up windows, changing staircases, and things like that.' 

This distinction concerning what stops a haunting and what does not, can be summarized by saying that  - according to the Notion Club - a house is a living and conscious Being; and 'haunting' is a part of that house's acquired character. 

Thus, a particular ghost may be got rid of only by (in effect) killing the house; by destroying its character and starting again with a 'newborn' house. 

At the very least, to dissipate a haunting is an act of 'wiping the memory' of a house; and (as we know from humans) it is not really possible to wipe one specific memory (which is analogous to a particular ghost) - and to remove a specific memory entails a much more general act of destruction.

In other words, the idea of haunting and ghosts, insofar as it is real and not merely fakery or error, is a part of an 'animistic' cosmic view that regards created-reality as consisting of Beings. 

And those who believe in some kind of animistic philosophy will - presumably - regard at least some houses as alive and conscious; and will regard atmosphere, haunting and ghosts as genuine possibilities. 

  

Owen Barfield's epistemological terminology of 'consciousness', contrasted with Rudolf Steiner's epistemology of 'thinking'

Owen Barfield regarded himself as a disciple of Rudolf Steiner - in a not-altogether healthy way; because it exerted a constraining effect on his potential and caused Barfield to leave out - unexplained - considerable aspects of his world view. 

Instead Barfield, at a certain point, would merely recommend his audience to 'read Steiner'; which is, for most people, way too much to ask; since locating and extracting the undoubtedly gold insights from Steiner's voluminous dross of error and nonsense is the work of several years hard labour...

I speak as one of not-many of Barfield's great admirers who actually have put-in these years of work. Having done so; I was rather surprised to find that Barfield makes a very noticeable change to Steiner's terminology from The Philosophy of Freedom (insights from-which form an essential basis to Barfield's schema as expressed in (for example) Saving the Appearances, Unancestral Voice, Speaker's Meaning and History, Guilt and Habit.

How do we attain knowledge of reality, and is such knowledge indeed possible? This question forms the basis of that branch of 'modern' (post-medieval) philosophy called epistemology. 

However, the modern attempt to make epistemology fundamental (as does so much 19th and 20th century philosophy) is actually an error, and has gone nowhere. 

Nowhere; because epistemology takes-for-granted the primary level of philosophy, which is metaphysics: that discourse which tries to describe our most fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality. 

Thus, both Steiner and Barfield fail to describe their primary assumptions about reality before they embark describing their model of knowledge - which has the effect of giving these models a rather arbitrary, take-it-or-leave it quality. 

(For instance, both Steiner and Barfield ought to describe what they assume about God before they describe what they believe about knowledge; since for them both the possibility of knowledge depends on a personal creator God who has certain attitudes towards Men.) 

Nonetheless, since I share broadly the same metaphysical assumptions as Steiner and Barfield, I regard their models of knowledge as very useful - which is all that can reasonably be asked of any simple model of reality; especially one that aims at a time-less hence 'static', cross-sectional description of reality. 

The following is a comparison of the terminological equivalents of the epistemological models of Steiner and Barfield: 

Rudolf Steiner

Percept + Concept = Thinking

Owen Barfield

Perception + Thinking = Consciousness

The potential confusion when reading these authors is that they use thinking to mean different things: Steiner's thinking is the end result of our perceptions of the world being understood and interpreted by concepts. 

But for Barfield, thinking is (more or less) what Steiner means by concepts': the processes by which we understand and interpret perceptions  - or 'images' in the case of ancient Man, whose perceptions came packaged with meanings. 

Steiner thus talks a lot about 'thinking' of a particular kind (e.g. 'pure' thinking, or 'heart-thinking') as being the main aim of modern Man; the destined path ahead. This thinking (says Steiner) can be cultivated by meditative exercises which are intended to (but actually do not!) promote the desired kind of thinking. The desired kind of thinking is itself True Knowledge - and this is therefore Steiner's epistemology.

By contrast; Barfield talks about the destined and desirable future state of Consciousness; which is self-aware, active and chosen (rather than unconscious, passive and automatic): he calls this Final Participation; and for Barfield this is True Knowledge - as well as the proper aim of created Man (because Final Participation is to join with God in the work of creation).

After struggling to 'get' this for a few years; I think the above equivalence is broadly correct; and might be helpful to those who wish to read both Steiner and Barfield.   

Confusing selection-replacement with transformative developmental-evolution... The covertly suicidal impulse in Artificial Intelligence, Transhumanism, and Oneness spiritualities

There is a very prevalent logical error that pervades our culture; so thoroughly pervades it that it is all-but invisible, and difficult to understand. 

The error is to confuse annihilation and replacement, with transformational development. 

This error was made clear to me only in recent years and through reading Owen Barfield; but until that point (around 2014) I too was in thrall to the mistake. 

We have a deep, ancient and primary understanding of 'evolution' as a process akin to the development of an acorn to an oak tree, and egg to a chicken, a newborn baby to an adult. 

That is, we understand evolution to be a transformation of the self - while retaining the identity of the self. 

This could be called developmental-transformative evolution. 

In this primary understanding of evolution; the Being remains itself - but changes form. 

Thus, if we (as Christians) imagine our future spiritual evolution from this mortal life to resurrected eternal life; this is a 'process' during which we remain our-self but undergo developmental or transformative changes in both body and mind. 

The result is that our resurrected eternal self is the same person as he was during mortal life. And in Heaven we can 'recognize' others whom we knew in mortal life: they are still themselves.

But from the time that evolution by natural selection became a dominant social paradigm (during the late 1900s) there has emerged a qualitatively different conception of 'evolution'. 

This could be called selection-reproductive evolution. 

The key to this concept is selection acting on reproduction. Evolution of this sort 'happens' after reproduction, and is defined in terms of changed offspring. Therefore it is Not about transformation of the same-self; but replacement of the original parent by following generations. 

With selection-reproductive evolution; a variety of different types - different selves - compete; some reproduce differentially more than others; and evolution has occurred when either one or just-some of the original selves continue to reproduce. 

Meanwhile the other selves have Not reproduced, and their continuity has been annihilated. 

So this concept is based on Darwinian ideas of natural selection; and entails not transformation but replacement. After such selectional evolution, what persists is Not the previous self - but a different self: a different Being; because offspring are different Beings than their parents.  

In a brief phrase: natural selection is reproductive replacement. It is all-about replacing one thing with some other thing. 

Some survive and others do not; and those which survive replace those which do not. 

Because if the identity of the organism is being defined in terms of its genetic composition; then any genetic change is itself a kind of replacement. 

Following Barfield; I believe that many people are often deeply confused between these two concepts of evolution. The seem to believe emotionally that they are proposing a developmental-transformative evolution; when in fact they are advocating replacement of one thing by another. 

For instance; when people are keen on a future based upon Artificial Intelligence, or the Transhumanist changing of Man (by means of drugs, genetic engineering, inorganic implants, links to computers or the internet etc); they seem to suppose that this is an transformational enhancement of Men. 

But in fact such aspirations are simply the annihilation of Men and their replacement. Replacement of Men with... something else. 

In spiritual terms; AI and Transhumanism are therefore advocating covert suicide: suicide, because they themselves (and all other Men) will cease to exist; covert, because this desire for self-destruction is hidden by an irrelevant focus on what might replace us. 

This is closely analogous to a plan to solve the problems of this Earth by exploding the planet - and then calling Mars 'the new and better Earth'. Maybe Mars is better (fewer problems), maybe not - but better or worse, Mars is Not an evolved Earth; it is some-thing different. 

So much is fairly obvious; but the 'afterlife' proposed and yearned-for by many people shares this fundamentally suicidal impulse; because it hopes for the total destruction of the body, the self, the ego and all that is individual - by its absorption into the impersonal and discarnate divine.  

I am talking about the Oneness spiritual movement - which is so much a feature of the New Age in The West. This talks constantly about how all things truly are one, and how separation into persons is an illusion (Maya), and a 'sin'; and separation of Man from God is an illusion and a sin. 

According to Oneness; in reality there are no persons, no Men - only one God; and that God is not a person - because the divine encompasses everything, so there can be no definition or description of God. 

Nothing specific can be said about the divine except for an infinite series of denials of all less-than-total claims of God's nature: i.e. a negative theology of what God is not.

To hope for the 'evolution' of my-self, and Mankind, into One; is therefore to hope-for one's own annihilation and replacement. 

There would be - could be -  no continuity between me-now, and now living Men - and the aimed for annihilation of separateness into divine unity.

Oneness spirituality is not to solve any of the problems of the world; but to destroy the world - to destroy every-thing... and replace it with something else. 

It is solving the problem of misery and suffering in life, by ending all life - by killing everything. 

In other words; Oneness offers exactly the same kind of 'solution' to the problem of Man's mortal life as does Artificial Intelligence and Transhumanism. 

Oneness is just as much a covert advocacy of suicide, as are the schemes of technological replacement of Man by... 'something better'. 

And the reason why this is not immediately obvious; is that our culture has become deeply confused by the two concepts of evolution.

And has erroneously carried-over the spiritual aspirations of evolution understood as transformative-development, into the annihilation-seeking mechanisms of transformative-replacement.

Resisting evil... Is double-negative morality a viable option?

The internet is full of schemes and plans by which specific evils (you know what I mean...) might more-or-less-easily be resisted - individually or en masse. 

Yet this very seldom actually happens - either individually or en masse. 

And if they do happen-to-happen, it is never sufficiently intense or sustained enough. 

Rather than continually coming-up with new tactics - we need to understand why checklists are irrelevant if nobody want to follow them. 

It is not a matter of people desperately wanting to resist evil, but not knowing where to start, and seeking guidance...

It seems as if the problem must lie deeper than merely 'not knowing how' to resist evil.

The main problems are related to motivation - to the reasons (or rather the lack of reasons) people have for resisting evil; and this indeed cuts very deep. 

(Or would if motivation were not a problem - it is the very lack of depth that is the root of it.) 

In order to address the widest possible audience; those who describe how to resist evil usually present the problem in that double-negative form: Resisting Evil. 

That is: Evil is a negative, so resisting evil makes it a double-negative. 

The planners and schemers who seek to make something happen are compelled to focus on evil because there is no general social consensus about what is Good. 

For instance; the most general dissenting 'affirmation' is usually to campaign for more Freedom - yet Freedom is actually itself a negative: Freedom-from... some bad restriction. 

The 'fighting evil' discourse assumes a lot. It first assumes that people can indeed recognize evil - at least, when it is helpfully pointed-out. 

But why didn't the people already notice the evil - why did that have to have it explained to them? That does not bode well... 

It seems, indeed, to be the case that even gross and in-your-face evils - like kidnapping, poisoning and mutilating innocent children, or sexually grooming and abusing them - cannot be recognized as such by the mass of people; not they are called something 'good' by officials and the mass media, or 'protected' by the inverted values of Leftism. 

Surely if people need such extreme evil to be pointed-out and explained; then there cannot be any consensus that objective evil exists at all? 

So why would people be motivated to resist evil? 

But even when evil is recognized; people lack courage to think, say or do anything to oppose it - because evils are nearly-always backed up by Power, Status and Money. 

People are (quite reasonably!) afraid of opposing power, status and money; therefore they need courage to fight evil. 

And courage is just what most modern people lack: producing a fatally inhibiting combination of moral blindness with will-sapping cowardice.

Before evil will (not 'can theoretically') be resisted; Men must know good - and trust in something beyond this world of Power, Status, Money and lies. 

When Men both know and want good: that will be the time for plans and schemes and tactics...

But if then; plans/ schemes/ tactics would not be needed. 

The Norman Conquest all over again (but this time Sorathic and global)

JRRT pondering what to do about the Normans...

Long term readers may know that - like JRR Tolkien - I have a pretty strong loathing of The Normans and their conquest of Anglo Saxon England (and, then Britain)!

The motivations of the Norman Conquest, and the new ruling class, were a very horrible mixture of sheer exploitation, vindictiveness and a pridefulness that went so deep as to regard their subject native Saxons as lower beings - of lower value than animals (especially horses!). 

Nearly all of the the monarchs for about three hundred years regarded England as just a playground for their obsession with hunting, and the people as a kind of vermin to be kept crushed (under "the yoke" - only partly necessary for growing a bit of food, and providing henchmen for their favourite sport of inter-Norman war. 

We didn't get a 'good King' - who exhibited a love of the well-being of his subjects, who saw himself as father of the nation - for many generations. Probably, we had to wait until Queen Elizabeth I, before we had such a monarch - one who embodied the national spirit; and 1558 was a looong time after 1066.  

Of course the Normans were very talented at fighting and building; and were more intelligent than the Saxon masses - especially after they had killed or exiled nearly-all the Saxon ruling class and priests. 

But they were so selfish and short-termist, and so lethally thieved and fought among themselves (on and on - the Game of Thrones was 'everyday life in Norman times'); that the once prosperous and delightful Island of Britain was kept-down and held-back for many centuries - at least until Henry VII (1457).

And even then was soon diverted into the typically Norman chaos (Henry VIII etc) and aggressive ventures of Empire (especially from Queen Anne 1665, although she counts as a 'good' queen). The (Norman) British Empire has, since 2020, been transformed into the current global totalitarian System.

Now; everybody is under The Norman Yoke+...   

So, the Normans are still with us and still the same as ever (i.e. servants of evil) - still lineally (genetically) present at high levels among the ruling class; still behaving like the snake-eyed, soulless, demon-loving psychopaths They are; and still crushing the majority whom They loathe. 

But this time the Normans are even worse; because They have gone-further in evil than their pleasure seeking and crushingly-bureaucratic past selves.

Now They have embraced the newly dominant Sorathic form of 'chaotic evil': an evil that sheerly and spite-fully delights in the destruction of Good and the divine creation - merely for the sake of destruction. 

Destruction, this time around, not excused by Their own pleasure, not even for increasing Their own power and control; but merely because They Hate God.   

This is, however, the destiny of the English - and indeed the Scots, Welsh, and at times the Irish; perhaps now the destiny of the world: 

Our destiny to live with the recurring question of how to deal with The Normans? 

How to respond to Them, how to live better than They do by higher and divine goals; in despite of the whole apparatus of state-and-church aiming to persuade, terrify and coerce us into ever deeper evil. 

It is well to remember that this mortal life is not meant to be only pleasant - indeed, since we are ruled by entropy, it cannot be thus. 

Our life is (instead) a matter of learning from experiences - and the Normans continue (now on a global scale) to provide us (but now the whole planet!) with extreme and stark experiences - from-which we ought to be learning, in preparation for the world to come... 

That is, a world where the Norman problem will not exist! - because only those who will commit eternally to live by love, will want (or be able) to enter Heaven. 

The offer is open to the Normans, as to everybody else; but it seems unlikely that many of Them will want to avail themselves of it; so deeply are They in servitude to evil.

But those Normans who do choose resurrection, in despite of their spiritual-lineage and prior choices; may well turn-out to be among the best of all Men...  

One man's reaction to The Norman Yoke

+ Note: There is an excellent description of the truth behind the Norman Yoke 'myth' at the start of Michael Woods' In Search of England (1999) - which is itself a mostly-excellent book; marred only by some incoherent, politically-correct evil-nonsense at the very end. 

No such thing as Neutrality: Either everything is political (for the Left); or else everything is spiritual (for Christians)

Sensible and decent people have spent the last five or six decades complaining that the Left makes everything political; and have thereby mostly-destroyed marriage, family, science, education, law, churches... whatever... everything... 

But indeed this process of politicization stretches back several centuries, and can be seen in the French Revolution; and later abolitionist, socialist, communist, nationalist and other secular Left movements. 

That every-thing is primarily political, is termed 'ideology' - and ideology is intrinsically totalitarian and evil. Because ideology assumes primarily and fundamentally a this-worldly and utilitarian perceptive, which is itself intrinsically anti-moral; and also because it assumes an anti-Good and inverted value-system (now in place and increasing all over the world). 

Leftist political ideology is thus oppositional-to - and has by now substantially displaced - Christian faith. 

It is this oppositional nature that leads to value-inversion: to the current mainstream and coercive assertion of lies, ugliness, sin and chaos; the hatred against that which is Good. 

But for the Christian (by aspiration and hope) everything is spiritual - not political; and the ultimate Christian perspective is beyond and after 'this world' - in Heaven; and relates to eternal spiritual dispositions and situations; rather than to temporal pleasures and pains. 

During recent decades, as a consequence both of materialistic assumptions permeating more and more of life, and in response to the ratcheting pressures of the Left and fear of 'fundamentalist' religiosity; resistance to totalitarian convergence has often asserted the importance of Neutrality.

Neutrality would entail the separation and autonomy of functional social systems from the prevalent politicization. For examples, that science, literature, law, education, the media should Not be explicitly Leftist - and should Not be subject to any other ideology or faith. This neutrality was approximated during the middle of the twentieth century in The West. 

Another aspect of this Neutrality aspiration is Free Speech - which seems to have begun as as a demand from functional specialists (including the arts and sciences, especially) to be independent of church constraints in their professional (as well as personal) lives, but later was expanded to meet the escalating attacks from the Left. 

The demand for Neutral areas and subjects therefore has its roots in an earlier phase of the materialist, leftist, ideological takeover; which is probably why it has been so utterly ineffective at resisting the movement further left - towards a single global, totalitarian ideology. 

More than this, Neutrality is itself an undesirable ideal for a Christian; since it is rooted in the idea that only some aspects of life are Christian - while others are outside of Christianity; only some aspects of life are spiritually important - while other aspects are unspiritual. 

Any plausibility in such assertions derives from the false idea that 'facts' are independent of metaphysical assumptions. The idea that there can and should be agreed facts - and agreed concepts by-which facts are interpreted - that are outside of our fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions regarding the nature of reality. 

But Neutrality is untrue philosophically - since it is metaphysical assumptions that enable us to know what is a fact and what counts as an explanation. 

In any public argument between Leftism and Neutrality; the Leftists always win! Why? 

First; because their basic understanding is correct: the basic framing understanding that there is no such thing as Neutrality. That every-thing depends on the overall and fundamental 'ideology'...

Except that 'Leftist ideology' is not a positive and substantive description of metaphysical reality - but itself merely a demonic inversion of Christian spirituality. 

Thus Leftist ideology 'encompasses everything' in the same kind of way that Christian spirituality does (or should do) - because we live in a reality created by God. 

But Leftist ideology is rooted in the choice of chaos instead of creation; and chaos has no meaning, purpose or explanatory power. 

Secondly; Neutrality is also untrue 'empirically' in that if you have (as I have, many times!) tried to argue with an ideological Leftist from a position of Neutrality; you will rapidly discover that there is no agreement as to what are he relevant facts and appropriate concepts. 

Furthermore, in such actual arguments; all facts and concepts are subordinated to Leftist values and morals - such that even personal observations and logic which seem to conflict with the ideology are described in terms of being merely 'symptoms' of anti-Leftist motivations. 

Trying to argue from a Neutral perspective against a Leftist, it is therefore empirically apparent that there is no non-ideological ground from which the Neutral argument can be made. The Leftist ideologue can expand his assumptions - instantly, easily - to encompass whatever grounds are offered by the Neutral proponent. 

The Leftist will thereby 'prove' that Neutrality is Not Truly Neutral - but itself depends on multiple value-assumptions; and thereby defeat the Neutrality arguments.  

Overall, it now seems clear that the era of Neutrality was merely a transitional phase between Christian Church religiosity and Leftist ideology. Of itself Neutrality (including 'free speech') has no metaphysical coherence. 

Therefore our proper choice excludes Neutrality; and lies between explaining everything (everything) in terms of the purpose and meanings of divine creation; or 'explaining' everything by destroying (i.e. fake-explaining, non-explaining, destroying the possibility of explanation) all that is of God, is Good, and naturally-created... by means of Leftist ideology. 

It is the choice between two 'projects' - the divine and the demonic. 

It is the taking of one side or another: God or Satan. 

How to make this discernment in relation to any particular 'thing' in modern life (of which there are zillions) used to be so difficult that it was convenient to pretend some things were Neutral. 

But not any more. The global triumph of the side of Satan, evil, chaos - has meant that more-and-more of the things they approve of - the things that will advance Their agenda - are being grouped-together ideologically. 

Leftist ideology is now a Package - what is 'in' and what is out-with that Package is being made very clear to everyone on the planet when it comes to what They regard as vitally important to Their agenda. 

Our discernment is therefore easy! We know the Package, and what is in it; because that is made crystal clear, approved, propagandized and coerced - thoroughly and globally; officially, by mass media, in education, science, law etc. 

Our personal choice is Very Simply to accept or reject the Package; and the only place that the Package can coherently be rejected from is, apparently, Christian spirituality. 

When They make some thing a part of the ideological Package, and say that it is Good; we know that it is part of the package of chaos, and that it is evil. 

How that specific Thing fits into the divine creative agenda may not be clear - indeed, it may Not fit into the divine agenda! But we can easily know to reject it, even when we can't explain in detail why*; simply because it is a core part of the ideological Package of totalitarian Leftism.  

*Note there will be explanations why Package contents - either individually or together - are indeed advancing the evil agenda; but (at any given point in time and space) we personally may not know these reasons, perhaps due to lack of relevant information or capability to understand it. Nonetheless, we do not need to know these reasons in order to recognize and reject what comes as a core part of the ideological Package emanating from the powers of evil. God is the creator and our loving Father, and will always make it possible for us to discern evil when this threatens our salvation or theosis. But we can ignore such obvious grounds for discernment; we can refuse God's help - that is our choice. Each Man's choice - and no others.  

What is the spiritualization of matter? (And why do we *resurrect* into Heaven, with bodies?)

Several authors I respect, and from-whom I have derived valuable lessons regarding the evolutionary-development of consciousness (e.g. Rudof Steiner, Owen Barfield, William Arkle), assert that the future and desired state will be one in which (in some way) Matter will become spiritualized. 

Something similar is often asserted by Christians about Men after resurrection - that the resurrected body is spiritualized. 

I entirely agree it is God's intention that in some sense matter will become spiritualized - if Man makes the destined choices in his spiritual development. 

But some people mean by this "that matter will become 'less material'", 'less solid', more 'ethereal' - as if our solid matter was to sublimate into a gas; albeit that such 'spiritual gas' would hold-together into something shaped like the human body. 

So (to caricature, for the sake of clarity) some people regard resurrected Man as if a spiritual-gas; and this is how they try to imagine that immortality is maintained. 

However, I find this unsatisfactory because (by my understanding) it goes-against the spirit of Christianity; such as what we know of the resurrection: of Lazarus, Jesus and what Jesus taught. 

Also, it goes-against a consideration of what advantages it would be in Heaven to have resurrected Men rather than wholly-spiritual beings (i.e. 'angels' as most people think of them). 

There must instead be (I think) reasons why resurrected Men can do positive and God-desired things that are impossible for spirit-angels; or else, why would God bother with creating the whole rigmarole of mortal life?

I think we all should (as a matter of theosis, and because this is the destiny of the development of human consciousness) consciously be willing ourselves towards the spiritualization of matter. 

We in fact increasingly need to do this - if we are to avoid taking the fork towards damnation; because the demonic spirits are working their plans via the modernist 'spell' that all matter is material, and there is no reality to the spiritual realm. 

(Whereas the truth is that the spiritual is primary - and all matter is spiritual: all 'things' are actually spiritual.) 

To believe (as so many do) that there is a separate and superior spiritual reality does not suffice - as we can see in the world around us; where such people are following the demonic lead, and affiliating to The System by deed and word (while, intermittently, affecting detachment from The World). 

Separation of a superior spirit realm (implicitly, or explicitly, regarding matter as evil) does not suffice because it provides no positive reason for this mortal life; this mortal incarnate (embodied) life is merely a test, or a thing to be endured - perhaps a punishment of some kind (whether karmic, or for original sin)... 

Such people merely yearn to die, to lose The Self, and to become wholly spirits absorbed-into the divine. For them, mortal life has no function - it is merely illusion (maya) - an evil to be tolerated. 

What instead we need is not the abolition of matter; but the spiritualization of matter... but what does this 'spiritualization' mean if not 'conversion to spirit'? 

First, that all matter is known as alive, conscious and purposive. 

We first need to recognize all matter, all 'things' as Beings (or as parts-of larger Beings). This could be termed the 'animation' of matter - matter is recognized as animate. 

Secondly, we need to enter into relationships with these (newly recognized) Beings. 

Recognition and relationship.

The point of wanting resurrection into Heaven (of choosing to accept this gift of Jesus Christ) is that we recognize eternally separate-Beings, and strive for a wholly positive and harmonious relationship with these many Beings. 

This is the nature of Heaven. There are many Beings in Heaven; and all present have-made an eternal commitment to live by Love; and therefore their relationships are wholly harmonious - all the Beings share the same aims, which are given by God's primary creation.  

In Heaven we remain our-selves, and live eternally as separate selves with separate wills - but (unlike mortal life) we eternally choose to align these separate wills in loving harmony. 

(What would this be like? Well, we get important glimpses of the loving harmony of separate selves from our experience of (or imaginations of) an ideal human family: and that is the best model for Heaven.)

 

To understand the spiritualization of matter (including bodies) I think we need to reconceptualize what bodies are, and what they are 'for'. 

I assume that our pre-mortal selves in Heaven were spirits without bodies (i.e. our pre-mortal selves are the same as 'angels' as conceived by orthodox Christian theology). We then lived immersively 'in' Love, in a state of one-ness with God; and that we were broadly incapable of free agentic will. 

Before the work of Jesus Christ; all spirit-Beings in Heaven worked-together for a single 'end', and there was no possibility of an individual spirit-Being making a personal contribution to God's ongoing creating. 

From this baseline, we can see that mortal life is about getting 'bodies' to add-to our pre-existent spirit-selves. And death-resurrection is about enabling our bodies to become eternal, and enabling our real selves (our souls) to make an eternal commitment to live by love. 

Bodies open-up a whole new world of possibilities! The 'spirit possibilities' (i.e. of immersive oneness towards a single, God-defined goal) remain possible - but these need consciously to be chosen; because our true-selves have (through the course of evolutionary development) become separated from the primal state of oneness. 

This separation of our personal consciousness from immersion in divine consciousness is a major purpose of mortal life; which is why 'oneness' aspirations are anti-life. And, in these modern times when our consciousness Just Has separated from God's; the aspiration for oneness is both impossible, and harmful in the attempt - leading to alignment with The World (which is extremely and increasingly evil).  

We should understand bodies as an extra way of interacting with other Beings (including God). 

Bodies bring the possibility of a qualitative enhancement of our interactions in heaven. Without bodies there is just the singe creative will of God; with resurrected bodies (in loving harmony of will) are added first each individual person adding his personal-creativity to that of God's; and then the many creative interactions-between resurrected Men. 

The more Men who are resurrected, the greater the possibilities of creative interaction in Heaven - which is always being-harmonized by the eternal commitment to live in-love and to fulfil the implicit goals of divine creation. 

In conclusion, yes we need to spiritualize matter - including bodies. 

But this is Not a process of 'dissolving' or 'sublimating' the-material; it is working towards the permanent creative enhancement of Heaven. 

Because 'bodies' are a positive gift - made permanent and Good by resurrection; and bodies are not about any particular type of substance; bodies are instead about enabling and increasing the creative interaction of Heavenly Beings. 

If you try to sleep through life, God will give you nightmares

If you try to sleep through life, God will give you nightmares.

By the above proverb - which I just invented - I intended to mean that if your attitude to this mortal life on earth is to try and ignore reality, be indifferent to truth; to feel pleasures and to avoid suffering by all means at your disposal...

Then God will ensure that you will nonetheless have the subjective experiences which you need in order to learn those lessons for which you were incarnated.

For Your Own Good. Because this mortal life is for serious reasons of eternal importance - it is not just an arbitrary gap between birth and death to be whiled-away with the minimum unpleasantness.

The harder you try not to care about spiritually-important matters; the more they will be forced upon you, sooner or later - if necessary in dreams that you will experience as real. 

If you ignore gentle lessons; you will eventually get harsh lessons.

If you practice dishonest evasion, lie about implications, drug yourself with medicines or meditation - you could have daydreams, obsessive ruminations, phobias; maybe visions, hallucinations, delusions... by which that which is being-denied will become un-avoidable. 

If you try to sleep through life, God will give you nightmares...  

Will we be forewarned about the imminence of catastrophic global collapse? Consequences of dealing with System contradiction and incoherence by System capture of evaluation mechanisms

It is striking to read thoughtful cultural commentators from the 1950s-70s, who are confident that The System - based on materialism and motivated by Leftism - will certainly collapse due to its incoherence and contradictions. 

The assumption was that soon many or most people will recognize that 'it isn't working' and will abandon The System for something else. 

Of course, The System did not collapse - but instead expanded in power and scope; and has now taken-over the world. Yet The System is indeed incoherent and self-contradictory - so how was this survival possible? Why did and do people fail to perceive the incoherence and self-contradiction when it has been obvious for many decades? 

The short answer is that The System captured the procedures and dissemination of evaluation: it captured the 'knowledge-making' processes. Therefore, The System now conceals from itself its own incoherence - and its own colossal failures. 

This evaluation-capture by The System did not happen fully until the approach of the millennium; although it can be detected growing from the middle 20th century (given extra impetus by WW II) and expanded rapidly from the middle 1960s. Until it was captured; System policy and analysis was able to be evaluated by (substantially) independent systems of analysis, measurement and interpretation (e.g. research, scholarship and science). 

But now the evaluation sub-system will provide whatever 'knowledge' The System-as-a-whole regards as necessary for its own perpetuation, expansion and increase of power.  

Therefore; The System is always coherent to itself; and when The System is global and self-evaluates - then there can be no incoherence or negative feedback from 'reality' - because 'reality' is only what The System defines as real; and reality in the public domain (i.e. 'objective' reality) comes only from The System.

Anything else than public discourse is System-defined as merely subjective, personal opinion.

(Because here-and-now only the subjectivity of persons stands fully outside The System.)

The survival of The System far beyond expectation means only that The System has, so far, survived. 

Survival means nothing else, than survival - and, since The System recognizes no other reality than that revealed by its own evaluation systems; The System may be so extremely disarticulated from the reality of God's creation that the totality could collapse at any moment - of which moment there would be no warning whatsoever in public discourse.

The System only knows that it survives now; and not that it is representing outside-System 'reality' with any degree of validity whatsoever. 

The System might (for instance, from a perspective located outside The System) be surviving by destroying everything that sustains itself: might be destroying every-thing from social order and competence to the capacity to grow food and transport goods. 

In other words; The System may have survived up to this moment not only by encouraging long-term damaging parasitic behaviour for immediate gain; The System may have survived by actual cannibalism: by consuming itself; as if a starving man were to satiate hunger by eating his own flesh.   

All this could be happening - could already have-happened. And yet - because The System has captured evaluation and knowledge production - there would be zero knowledge of the fact in public discourse. 

The global and totalitarian expansion of power and scope of The System means that when it does fail and collapse - that failure and collapse must be globally and totally catastrophic (at the institutional level); but even the actuality such a failure cannot ever be seen by The System as evidence of its incoherence or wrongness.

Therefore, when the world-System actually collapses around us...

Detection and recognition of such a situation Happening Now will still continue to be regarded in mainstream, official, 'objective' public discourse as "just a matter of subjective, personal opinion".

There will be no warning; because - after evaluation-capture - there can be no warning.   

The End Times close-off false 'solutions' - reveal the providential path more clearly

These End Times aren't all bad! 

First because any time and place is right for those incarnated into them. Because God arranges it so (and we consented to embark upon this arrangement). 

So it is broadly correct to assume that our actual life is broadly the kind of life that we most need ('need' from an eternal perspective). 

Certainly (because God is good, and loves us personally), our actual life will (sooner or later) provide us with the kind of experiences that we most need to learn from for resurrected life in Heaven.

(But if, like most people, we reject the eternal choice of resurrected life in Heaven; then indeed our mortal lives will probably be just as meaningless and purposeless as most mainstream secular people believe them to be.)

More specifically; the quality of these End Times is that many traditional but obsolete, or superficially appealing, partial and false solutions are being closed-off; or actually have gone. And this is potentially A Good Thing. 

For decades we have been tempted by incomplete answers to the fundamental problems of life... Well, now these sure have lost their luster! I mean, when we see the shambolically un-Christian and this-worldly way that their adherents have responded to the birdemic-peck (and the other Litmus Test issues). 

Strategizing and planning our futures, or binding our fates to institutions, has become obviously ridiculous and foolish when the world is zealously tearing itself apart and extreme evil becomes the new normal.    

We are now saved the waste of time and effort of exploring, and getting-stuck-in, ideas and ideologies that contain some truth - but not enough to suffice: not the core and saving truths. 

What we ought to be doing therefore gets easier and easier to discern. That is; we more easily know what we ought to do: which is individually to discern and follow our individual path of divine providence. 

But, as always, choosing to follow that destined path while aware of all its probably hazards - is yet another thing.

We must dispense with optimism, and become based on trust in God (the creator and our Father) to arrange matters for our eternal benefit; but not necessarily for our benefit in this temporal life and world. 

  

Trust in God is absolutely necessary to hope; because there is zero possibility of us knowing the route of divine providence, nor its destination. (That is what we lose when we dispense with the idea of planning our future.)  

Yet we must be able to 'monitor' the spiritual outcomes in our lives to ensure that we have not strayed from destiny, by self-deception or expediency. The need for conscious choices never ends so long as life continues.  

In sum - when optimism about this-world becomes impossible, hope for the eternal world to come is the only game in town. When this World is obviously aiming at evil; to follow Jesus's commandment ultimately to be 'Not of this world' emerges almost as an essential for daily survival. 

"A small oversight; but it proved fatal. Small oversights often do." - Divine providence working via errors of the Dark Power

It was many years after Thrain had left his people that I found him, and he had then been in the pits of Dol Guldur for five years at least. I do not know how he endured for so long, nor how he kept these things [i.e. the map and key to the secret door in the Lonely Mountain] hidden through all his torments. I think that the Dark Power had desired nothing from him except the Ring only, and when he had taken that he troubled no further, but just flung the broken prisoner into the pits to rave until he died. A small oversight; but it proved fatal. Small oversights often do.

From Unfinished Tales by JRR Tolkien (1980): Gandalf is here describing how he came by the map and key which led to Thorin's expedition to the Lonely Mountain; which led to the death of Smaug and founding a new kingdom of Esgaroth; and the finding of the One Ring by Bilbo; which prevented Sauron from allying with Smaug to destroy Lothlorien and Rivendell; and led to the destruction of the One Ring and the saving of Middle Earth. 

I am currently thinking much about divine providence; and how it ought now to replace politics and planning in the future orientation of Christians. 

This is - of course - how Jesus told us all to live in the Gospels ("consider the lilies" etc) - which is not to ignore the future, nor to live unthinkingly or in denial of reality; but to do the right things (one at a time, as they arise and not because they are part of a strategy) and trust to God to organize matters for the best.

God does this positively, and negatively. 

Positively by weaving-together the work of all Men who do good (and doing includes thinking). 

Such positive divine providence is shown at work in The Lord of the Rings where the free choices of the characters lead to positive unforeseen (and unforeseeable - even by the wisest such as Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel) outcomes.

For instance the quest of Frodo was not a plan. Other than that he was to seek destruction of the One Ring in the cracks of doom; Frodo had no idea how that could or should be accomplished. 

For instance, there was no plan about how to get into Mordor. Frodo simply took things one step at a time, and tried to make the right choice at each step; sustained at first by hope and later by duty (and relying on Sam's hope). Finally the destruction was accomplished only by the turning of evil against itself - when Gollum did what Frodo could not.    

All through the story, there are many examples of characters who need to discover what is destined, or divinely intended; and then to choose whether (or not) to make that choice. Frodo must choose to bear the ring, choose not to use it (albeit he fails, twice - at Bree and on Weathertop), choose not to use its invisibility to escape the Barrow Wight and abandon his friends (he resisted this temptation) and so forth.

Divine destiny or providence is able to use these right choices to weave-together a sequence of events that eventually leads - by paths completely unforeseen and indeed impossible to foresee - to the triumph of the forces of Good, on the side of God. 

The failures of choice need not be fatal to good outcomes but they do seem to lead to suboptimal outcomes; for instance to greater suffering than would otherwise (probably) have been the case. Frodo's use of the ring in Bree led to the attack on the Prancing Pony, loss of the ponies and the chance of slipping away unseen; at Weathertop the ring seems to have allowed the Witch King to stab Frodo with a Morgul knife, which gave him permanent pain afterwards. 

But there are also many examples of 'negative providence' where the side of evil makes mistakes - sometimes apparently small mistakes (those "small oversights") which are taken-up, wedged-open, and then in many ways used by God to lead to the downfall of evil.

A basic plot point is that Sauron repeatedly makes 'small' oversights of neglecting the (to him) small threats - such as disregarding Hobbits; seeing them as trivial: unimportant to his grand plans and schemes. 

Sauron's eye is focused upon the Great Powers, especially the fake threat that Aragorn - heir of Isildur - had taken the ring; so Sauron neglected to watch his borders. 

Even when a hobbit (Frodo) was taken prisoner in Cirith Ungol, Sauron's attention (and that of his servants) was diverted elsewhere to the ongoing war. The orcs squabbled and killed each other; Frodo was released by Sam; and the two of them (and Gollum, trailing) were able to cross Mordor undetected and unmolested. "A small oversight; but it proved fatal."

"Oft evil will shall evil mar" says Theoden; and more generally this is seen in that the essential nature of evil creates blind-spots that lead inevitably to oversights - sometimes small, sometimes large. 

Thus, even in a world dominated by evil, God can work good by-means-of the oversights of evil. 

Even a 'small' oversight may be expanded by divine providence; much as a wedge may expand a tiny crack to break a rock... The very strength and rigidity of the rock works against itself - so that the whole rock splits apart instead of crumbling at the pressure point.  

Christians in these End Times - who are inhabiting a world of corrupt people led by a totalitarian global 'government' operating in obedience to Satan and in accordance with an inverted value system - may find great encouragement in such possibilities. 

So long as there are some men who make good choices - some Men who have chosen to ally with the side of God, Good and Divine Creation; then providence will be continually be weaving-together their many small and specific good intentions and acts into large (but mostly invisible) sequences. 

Not according to a plan, but according to intention. Continually updating means, while seeking good ends. 

Every error and oversight of The Enemy will provide new 'cracks' into which these good acts may be inserted. And all the time God is working behind the scenes to 'make the best' of whatever Good Men may do, and whatever 'oversights' evil may commit; in ways that not even The Wise can understand or predict. 

This is a situation in which the impossibility of specific plans becomes an advantage; because plans cannot for long be kept secret, and will be defeated by superior power. 

But the acts of Men who have taken the side of God and whose courage is sustained by hope of eternal resurrected life; cannot finally be defeated but will always lead eventually to good outcomes - when they are being insensibly organized by the higher wisdom of divine providence. 

And the 'small oversights' intrinsic to evil will always be providing new possibilities and pathways by which such good may be done.     

The un-naturalness of belief in the Litmus Test issues signifies allegiance with the side who are against divine creation

I have often mentioned the 2020-21 Litmus Tests - belief in/ support for any one of which, by a person or institution - is strong evidence of affiliation with those who oppose, God, The Good and Divine Creation in this global spiritual war. 

The four tests are probably the core aspects of the Leftist agenda as it has become here-and-now; which recognizes Leftism as having been the major and most successful demonic strategy against Christianity:

Birdemic-peck 

CO2 climate 

Antiracism

Sexual revolution (especially 'trans', also 'homo') 

It is striking that all of these are characterized by unnaturalness - that none of them are a consequence of normal human commonsense operating on personal experience. 

Belief in the major health significance of the birdemic is not a result of individual persons observing the perceptible world. It is an outcome of official and media selection, distortion and lies - amplified by the multiple and severe real problems that have secondarily been caused by the 'response' to the constructed birdemic. In sum the birdemic is a System construct made from 'information' - it is not an entity which could or would have been noticed by any individual person.  

Likewise the CO2 climate agenda. It makes a shallow pretense of environmentalism; yet 'climate' has displaced concern for the environment - and causes obvious and significant environmental damage. This is because environmental degradation can be observed by any individual - but CO2 concentrations cannot. The link between (for instance) a waste pipe spewing rancid toxins and dead fish floating downstream is commonsense and observable. But 'global' discourse concerning CO2 measurements and claims about how these will affect future world conditions are hypothetical in the most extreme way imaginable: layers upon layers of selection, modelling, inference... 

Antiracism and the sexual revolution are example of inversion of the natural, spontaneous and humanly universal. The reality of male and female sex, and the superiority of reproductively viable sexual behaviour were naturally taken for granted in all times and places until very recently and in just a few places. All known past societies have naturally (obviously!) regarded their own race and 'nation' as deserving of consideration above others. To think otherwise (as is now praised, rewarded and mandatory) is a stunning inversion of the natural - and could only become normalized in the context of a system that was itself intentionally anti-natural. 

In sum, the Litmus Test issues - which form the current core of the mainstream, universal, global strategy for the totalitarian Establishment - are unnatural such that none could plausibly be a consequence of common sense reasoning applied to personal experience and observation. 

In other words; belief in any (or all) of the Litmus Test issues cannot arise spontaneously but only be a consequence of choice...

And that choice has been to accept the 'good-ness', truth, validity of the Leftist ideological system - which is the only source of those 'facts' and 'concepts which lead to belief in the Litmus Tests - and thereby the choice was made to ally oneself with the aims and plans of that ideological system. 

This explains why the Litmus Tests work so well as a way of detecting allegiance in the spiritual war: God or Satan. 

Many people are self-deceived concerning which side they serve (i.e. wrongly believing themselves to be on God's side); and many more are attempting to deceive others (e.g. 'liberal Christian' bishops) - but exactly because the Litmus Tests are unnatural, the tests discriminate between the sides, whatever claims may be. 

That which is unnatural is not supported by reality; and that which cannot be discovered from personal experience and common sense must be generated by external systems. 

Validity then depends on the validity of the system from which the unnatural is derived. When that system does not see truth, beauty and virtue but inverts these - when it instead depends on lies and propaganda, is ugly and destructive of beauty and overthrows all natural, spontaneous and traditional virtue - then we are confronted by the dishonest and evil-seeking ideology of Leftism.

Those who live in accordance with a dishonest ideology Just Are against Divine Creation - they are participating in the destruction of creation and its replacement with a fake anti-creation; just as they are supporting Satan against God, and Antichrist against Christ. 

It is all a package; and that someone self-identifies as 'A Christian' or is the devout member of 'A Christian Church' makes no real difference. 

The Litmus Tests are a more accurate guide to spiritual reality than names, because these issues are what are of prime importance to the Establishment, Now. 

To be A Christian in every belief except those issues which most matter to Satan and which best serve the Satanic agenda, is not to be a Christian. 

Why are things aren't working anymore! (The pyramid of technology/ ability/ societal functioning)

There seems to be a pyramid of technology which corresponds to a pyramid of intellectual functions in large complex modern societies. And the peak of the pyramid is also the high level of general intelligence (g - as measured comparatively by IQ) needed to make qualitative improvements in social functioning: breakthroughs.


This is the pyramid:

1. Breakthrough (qualitative)

2. Improvement (incremental)

3. Replacement

4. Repair

5. Maintenance

6. Operation

(Sub-functional)

What I am talking-about are those key factors which could be termed 'technology' in the broadest sense: these would include forms of social organization (government, religion), food production - including agriculture, warfare and defence, and so on. In other words; whatever are the key functions upon which society depends.

The pyramid is most obvious for those complex technologies which led to the emergence of modern societies (the technologies of the linked agricultural and industrial revolutions) and upon which modern societies depend.

Modernity arose due to frequent breakthroughs and improvements - these breakthroughs in 'technology' enabling production to outgrow population growth for many generations.

But underneath it all was the breakthroughs.


1. The breakthrough is the invention of something qualitatively new - some piece of machinery, some concept, a form of organization... This (as a rule) requires genius - a combination of very high intelligence and creativity with innate motivation.

2. This breakthrough is then incrementally improved. This does not require such high intelligence, nor does it require creativity - but can be done by 'trial and error'.

3. Sooner or later the entity (the piece of technology, the social institution) will wear-out, get broken or dissipate entropically, and need to be replaced - this may require workshops, factories, systems of apprenticeship, colleges - these need to be generated and made to work.

4. And, as it is being used or operating, from time to time the entity needs to be repaired. This is easier than replacing it, and the repair process may be broken down into specific checks and tasks.

5. Among those who cannot repair a broken entity, there are those who can nonetheless maintain it: run checks and implement standard procedures.

6. But simply operating the entity, working the technology or working-in an institution, requires less capability than repair.

Nonetheless, there are people who cannot operate; they lack the requisite ability - they are sub-functional with respect to that specific 'technology' (although they may be functional for other technologies).

So, if we think of a gun; there was the breakthrough of the concept of a gun, what it could do and how; there was the incremental (trial and error) improvement of this basic breakthrough until there were functional guns - and the continued incremental improvement (and specialization) of these guns.

Then there is the matter of manufacturing and replacing guns; then below that there is the function of maintaining a gun (regular cleaning, oiling etc).

Then below that there is the function of shooting guns (so the hit the target, and so they do not kill the operator).

Below that again are sub-functional people - e.g. who cannot shoot the guns accurately, or who shoot them on impulse or for a joke; and these people are a liability because they may shoot themselves of the people on their side. Indeed, they are 'more trouble than they are worth' because they require such a high degree of supervision in order to prevent them inflicting damage. 

For example; until recently; the modern military excluded such people - based on IQ testing. They cannot be trusted to operate a gun safely. And although they may be able to do simple manual tasks when sufficiently supervised; generations of experience showed that very low intelligence recruits were more trouble than they were worth: i.e. they consumed more resources in keeping them safe, than any functional value they generated.  

If we think of an abstract field like science; there are the creative geniuses who make breakthroughs in theories or discoveries. (These are now almost extinct; and are anyway de facto excluded from professional research and career structures.)  

Then there are the non-creative intelligent people who may incrementally improve and refine these breakthroughs. 

Below them are the structures of education and apprenticeship which create the environment within which this can occur, and from which the higher level people may be generated - for example the people who work in (properly functioning) colleges and research institutions.

Below them are the people who use the products of science to make and do things (applied scientists, engineers, doctors, technologists); and below that are the people who use what these makers and doers generate (e.g. skilled craftsmen); and below that are the users of science. 

And below them are people who cannot use science safely or appropriately - and must have it done for them, or not at all (e.g. children, and other people who lack the intellectual requisites).

This pyramid is also a hierarchy of general intelligence (g).

Intelligence is not the only important factor (personality - for instance - is very important; and motivation is vital - someone not even trying to be functional, will not be functional); but intelligence is a vital and constraining factor in the above hierarchy. If the required level of intelligence for the required function is not met - then the function will not be done.

So if we cannot repair and replace a piece of technology or a social institution (like medicine, or engineering); then when it breaks (due to wear and tear, or sabotage) it cannot be mended or re-made, and is lost. And as a society's average intelligence declines, as has happened in Western Europe, then it has a major impact on the above pyramid.

What happens initially is the over-promoted society; where the lack of intelligence means that people end-up at a level one (or two) categories too high for their cognitive abilities. Those whose job is to make breakthroughs can now only make incremental improvements - they cannot do their core job. Therefore breakthroughs dry-up - and the whole basis of modern societies is lost.

But because breakthroughs are needed there there is a pretence of breakthroughs - and ideas that are just random variations and inversions and recombinations of what already exists (mere novelties) are spun as breakthroughs.

Those whose role is to make incremental improvements, are unable to function above the level of replacements and repair of already existing entities - so established things don't improve gradually as they used to. They change but don't improve - therefore they get worse. 

(coughsoftwareupdatescough...)

Perhaps this contributes to the fact that so many able people have given-up on trying to improve functionality, and lapsed into fashionability and careerism. Those who are supposed to repair and maintain stuff cannot really understand how it works - so repair becomes reduced to maintenance, and the following of predecided procedures.

And the fact that so many people are over-promoted (for lack of anyone better; and because we are dominated by leftist political values, and so are not even trying to find or use the best people) can lead to a deficiency of mere operatives - who may be inadequate either intellectually, or in terms of personality.

These are, in fact, sub-functional individuals who are being used for lack of anyone else.

And still there is a large and expanding 'underclass' of those unable or unwilling to perform any of the functions required by modern society.

All this is due to complexity.

If the technology is less complex, if the institutions are less complex, then people can perform at a more functional level. 

(Except for breakthroughs which are necessary to modernity, but now very rare or absent - as those of the highest level of intelligence have all but disappeared, plus the personality type of geniuses is excluded from bureaucracies.)

So, what will happen is that things will get less complex - technology, society will simplify - because things cannot be sustained at the current level of complexity.

At first; people may be able to claim that collapse and chaos is actually an increase in complexity; or they will pretend that they no longer want to do things that are in fact too difficult for them to achieve. 

But sooner or later the decline will be obvious to an honest observer (if any such exist); technology will simplify, society will simplify; the level of functional capacity and efficiency will decline.

And the surplus of population that required complex functionality to be maintained... will die. 

Note: I do not regard the above mechanism as the main reason for the rapid collapse of global civilization: that would be the fact that we are an evil-affiliated world following inverted values, and ruled an by evil-serving, lying Establishment - who are actively and purposively destroying the functionality of all social institutions. Nonetheless, the above is an underlying and contributing cause of decline which would be operating even if our rulers and the mass-majority were honest and well-motivated Christians. 

What about a fantasy of the overthrow of End Times evil?

We have had many and famous dystopias in the mass media for many decades; but most of the most popular of these have included a 'happy ending' whereby the controlling baddies (those who make and serve the oppressive System) are overthrown, and replaced by some-thing apparently much better. 

Typically, this is narratively possible because in these dystopias there are relatively few baddies oppressing a mass majority of decent people - and the badness has a focus which can be attacked and beaten. 

What we have not seen is a dystopia corresponding to the one that we have here-and-now; and that is because this is an End Times dystopia based-upon a very pervasive value-inversion that afflicts the mass majority almost as much as it affects their more-overtly-evil oppressors. 

(By Biblical analogy: this is an Antichrist dystopia.)

In other words - we have a majority of baddies: that is, a majority of people on the side of evil, or at least collaborating with evil; and doing-so because they believe that their evil is good (and that good is evil). 

(This works by the multiplicity of Litmus Test issues - supporting any one of which brings an individual or institution onto the side of evil - sooner or later.) 

Thus, the masses do not want the oppressive System to be overthrown - but instead reformed, made nicer and kinder. 

Furthermore (and because of our evil being pervasive, endemic) is that there is no focus to evil in 2021; at least, not the kind of focus that can be fought, overthrown, and replaced with the modern equivalent of a Good King. 

Modern evil is bureaucratic; the baddies now consist of multiple intersecting and overlapping committees. No individual is essential, and probably the top dozen, score, hundred or even thousand baddest-of-baddies worldwide could be eliminated without provoking more than a hiccup of The System.   

All of which makes it apparently impossible to do the trick of imagining an analogous dystopia to this one; and then imagining a way in which is could plausibly and helpfully be overthrown. 

Maybe it is not impossible to do this imaginative and creative feat? But I haven't yet seen anyone succeed; indeed I haven't seen anyone even try...