*English* Country Garden?

English Country Garden was on a much-loved EP the family owned in my childhood. The tune was by Australian Percy Granger, and the words are credited to Jimmie Rodgers himself: a native of Washington State, USA. 

These lyrics start well enough with the flowers, begin to lose touch with reality when fireflies are introduced among the insects; and spin-off into transatlantic parochial fantasy with the birds. 

In the spirit of Rodgers version of Englishness, I suggest the following additional verse:

 

How many animals wander to and fro

In an English Country Garden?

I'll tell you now of some that I know

And those I miss you'll surely pardon:

Bobcats, Lynx and Mountain Lions

Grizzly Bears and Wolver-ines

Chipmunks, Racoons and Porcupines

There is joy every day

When the Skunks begin to spray

In an English Country Garden.

Note: Jimmie R tells us "Don't forget The Robin" - I, of course, agree; but what he means by 'robin' is not what we English mean by our favourite national bird: the Ruddock or Redbreast (to use its older names) is a different species altogether...

One or many paths to "Enlightenment" (and what is it, anyway?)

I was watching the above video in which John Butler is asked whether Enlightenment is something achieved immediately and effortlessly (or not at all); or whether it is a matter of many years of regular and strenuous discipline? And whether there is one true path to 'the peak of the mountain', or many routes? 

(One true religion only; or instead that all religions are one ultimately?)

This made me think about how I might answer this question...

I would first have to say that this question presupposes that a solid, 'permanent' state of Enlightenment is (or should be) the aim of life; whereas I would emphasise that mortal life is not about achieving a state of Enlightenment. Instead the purpose is about learning from the experiences of mortal life, with learned-lessons redeemed after death in resurrected eternal life. 

What people term Enlightenment is truly therefore the (temporary) feeling we get when we have learned something important. It could be regarded as a sign of such learning. But it is not meant to be a continuous and permanent state. When we have had one Enlightenment, have learned one particular lesson - then we are meant to go on to learning more, and further, lessons; and maybe have further Enlightenment experiences. 

I would therefore suggest that neither of the suggested possibilities of immediate/ total or long-term/ incremental Enlightenment are correct; because this mortal life is not the end. For Christians, this mortal life between conception and death is vitally important - yet ultimately it looks towards the life to come. The proper, ideal perspective for regarding our mortal life is therefore eternity. 

In a sense it is obvious that all lives (no matter how Enlightened) will end in death; and that corruption, decay, disease and degeneration are all intrinsic to this 'entropic' world. 

Therefore, it is a plain error to think in terms of Enlightenment - at least it is for a Christian. For other religions, it may be different - for example, Enlightenment may be what is required to escape the endless wheel of reincarnation... It may be that Enlightenment allows someone to die finally. 

So - all religions are not one; nor do all religions lead to the same destination. We either follow Jesus through death to resurrection - or we don't. (There are probably several or many other possibilities; including Hell.)

But for a Christian; I think Enlightenment means something like an insight; properly speaking, a valid and significant insight of permanent relevance to life everlasting in Heaven. 

What are we supposed to DO?

The short answer is that the general lesson being taught - it seems - to everybody this year of 2020; is the absolute requirement for personal agency. We all must think for and from our-selves; or else we will damn our-selves and also, which is worse; in our interactions we will contribute to damn others.

 

The basic situation of each 'human being' as a Social Animal is a reality that is being eroded so rapidly that the speed is breathtaking. More to the point society is being eroded with vast social (popular) support (whether active or passive, explicit or tacit). 

Society is turned against itself; social mechanisms are destroying the basis of society.

(I have noticed that in the current mass media, this most fundamental of mortal human needs is trivialised as 'socialising'; as if it were merely one replaceable aspect of 'lifestyle'; something that could be taken up or put down according to fashion or law.)

 

This leads to the urgent question of how to live, being - as we are - necessarily, unavoidably, and by our very nature societal creatures; yet prevented from one after another of social activities. 

Many individuals (including some known directly to me - not just from the media) have been compelled to live for months, and to die, under forms of solitary confinement illegal among the prison population). 

All this stuff has been done, on the whole with the consent of those persons who were being confined in solitude and isolation, and mostly with the approval of those who (apparently) love them. This consent and approval is very significant; because those who would wish to preserve basic human society are in a situation trying to do so, substantially against the wishes of the mass of people whose conditions are being protected. 

And this is a literally hope-less situation; that ought to be avoided. 

When people are being-oppressed biologically and spiritually, yet these same-people are agitating for more oppression of themselves; then it is futile, and dangerous, to try and intervene. Indeed, such interventions have a tendency to corrupt the intervener, who will typically become angry and hostile against those same people (the 'masses') whose interests he began by defending.

 

What then are we (those who understand what is going-on, in terms of the spiritual war of God versus Satan)... What are we actually to Do in a world that is one the one hand being condemned to existential death by an obviously evil-affiliated Establishment, and on the other hand where the masses are welcoming such annihilation? In a world of the nihilist leading the nihilist into ever deeper nihilism?

My only answer is to suggest the very opposite of that groupish, impersonal and abstract planning that characterises and motivates the current situation. In other words; what we do needs to come from our own individual discenment and motivation; derived from the divine within us (by virtue of being children of God); and in terms of that spiritual comfort and guidance which is universally available to all who follow Jesus.  

Such will tell 'us' what to do; in which 'us' means each of us specifically and individually, here and now; and where 'do' means actual and immediate things. 

What those things may be is not knowable in advance, because the provenance (the source) of that action is what is primary. 

 

The only valid action is that comes from each Man knowing himself as a free and autonomous child of God; trusting in that God, and in awareness (hope) of the resurrected life to come. 

We can't be more specific than that, about what such action will be; but we know that such action will be absolutely specific to what is needed by each individual, in those exact circumntance he (currently) finds himself. 

And the results of many such individuals living this way will be the best possible for Man, in his context of eternity.  

 

Is destroying The Matrix a 'good thing'?

Trick question, because goodness depends on motivation. 

The actual Matrix is the Establishment: The System: the world of Governments, Institutions, Corporations and Media... This Matrix is certainly evil in motivation and effect. And The System is currently being (mostly) destroyed by the Establishment. 

The System has been decisively turned-against The System - in what The System itself calls a 'Great Reset'. 

 

So far this year of 2020 the economy has been (?one third) destroyed, government is totalitarian, the bureaucracy penetrates everywhere; and destroyed also are most of the arts (concerts, plays, museums, dance, singing...), science (because research is either stopped or crippled), and almost all of human society (families are legally separated, forbidden to meet). Nothing is unaffected.

One might assume that this is a Good Thing? The System is evil, therefore (it might be supposed) its destruction is spiritually beneficial (even if the physical consequence is that maybe billions will die of starvation, disease and violence). 

Does it really matter how or why the System ends? 

 

One clue that it does matter, is that it is the powers of evil who are actively engaged in destroying The Matrix: evil forces are leading the destruction. 

Why would They do this unless They believed that the outcome would be even-more-evil? 

 

And the answer is - as always - in motivation. The evil System is being destroyed for evil reasons; evil because dishonest (based on Big Lies, ferociously defended and asserted); because the motivation is selfish; is based on fear, resentment and despair. 

Ultimately, because the forces destroying The System are on-the-side-of Satan; directed-against God, creation and the salvation of Men.

When evil fights evil, the outcome will be evil - whoever wins. 

Only if The System was being destroyed for motivations that were Good and were themselves spiritual (not material), and God-allied - motivations that were loving, beautiful, virtuous... 

Only then would destruction of The Matrix be expected to lead to good - that is to Godly - outcomes. 

Because reality is co-created...

It should be (but mostly is not) obvious that the mainstream socio-political/ media/ institutional world is invented, and is a virtual reality. We know because it changes so fast, is so grossly incoherent, and because we can see the actual processes by which it is generated. 

We know, because we have seen him, that there is a man behind the curtain - albeit we have decided to pay him no attention; and will deny that we do know.

This reflects the basic truth that reality is now and always co-created (some out-there, some in-here); because human consciousness is always involved (somewhere): perceptions always require interpetation, and interpretation always comes from consciousness. 

This means that the mainstream made-up reality is shared only because it is imposed on millions of people by manipulations and propaganda, backed by surveillance and monitoring, enforced by incentives and punishments. 

But this mainstream 'reality' is incoherent and misery inflicting; and for a Christian it is evil - in increasingly obvious ways to those who do not accept the mainstream conceptual programming. 

Why, then, do we not break free and make our own, and better, reality? Why do (self-identified) Christians meekly accept a systemically-evil world (evil built into the concepts). Why not simply reject that which is imposed forcibly and manipulatively? Why is this So Hard?

I think the main reason is fear - because the apparatus for imposition is truly vast; and backed by large majorities and tremendous force; and the consequent fear of being existentially alone. After all; being in a minority of one is hard to distinguish from insanity.

People whose life is spanned by birth and death have no reason or possibility for going against the majority: even when the majority view induces fear, resentment and despair; even when it promotes self-loathing and covert suicide: even when the mainstream-approved life is not worth living, and that fact is increasingly open, and explicitly acknowledged.

The only possible escape from The System is when one's world view extends beyond mortal life; in particular extends into a personal life beyond biological death.   

Gouldian spiritual possibilities from technology

 

 

Back in the 1960s and 70s, Glenn Gould used to write and speak about the insulating effects of technology; and the ways in which it could (and did, for him) protect against The World - the way in which technology could surround someone in an ambience of music (and other arts and media); even as it created a supportive physical environment (nourishment, warmth, dryness, security). Technology protected against the threats of nature - or, it could... 

This idea of the kind, even 'charitable', nature of technology is one of those ideas that worked - for some people, for a while; but which has turned out very differently from how it was hoped. For Gould himself - at least for a couple of decades, technology really did all this; and sustained an extraordinary intensity of ecstatic spiritual life which came through in his musical performances, writings, and the 'Solitude Trilogy' of radio documentaries.  

In the first place, recording technology enabled Gould to stop performing - which he hated. Telephones enabled him to sustain friendships and creative collaborations without excessive human contact (which he also disliked). The capabilities of recording enabled him to produce a closer-to-ideal performance than could be attained under the constraints of 'one take' live music making. Recording in segments (combined with an extraordinary memory) also enabled him to maintain 100% focus even during the creation of long piano works - whereas this is simply not possible in live performance.  

And he commented on how much he enjoyed the womb-like (and time-suspended) environment of the recording studio, especially the editing process; where he would display almost superhuman powers of concentration combined with endurance (driving his collaborators to exhaustion and beyond).  And in leisure times Gould would maintain a continuous 'wallpaper' of surrounding music (and perhaps spoken word - news etc) from often several simultaneous sources in his house and while travelling by car.

For Gould, technology allowed a special form of solitude; and he regarded solitude as the pre-requisite of ecstatic experience - and ecstasy as a creative state. 

 

Something similar used to be asserted about the possibilities of the internet - especially in the later 1990s; the way it could facilitate all kinds of good things... It seemed like such a liberation that people forgot (for a while) that the effects of any liberation (freedom-from some constraint) depend upon the strength and direction of motivation (what exactly it is that one wants to do).  

Indeed, that state of media wallpaper, surrounding and enveloping technology must sound familiar - albeit ominously familiar - to most modern people; who are never without their 'smart' phones, watches, tablets; ear buds inserted or headphones applied - who are bathed in an increasingly intense electromagnetic medium from wi-fi, 3/4/5G... 

And everywhere, omni-present, is technological surveillance, monitoring, propaganda, manipulation of psychology.

The outcome has been something very far removed from Gouldian solitude, intensity, creative ecstasy and other-worldy spirituality. The technology might, it is true, have been used for all kinds of benign purposes; as modelled by Gould and expounded by him. But the fact is - it wasn't.

So, all this promise has of technology came to a situation extremely different, almost the opposite, from that hoped by Gould and others. Something very horrible to behold - especially in the form of social media addiction and compulsion; and the correspondingly soul-denying, materialist, docile and obedient, unthinking and incoherent shells-of-persons who are in the overwhelming majority throughout the most technological parts of the world. 

 

Gould hoped that technology would free Men from stress and toil to liberate the soul for a higher and more refined evolution of consciousness. He wanted most of all a (divine) state of ecstasy in contemplation and creation. 

By technology many Men were indeed liberated for a good while and to a significant degree, although now the means of liberation have become the mechanism of enslavement. Because Men used this liberation in almost entirely negative directions. 

Constraints are much less significant than motivations. What technology can do is overwhelmed by what people actually want to do with it. 

When Men are corrupt and desire evil; every-thing that facilitates the achievement of their desires will (obviously!) do greatly more harm than good. And that is precisely what happened with technology, going right back to the beginnings of the industrial revolution.

Improved means are lethal when ends have been inverted. 

 

Do you believe in the afterlife, Glenn Gould?

As cited in Thirty-two short films about Glenn Gould

ELYSE MACH: I’d like to ask: Do you believe in the afterlife? 

Glenn Gould: Well, I was brought up as a Presbyterian, though I did stop being a church goer, ohh, about the age of 18 … but I always have had a tremendously strong sense that there is, indeed, a hereafter … that we all must reckon with, and lead our lives according to, this belief that there is, inevitably, a transformation of the spirit. As a consequence, I find all ‘here-and-now’ philosophies quite repellent … lax, if you will. I do recognize, however, that it is a great temptation to try and formulate a comfortable theory of eternal life, so as to reconcile oneself to the inevitability of death. But I’d like to think that’s not what I’m doing—I honestly don’t think that I’m creating a deliberate self-reassuring process. For me, it intuitively seems right … I’ve never had to work at convincing myself of a life hereafter. After all, don’t you think it seems infinitely more plausible than its opposite … oblivion?

 

There is surely a direct relationship between Gould's conviction of the reality of a personal afterlife, and the extraordinary and unique spiritual dimension he brought to the best of his life and performances. 

When I am able to grasp the fact of it; I am absolutely staggered at the perfection of the gift of Jesus: I mean resurrected eternal life in Heaven. It is so absolutely and exactly what I would most have wanted!

Yet most people, most of the time (almost everybody, almost always) are utterly insensible to this extraordinary thing. I know, because for most of my life I was one of them. 

I know how - in the particular and peculiar environment of this modern era - it seems natural (as well as adult and intelligent) to adopt a flippant attitude to this most important of all questions. I know the arguments - from the inside - about how eternal life, resurrection, Heaven etc - don't really make any difference to the wise Man of true values; how these are childish panderings to the weakness and vanity of... etc. etc...

Consequently we do not allow ourselves even to begin to grasp what is actually on offer; and oscillate back and forth between regarding the astonishing gift of Jesus as too-good-to-be-true, and then of-no-interest at all - or (somehow) hold both beliefs at the same time...

One common, and stunningly wrong, attitude is that the reality of eternal life makes no difference to this life! I have felt this myself. It is so incredibly, stupidly and obviously wrong, that such an attitude is itself a key to much of the pathology of modern thinking. I mean; the fact that I and others can and do think this way, is a revelation of a profound (i.e. deep rooted) incapacity to reason that is near universal.

I realise that Jesus's offer does not appeal to everyone. Which is presumably why only Christianity (and only some understandings of Christianity) 'offer' this destination after death. But I think there are plenty who, like me, want nothing different from what Jesus offers - and it ought to be a simple matter for us to get past the first step of acknowledging "Yes, that's what I most want"; and (but only) then move on to the question: "Is it true?"

Step one: do we want what Jesus offers? Step two: is the offer true? 

And, as Gould said, evaluating the truth of Jesus's offer is a matter of intuition. No 'evidence' is of relevance. But intuition must have something to intuit! An idea must be grasped with the fullness of imaginative understanding before it can be tested by intuition. 

And that is exactly where most modern people go so fatally wrong: they/we cannot imaginatively grasp the reality of resurrected, eternal Heavenly life (or, we do not allow ourselves to do this); therefore we cannot intuitively evaluate its truth. We cannot get past step one. 

What's with needing to ask God in prayer for what (he already knows) we need?

Two aspects - one easy, the other difficult; but both depend on the business of asking as 'a form of words'. 

To the modern mind, words are just words. The idea of reciting some specific words to get a specific effect is not just obviously ineffective in everyday life, but ridiculous. 

However, if we take seriously Owen Barfield's (and Rudolf Steiner's) idea that human consciousness has changed/ developed/ evolved through history (in accordance with a divine plan); then we should note that in Ancient Times it seems that 'merely' reciting words Did have a specific effect on the world. The 3,000 year Egyptian Empire was based on exactly this - which is why the magician priests (House of Life) were careful to keep their magical 'spells' secret - anybody who spoke them could use them, even without training. 

Indeed, the written words did not (then) need to be spoken or read aloud. Egyptian spells might be carried around the neck in a container (phylactery) as a pendant, or dipped in a drink/ the drink poured over them - and then consumed, or written on the hand and then licked-off. The actual written words had an effect. 

In terms of human consciousness this means that the words had objective power, words used-to constrain human consciousness - it was as if much of our consciousness happened outside of us, happened in the general consciousness of the group - and did not require awareness or intent. Men lived immersed in a group-mind, as part of a group-mind (not as separate sources of awareness and agency); and individuals (such as they were, which was 'not very' individual) were (mostly passively) influenced-by the group; which was itself continuous with the divine.    

For us-now, almost the opposite is the case; and certainly words do not have objective power. So, the idea of 'asking' in prayer must be 'translated' for the modern mind. What it corresponds with - in modern consciousness - is that if we wish to live in accordnace with God's creation, we must consciously choose God's will. We must consciously ally ourselves with God. 

So our mind needs to meet God's mind, our intent match God's intent; our prayer be in harmony with God's plans - for prayer to be effective.  Yet harmony is not enough - we must still make a conscious choice to 'ask'.

On the one hand, God (obviously!) is not compelled to grant our every verbal request - we are no longer immersed in the group and divine mind as were the Ancient Egyptians; so our requests may be selfish and short-termist in a way theirs could not be. Nor does God impose his will upon Men, moving us around and compelling our thoughts as if we were puppets (or robots). For Good and also for Ill; Modern Man must consciously choose to do the right, follow the Good, live in harmony with God's creation. 

It seems that extremely few people do this; indeed extremely few people even attempt to do it! Nonetheless from where we are now it is the only way forward (and going backwards is neither possible nor desirable). 

The asking element in prayer can be considered a form of consciously chosen alliance with God. Obviously, we can only ask for what we can think, and we may be too corrupted (have too great a load of unrepented sin) to think in ways that are harmonious with God... In this instance, the asking in prayer, and the failure to meet a response to prayer, ought to be educational - ought to help us to clarify our own problems - ought to clarify that what we wanted and asked for is Not Good (i.e. not Good in terms of God's objectives, which primarily related to eternal resurrected Heavenly life). ...Not Good for us, and/ or not Good for somebody else. 

But (here, now) Good things cannot happen without our active participation - and this is another aspect of the asking; of the need to ask. At this point (in this mortal earthly life) God needs us to participate-actively in his work; and if we don't participate with God (consciously, by-choice) then much of this work will not be done at all (since we will-not/ cannot be compelled or manipulated). 

(Obviously, this failure to do our divine duty, failure even to acknowledge a divine duty to be done; explains some aspects of the extremely-bad spiritual state of the world: here, now.)

It is Modern Man's great privilege and duty to participate consciously with God. Privilege, because this was not possible to Ancient Man - immersed passively, as he was, in the group-mind - but also a duty, because necessary for God's work, here on earth. If we fail to do this duty, God's best (first choice) plans will fail. 

(We have failed, God's first choice plans have failed, and second and third etc. choice back-ups - and we are now beginning to reap the consequences. Yet still we fail. Still we shirk our part.)

There-fore, I need to remember to ask: and ask with my conscious will, not just with words.

Failure of discernment of evil... Is it damning?

I have been thinking about this rampant problem that people cannot (or, at least, do not) discern evil; in particular that they impute good motivations even when evil is intended. 

I suppose most people would not regard this as a Bad Thing, and indeed might regard it as a sign of a Good Person that they assume other people are also Good... 

I find, however, that I can't believe it. I find that Good and evil are mostly about taking sides: the side of God and creation, or the side against them. So, a failure to discern evil is often - perhaps usually - in practice a matter of allying oneself with the side of evil, and against God. 

This would mean that a failure to discern evil - when one is in a position to do so - may be an act of self-damnation

But the consequences may compound the sin. This comes out in all sorts of ways. For example, people will often try to explain-away and excuse evil acts by saying they are actually well-motivated, or actually Doing Good. This they term 'giving the benefit of the doubt'.  

In particular, actual evil things happening in our own personal experience and to people that we love, are instead assigned to be motivated by remote, abstract, ideological Good, which we know only secondhand and from habitually- and systematically-dishonest sources such as government, the media and indeed large institutions of any kind.

Yet God will surely make it possible for us to know evil when it impacts upon us personally? And also know this from our own personal direct experience, common sense and capacity for reason (rather than needing to be told it by 'experts'? 

(Unlike those old-style communists who went to party meetings to be told who to support, and why (nowadays this job is done by the mass media). I think of those who were fanatical anti-Naziuntil 23 August 1939 when they discovered that Stalin had made a pact with Hitler. Presumably they then trooped obediently CP HQ to have it explained that - today - cooperation with fascists was Good...)

At the bottom line, I suspect that the discernment of evil is maybe the most important thing to do about evil; much more important than (supposedly) 'fighting' evil. We absolutely need to identify, and correctly, what and who is on the side of evil: who are evil-allied. And these evil-allied may well turn-out to be almost-everything, and almost-everybody - we should be prepared for that possibility. 

If I am right, this widespread and determined self-blinding to evil, the refusal to identify and acknowledge evil; may be one of the most prevalent and significant of our many modern sins. 

Living in the present and eternity

Like-it, or like-it-not, we are being compelled to live in The Present - since both our earthly past and future are both being abolished so rapidly that they can no longer serve as objects of confident contemplation, can no longer structure our daily living.

The past has-been being-deleted/destroyed actively and with increasing rapidity since the 1960s; and 2020 is clearly intended to be a Year Zero for the world. 

In one sense, it was only a brief period (starting maybe in the middle 18th century, but not complete until the middle 1800s) during which the historical past was considered to have an objective, scientific validity; during which the historian was supposed to be a scientist. Before then, the past was discussed only for itse relevance to the presence - as historical exemplars and warnings, or as sources of wisdom and 'authority'. 

This 'use' of history was broadly honest and well-motivated (because all historical societies shared a basis in 'natural law' or spontaneous human goodness as a broad ideal). Now, under global satanism, and with established and increasing value-inversion; the motivations behind the abolition and manipulation of The Past (even the very recent past) are of course evil. 

But, at any rate, The Past is disappearing fast - where it has not already gone; and the prospect is for a lot more of the same. 

However, talking of 'the prospect'... The Future is abolished. 

2020 has been a training for the New Normal, post Great Reset life where the time horizon is measurable in weeks and hours, not years or decades. Things are only until the next media-disseminated official announcement. Everybody is in breach of laws and rules at every moment, and these breaches punishable by extremely severe penalties administered by low-level officials. 

In the New Normal we live only by the fickle grace and favour of the bureaucrats, manipulators of public opinion and the army of petty tyrants. And this applies equally to the bureaucrats, PR-media people and the Little Hitlers themselves - they too are subject to the same arbitrary totalitarianism that they serve so obediently. Satan hates all humans, and loathes his own servants more than most.  

Careers are abolished, along with most kind of 'work' - the continuing forms of work are subject to the current and changeable needs of The System; and work will be imposed rather than chosen and developed.  

So, it seems that the triumph of supernatural evil is compelling us to the threshold of that state which CS Lewis described as a Christian ideal! He advised that we should avoid living in The Past or Future; and should aspire to live in The Present - in context of Eternity (specifically, resurrected Heavenly life everlasting). 

Of course, this is impossible for non-Christians - who are therefore subject to the inevitable constraints and corruptions of merely present living; to the inevitable downward-spiral of short-termist hedonism; with its habituation, degradation and despair. 

So! Christians are confronted by a clear, unavoidable and undiluted incentive for living this Present life in context of the world to come. Something which we ought to be attempting anyway... But now, we have little excuse for failing to make this choice. 

 

Note: For a combination of reasons - internal and external - this blog seems to have reached the end of its life-expectancy and to be dying. I may, or may not, continue to blog here for my own benefit - e.g. to help in clarifying ideas (as above). But I am closing comments, at least for a while (which entails hiding old comments as well). Thus it will no longer be A Blog but more of a notebook. 

How Jesus Christ enabled Heaven (with its exclusion of evil)

The religion of the Ancient Egyptians - which is massively documented - provides a detailed picture of how the world of God's creation was before the work of Jesus Christ. 

Creation was made by the pushing aside of chaos; civilization was like a clearing in the wild forest; and the chaotic forest was always trying to take back the world of religion, agriculture and the domain of the creating Gods. 

Most of the Gods were Good, but the representatives of chaotic evil remained - such as Set (or Seth) who dwelt in the deserts around the fertile and civilized state of Egypt; and Apophis the primal world-serpant who, every night, attacked the ship of the sun, to try and prevent dawn. 

Thus light/ life/ goodness/ order was engaged in a continual and eternal battle to hold-back the chaos/ evil that surrounded on all sides; and which would otherwise return the world to its primal disorder. 

 

This may be taken broadly to represent the situation of divine creation on earth before the work of Jesus. And Jesus's work can be seen as the additional creation of Heaven, as a New Place to be inhabited by resurrected Men who have first been temporarily incarnated onto earth as mortals. The mortal state is that from-which each Man must choose Heaven - or Not.

 

By this understanding, Heaven is - and for the first time - a place that free men can inhabit where evil has been excluded - permanently.

By 'free men; I mean Men who are agents; operating-from their own distinctive divine selves; generating their own thoughts - mini-gods. In other words: In Heaven Men are secondary creators (operating within God's primary creation) - who can fully participate with God on the continuing creation of God's ongoing, expanding world. 

 

Jesus gave Men the possibility of resurrection to eternal life. Resurrection means eternal bodies; and bodies can only be eternal in an eternal environment - which is Heaven. In other words, Heaven in a world without death.

By contrast; this mortal life we know, here on earth, is ruled by chaos (or 'entropy', dis-order). All changes and decays, nothing lasts unchanged; there degeneration and disease are everywhere and death is the inevitable terminus. This mortal world - taken in isolation - is therefore the same as that described by the Ancient Egyptians.

However, since Jesus Christ; we have the chance to opt-into Heaven; which is an everlasting world without evil - without chaos or entropy.  

And at the same time, when resurrected into Heaven, we remain our-selves; indeed we become even more our-selves and able to participate in the ongoing work of God's creation. 

So, our mortal lives on this earth give us all lived experiences of chaos, entropy and evil; and the opportunity to learn from these experiences in order to make a final, irreversible commitment in favour of Good. 

In other words; mortal life on earth is what enables us to understand what is being offered by Jesus: eternal resurrected life in Heaven. And knowing (by contrast and implication) both sides, both possibilities... our free choice may be informed.   

 

My understanding of this new possibility of heaven; is that it is due to the possibility of each Man making a permanent commitment to Goodness, to creation, to the work of God. Because Heaven is composed only of Beings that have made this permanent commitment - then Heaven is a place without evil. 

All the inhabitants of Heaven (Men and others) are on the side of God and creation; and everything they (we) do in Heaven is in-harmony-with God and creation. Thus, In Heaven there is no tendency towards chaos, entropy, evil...

In another description; Heaven is based on the principle of love. The harmonious working of many free agents is possible by their mutual love. It is therefore love which is the principle of cohesion in creation - which 'organises' the work of many free individuals into a coherent, ongoing, creativity. 

 

The 'process' by which any mortal Man from earth was made able to be resurrected-into Heaven was made possible by Jesus Christ; and the 'method' made simple and accessible. Since Jesus; anyone who wants Heaven merely has to 'follow' Jesus, who will lead us through resurrection and into Heaven (a path which he himself has taken) as The Good Shepherd. 

It seems that (here on earth, in this mrtal life) not everyone knows-about Heaven, not everybody wants Heaven; and among those who do want to go onto Heaven, there are some who do not want to follow Jesus, or do not believe Jesus can or will lead us to Heaven. 

But we can trust that God the creator will ensure that everybody will have the fullest chance to know such things sooner or later; and before each needs to choose between a commitment to Heaven - or Not.

How to 'do' heart-thinking

'Doing' heart-thinking is not the point; we are all doing it, all of the time. The task is not to do it, but first to become conscious of it; and then to follow its dictates. 

In childhood (and earlier phases of human history, apparently) many/most people lived in accordance with heart-thinking - but did so without awareness, and automatically. 

Now, on the other side of our spiritual adolescence, we have lost the capacity (and now, in 2020, even the opportunity) for such spontaneous, natural life; and our choice now is whether to return to heart-thinking as a conscious decision, and to follow the dictates of the heart (which are aligned-with God's creation). 

Or, in contrast, the choice may be to continue with the socially-prevalent (and dominant) alternations between bureaucratic pseudo-rationalistic materialism ('Ahrimanic' evil) and selfish instinctive hedonism ('Luciferic' evil). This (here-and-now) reliably leads to the choice of damnation.

 

Heart-thinking is the first goal of 'meditation', or prayer: to become aware of our own heart-thinking; which means to make matters so that our heart-thinking is in our conscious stream of thoughts.  

Heart-thinking is always there, always going-on - the task is to bring it to awareness - to locate it among distractions, clear a path, encourage emergence... to notice and take-seriously our heart-thinking. (Because the purity of heart-thinking is an ideal, it is the divine within us; and as such in harmony with God.)*

To know and live-by heart-thinking does not happen spontaneously, but by decision. And we are not compelled to live-by heart-thinking; but must make a discernment to do so.

 

It is the role of head-thinking to fit that ideal to daily practicalities and constraints; and in this job we have (if we choose to access it) the universal spirit that is the Holy Ghost to inform and guide us, and provide encouragement. 

And, although the above seems abstract - the reality is personal. The thinking of the heart is our real inner person - as opposed to our superficial (and typically fake, dishonest, manipulative or pathological) 'personality'. The Holy Ghost is a person. Our living in the world is a matter of living in relationship with Beings. 

Living is ideally a matter of harmony with ongoing creation; which is a personal and purposive product of God's intention.

 

Our modern task (which extremely few have recognised, fewer still attempted) is (put simply) to do consciously and by choice that which was once done unconsciously and spontaneously; that is, freely and from personal agency, to do what was once done from lack of individual capacity and alternative possibilities. 

We have greater capacities and more possibilities; and must choose The Right from among them - this is what requires to be done If, we wish to have eternal resurrected life in Heaven. 

If Not; we can simply carry on as the mass majority do at present.

 

*Note: This means that our awareness of heart-thinking comes after the heart-thinking itself. The heart-thinking has already happened by the time we are aware of it. Consciousness tells us what heart-thinking has decided. A consequence is that heart-thinking comes temporally before consciousness; and consciousness - logical reasoning, factual information and the like - does not necessarily have any influence on heart-thinking, and any later influence consciousness does have, will be due to the 'internal' imperatives of heart-thinking. 

Further added: To take-up a metaphor of William Arkle, heart-thinking is rather like trying to tune an analog radio to get a particular and previously-undiscovered channel. First we must know-about that 'real' channel, and want to find the signal. Then we may need to maximise reception by finding the best direction to point the arial, and exclude adjacent sources of 'noise': sparks, crackle, hum etc. This corresponds to spiritual guidance (where to look) and meditation (reducing distraction). Then comes the actual tuning, i.e. the precise twiddling of the dial and listening to discover... what? Well, we need to know the real channel when we find it among all the wrong and perhaps misleading channels; which entails both an inner recognition and an external confirmation of the validity of that recognition (recognition by the divine within us by virtue of being God's children; and confirmation from the universal divine outside us: ie. the Holy Ghost). This stage braodly corresponds with prayer. Finally we must choose to attend to the real channel, regard it seriously, and take note of its content in our lives.  

Why the mass vulnerability to crude and incoherent propaganda? Interpretation is more fundamental than perception

Man has been becoming detached from his original, spontaneous, natural contact with the god/s, spirits, nature and other Men for many generations - indeed for many hundreds of years. Originally Men lived in a kind of immersive telepathic contact with all of these and with each other - but that has been dwindling for a long time - and at about the millenium the separation became complete for almost everyone, from adolescence onwards. 

Lacking such an immersive awareness, almost everyone is now utterly dependent upon external perceptions - incoming 'information' from the senses, communications, images etc. And because 'information' includes both the symbolic code and the decoder; Modern Man not only absorbs what specifically to think (ideas, beliefs, facts) - but much more significantly, how to interpret perceptions: how to think about things. 

Modern Man blots-up concepts along with data; absorbs his software as well as his inputs. 

 

Modern Man is therefore pathetic in his extreme vulnerability to external influence - and since both perception and interpretation are equally open and adrift; there is no easy answer. 

In particular, there is no way in which large-scale (mass) external influence can cure this fundamental deficiency in the ability to resist external influence!

We need and must have the ability to interpret, think and be motivated-from our inner reality - which reality is also the only possible route to the realities of the god/s, spirits, nature and other Men. 

 

Access to inner reality - which is actually the divine within us - is made difficult by the entirety of mainstream public discourse (and all kinds of institutions, including churches), by inculcated habits; and access if made impossible when our conceptual framework rejects all inner realities that contradict our imposed-programming; as meaningless, trivial or (increasingly) immoral. 

 

(For Modern Man the source of evil is the individual's soul; the path of 'salvation' is to be open to 'the right kind' of external influence; and the only disagreement between people concerns the 'right kind' of source of external influence to which we should open our-selves. But then any person's discernment between rival sources is equally open to external influences...)

 

The stark nature of our condition is that the answer lies within everyone (at least, every person or being capable of love); but the answer is almost-wholly dependent upon each person both diagnosing his continuous state of sinful passivity to the demonic; and also seeking his own cure. 

Unless or until an individual initiates the seeking of his own salvation from his own divine inner resources by means of 'intuition'; his situation is literally hope-less. 

I mean he has No Hope.

Yet, if any Man does seek salvation within; vast creative divine resources will immediately be available  to assist. The merest pinhole made by inner-divine-soul intent is all that is required as an entry point for help from the god/s, spirit, nature and other Men (including the so-called dead). 

But that initiatory intent is absolutely required.

Rudolf Steiner on the Sub-Nature we now inhabit

At the end of his life, Rudolf Steiner dictated a summary of the key ideas that he wished emphasise. These were not finished, but the very last things he wrote about - in a posthumously published book entitled Anthroposophical Leading Thoughts (Collected Works number 26) were some of his most insightful and prophectic statements - although difficult to understand without some background knowledge. 

These have been made much clearer by a 2020 book from Jeremy Naydler The struggle for a human future, which I recommend reading.  

The following blog post, written earlier today, is my current understanding of what Steiner is implying, but did ot live long enough to formulate and state explicitly.

Anyway, here is an edited excerpt from these final words, which can be seen in full here.

 

By far the greater part of that which works in modern civilisation through technical Science and Industry — wherein the life of man is so intensely interwoven — is not Nature at all, but Sub-Nature. 

It is a world which emancipates itself from Nature — emancipates itself in a downward direction. 

 

Entering the purely earthly element, Man strikes upon the Ahrimanic realm. With his own being he must now acquire a right relation to the Ahrimanic. 

But in the age of Technical Science hitherto, the possibility of finding a true relationship to the Ahrimanic civilisation has escaped man. He must find the strength, the inner force of knowledge, in order not to be overcome by Ahriman in this technical civilisation. 

 

He must understand Sub-Nature for what it really is. This he can only do if he rises, in spiritual knowledge, at least as far into extra-earthly Super-Nature as he has descended, in technical Sciences, into Sub-Nature. 

The age requires a knowledge transcending Nature, because in its inner life it must come to grips with a life-content which has sunk far beneath Nature — a life-content whose influence is perilous. 

 

Needless to say, there can be no question here of advocating a return to earlier states of civilisation. The point is that man shall find the way to bring the conditions of modern civilisation into their true relationship-to himself and to the Cosmos. 

There are very few as yet who even feel the greatness of the spiritual tasks approaching man in this direction. 

Electricity, for instance, celebrated since its discovery as the very soul of Nature's existence, must be recognised in its true character — in its peculiar power of leading down from Nature to Sub Nature. 

Only man himself must beware lest he slide downward with it. 

 

In the age when there was not yet a technical industry independent of true Nature, man found the Spirit within his view of Nature. 

But the technical processes, emancipating themselves from Nature, caused him to stare more and more fixedly at the mechanical-material, which now became for him the really scientific realm. 

In this mechanical-material domain, all the Divine-Spiritual Being connected with the origin of human evolution, is completely absent. The purely Ahrimanic dominates this sphere. 

 

In the Science of the Spirit, we now create another sphere in which there is no Ahrimanic element. It is just by receiving in Knowledge this spirituality to which the Ahrimanic powers have no access, that man is strengthened to confront Ahriman within the world. 

An end to abstraction - the problem of indirect communication

We are dying of abstraction, of the Ahrimanic - manifested as the global, totalitarian, bureaucratic-media system. The only escape from abstraction is in the personal, and in direct communication - which is that 'shared thinking' which exists in the realm of universal reality (but to say that is itself an abstraction). 

What this means is that there is here-and-now a problem with all actual and possible indirect communications, for example using language (or pictures, or other symbols - anything which entails perception, interpretation of perceptions etc) - for example This. 

What you are reading now is exactly the kind of problem I mean.

 

I have talked about the primacy of intuition; but I see now that intuition goes further than I had realised. Because there is no such thing as the objective. All knowledge is personal, all knowledge includes the 'subjective'... 

This means that there is no such thing as 'detachable knowledge'.  

All information is contextual, and the context is a Being - i.e. personal. So it is not possible to speak, write or otherwise indirectly-communicate knowledge to anyone; as if knowledge could be removed from subjectivity and moved-around or stored: it can't.

 

Even the most apparently objective 'fact' is not a fact; but is only a part of the unit of meaning; because the unit of meaning is in consciousnes, in thinking, entails a Being. 

The true knowledge is active, current, always-personal.

This matters acutely because we are spiralling down into a sub-human, sub-real hell of abstraction and system; and if we base our primary knowing on anything in this abstracted world, we will we taking the side against God. 

 

Thus, I may have a valid intuition, but I cannot communicate it to you or anyone else without a near certainty of falsity. This applies even to 'simple facts'; but especially seriously to fundamental truths, to living realities. 

I can have sure intuitions about here and now, what is happen-ing; but not about any detached item of knowledge concerning past or future. 

True knowledge cannot be 'stored' - for example in written words, or recordings, or pictures - because this leaves out the interpretation and understanding. 

 

I have written a great deal about metaphysics; but even metaphysics is a part of the Satanic world (the Establishment world working against God and creation, and against The Good)- because metaphysics is words, symbols... abstractions: metaphysics is just a model of reality. 

Metaphysics is not reality itself. 

 

There is perhaps a role for a different, rival metaphyiscs than mainstream materialism; and such an alternative can serve to break the 'spell' of materialism. ...Can show us that The System is wrong, or at least that alternative and more coherent systems are possible. 

Perhaps some of my earlier blog posts - and this can - can be so considered...

But any such spiritual metaphysics can only be a temporary phase en route to no-metaphysics-at-all as the basis of a person's belief. And the direct communication of simultaneous, here-and-now, shared thinking as the only valid method of interpersonal knowing.

 

This is the situation into which we are compelled by the progressively totalising corruption of The System; and by its alignment against God. 

How can God help us?

My phraseology is intentional - 'can' is the word I mean. Although God is the creator, God cannot do everything.

(The false and incoherent idea that God is omnipotent and omniscient is not truly Christian, but was imported from pre-Christian Classical philosophy.)

In particular, this is a living 'universe' and reality is full of Beings - each of which is an agent, and each Being can (although not necessarily) generate intention: can think from himself. 

 

As usual, the analogy (which is also literal) of God as parents, and Men (and other Beings) as children makes matters clearer. A parent may compel a young child to perform certain actions, or prevent other actions - but a parent cannot compel what the child wants, cannot eradicate sin... An ideal, loving parent may teach, but cannot ensure that a specific child will learn.

God created and continues to create this world for our experience and learning; but He cannot compel us to learn from our experience - indeed we may learn the opposite of what was intended. 

(That is why this mortal world was built. If learning was not necessary, mortal life would not be necessary.)

For instance; any act of divine compassion may be (and has been) interpreted as aggression; just as happens between loving parents and an evil-motivated child. 

 

So, when it comes to God helping us in this current absolutely dire global situation of totalitarianism triumphant - where the forces of evil hold nearly all the power, and with the active consent of nearly-all ruling humans and the tacit acquiescence of the masses - what God can do (and does do) is to continue to create opportunities for learning, for each and every one of us. 

God is doing this on an individually-tailored basis. God has, in your here-and-now, created a situation from-which you (personally) are intended to learn some-thing of importance for your spiritual development and/or salvation.

...Not the general situation, but your situation; not for people in general but for you exactly. 

 

God cannot, and does not, try to 'fix' any global problems created by the evil nature of choices of great masses of Men - except or unless if to do so may be specifically helpful for specific persons. And you cannot know this, neither can I, nor can anyone - because all such outcomes depend upon the concordance of massive numbers of future choices by persons (and other Beings) who are free agents. 

 

What you need to know, and what I need to know, is related to our current circumstance; and that we can know - and we can know this directly (as-it-were mind to mind, without any 'mediation' such as language). We can know it by intuition from our true selves (i.e. that which is divine within us, being as were are children of God); and we can know it from the Holy Ghost - which is everywhere a source of guidance and comfort - in prayer/ meditation.

 

And once some-thing has been learned, then there will be some other thing to be learned. 

Life is never 'sorted-out'; there is no limit to the number of things we can learn - and one leads on to another; which is why the greatest saints were never complacent, and always aware of how much they had not learned.

What we have not learned may be termed our sins, and the process of learning can be termed repentance; which is why even the greatest of saints know themselves to be sinners. 

 

The Christian antidote to fear is trust in God, our loving Father the Creator; who can and does turn all actual events into possibilities for our personal learning; aimed at resurrection (of me, of you) to everlasting life in Heaven. We can trust that this will happen, but it is up to us - from our freedom - to make use of the opportunities God is providing.

 

Must Christianity be a revealed religion?

When I became a Christian, I accepted that there were natural and revealed religions: and Christianity was a revealed religion. It was an 'historical' religion; which made claims about human history and 'therefore' (it was said) some history must be taught, learned and accepted.

A natural religion like the animism of hunter gatherers was the natural and spontaneous spirituality, and paganism was an elaboration and formalisation of this spontaneous animism (totemic religions being a half-way house). Hinduism was perhaps the highest development of this spontaneous paganism - yes, it is full of culturally specific detail, but something like the polytheism of Hinduism would form in all civilizations (eg Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome), by culturally inflected spontaneous developments...

But, supposedly, Christianity was not like this; it was (like Judaism, like Islam) one of the revealed religions.


In other words, the idea was that we could Not work-out Christianity for ourselves, from our spontaneous inner feelings and reactions, and natural ways of thinking about the human condition and the world in general. We needed to be told about Christianity; or brought-up in it.

The idea was that - if a bunch of young children were raised from infancy to adulthood, on an island, cut off from the world, they would Not become Christians. This was the rational basis for Christian missionary work.

To become Christians people would need to be told, or to read, about Jesus, his life and teaching - what it meant, what to do... People needed (one or more of) pastors, priests, a church organisation, access to scripture (aurally or by reading), some knowledge of the history of the church, knowledge of doctrine or theology... They may well require participation in specific (recorded, taught) rituals. That Kind Of Stuff...


But there is another way of regarding Christianity as a natural religion. I sometimes think of this as a 'cosmic' view of the work of Christ: that what Jesus did was to change the cosmos.

Jesus changed the nature of reality. He altered the structure of things - such that there were new possibilities; such that after Jesus people could be Christians - that is could follow Jesus to everlasting life in Heaven, and could become Sons and Daughters of God - entirely from their own natural, spontaneous, inner dispositions and knowledge...

Because of the cosmic changes made by Jesus; it became possible for someone to be a follower of Christ without any specific knowledge of Christ.


Is this true? I believe it is true; and I hope it is true!

Because if it is Not true, then Christianity is on its way-out; because the records and teaching of revelation, and the ways that people are interpreting it, are by now deeply tainted and corrupted.

Revealed Christianity nowadays points away-from Christ and towards the totalitarian System of this world. Revealed Christianity has it that Christianity must be changed and fitted into the mainstream, dominant, global ideology.

 

The question to ask is whether a loving God (our Father, the creator) would allow a situation to exist. Would such a God allow a situation in which his children - who wished to find it - were unable to discover and discern the truth; because the history was lies, the priests and pastors were political ideologues, the rituals were degraded, and everybody was trained to interpret the world through the lens of politics?

I do not accept such an understanding. On the contrary, I believe that God has made it so that whatever is required for Men to attain salvation and theosis is possible for any individual person, anywhere, unaided - and despite any amount of falsehood and distortion.

So, I now regard Christianity as one of the natural religions.

Note added: If you ask how? Consider that there need not be a single route to natural Christianity; indeed there very probably isn't. There may be as many routes to becoming a Christian (without 'external' revelation) as there are individuals; depending on their disposition and situation. There are innumerable possible ways that a particular person may come to know the truth - involving both innate qualities, and potential divine interventions.

Why this might be The End

(Note - I made some additions c.6 hours after this was first posted.)

About a decade ago; I wrote a post in which I speculated that the End Times - the end of human life (or life as such), and/ or the end of the planet - might happen when mortal life on earth became net-harmful to the chance of salvation.

This now strikes me as too mathematical a viewpoint, and I also failed to take into account that (presumably) God "places" different kinds of soul into different cultural phases; on the basis that the best conditions for salvation differ between souls with different dispositions.

(Note - I believe that we all lived pre-mortally as spirit children of God, and already had different dispositions before this mortal life.)

So that these modern conditions, in which the demonic powers dominate global and national politics, government and media - and this domination has been extended ever wider and deeper - is optimal for the "teaching" of some types of person.

Nonetheless, the basic point seems valid that At Some Point, the "experiment" of human life on earth may have become so spiritually hostile that it will be brought to an end, by one means or another. By God (via whatever intermediary causes He chooses) and for the good of Mankind.

And I have a strong feeling that this will happen very soon (days or weeks soon). I have no evidence for this at all, beyond that a few others have independently come to feel the same. But (having had this intuition for some months) I think the time has come to state it 'for the record'; although I don't intend to say anything more on the subject.

I don't think this has any special "lifestyle" implications except that we should not delay in clarifying our own understanding and desires concerning First Things - but given the contingencies of human mortal life, this urgency has always been an imperative, anyway.

What then? I don't know. Another world, another experimental learning environment? Or maybe the needful and beneficial possibilities of incarnate mortal life have by now been achieved?

This is not a matter for argument or persuasion: either I am right or wrong, and soon we will know. But as a generic possibility, later if not sooner, this seems a plausible end point.

A strange world where the people are evil, but the place isn't

I had a striking insight in the Lake District recently, that this is a world in which almost-all the people are (to varying degrees) evil: by which I mean quite precisely that they have taken the side of Satan against God and Creation.

Yet, the world around me - especially the natural world of animals, plants and landscape - it not evil. The natural world is part of God's creation, and (unlike Man) nature is Not in rebellion against itself - therefore it is good.

I think this is one reason why They (the representatives of purposive evil in this world) are so keen to keep us away from nature; to put the non-natural between us and nature (barriers ranging from glass and concrete - to sheer noise and other distractions); why They were so very keen to lock us inside; why They are so keen that all interactions should be masked, distant or via electronic (symbolic, artificial) intermediaries.

I am more aware of the goodness of nature now than ever before; when the contrast with Men is so stark and extreme.

What is needed now is a return to the natural world of spirit, within which nature unconsciously dwells; and which we as children once inhabited - that realm variously and partially conceptualised as the Acient Egyptian Duat, the underworld, the dream-world, the collective unconscious...

The task is to make the unconscious conscious; to make what was spontaneous and unchosen the consequence of conscious choice. 

What does God want from us? - Reverse Engineering 2020

In general I try to stick to the individual perspective when it comes to destiny. We are meant to learn from our own experiences in mortal life - not those of the general population (and especially not when communicated by the mass media).

However, 2020 seems to teach us, generally, that we must be individually responsible agents.

Anyone who looks for external guidance, who takes his values from The World; will be adopting the perspective of Satan - will be taking the side against God - and therefore is likely to reject Christ's offer of eternal life.

Everywhere we turn for guidance, there is The Lie; a vastly complex system of millions of micro lies, built upon a few Big Lies -- that are themselves gross inversions of reality and asserted to be empirical facts. All large or powerful or wealthy or influential institutions are active followers and advocates of The Lie.

On the one hand, we have a world of evil - falsehood, false interpretation, false perspectives; and the encouragement of sins such as fear and resentment (but painted as virtue)...

And on the other hand - just our-selves.

Those who ally with God and who oppose the system may, if lucky, have support from a handful of honest folk. But this won't Just Happen. Such honest folk must be sought and selected from the mass of evil-allied corruption.

The socially-minded, the conformist, those who want to be nice and to get along, follow a career, just relax and have fun... those who accept the framework, the priorities and talking points, of the politics-mediaplex and the linked bureaucracies... All such are now working as agents of the devil.

These are, of course, a large majority.

It looks to me as if this has rapidly, and very completely, become the New Normal...

Either we make a commitment to root our worldview in our own discernment; or else we join our own life with the powers of purposive evil.

There is no neutral ground - there never has been. But now and for the first time, we are each on a solo quest through this life.

You and whose army?

This is the big question in 2020. When people say or write that 'we' will not stand for X, and if They go ahead with X then 'we' will do something or another to stop it, or punish Them, or something... This all invites the childhood response: "You and whose army?".

Who Exactly is this We, and if We are so powerful, how come We have done nothing effective about anything so far?

All this tough talk (particularly from the pseudonymous) is bluster and bluff at best, but more often an evasion of the grim reality of being beaten, of being defeated and colonised.

We are not keeping our powder dry - because there is no powder. We are not waiting to pick the right fight, defend the last bridge... There is no line in the sand (and if there was, it was overrun a long time since).

The reality is that we don't each have an army to back us, nor is there any strategy - so it makes no sense (and is deceptive) to talk tactics.

Either what we Do is individual and immediate, done without expectation of back-up and in the teeth of mass hostility; or nothing will be done.

Don't kid youself. Dishonesty is a sin. If some thing should be done but you don't; then acknowledge and repent your failure. For Christians repentance is enough, but it is mandatory.

Don't pretend that you are a secret hero and your moral failures are all part of a master plan.

Whose fault?

Avoiding blame is a great vice, a generative crucible of sins...

In women, especially: I did what you/ they said - so it's not my fault.

In men: You/ they didn't do what I said: so it's not my fault.

The truth is that you are your fault and I am my fault. You life is your responsibility, mine is mine.

We Need Both to take and to acknowledge responsibility.I

Modern Man is thought-by The System

We think reality into being, using the stuff of existence (which, of itself, has no meaning).

This is now obvious in the sense that facts and evidence clearly don't matter - only the power to impose ideology... which is the power to impose interpretations.

Thus reality depends on thinking. For a Christian; free will or human agency is a truth - so our thinking is chosen; for Modern Man that choice must be conscious.

If instead we choose to believe that reality is unchosen, that reality is that which is forced upon us; then we will believe that The System is reality.

Therefore, the mass majority who are passive, unchosen, unconscious; who receive reality - do not think, but are thought-by The System.

All the time.

Their thinking is a Product of ideology interpretation, applied to controlled perceptions/ manipulated emotions and memories of perceptions and emotions.

It is that first decision not to think From oneself that leads inexorably to being-thought by The System.

And The System is evil.