The Modern Condition: Free to choose the divine within us in Final Participation; or free and able to reject it

In Original Participation we live dominated by the real (divine) self - of which we are unconscious, and towards which we are passive. 

As consciousness develops we become aware that the real self is a distinct 'entity' - we are able to distinguish thinking of the real self from other kinds of thinking (such as thinking in response to perceptions, emotions, memories...). 

Then we learn to block the thinking of the real self - to exclude it from consciousness. At this point (the Consciousness Soul) we have become free of our innate divine nature. 

From this point, to attend to the real self becomes a conscious choice. 

We can choose to attend to the real self, or choose not to attend to it - we can even choose to deny that the real self is real. 

We can choose to regard the thinking of the real self as delusional, a sickness, childishness, wishful fantasy... This is normal and mainstream in the modern world - both among the atheist majority, and among the majority of Christians. 

Final Participation is when, by contrast, we choose to ally ourselves with the real self and give primacy to the thinking of the real self: when we choose - moment by moment, from freedom - to allow the divine within us again to dominate. 

 

Why attaining Final Participation (intuitive heart-thinking) is So difficult

Final Participation (thinking from the real self: from that which is divine in us - God Immanent) is inhibited or blocked by many habits, assumptions and convictions that are nearly-universal among modern adults. 

To an atheist-materialist; real self thinking is childish, psychotic, demented or merely wishful fantasy. 

To an orthodox- (i.e. Not Romantic) Christian; real self thinking is pagan, demonic; contradicts church tradition, church authority, The Bible and mainstream theology. 

To almost everyone; it is contradicted by mainstream institutions, officialdom and the law, economics, science, medicine and the mass media. 

That is to say: in this mortal life of today; the thinking of our real self is socially maladaptive (and very probably biologically maladaptive). 

For all these reasons; thinking from the real self tends to be incomplete, unintegrated or brief in duration. Soon we will cease to attend to our real self in face of one or several of these other factors. 

Consequently, the tendency is to ignore it altogether - especially when intuitive heart-thinking contradicts whatever other factors to which we give primary authority and to which we accord validity. 

But we can choose consciously to attend to the thinking of our real self; and give it primacy over other sources of thinking. We can choose to allow it to dominate. 

And, in a world of loving creation - such as Heaven - thinking from the real self (Final Participation) is wholly (indeed necessarily) adaptive; it both fits-into and contributes-to that world. 

Hobbit music? From the Jaye Consort

This album was the first recording of Medieval Music I ever heard (borrowed from my history teacher and mentor John Reeve). This pioneering band (from 1967) is hilariously rough and ready, improvised and (obviously) done in a single take - in a pretty convincing recreation of how things might actually have sounded IRL. You will hear why I call it Hobbit music - due to the rasping intermittent drone of the longest instrument depicted on the cover. I can just imagine the rustics at The Green Dragon Inn, Bywater falling-about with laughter while dancing to this Estampie. 

The Boomer Business

 A current fashion among US bloggers seems to be engaging in a two minutes hate session directed against "Boomers" - which is that rather loosely-defined (last) Baby Boom 'generation' born on or after 1945; the oldest members of whom were active in the sixties counter-culture movements; and who are now retiring and dying. 

The idea is that this generation is actually the worst in history; but imagine they were the best; and therefore live selfishly and smugly in a state of unearned entitlement. 

The above statement is partly-true but significantly-false, and because of this the anti-Boomer movement does more harm than good... 

(But then, if that was not the case, then anti-Boomer jokes and memes would not be so popular, would they?)

The truth is that the Boomer generation were the worst in history up to that point. But the later generations were even worse, and have continued to deteriorate. 

Since the anti-Boomer satire comes only from the younger-than-Boomer generations; Boomerism is one of those 'beams and motes', or 'pot calling kettle black' examples of projection and displacement. 

Projection - because post-Boomers are criticizing Boomers for their own deficits; and displacement because doing so enables post-Boomers to avoid acknowledging their own - worse in the same direction - generational defects. 

It is also an avoidance of the Real problem in the world today, which is not about generations; but about the spiritual war between Good and evil, God and Satan - and the necessity to understand and discern-between these sides, and for each individual person to make a conscious choice which side he will take.  

The poisonous legacy of neoreaction/ dark enlightenment

In reflecting on the (apparent) demise of neorxn.com, that legacy of the middle-late noughties neo-reactionary, dark-enlightenment, alt-right movement; I was reminded of that movement's critical built-in falsehood with a poisonous legacy - which was to state that Christianity led to Leftism. 

This idea probably originated with Nietzsche - but was propagated by Mencius Moldbug and seems to have spread from him. 

I have often explained why this is wrong, and I cannot be bothered to re-hash it now. Christianity-causing-Leftism is one of those inverted-truths that is so very obviously false (to those whose assumptions are Christian and who are informed about history), that explanations have no traction. 

Indeed - because those who believe this are not Christian and are not informed about the history of Leftism in relation to Christianity - to explain seems actually to reinforce the error.

(Much like trying to 'explain' or prove why men and women cannot really change their sex. Anyone who believes they can is already too far gone to respond to explanations.) 

The real truth is that it was the decline of Christianity that led to Leftism, Indeed, the only two sides in The West are Leftism versus Christianity (i.e. Satan versus God) - there is No political 'Right', distinct from Christianity - it simply does not exist, as has become apparent over the past year.

This is why neo-reaction cannot accurately be described as a half-way-house to Christianity (a 'gateway drug' to use that false analogy), or supportive of Christianity - even though some individuals traversed that path to some extent. 

(There are innumerable paths to Christ - including alcoholism, crime and sexual debauchery - this does not justify any of these activities; any more than having-been a route to Christianity for some people endorses the Secular Right - or the validity of someone like Jordan Peterson!) 

The Secular Right movement was founded-upon the same 'anything-but-Christianity' assumptions that have generated mainstream Western culture for the past century; and which continue to sustain the evolving sexual revolution and the other Litmus Tests of the past year.  

The end of Reaction Times?

The 'Dark Enlightenment' cluster-linkage analysis

I feel that I ought to note the passing of the blog aggregator site neorxn.com, which was the all-time top referrer to this blog - accounting for 130,000 page views over the years. 

The site was called Reaction Times, and had the insightful subtitle "The restoration will not be televised". 

It was one of a group of a briefly-trendy neoreaction/ alt-right/ 'dark enlightenment'/ manosphere-type blogs from about a decade ago (I don't remember exactly when it began). 

It did not include many Christian bloggers, but I was one of the handful. It is possible that some of the current regular readers originally found this blog via the neorxn link. 

Anyway - since February 15 the site has been inactive and down - with the message "Service Unavailable - Server currently undergoing maintenance".  I sent an email to the administrator, who used to run a blog called Free Northerner - but got no reply. So I guess it is all dead. 

Did it fall or was it pushed? I don't know. Certainly, few of the original blogs that it originally aggregated, remain active - and that whole 'secular right' movement (often associated with Mencius Moldbug) has all-but fizzled-out; either from despair, convergence or (at best!) religious conversion (as was inevitable, and necessary). 

Anyway, I thought that someone should note the passing of a once-vigorous web presence. For all its faults as a not-specifically-Christian aggregator; nothing better than neorxn has replaced it - so this probably counts as another loss. 

Be still, and know that I am God - what does it imply?

The phrase: Be still, and know that I am God comes from Psalm 46. 

If taken in isolation; it seems to refer to instructions for some kind of meditation, or meditative prayer. 

It contains two aspects: be still surely refers to what we need to do. Presumably we should cease to move physically, and stand, sit or lie still. 

But implicitly we should also still our minds - that is, cease to be distracted both by external 'inputs' and by internal 'chatter' of the associative chit-chat of memories, speculations and day-dreams. 

But and know that I am God - might imply two almost opposite things: 

It might mean that when you are still you will attune-with the stillness of God - and therefore achieve some awareness of a divine state that is unchanging, timeless, peaceful.

Reality is still - and if we are also still, we might experience reality. 

 

So, by our stillness we can know the stillness that is God. 

But I understand the phrase to mean something very different indeed: that when we are still, we can know the presence of God as a living, changing, active Being: a person with us 

It is our stillness that allows us to become aware of God's moment-by-moment creating of the world, of reality. It is this contrast, not a similarity; which enables us to experience the presence of God. 

We may briefly become still - but God is never still. 

Thus, by our stillness we can know (by experience) the dynamic, living consciousness of God; God in our presence here-and-now. 

Our duty to the "so-called dead" (with reference to some ideas of Rudolf Steiner)

This interview with Christopher Bamford is a good introduction to some of the core (and, I believe, most interesting and important) ideas of Rudolf Steiner. Bamford is not a fluent speaker, but he is (I think) pleasant and engaging; once he gets past the first six minutes (which are mostly answering questions about about the sales of Steiner Press publications).   

After a very good concise definition of the essence of Steiner's ideas; Bamford moves-onto a discussion of the 'so-called dead' as Steiner calls people who have biologically died.

I have found these ideas of Steiner's to be helpful in triggering my own thoughts on the subject - not by my agreeing with what Steiner believes happens after death (I regard him as mostly-wrong about this!) - but mainly by Steiner taking the matter seriously, and in the right spirit. 

The right spirit is to recognize that there is one world that includes both the living and the 'so-called dead' - and also, I would add, pre-mortal spirits who have never been incarnated. 

I think of this, however, in an individual way. I don't believe I am directly concerned with all the dead, or even most of them - but with certain specific people. 

One point Bamford mentions is that the relation between living and SC-dead is potentially (and ideally) two-way and reciprocal. 

Some of the dead remain concerned with, and interested by, the doings of some of the living. 

And also we personally each have an interest in some of the dead - including some duties to them, because there are ways that some particular dead person needs you or me specifically - he or she can benefit from our actions.

Having established the general principles; how might I get to know who exactly needs my attention? 

As usual in personal relationships, this does not work by formula. But I think sometimes I have had a strong and sustained inclination/ motivation to (in some way) pay attention to some particular person - a prime example is my fascination with William Arkle (which I have described here). 

So - I believe that we can know this much without much difficulty. But if you were to ask me to tell-you exactly what we ought to be doing for a specific dead person; then I think we get into the usual difficulty with human relationships that any summary is grossly inadequate and can be dangerously misleading. 

For example, if someone tried to discover what exactly was his duty to a mother, brother, wife or best friend... Then how could this (even in principle) be answered satisfactorily in any kind of explicit, comprehensive fashion? It could not. 

And if you (unwisely) did summarize your duty in some sentence or list of bullet-points - then this reductionism of the personal would be far more likely to mislead and misdirect than to help. 

The correct and simple answer to 'what is my duty?'; is something like loving attention. 

Our duty to the specific-dead is loving attention... and whatever flows from that. 

"So you want to change your fundamental (metaphysical) assumptions?" Romantic Christianity in practice

Probably, you are hoping that this can be done in such a way that your new, chosen, Romantic Christian-type assumptions will become automatic, habitual, pervasive...

The bad news is that what you want is not possible; the good news is that the impossibility is part of the divine plan...

Romantic Christian assumptions must (to make a sweeping generalization) be consciously-chosen and will therefore happen in thinking. (Because thinking is the mode of conscious choice.) 

We usually, spontaneously, want our lives to be 'effortlessly good' - including effortlessly purposive, meaningful, deep and rich. 

But then, when we are learning something, some skill or practice (for me that was various types of academic work at school - then medicine, biology, systems theory, Christian theology...) we want that learning process to be effortless. 

Yet we soon learn that learning is only learning if it is effortful - if 'learning' is not hard work, sustained and focused; then there is no learning (but, at most, only parroting). 

(No insult to parrots is intended by this expression...)

We do not want to make mistakes - to err. But all that means in practice is that we deny our errors and double-down on them - and/or we curtail our ambition to much less than it should be, in our desire to avoid mistakes. 

Thus the 'imaginative living' of successful Romantic Christianity has characteristics of deliberate-day-dreaming - in that (because it is a kind of thinking) we know we are doing it, while we are doing it.  

'Magic' is thus contained within thinking. 

It is therefore necessary to value conscious thinking - and to repent our spontaneous desire to be overwhelmed by 'romanticism breaking-in upon us such that we are passive and helpless to resist.

We need to acknowledge that thinking is (or can be) real, and value our consciously-chosen thinking more than the unconscious and spontaneous. 

Then we may be able to intensify that imaginative thinking - so it becomes more satisfying and dominant within our lives. 

Yet, this mortal life is one of learning from experiences; and we should not expect to make cumulative-progress in our life project. We should not expect the desired mode of thinking to become habitual and spontaneous - but always to require conscious choice. 

After all we Will die, sooner or later - and before then, probably lose our higher faculties to disease, degeneration or just irresistible distractions. 

Yet - on a timescale of eternal Heavenly life - that does not invalidate what learning we do achieve; nor does it invalidate those (perhaps brief) times when our thinking is as it should be. 

It is in overcoming difficulties, and despite them attaining (for a while) - and in thinking - the desired mode of being; that we live in accordance with divine creation. 

In short - we can attain Heaven on Earth in our thinking - but we are not supposed to reach that state automatically. 

Our mortal 'job' is consciously to choose salvation - and keep on choosing. 

Join with demons or become mini-gods? Because we can choose, we must choose

The big, bad fact of these times is that people actually do choose their reality; and they are (en masse) choosing the reality devised by the powers of evil. 

If we consider meaning and purpose in life; then it can be seen that purpose dictates meaning; meaning derives-from purpose. 

Meaning derives from purpose - and purpose is external. 

We necessarily choose our purpose, because our purpose is outside us. Having chosen our purpose, we consciously derive meaning from that purpose.

Thus purpose is chosen. Therefore we actually-do choose the meaning in our lives; or more accurately we already have-chosen the meaning of our lives - but, that meaning can be changed if we change purpose. 

There are only two purposes, into which all others may be classified: with God, or Against. 

This has a precise meaning in that God is the Creator, and we live in divine creation insofar as our life has meaning (since the alternative is un-formed chaos, without knowledge or purpose). 

And God's creation is on-going, moment-by-moment - a living 'process'. (i.e. God is create-ing.) 

The purpose of a Christian is called 'salvation' - which means the choice of resurrected life eternal, in Heaven (with those others who have chosen salvation); to come after the transformation of biological-death. 

This is the choice to become immortal mini-gods (Children of God), whose life is participation in the work of divine creation. 

Therefore, salvation is bound-up-in affiliation to God the Creator - a wish to be part-of and harmonious-with ongoing divine creation. 

What we - each as an individual - decide is whether harmoniously to affiliate-with creation (this is called Love of God); or else try to use creation for our own purposes (this is called pride). 

If we pursue some other purpose than harmony with creation; then we are essentially subordinating divine creation to our-own-purposes. (Or trying-to...)

This is termed 'pride' and all other sins can be reduced to it - hence, for Christians, pride (in this meaning) is the master sin. 

In other words, if we want to live in Heaven, then we will put-first the harmony of God's creation and the people in it - and this virtue is called Love. 

(This is not something theoretical - but what all members of a happy and good family are doing; for so long as that family is happy and good - which, on this world, is always temporary and usually partial.) 

Love is the motivation for those who wish to live in Heaven as it actually is; therefore is is part-of salvation. 

(Someone who cannot love or does not love would not wish to be a part of Heaven; since Heaven 'entails' putting divine creation first.) 

It is the fate of modern Man that the choice to join the side of God and creation is unconscious. A choice that is unconscious, passive, will be a choice to subordinate to the group-mind; and that group-mind is (here-and-now) corrupted to the side against-God.

The group-mind of Man was not always and everywhere corrupted to oppose God and creation - but It Is Now. Therefore, in 2021, the default is anti-creation, prop-evil. In 2021, if we are ruled by that which is spontaneous and appears 'natural' - then we will be opposed to the divine. 

But the seduction to the side of evil is by pride. An implicit 'deal' is offered by evil, which is that: "We will support your personal purposes, If you you join our side." 

Such a person (and this appears to be the majority of people) has come to understand his own life as a matter of manipulating creation to maximize his own personal purposes or gratification.

This 'deal' ("join us and get what you want") is fundamentally dishonest - because 'joining' the side of evil is actually a voluntary submission; after which evil has no reason to honour the deal. 

Nonetheless there are many deal-takers - who are choosing the path to join with the demons*. 

In sum; the most important decision relates to our purpose in life - since this dictates meaning. If there is no conscious choice of purpose - then that purpose will 'naturally be dictated by the group-mind, which is on the side of evil. 

(In a world where God and creation are denied - this is the normal, default choice.) 

Yet we may consciously choose Heavenly Salvation as our personal purpose. This amounts to 'creating our own reality' - which (in a materialist world that denies life beyond biological-death) sounds like mere wishful thinking... 

In truth; it is explicitly taking responsibility for your purpose in living. 

*Few people apparently want Heaven, or do not put it as the priority - or else they do not, in mortal life, understand what is on-offer. But if mere ignorance of Heaven is the problem, we can expect that such people will choose Heaven after this mortal life. On the other hand, if a person is (by that point) too deeply corrupted by evil motivations, too deeply committed to his sins (sin meaning other, personal, priorities) then Heaven will be rejected. The main barrier to salvation is not ignorance but 'having other priorities'.  

If you are having trouble commenting on this blog...

Then that would fit with my own experience in trying to comment elsewhere - intermittent and unpredictable failures and deletions... 

Maybe this is the beginning of the end? 

Alternatively, you could send an e-mail comment, and I will moderate it in the usual way. 

Reading is bad for you; or, What help can we expect from writers?

What help can we get from writers? Not much! 

In the olden days (before 2020) I could go to a book shop or library and browse the shelves among thousands of books - and it was hard to find a single one that was of material assistance in addressing my condition, my deepest needs.

Even old friends among books, are only helpful when I am in the right kind of mood to work-with-them. 

Real books are more like people than they are like supposed 'texts' - that is, when we are really reading a book (which may be a very rare occurrence - or perhaps never, for some people): the book is alive. 

Which is presumably why we can get such strong feeling about books - whether positive or negative. It also explains why (like people) books change; and (again like people, at least nowadays) books usually change for the worse. 

So, we meet up with a book after a gap of some years, and are appalled at the corruption it has undergone in the meantime. We are sure that it did not used to be so nasty when we knew it before; but clearly, the the meantime, the book has made bad choices, not repented them, and doubled-down on its wrongness.

In the past it was probably possible for a book to 'do us good' with the reader in a passive relationship; and the good being done passively and without consent. 

But as human consciousness has developed, all good things become a matter of conscious choice. We can be (and are) only corrupted by submission to the external, including by the effects of book. 

Stealth propaganda and manipulation can only be negative, nowadays. It is not possible to improve modern people by 'smuggling' Christian ideas into stories (as CS Lewis tried to do with Narnia and may have succeeded in doing, 70 years ago - but not now). 

Modern atheist-materialist cultural assumptions are indeed like Lewis's 'watchful dragons' in detecting and rejecting Christian goodness - nonetheless, these dragons must be identified, exposed and confronted. 

Because the aim is for people to join the side of God by conscious choice - in mortal life as it will be after biological death. 

To get benefit from a book, we must actively work-with-it - the book (as a text) does not Do Us Good.

(That Books Are Good-doers is a falsehood sustained by many people, who ought to know better - leading to the idea that 'bookshops' and 'libraries' are A Good Thing - regardless of their content: and that it is necessarily beneficial to encourage people to read more, and to read more books). 

(Related lies are that places called schools and colleges are good things; and people paid to do something officially-called science or the arts are benefactors of mankind).  

Regular readers will know how much I value JRR Tolkien's work, which I have met-with many times over the decades - and we still have a great relationship. 

Yet 'reading Tolkien' clearly does most people no good at all; and apparently merely encourages them in their wickedness and folly - as is evident from the worlds of Tolkien fandom and scholarship (which mostly consist of explicitly evil-affiliated people, working in explicitly evil-affiliated 'Tolkien-themed' institutions).

The best that can be said of them is that they are - on average - Not As Bad as the very worst examples of people and institutions. Nonetheless Tolkien-related institutions and persons are (like everything else in The System) net-bad, and getting worse annually and inexorably. 

So I am compelled to acknowledge that even the best of books are powerless to stem the corruption of our times. 

It takes two 'people' to read a book - the words and the reader; and for that relationship to do good, the reader must be capable-of, and motivated-towards, knowing and choosing Good. 

Otherwise - no matter the potential transcendental excellence of 'the text' - the reading-interaction will be unavailing in pursuit of good; rather like Jesus and the Pharisees. 

Those who lack eyes to see, ears to hear, and do not even want resurrected eternal life; will fail to recognize even the Son of God, never mind benefit from a 'good book'. 

Indeed, the goodness of a book will incite those on the side of evil to greater evil - directed against the threat of good - as with the army of Tolkien commentators, critics and interpreters - biographers, movie-makers and fan-fiction authors; whose true motivation is to subvert and spoil Tolkien, and if possible covertly-invert the understanding of his values. 

The intent is to ensure that readers approach his work with false assumptions and expectations - which, of course, tend to be self-fulfilling, and are resistant to counter-evidence. A potentially good relationship of Man and book has thus been poisoned before it has even begun. 

Two options for being a Christian - here-and-now (and one of them is not viable)

We have, in The West, experienced a couple of centuries of high level critique and rejection of Christianity - perhaps most famously/ influentially by Nietzsche, who blamed in-practice Christianity for that attitude of passivity, guilt, self-hatred, and covert suicide that now dominates The West (even though it is several generations since Christianity was excluded from all significant public discourse in The West). 

The implication is that either we go back to pre-modern 'traditional' Christianity - along with everything that might entail such as monarchy, top-down rule by the church, agrarian societies etc. 

Or else we re-make the philosophy of Christianity - which entails making a distinction between actual Christianity and all traditional attempts to describe, explain, instantiate and implement it. It means re-examining the assumptions of that Greek-Roman philosophy within-which traditional Christianity is explained. It means re-examining the assumption that Christianity be church-led and church-controlled. Re-examining the usually historical understanding of Christianity; the several assumptions underling the assertion of of the primacy of scripture; and very idea of tradition itself...

In other words; the choices are traditional Christianity (in some version or another) and re-making the medieval world; or else Romantic Christianity (in one form or another) and using this as the basis of an unknown and unknowable future. 

But if we conclude that the traditional path is both (overall) undesirable and (actually) impossible* - then there is only one choice: Romantic Christianity. 

*I shall not attempt to persuade anybody of this; but I tried for several years to think through the implications - honestly - and found the project to be literally impossible; as well as harmful to embark upon. This despite my being perfectly clear that the Medieval Traditional world was objectively better - more God-aligned, more good, more motivated to be in accord with divine creation than is the world in 2021. Much better. Until you understand how these two convictions (better - and also bad/ impossible) are simultaneously possible, then you do not understand the point I am making (whether or not you agree with it is another matter!)

Monetized bloggers/ vloggers, clubs and conferences, are all System insiders

For a Christian to respond properly to the current situation - it is necessary to recognize first the The System is evil, and second that The System includes all formal institutions. 

By formal institutions, I means those that are monetized, have accounts, employ people - are regulated by law. This means that even a small club or conference, any blog or vlog, is inside The System, if it has any of these 'corporate' characteristics.

That does not mean that such must be avoided - indeed they cannot; because The System is everywhere, and we live by means of it - but that we absolutely need to be aware of the fact. 

The only groupings that can be (although not necessarily are) outside The System are those that are affective, based on shared interest, voluntary, amateur - personal. 

Such discernments are required because of the imperative of System-distancing. This distancing is a spiritual imperative; it means that although we cannot avoid participating in The System in order to live - we need to be aware of such participation: aware so that we can acknowledge and repent the ways in which it inevitably leads us to sin. 

That is, we need continually to generate and maintain a spiritual distance between our-selves and The System.  

This isn't actually difficult, in the sense that evil is clearer and more obvious than ever before; but it is difficult in the sense that evil-affiliated people and institutions are everywhere and in a large majority - and include many people/ institutions that we like and rely-upon.

The evil-affiliated include many who regard themselves as being opposed to evil but - overall, by their support of a 'reformed' System - are not genuinely opposed to, but in service to, evil. 

I am not saying it is logically-impossible for (for instance) a blogger who has monetized his blog to be genuinely against The System - but it is unlikely that a genuinely God-affiliated individual would monetize his blog, thereby linking it positively with the global bureaucracy. 

In practice, such individuals always aim to reform The System - and that has become impossible. So they actually live in hope of being saved by a System which is evil by strategic intent: that is, they put their faith in evil.  

A self-identified Christian church that owns buildings, is an employer, pays taxes, presents accounts etc - Just Is is an integral part of The System. So many and so various are the System-links - and so strategically and pervasively evil is The System - that the net-evil of any such church is almost inevitable in 2021. 

It is therefore essential that this System-evil explicitly and clearly be recognized; in order to be repented. If the institution is not doing this, it Just Is is evil affiliated. 

And likewise if a person is not explicitly and clearly aware that his Church is evil-affiliated; then he will be placing his faith in evil.

Project Despair - how democracy/ bureaucracy/ the global System is an important element

2020 saw the near-deletion of nearly all the worldly causes of hope. Whatever you most appreciate in your life - whatever you looked forward to - chances are it has been suspended with diminishing likelihood of its ever returning. 

This is particularly despair-inducing in The West; because there is negligible other-worldly expectation of life-beyond-life. 

(As the weeks go by, one after another slender loophole of worldly hope - of some-thing to look-forward-to - meeting family, a fulfilling career, holidays, hobbies, a social life, romance, sports, fellowship, real-education, singing or dancing, arts or crafts or culture... whatever - withers, is closed-off, and tied shut.) 

When all institutions have been incorporated into a single, hierarchical and cross-linked, global bureaucracy (The System) - then there is no personal responsibility for any evil - and we are realizing that personal responsibility is the only real responsibility. 

In a world where all decisions are ultimately underwritten by committees, by voting; then nobody is  responsible for anything. 

And when all institutions are part of The System, there is no possibility of replacing evil rule by something genuinely-better. 

And since the problem is in the non-responsibility - then some other System is not an answer. And we are learning what should have been obvious; that individuals are not allowed to make a positive difference - because all judgment is ultimately ruled by committee. 

Another aspect of the situation is that (because non-responsible) committee systems are intrinsically evil, hence destructive. They will always destroy The Good - overall and through time. 

Therefore the mere operation of The System drives the world further and further into an evil for which nobody is responsible, and about-which nothing constructive can be done. 

Hence the despair. And hence my name for this demonic strategy which has been unrolling for several generations: Project Despair. 

The strategy was very simple: first remove all next-worldly considerations from life (God, the spiritual and creation) - so that people become utterly this-worldly; second, eliminate all this-worldly hope - leaving people with nothing. 

To my intuition, despair is settling upon the world is a fashion that is almost palpable; as the reality of our situation settles in - and this is a despair for which (when people are honest with themselves, and this cannot always be avoided - at least unconsciously) there is no conceivable worldly solution. 

In other words - logistics and practicality aside; people cannot even imagine, cannot even daydream, a way-out from the situation we are spiraling-down into...

The choice is stark: despair or Christ. 

And Christ is necessary, but not sufficient - because each must work actively for his own destiny in this world; and for his own salvation in the next. 

Man has never lived in an godless world before - therefore history is misleading

The most difficult thing to recognize about the current situation in the world is that it is very simple! We live in a godless world - where the divine is excluded from all significant public discourse. 

To whatever question why; the answer is ultimately Godlessness.  

Therefore, historical (and any other kind of) scholarship is not just useless but actively misleading as a guide to where we are and where we are going. It is just another distraction to add to those deluged upon us by The System. 

And this is why the most educated are (in general) the most clueless. 

But even among people who have recognized what is happening and where we are going, there is an unhelpful desire to seek insight by scouring history for analogical precedents - especially about the Roman Empire; but also elsewhere. 

These are mostly a kind of displacement activity (much like the focus on national personalities, policies, elections and minor quantitative variations in a world of unprecedented qualitative uniformity); a kind of self-psychotherapy, subconsciously-intended to cover the reality of helplessness when faced with the global and inexorable nature of what is coming. 

I am not at all advocating despair and passivity - quite the opposite (as many other recent posts make clear); but intellectuals need to be clear that brain power and hard study leading to abstract national/ planetary generalizations are of zero strategic value for improving the outcome of where we are and going. 

My attitude is: by all means read history, theology, philosophy, whatever etc.- but do so for your own personal purposes; and do not expect it to help other people. 

What helps others in a general way is very simple, child's level analyses, rooted in the spiritual war between God (and the Beings who support creation) and the devil (and the Beings who oppose the divine). 

That is really all which needs to be said theoretically: the rest is working-out the implications in our own lives. 

Is it wrong - or necessary - to identify and criticize mainstream (i.e. fake) 'rightists ' and Christians?

As of 2021; anyone who is in the mainstream is not on the side of God, the Good and divine creation - and is almost certainly overall and in-effect against these - regardless of whether that person (or institution) self-identifies as Christian or affects to be against the Left. 

The question is whether people such as myself (or Vox Day) should expend time, effort and zeal in identifying and criticizing mainstream fakes?  

One main viewpoint is that criticism should be focused upon the worst examples of Anti-Christian activity - the explicit and extreme Left; rather than on the less extreme, or mixed, commentators; or 'liberal Christians', or cowardly and compromised, incoherent Christians (who are, after all, a minority). 

And therefore that it is wrong when Christians are ruthless (even aggressive!) in pointing out the flaws and fraudulence of mainstream supposed Christians or anti-leftists. 

This viewpoint argues that such people do some good, overall - or especially when read selectively; and that 'moderate' mainstream pundits may form a bridge (or 'entry drug') to The Truth (i.e. to better, realer, persons and institutions). 

There is also a would-be Christian argument of the mote/ beam in eye kind; whereby it is suggested that nobody should criticize anybody on moral grounds, unless or until they are themselves free from sin... 

But I regard these arguments as mistaken (when they are not merely deceptive and tendentious - i.e. when people are covertly trying to excuse themselves from courage and clarity, under guise of 'tolerance' for others). 

My position is that it is necessary, but not sufficient, to criticize mainstream fake Christians/ anti-leftists; precisely because they are much more likely to influence people; and because their misrepresentation of Christianity tends to block conversion to the real thing (in multiple ways). 

If these people (or institutions) are allowed to stand without their fraudulence being clearly stated, they will do the maximum of harm, and any good they do will tend to be swamped. 

(Which is, after all, why such people are tolerated in the mainstream - why they are even subsidized and encouraged by the forces of evil.)

The fact that primarily-bad people may do some good is irrelevant; because the same applies to out-and-out evil people; who, by taking their bad ideas to extremes, may reach a reductio ad absurdum, waken up their audience, and provoke self-disgust leading to conversion.

...Much as the utter degradation of extreme alcoholism may lead to its own cure, in the Alcoholics Anonymous model - while socially-acceptable, keeping-up-a-facade alcoholics, may be able to deny their situation indefinitely.

An out and out, aggressive, public atheist - like the philosophers Freddie (A.J.) Ayer or Anthony Flew - is probably more likely to reach the end of the road, and convert to (real) Christianity; than is a liberal (fake) Christian of the Jorge Mario Bergoglio or Justin Welby kind, that dominates and leads the mainstream denominations.   

It is also worth bearing in mind that the idea of the Antichrist is one who is 'mostly' (i.e. superficially) Christian - and self-identifies as Christian, while essentially (and by motivation) working-against Christ. 

This is precisely what mainstream 'Christians' are and do; especially obviously so, if you agree with the validity of my 2020 Litmus Tests. 

As for the mote/ beam in the eye argument; it results from a mistaken understanding of the nature of evil - which has become much clearer over the past year. The good are those on the side of God and divine creation; the evil are those who take the side of the devil in opposition to God/ Good and Creation. 

Thus, good and evil are distinguished by allegiance, not by personal qualities. A nasty and badly behaved person can, with absolute legitimacy (so long as he recognizes and repents his sins), call-out a kind, compassionate and altruistic individual who serves Satan. 

Not only can, but should. 

However, although necessary; negative critique of fake mainstream Christians is not sufficient; and should be part of a way of life that includes positive examples of exemplary persons (and, if any can be found, institutions) - who are on the side of God. 

Yet there may not be many such. Indeed, as of 2021; I suspect there are very few individuals who are widely enough known (i.e. sufficiently 'mainstream') to be discussed as exemplars of those who take the side of God - although there were plenty in the past.  

In the meantime, it is inevitable that among the Rich, Famous, Influential and Powerful - there are going to be nearly-all fake-Good people; no matter how much we would hope it to be otherwise...

And that yearning we all share to find someone - anyone! - among the mainstream RFIP, who is 'on our side', is exactly why the fakes need to be exposed. 

Is it A Good Thing that Civilization is purposively destroying itself?

It may be that - belatedly, after a year of its becoming blazingly obvious - more people are noticing that world civilization (led by The West) is purposively destroying itself. Indeed, there is already not much left of active Western Civilization - since it all closed or forbidden. 

This began some decades ago - or maybe longer - as evidenced by chosen sub-replacement fertility (encouraged by the sexual revolution) beginning with the upper classes and spreading downwards to include all but the most feckless and low-intelligence (plus a handful of traditionally-religious groups). 

However, the global coup of early 2020 began actively accelerating (and making compulsory) this process; such that world civilization collapse has (I believe) become inevitable on a short timescale. 

It is being more widely-noticed that the authorities seem happy for this situation to become known explicitly as what it always was: permanent. And plenty of 'normal' folk are 'cool with this' - for one reason or another (related to mass atheism and leftism).  

Given that the dominant Global Establishment have made The System (i.e. the single linked-bureaucracy: all major social institutions including the mass-social media) into a purposive agent of evil - how should we regard this strategic destruction? 

On the one hand, we need to acknowledge that the destruction of the evil-System is being done for even-more-evil reasons. In other words, this represents the take-over of Ahrimanic, partially-good, 'lawful evil' by Sorathic - wholly destructive - 'chaotic evil'. 

On the other hand, we can be confident that God will be making the best of a bad situation through his continuing work of create-ing this world; such that evil may be led into working against-itself. 

What was intended to promote evil may - unintentionally - tend to sabotage evil. 

But (and this is important) evil sabotaging evil does of itself not lead to Good - unless there is Good for it to lead-to.  

It is only by the existence of Good in the world, that God can work to promote further Good. 

In other words, God can take a small amount of Good, and amplify it; but does not (cannot) impose Good where only evil motivations reign. 

Thus there is every reason for the Good (i.e. those on the side of God and divine creation) to remains strong, and hold themselves in readiness. 

When collapse comes it may not (likely it will-not) be reversible; yet there may then be great opportunities for Christians to do great and permanent Good - with the invisible assistance of divine providence. 

My attempted completion of Frodo's poem: O! Wanderers in the shadowed land

Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin are in the Old Forest...

*

Frodo tried to sing a song to encourage them, but his voice sank to a murmur. 

O! Wanderers in the shadowed land
despair not! For though dark they stand,
all woods there be must end at last,
and see the open sun go past:
the setting sun, the rising sun,
the day’s end, or the day begun.
For east or west all woods must fail…

Fail - even as he said the word his voice faded into silence. The air seemed heavy and the making of words wearisome. Just behind them a large branch fell from an old overhanging tree with a crash into the path. The trees seemed to close in before them.

*

It's a lovely lyric; but - thanks to the increasing threat of the Old Forest, it never gets completed. The commentary in Christopher Tolkien's The History of Middle Earth seems to suggest that the poem was never taken any further. 

So, I thought I would have a shot at providing a final line for the poem - by completing a rhyming couplet beginning with For east or west all woods must fail… 

I can immediately inform you that I failed to attain an altogether satisfactory result; the the best completion I managed, the one that is most in spirit with the rest of the poem is:

For east or west all woods must fail…

East or west, all woods must fail.

But that is very obviously pinched from Robert Frost's poem that ends with a repeated "And miles to go before I sleep"...

The ideal last line would either complete the argument, or else explain why the poem stopped. 

So, here are a few other suggestions, from which you can take your pick - or yourself try to do better. 

For east or west all woods must fail…

If not at Harvard, then at Yale. 

For east or west all woods must fail…

It's like escaping from a jail!

For east or west all woods must fail…

And that's the ending of my tale.

Perhaps the best, however, is surely:

For east or west all woods must fail…

Alas! I've trodden on a nail.

In which I find the grave of Tolkien's Aunt Grace, and discover the date of her death...

 Over at The Notion Club Papers blog.

A life of heroic destiny in 2021? On finding Christian motivation

It seems more necessary than ever to live a self-consciously 'heroic' life - if, that is, one is to survive and even thrive - both psychologically but essentially spiritually - in the world of 2021. 

Christians have had so much removed from them; and the spirit of Antichrist is so strong and pervasive (among the Establishment and the masses); that there must be a new, strong, pervasive, clear and simple inner-motivation to get us going, and keep us bold and active, in face of unrelenting dis-couragement. 

We need - in short - each to be a hero of faith... 

A hero of our own spiritual destiny.

But not like a hero of the past, who was admired by his community, who accomplished something for his society - and who returned to 'a hero's welcome'. 

The modern hero will be doing the work of divine creation, not human society; and Men will either ignore him or treat him as a hostile - as stupid, evil or insane. 

Heroism 2021 will be other-worldly - not this-worldly; and will be something private: between the individual and God - it's fruits only objectively evident in Heaven, or to those on earth who are attuned with the Heavenly. 

Mainstream culture regards Man as a kind of animal, as a bundle of instincts; the product of arbitrary causes and random accidents. Small wonder, then, that modern Man is such a pitiful creature; such an ignorant, passive, gullible slave to evil. 

Traditional religion (including Christian) also has an insufficiently-motivating understanding of Man's stature - since the individual was always seen in terms of service to fellow Men - to one or other aspect of human society, human institutions... 

Yet it is now precisely 'fellow Men', and especially institutions/ organizations/ corporations - including the religiously-self-identified churches - who are The Problem. 

It is a index of the depth and pervasiveness of our corruption that one's fellow Men do not want to be helped. 

To be externally guided is (here-and-now) to be on the side of Satan.  

Men are demotivated because they subordinate them-selves, even their souls, to external guidance. 

Their motives are secondhand, feeble, insufficient to sustain heroism - which is why Men have being so readily recruited to the side of evil, and their thoughts and actions redirected to demonic ends.

 

In my opinion it is an evasion to try and organize resistance when the problem is in ourselves.

What is needed is that we wake each morning to a sense of our personal destiny: our immortal task in mortal life - in order to benefit the society of Heaven. 

Each of us is unique and has an unique place in Heaven - it is for that which we need to prepare with heroic bravery and dedication.

Since our destiny is unique, we must discover it by intuitive consultation with our innate divinity; reflection, conversation, study; by our innate power of discernment; trial-and-error-and-repentance; prayer and meditation; and guidance from the Holy Ghost...

To be a hero of faith in 2021 is simple enough that anyone can start from wherever they are: Now! 

And complex enough to be a lifetime's activity and excitement. 

It is a way of thinking, a way of living. A combination of conscious choice, good habits, and a spontaneous upwelling of divine-directed motivation.    

Traditionalist Christians of the past may have regarded this kind of heroic endeavor as a spiritually prideful fantasy. 

But that is hardly a possibility in our world where Christianity is so despised - and so feeble where asserted; where mass apostasy is a daily haemorrhage; and where churches are so conformed to the Satanic System that any vividly Christian life-experience receives zero external validation. 

Nowadays - far from inflation and Luciferic pride - the heroic Christian is likely to be sabotaged by irony, self-consciousness, and mockery. 

Anyway for Christians of 2021; matters are simplified by the lack of alternatives. 

The minority of remnant traditionalist Christians and the mainstream liberal pseudo-Christians have alike contradicted their own core assertions (e.g. abandoning sacraments, gathering, or priestly-pastoral service); have willingly and pridefully colluded in their own destruction - and have thereby invalidated their claims. 

Either we do it ourselves or it won't be done. 

And if we do it ourselves, we need to have strong inner motivations.  

And these motivations will need to be positive, high-hearted, joyous, brave and exciting - if they are to be sustainable in such a dis-couraging world as this. 

To begin must be a conscious choice; and it must start-out as an imagination - a fantasy; with an element of self-conscious play-acting the hero of density (with ones-self as the sole audience). 

There is no need to be embarrassed about such foolish contrivance! 

Embrace the absurdity, enjoy the fact of being A Fool - for Christ!

So long as our motives are genuine (and that is between our-selves and God) - reality will follow our day-dreams. 

Analyzing the dots, joining the dots or inferring spiritual motivations?

When it comes to understanding what is going on in world 'politics', then normal people take things one-dot-at-a-time. Generally, they analyze, often in extreme detail, media accounts of specific policies and changes - one dot at a time. 

They regard any attempt to make general sense of these dots - and what they imply about future dots, as wild speculation. 

When pushed to justify their stance - they will assert that this is a world where 'stuff happens' - either randomly, or due to mere chains of causation. There is therefore no real overall meaning to be found in current events, because there is no meaning to be had from reality.  

Yet (incoherently, but incoherence is not something they regard as a fault), normal people also believe that it is a mixture of common sense and duty to assume good hearts and good intentions among global and multi-national organizations and their leaders. 

Especially, the United Nations (and everything, and everybody to do with it - such as the World Health Organization) are not merely innately good; but the best and highest hope of humankind. 

Therefore, to the normal folk - the dot analyzers - it is nasty, stupid, and perhaps insane to impute bad motivations to the United Nations, European Union, major charities and NGOs; or, indeed to any organization that has a platitudinously-well-intentioned title. 

The dot-analyzers believe that - Globally, at The Top - the right individuals are in-charge; and the problem lies lower down with national leaders, parties, organizations and individuals who oppose the benign global agenda.  

Those who join-the-dots are the mainstream conspiracy theorists - the 'secular right'. They get their information from the mass media; but after this media has been filtered through the community of dot-joiners; and interpreted by a general assumption of the malign intent of rulers. 

They are bottom-up reasoners - starting with items of evidence and synthesizing theories.  

This type of theory is materialist in nature; relating to the selfishness and hedonism of the rulers, and their sadistic desire to control, torment and kill the masses.   

The units of thinking are still the dots - the policies, actions, failure to act etc. The arguments comprise an arrangement of these dots into meaningful patterns. 

The dot-joiners believe that the main problem is that the wrong individuals are in control; and they pin their hopes on replacing the malign individuals with well-intentioned persons - by means of a better 'system' of governance. 

Those who understand the world by inferred spiritual motivations begin with the spiritual assumption that evil is ultimately of spiritual origin and significance; and that global evil is the attempt to organize low level evil to attain supernatural strategic goals. 

Clearly, this is a top-down and religious view; because its origins lie outside of politics, and do not derive from the dots. 

(Inferring spiritual motivations was the method and perspective of almost everybody in the world, through almost all of human history - but in the modern West it is regarded as a very extreme from of insane evil. The dot-analyzers regard religiously-motivated persons who infer spiritual motivations as The Most Dangerous kind of subversives and saboteurs - since they often oppose the global agenda upon which all the dot-analyzers' hopes are pinned.)

The spiritual people believe that the main problem in the world is that too many individuals, and nearly all of the global, national and institutional leaders, are on the side of supernatural evil: they are motivated to pursue the goals of supernatural evil. 

(Supernatural evil is defined as such because it opposes deity.)

Their hope for improving the world is that supernatural evil be acknowledged as real, recognized where it is at work, and opposed by those whose allegiance is to supernatural good. 

Each of these three perspectives can readily see that the other two ways of thinking are un-disprovable, 'circular-reasoning' - which is how modern people react to contact with metaphysical assumptions... 

..."My metaphysical assumptions are true and proved by evidence; but your assumptions are irrational, un-disprovable, circular-reasoning"...  

In fact; everybody's world view is based upon deep - ultimately primary - assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

The task is to acknowledge this fact, recognize one's own assumptions as assumptions; and then make a conscious and responsible decision whether to endorse or reject them; to maintain or replace them. 

   

If you want a picture of the future, imagine Nelson Muntz saying Ha Haa - forever

A brief report by a spokesman for our global leaders

We made your life miserable, and we intend more of the same.

We (so far as possible, so far...) subtracted jobs, travel, shops, visiting and holidays, libraries, museums, galleries, sports, singing, dancing, opera, plays, the countryside, cafes and restaurants, pubs and hotels, schools, colleges, science, health services, meeting friends and family, dating and courting, church, marriage and funerals, human physical contact, human faces...

You know what? This list is boring me. 

Let's just say we have destroyed - as far as we can manage in a short time - all that was real and social and made life worth living beyond mere subsistence, mere survival. 

Why? 

For the sake of exactly what I just said: survival. 

Everything we do is justified by your survival.    

And survival is exactly what we offer in return for what we have taken.

No more, no less.  

Not life - but survival.

And when we have succeeded in this; when we have all of you at the level of (mere) survival; miserable and despairing but alive; justified on the basis of mere survival...

Then Surprise Surprise! You know what?

We don't care about your survival At All!

So now you have consented to have your entire live-ing stripped away, just so that you will survive; we will start killing you... 

(Or, as many as we cannot find some temporary use for.) 

You say that we lied? 

Sure we lied! 

What did you expect? 

Did you seriously believe that we care if you live or die? 

Ha Haa! Ha Haa! Ha Haa!...

Development of the conscious will towards Final Participation - a simple model

The idea is that our consciousness - which can be understood as our conscious will 

This 'evolved' or developmentally-unfolded through human history, and an analogous development typically happens through our modern life - at least in the The West. 

The conscious will - which is where we feel our-selves to be located, the 'I' or ego that looks-out on the world - can be regarded as an intermediary between the body and the perceptions on the outside, and our real-divine self which is on the 'inside'. 

Although actually the real-self is not tied to the body; yet incarnation means that in a significant sense the real-self is located in time and space. Thus incarnation is what gives us greater freedom and an unique perspective. 

Without incarnation the real-self is not distinctly separated-from the divine will and thought; and is less of an agent, less free. But with a developed conscious will that comes between our perceptions and our real-self; we have the ability to shift, direct and focus attention. 

This means that our conscious will can choose to present different phenomena, for consideration by the real-self. The conscious will can (in effect) move our bodies to a new environment, can choose to focus attention on particular aspects of the perceived environment, or can retrieve memories - and these are then brought to the attention of the real-self. 

The conscious will can focus on perceptions, on inner body states, on memories - or it can focus on the real-self - and on the thoughts that are 'emerging' from the real-self. 

By this model; primary thinking is what happens when the conscious-will is attending to the real-self; and the conscious-will is (in a sense) subordinating-itself to the real self. 

So that, for example, the conscious-will moves the body to a different place, alters that which is perceived (by seeking particular kinds of experience), and shifts attention in line with the requirements of the real-self. 

This is to live in Final Participation; led by the real (and divine) self, and with intuition (= primary thinking) leading the conscious will. 

But in Final Participation always there is (and must be) the conscious choice about where to direct the conscious-will, moment-by-moment.

So, in Final Participation; conscious choice is voluntarily aligned-with the divine; it is aligned via the real self which is that which is divine within us.  

A difference between primary thinking and 'action'

I have been so concerned to acknowledge that primary thinking of our real and divine self is real - in the sense of having an objective (knowable by others) effect on the world - that I neglected to clarify in what way it is real. And how the reality of thinking differs from that of 'action'. 

When we take an action - do something with our bodies, or by speaking/ writing; the effects are on 'this earthly mortal world'. 

These effects of actions are therefore of the nature of this-world; being evanescent - subject to entropy. And the effects of action are known by other people via perception, from 'outside' them - via their senses and perhaps unconsciously and involuntarily. 

The effect of primary thinking is different; because it does not exist in this earthly and mortal world; but instead in a divine and eternal reality - our thoughts are therefore, in some way, permanent.

But since primary thinking is not 'located' in this earthly world; its actions are not via the sensory perceptions, and do not happen-to people unconsciously or involuntarily. 

For primary thinking to affect other people (other beings) in this earthly mortal world - these persons must consciously choose to access the divine and eternal reality. And they know this divine reality not by perceptions, but by their own primary thinking.  

Therefore, the reality of primary thinking is on the one hand more eternally real and significant than our actions; but on the other hand primary thinking does not effect the perceptible things of this world; it does not move things, or make things happen, or influence other people unconsciously or against their will. 

Instead, primary thinking happens in a potentially shared world; and affects those who participate in this shared world. 

Primary thinking is a form of divine creation - as we think, we participate in divine creation and contribute to it; but that participated creation is not happening here on earth but in 'another dimension'.

That world is the same 'dimension' to which Christians go after resurrection - it is Heaven. 

In sum, our primary thinking while we are mortals on earth has its effects in Heaven. 

 

Holly Ordway - Tolkien's Modern Reading (2021)

My review of this excellent new book about JRR Tolkien can be found at The Notion Club Papers blog.  

As well as documented examples of Tolkien's extensive reading of modern fiction; Tolkien's Modern Reading convincingly explains that Tolkien didn't hate the Narnia books (which was new to me); and includes a detailed analyses about how (and why) these prevalent myths had their roots in Humphrey Carpenter's authorized biography of Tolkien (1977), The Inklings (1978) and Carpenter's edited and selected letters by Tolkien (1981). 

Most of the most-talented people are nowadays on the side of evil: We should to be able to acknowledge the fact

There are probably no world-historical geniuses nowadays - for several decades the last have been dying-out; even more minor geniuses are very rare and (mostly) obscure. 

This means that the currently most able people in the world are not geniuses, not primarily creative. 

They are not, that is, making genuinely new things from their divine self, which requires the genius to be aligned with divine creation (at least during the creative process). 

The most able modern people - especially the famous - are thus only secondarily creative; which means they are simulating creation: practicing what I have termed 'openness'-driven creation which is a kind of fake creativity. 

That is, they invent by extrapolation, interpolation, inversion and novel combinations of already-existing elements; deploying their and intelligence, quick wits and memory, upon the rich (and via computers) readily-accessible histories of past attainment. 

Therefore, the most able and apparently creative modern people are nearly all on the side of evil; simply because evil dominates the world and can ensure that able people who promote their anti-God agenda are placed in the best positions to do so; and that their work is maximally praised and promoted. 

(At the same time, the remnants of real genius are suppressed by both positively-excluding and negatively other-favouring policies.)

We should therefore expect that the most intelligent, talented, able and "creative" people (that we have ever heard-of, i.e. that have fame, power and influence bestowed upon them) are on the side of evil; and that they will therefore (sooner or later, incrementally) be drawn-into expressing and propagating evil ideas, and doing evil deeds.

And, sooner or later, these people will fall out of favour with their evil masters (which happens all the time due to the endemic inter-factional and inter-personal infighting in the nature of the demonic), so their evil deeds will be exposed in the usual hypocritical, fake-moralizing, deliberately-dishonest way of the mass media and the bureaucracies.   

When this happens (and it is happening on a weekly basis) it would not be honest to pretend that these very able and "creative" people are not among the most able and creative - because they nearly-always are. They are both genuinely-accomplished and genuinely-nasty. 

We need to be able to hold in the mind, simultaneously, that a person may be famously-talented and also evil. Because that is not unusual - but common, normal, expected...

I have personally known plenty such people - they really-are talented, and they really-are evil-aligned. 

Some very-talented folk are nice and kind and evil; but others are nasty and cruel and evil - and that is the direction in which the evil-aligned tend to move (albeit disguised by hypocrisy, concealed by habitual dishonesty, and cloaked by The System).

To repeat the point: such people are not, nowadays, geniuses - or, at least, they are not currently geniuses - even if they once were; since genius is destroyed by lies. But they remain very talented.

If, then, I was to argue or proclaim that these were not talented people because they are evil, then I would be lying (or incompetent to judge) - and would myself be falling into sin and compounding the evil. 

Most of the talented are evil even though most of the evil are untalented.  

So, we had better get used to it! 

People whose work we once greatly enjoyed, because it really was very good work; either always-were evil, or have joined the side of evil; and consequently became (bit by bit - or in a sudden collapse) seduced to a lifestyle of evil. 

Such is the nature of this world. 

Are there *really* No Good Men?

A couple of days ago I stated that there are No Good Men. 

Yes, I meant it: there are none.

As I explained: No Good Men in high positions of wealth, social status, power, or influence.

But to comprehend this simple fact you have to understand what is a Good Man.

By Good Men, I mean simply Men on the side of Good - Men on God's side in the spiritual war. 

This is not a matter of behaving well - either at peak or on average. It is not a matter of being free from sin - absolutely or relatively. It has nothing necessarily to do with a person's behaviour. 

Being Good or Bad is a matter of taking sides. 

(And there are only two sides. In 2021 neutrality is impossible, the middle ground has gone, once grey areas have a bright-line through-them. Claiming neutrality is merely to take the side of evil, dishonestly.)

Bad Men are Men who are on the side against God: men who have taken the side of the devil - who are working against God, the Good and divine creation; against truth, beauty and virtue --- Men who agree-with and advocate value-inversion - lies presented as truth, ugliness as beauty, vice as virtue. 

Bad Men may be well-behaved, nice, kind, generous, hard-working, intelligent, creative... They may have any or many such behavioural virtues; but if they have taken the side against God then they are Not Good Men. 

(Indeed, their behavioural virtues merely make them more effective in pursuit of evil purposes.) 

By such criteria, and as of 2021, there are - pretty obviously - No Good Men that are high in wealth, social status, power, or influence. 

It is time to acknowledge the fact; and to act accordingly. 

When I was featured in the New York Times and a Michael Crichton novel - or, why Bad ideas are the ones that go viral

Psychological Neoteny By Clay Risen New York Times Dec. 10, 2006 

The next time you see a mother of three head-banging to death metal or a 50-year-old man sporting a faux-hawk, don't laugh. According to Bruce Charlton, a doctor and psychology professor at Newcastle University in Britain, what looks like immaturity -- or in Charlton's kinder terms, the "retention of youthful attitudes and behaviors into later adulthood" -- is actually a valuable developmental characteristic, which he calls psychological neoteny. 

In a recent issue of Medical Hypotheses, a journal he edits, Charlton argues that unlike previous, more settled societies that could afford to honor a narrow and well-defined worldview (that is, a "mature" one), modern life is tumultuous and ever-changing. Accordingly, it rewards those who retain a certain plasticity of mind and personality. "In a psychological sense, some contemporary individuals never actually become adults," he writes. 

Charlton's argument is still just a hypothesis, but it makes intuitive sense. For one thing, he notes, education in the modern era -- which now routinely extends into an individual's 20s -- rewards a mental openness that could once be safely discarded in the midteens. As he explained in a recent e-mail message, a "likely cause" of the widespread delay in the onset of maturity today was "more prolonged higher education for ever more people, leading to an increase in the 'unfinished' personalities that are adaptive to learning." 

Furthermore, he argues, social roles have become less fixed in modern society. We are expected to adapt to change throughout our lives, both in our personal relationships and in our careers, and immaturity, as Charlton added, is "especially helpful in making the best out of enforced job changes, the need for geographic mobility and the requirement to make new social networks." In fact, he speculates, the ability to retain youthful qualities, now often seen as folly, may someday be recognized as a prized trait.

*

This NYT article originated as an editorial I published in in Medical Hypotheses - and was followed the next year by my further reflections - and modification. Following the NYT feature - the "psychological neoteny" idea was rapidly enshrined in Wikipedia. 

This idea was perhaps the most successful I launched; and it makes an interesting case study. I wrote the original editorial very quickly - in maybe two or three hours, and based on a notion I got from seeing a photograph of the physicist-tuned-biologist Max Delbruck. It was published as my regular monthly editorial in a modest circulation, specialist medical journal.

Yet, without the slightest effort at attaining publicity, the idea was picked-up and went viral and remained somewhat influential. For instance; the large circulation German weekly magazine Der Spiegel did a multi-page, colour illustrated account of the idea. It was also featured, with a whole page description, in Michael Crichton's novel, Next. 

Why? Well, as you can see - my idea was one that endorsed Establishment ideology. I was suggesting that the typical modern state of permanent adolescence might be overall adaptive in a changing and mobile modern society; might have psychological and economic advantages. 

This was (for what now seem obvious, and evil, reasons) an idea that the Establishment wanted to be propagated - and so it was picked-up from obscurity and splashed across the global media.  

Such is the power of the mass media/ Global Establishment - and such is the nature of the ideas that they choose to highlight. 

In a nutshell; I published a pretty-bad, certainly superficial and trivial, idea - with net-harmful implications; and it therefore got more coverage, more easily, than any of my much better and more useful ideas.  

If you examine the first and second Medical Hypotheses editorials, you can see the point of inflexion at which I began to turn away from my Establishment-supporting atheism; and towards Christianity - leading-on to my current view that the Establishment is a literal tool of the devil. 

If I deserve criticism for the first editorial, perhaps I deserve some small credit for the second? - which a year later (and following further reflection) gives some data to suggest some possible causes of psychological neoteny (delayed marriage and late family); and links these causes to the most obvious harmful effect of psychological neoteny: subfertility. 

It was then I realised that - biologically speaking - modernity was maladaptive, indeed lethal; and the more 'modern' a person was, the more maladaptive. In other words, a biologist primarily looks at reproduction not survival, not happiness, not social 'adaptation'. 

And in our world higher social status, class, wealth, power, education, intelligence, health... are all causally correlated inversely with reproductive fitness; and tend towards sub-fertility and extinction - especially in women. 

In our world: the more socially successful - the less biologically successful. 

Anything that lowers reproduction below replacement fertility can be considered a disease, and a lethal one. 

Because the best brief biological definition of a disease is that which tends, causally, to lower fitness. 

And so I realised that psychological neoteny is a disease (a pathological state) - especially in women. Over generations, subfertility is lethal - so psychological neoteny is a genetically-fatal disease. 

In sum; the most famous idea I ever published was a bad one - being an endorsement and advocacy of a disease state.

It was precisely this bad idea that was picked from obscurity and promoted to become viral. 

Think about that when you participate in the officially approved 'talking points' of the day. 

 

Wildblood shooting from the hip...

I no longer have any interest in discussing anything to do with the world with people who are not at least open to the fact that we are in the midst of a spiritual war and that the battle is over souls. I am not interested in looking at political or cultural factors. There may well be such but they are only symptoms of the underlying spiritual malaise and to address them without addressing that is a distraction and a waste of time. 

It is obvious that socialism only arises when a civilisation enters its decadent phase. It is obvious that art and culture have been working against real truth and beauty for well over a century. It is obvious that most science follows the funding. It is obvious that feminism is destructive to higher values and a healthy relationship between men and women. It is obvious that when, as egalitarian ideology does, you prioritise quantity over quality, culture collapses. 

If you don't see these things by now you are wilfully blind. There is no point in arguing about such matters... 

Officially, the spiritual is dead and gone. It exists as a museum artefact of no real relevance, something that some people still pay a token tribute to but which signifies nothing really meaningful to them. 

The situation is now so far gone that we cannot compromise with the world in any way. The world has become evil and those who don't recognise that and don't separate themselves from it will be dragged down with it. 

Nice, decent, kind people will be dragged down if they don't wake up to the truth. Their niceness, their decency, their kindness will then be known for what they are which is spiritual evasion and irresponsibility. Spiritual cowardice, in fact. 

It's time to see things for what they are. Yes, we have come to the dying phases of Western civilisation... Today the battle lines are being clearly marked out and there is no discussion to be had with those who reject God.

Edited from William Wildblood's post: Argument and Debate are now a Waste of Time - read the whole thing. 

How the developmental evolution of consciousness might work (in more detail)

My current best guess is that what mostly happens has to do with the nature of the pre-mortal spirits ("souls") who are incarnated into mortal life; and their different needs from mortal life. 

The development of consciousness is a kind of 'mass effect' of the preponderance of broad human types. Through human history; society has been developed by divine destiny to provide a range of experiences to enable these spirits to get the experiences (make the choices) they most need. 

It happens primarily on an individual basis: specific individual souls are 'placed' - by God - into specific circumstances: family, class, nation, era etc. But as well as such individual tailoring of circumstances to souls; God has also developed 'the world situation' through history by means of placing types-of-souls at different eras. 

Thus, the placement of different types-of-souls at different times through history (as well as different races and nations) itself creates different social conditions - providing different experiences for those who live in them. 

So the primary cause is the type of souls placed in mortal life; and a secondary effect is to make different societal conditions in which souls can be placed.  

Such linearity of world development continues to provide life-experiences that have never before been seen in human history; and therefore new and qualitatively different possibilities of learning. This is the development (or 'evolution') of consciousness. 

This is the merest hunch; but I think that many of the currently incarnated spirits were 'a bad lot' in pre-mortal life; by which I mean with innately a low chance of accepting salvation.

Our present cultural situation - i.e. 'things coming to a point' - the separation of Good from evil, the increased evilness of evil evident from explicit value-inversions - makes the choice between God and the Devil clearer than ever before. 

Such moral clarity is, perhaps, the special and new quality of these present times: even more obviously so over the past year. 

This current (and still-developing) world-situation probably means that that at least some of these 'hard cases' among contemporary incarnated souls will make the choice of salvation that God so much wishes. 

It may not be a high percentage of the people of the modern world who choose to be saved, but it may nonetheless be a higher percentage than would have happened a hundred/ thousand/ ten thousand years ago - at times when good and evil were much more mixed.

Speaking for myself - I am certainly one of those 'hard cases' who was incarnated with a strong innate tendency to refuse salvation. I became an atheist as soon as it was cognitively possible (about age six) and remained an atheist until my late forties. 

It was only the increasing corruption of the world that - eventually - drove me to abandon my atheism; as I realized it provided no resources to resist the increasing dishonesty, short-termism and dysfunctionality of my world; and that it encouraged in myself the most horrible and manipulative selfishness and hedonism. 

So, recognizing the moral bankruptcy of my atheism; I chose consciously to become first a theist then (soon after) a Christian - and from that decision much followed. 

But it was a near thing, and might very easily not have happened; had not 'things' in my world (of science, education and medicine) been getting worse so rapidly.

And had not - therefore - the gulf in motivation between Good and evil been so increasingly obvious.

...I still recall a dream on the eve of my conversion (this would probably be in 2008) in which I saw a globe being covered by darkness; with the darkness being added like black pieces of jigsaw to cover the nations and oceans. 

(I knew what was implied by this darkness from my own life and work.) 

I saw that Good and evil are sides in a war. And I realized that I had to choose one side or the other: either that Life which was valuable, or incrementally-expanding darkness and spiritual-death. 

At last I recognized that the we either take the side of Good - or else we are evil. 

And I knew that I personally wanted to take the side of Good. 

I suppose that dream was the 'moment' of my conversion to be a Christian; and from then onwards it was (and remains) just a matter of trial and error, and logistics...

  

No Good Men

Most people are still operating under the assumption that there are 'Good men' - and that the problem is to find them, and get them to do what needs doing. 

But that is just an assumption; and there seem to be many areas of life, many aspects of social functioning, where there are no Good Men - or else (which is equivalent) the Good Men are very few, and there is no knowable mechanism for locating them (unless you already know so much about that function that you don't need them). 

For example; it is recognized among his supporters that President Trump has been - for more than four years - surrounded by incompetents and traitors to his cause. 

Opinion is divided as to whether this was Trump's fault, because of his own incompetence at choosing his team - and those who regard it as evidence of the deceptiveness and depth of the deep state/ Establishment, and their capacity for control or sabotage. 

What I have not seen suggested is that there are actually zero competent and honest people available at all, anywhere. 

 

Yet, that is what I believe to be the case - extrapolating from my inside experiences with science, academia and health services; and observing what the powers-that-be actually Do (while ignoring what they say). 

The are No Good Men*. 

For example; if you want a Good psychiatrist in 2021, then - so far as I know - you will not find one anywhere in the UK. If you want a Good epidemiologist - likewise. More obviously, if you want a Good politician, or any person in a senior managerial position - you are out of luck, because there are none.

The stunning example is, of course, the birdemic; which has revealed such cosmic levels of dishonesty, incompetence and lunacy as to dwarf anything I have ever heard about anywhere. 

After a year of this - essentially Nothing is known about the birdemic; Nothing At All, At Any Level. (Even-less-than-nothing is known about the claimed-to-be-protective birdemic peck since everything alleged about it has been post-coup.)

And there is No Good Man to ask. 

When everybody with power or influence is lying, manipulating, covering-up, sabotaging, grafting, shirking etc  - nobody understands anything, nobody can predict anything, nobody can control anything...  

There are many, many reasons for this - reasons genetic-biological, social, political, ideological, legal, economic and especially religious why the quality of personnel has gone down and down over recent decades. 

I have written volumes on the causes of worsening functionality among people. But there are so many adverse trends that the primary difficulty is knowing which are the main factors. 

Indeed, so far has the quality of personnel gone down, that it has destroyed our capacity to notice and measure the extent of this decline - since the people responsible for analyzing and quantifying personnel quality have declined equally fast. 

We are in a world with No Good Men in public discourse - there are No Good Men with power, status, influence or wealth. 

...None who are honest; and very few who are even minimally competent - but these don't count, because dishonesty destroys competence. 

We therefore live in a world where nobody in power knows what they need to know (and which, fifty years ago, they would have known); and a world where nobody can do anything difficult. And indeed even easy things are less and less well done, on a weekly basis. 

The only thing that Modern Men are Good-at are the demonic attributes; such as lying, evading responsibility, taking the easy option, lining their own pockets, and encouraging sins (especially lying) while being proud of it.

*Added from the comments: Trump misunderstood the problem as being a group or organization of corrupt people, but the problem is the all-pervasive demonic influence of evil. It is literally everywhere, they have all sold their souls. There was nothing to root out or fix, etc. There is no group of people, or person, or anything that can be removed. This post clarifies it further - there were no "good people" to hire to replace the bad ones. Comment: I'm sure this is correct. Where DT was culpable - while in office - is in failing to state and explain this to the US public. However, since the election, and by DT's actions in exposing the mass-conspiracy of lies - the fact of No Good Men among the Ruling Class has been demonstrated starkly and explicitly (to those still capable of discernment). 

NOTE: Counter-examples of Good Men in public life are only valid if you know they are Good Men. Otherwise it is probable that you just don't know enough about them.