What makes prayer 'work'?

There are so many misleading things said about 'prayer' that it seems to me yet another subject on which we must each, individually, seek clarification from intuition and by communing with the Holy Ghost. 

For example, I don't suppose that a typical modern Man will get anything positive simply from 'saying prayers' - because it would, to him, simply be just that: saying some words. 

Before prayer can have an effect, there may well be a need to clarify some very basic things - such as that there is a creator, and the creator is a personal God, and perhaps too that that personal God creator loves us individually. 

If someone can get such matters somewhat clear, then he can pray - effectually. 

Or, maybe that is what his prayer might consist in: the inner desire to understand such matters. Before I could pray with effect and benefit, I myself needed to sort-out that there was a loving Father and personal God. And then I had some immediate effects of prayer which pushed me over the edge into becoming a Christian. 

But many, many times, in earlier years, I had said prayers of many and various kinds but without any clear idea of what I was doing - and these 'prayers' did no good at all - so far as I could see.

In other words; the modern problem is deep and metaphysical - based on false basic assumptions, that are not even recognized as assumptions but instead habitual and/or regarded as necessarily true because supposedly massively 'evidenced'. 

(There is no empirical 'evidence' relating to genuine basic metaphysical assumptions; on the contrary, it is these assumptions that determine what counts as evidence.)

Somehow or another; modern Man needs to get down to these depths (to his real-and-divine self, below the surface 'personality'); and discard these demonically-implanted falsehoods sufficiently to be able to pray. 

At that point (only), he will become free; and can thenceforth intuit everything he needs to know for salvation (and theosis), by using the powers of discernment that we all posses. 

But the common injunction of Christian evangelists for mainstream modern leftist-materialist-atheists to 'pray' about stuff, is almost certain to be a complete waste of time; leading to disappointment, disillusion and potentially hardening the mainstream anti-Christian prejudice that afflicts almost everyone. 

We are each a child of God - but it is hard to grasp the implications of this fact

We are children of God; but that fact means we are as varied in our destinies as mortal children of human parents.

As the best human parents recognize that each child is unique, and has an unique destiny in the world; then it is the same for God. 

This ought to be obvious from the fact that God made this world with an extraordinary variety of people in an extraordinary variety of situations. 

Indirect evidence comes from the work of spiritual evil in the world now; which attempts to make all Men, all over the world, The Same (i.e. 'equal') and compelled to the same (demonic) ideology of value-inversion. 

Form an inner perspective; this means that a Godly life should Not be regarded as living according to a universal template. While there are some things (sins) which we should strive Not to do and repent when we do; this does not apply to the positive agenda of what our mortal life is for. 

Our specific life is for us to learn some-thing (or things) of need for our eternal resurrected life; but that need will vary greatly between persons. 

After all (to take one example); many die in the womb or childhood; while some live the full biological span or beyond it. Since God sustains us alive, such vast differences in lifespan strongly imply very different life tasks among people. 

We each need to ensure that we personally learn what we most need while alive - and fail in this is to fail in mortal life - to waste our mortal lives. 

If we are still alive, this means we still have something very important to learn. This is the positive agenda for our own actual life; and it cannot be read anywhere but we each must discover it.

So, if you are feeling bored, directionless, that your life is futile; then You Are Wrong. It means that you have, so far, failed to do what needs to be done, that you are (to a significant extent) wasting your life - and finding how and working on it, is what you ought to be doing.

Now.

When silence is Not complicity; but indirectly eloquent of Christian faith

We have all, by now, taken sides in the spiritual war; and nowadays it is usually obvious which side. 

Of course, most people can change sides before their decision (i.e. their choice of their post-mortal disposition) is final. 

Sides can be changed - and we have seen a lot of this is the past 18 months - in both directions, although apparently mainly towards evil. It is never too late in mortal life to change sides. 

But the choice has a tendency to harden - especially when there has been a conscious and deliberate choice. 

Thus, to take the side against God can in practice become so deeply ingrained, buttressed by multiple lies and sustained by value-inversions, as to be very difficult to repent. 

Such buttressing of chosen-damnation seems to be the main demonic strategy over the past several decades; and belief The Lie - especially The Big Lie - has become probably the dominant form of evil - especially in the developed world.  

In a society in which Big Lies are not just highly prevalent - widespread and deeply rooted - but also mandatory and enforced; silence is usually complicity. It means that someone has chosen Not to notice evil. When someone lives in lies and says nothing; when someone has been through the past 18 months; and yet says nothing about the gigantic, world-historical, evil-motivated fraud of what happened... This is nearly-always because he believes the lies - has chosen to take the side of the worldly-victorious evil Establishment. 

On the other hand; there are situations in which silence is eloquent against evil and on the side of God. When in the midst of an evil-compliant and evil-endorsing discourse (e.g. about the birdemic-peck, antiracism, climate change etc). 

One pointedly remains silent, and does not (by word, expression or deed) provide the sought-for endorsement of the Big Lie; but instead remains alert, quiet, and still... 

Well, such refusal can potentially be as powerful and appropriate a profession of faith in God as is possible in that particular kind of situation (i.e. a mainstream modern situation; where the other party is absolutely unwilling and unable to expose and examine his assumptions, or to think consecutively and coherently).  

In theory; some well-chosen phrase might be more effective; but most people, for most of the time, will never be capable of a 'well-chosen phrase'; and for them silence may be as eloquent a witness of their faith as may be - and with the negative-advantage of not providing the enemy with ammunition for his manipulations. 

This is confirmed by the fact that the enemy (in these, and other, situations) hates silence; and tries to provoke or compel a response; which if honest will provide ammunition for his side in the spiritual war, and if dishonest (including deliberate misleading - which is a particularly insidious thus damning form of dishonesty) will recruit you to his side. 

This is perhaps why Christ sometimes remained silent under interrogation. 

We therefore need to discern when our silence is complicity; and when it would be faithful witness. 

Silence is complicity

Because modern leftism is - more and more - a matter of value-inversion; They often adopt Good forms while reversing their purposes. 

For example, antiracism must now actively be propagated or else it is assumed that the person or institution is racist. Silence is complicity in the assumed racism of society. And it should be acknowledged that this is perfectly true, in terms of the modern usage of the concept of racism. 

Indeed, if one is white, then one is racists even when antiracism is adopted as one's primary value - but not to say anything in certain contexts (when the subject of race arises), means that the person/ institution has not 'repented' their racism, and so is 'on the other side'. 

There is no grey area, no race-blindness or ignoring; there are just two sides in the ideological race war which has been enforced upon the world by its leadership; and everyone is therefore necessarily and in-fact on one or the other side. 

Objectively, according to public consensus (now defined by the Global Establishment and all its major institutions - including churches): when one is not actively on the antiracist side, and actively embracing (thinking, saying, doing) what that side prescribes; then one just-is on the other side - called racist.

This is correct, in that these are the End Times when grey areas disappear, when there are indeed only two side - and these sides become more and more widely-separated; so anyone who is not on one side is by definition on the other; and the refusal to declare sides and identify one allegiance is nonetheless sufficient. 

From my side in the spiritual war, saying nothing about subjects of actual major importance is highly diagnostic of allegiance. In particular, when I see people or institutions carrying-on as if nothing special had happened in the past 18 months; I know that they must have joined the other side as surely as if they had actively espoused the birdemic-peck cause or embraced the antiracist slogans and rituals. 

We are living is absolutely extraordinary and unprecedented times, following a successful and silent global coup, and all powerful and prestigious social institutions and their leaders are now part of a System motivated by evil, and evil in thought and analysis. 

In sum, there has been a global spiritual battle for control of the public realm of discourse and power, and the side of evil has won. 

This is now perfectly explicit and clear to anyone who is not affiliated with the motivations and modes of the evil Establishment; therefore, any person/ institution who demonstrates (by attitude, affect, word, deed) unawareness of this situation Just Is on the side of evil. 

This is an extremely harsh judgment, that apparently embraces nearly everybody and nearly all kinds of organization; but it is a plain fact that needs acknowledging. Anything else is a species of lie and complicity in lying. 

The judgment is harsh and the spiritual consequences are clear - but that is how things are in times like these. 

Matters are very simple. There are only two sides - Us and Them. If you are not Us, then you are objectively Them. And this allegiance shows in almost everything you think, say and do. Almost everything now, and ever-more things with each passing week.

 

And/But judgment and consequences may be reversed in a trice by any individual (or institution) that repents; and joins with the side of Good. 

That too is very simple. 

Any-one who wants Good, wants resurrected life in Heaven, can have it - there is no obstacle... except that worst of all possible obstacles: that one does not want Good, does not want life eternal; that one actively prefers lies, death and hell - and desires evil.   

Active gold-plating - an epidemic of gratuitous evil

Something that seems to have happened over the past 18 months is that those who have long been on-the-side-of evil have moved from passive to active. 

I mean especially those in leadership and authority positions (major and petty) who no longer merely comply with the evil they are asked to do, but seek-out (to the best of their limited abilities and energies) extra evil: above and beyond that which is required of them - and that this is done from internal motivations.

We now expect evil - but cannot predict how much is expected: Almost every interaction in public discourse and behaviour has become unpredictable, to the point of feeling arbitrary.  

It has for several generations been the habit of the UK Civil Service - especially since they maneuvered the nation into the European 'Common Market' (as it was) - to do what they call 'gold-plating'; and do it at every step through-which legislation proceeds, right down to operational implementation. 

In terms of government, gold-plating means adding extra administrative requirements to the legal minimum. In terms of the spiritual war; it means that the general evil orders from the top have extra specific evil additions and twists added by each demonic level through-which they pass. 

Gold-plating itself has a passive and an active aspect. In the past, I think that most gold-plating was done to 'impress' the bosses, to pander to high hierarchy (to seek 'Brownie points - as the slang goes). But now the gold-plating is done more as an overflow of innate spite from the lower hierarchy - and may not even be known to bosses. 

Indeed, the epidemic of gold-plating may be disapproved-of by the higher levels - who are often trying to pursue a carefully graded 'lawful evil' (Ahrimanic) strategy at a safe pace - at a pace least likely to provoke awakening or backlash. 

So, if we take the core strategies of current evil such as the birdemic-peck agenda, or climate-change; people from the top to the bottom of The System - from major institutional leaders, through the many middle-managers and down to the masses - it seems that almost everybody is doing that bit more than they absolutely need to do. They are adding little extra restrictions and requirements. 

In the inverted value system that is characteristic of these End Times, this is what counts as virtue. As of 2021: feeling good comes from doing bad - inner gratification is an outcome of gratuitous wickedness imposed on others. 

And this applies even when nobody knows about it (not bosses, not anybody necessarily) - so people now choose actively perform what are (apparently) intended/ expected to be private rituals of evil - when alone, enacted even in thought - as well as asking for extra (above and beyond) evil performances from those other people with whom they interact.

 

Thus; there is something like an epidemic of gratuitous evil sweeping across society (apparently, across the world). 

The ultimate justification given is compliance with the leftist-materialist global strategies (e.g. birdemic, climate change, sexual revolution, antiracism) - but the truth of it is that these are tactical initiatives of personal evil; excused-by global strategies rather than generated by them. 

This is expected - since evil is not a program but oppositional to Good. It is a motivation not a state. Although a top-down New World Order may be the objective of the 2020 coup - the evolving outcome will be a generalized corruption of those who passively participate-in the strategy; leading to active and extra evil in every direction - tending towards the demonic chaos of each against all.   

The man in the moon, a poem by Hugh MacDiarmid (1925)

The moonbeams kelter i the lift, 

An Earth, the bare auld stane, 

Glitters aneath the seas o Space, 

White as a mammoth's bane. 

An, lifted owre the gowden wave, 

Peers a dumfoun'ered Thocht, 

Wi keethin sicht o a' there is, 

An bodily sicht o nocht.

Literal translation - The moonbeams waver in the light/ and earth, the bare old stone/ Glitters beneath the sease of space/ white as a mammoth's bone.// And, lifted above the golden wave/ peers an astonished thought/ with [the ripples made on the surface of water by a salmon beneath] sight of all that is/ and [entire] sight of nothing.

One of MacDiarmid's 'cosmic' and mystically-Christian poems in a type of dialect Scots from early in his publishing career. Like several other short poems form this time (and some sections of the long poem - A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle) from this time; I find this both affecting and memorable - especially the final two lines. 

He starts with a wide perspective, as from 'outer space'- and then an anthropomorphic thought, as if God himself, 'peers' over and sees with astonishment... every-thing, all reality... but not directly. All is guessed from the effects it has, from the ripples it makes. 

Did the Rings of Power achieve their objective?

 

The corrupting effect of the One Ring continued even after the book and the movies... 

Scenes from the Big Bang Theory sitcom  

Was the making of the rings of power overall a success or failure? 

The answer turns-out to be a matter of perspective: see the discussion over at The Notion Club Papers. 

On the side of God? Some triads...

Who is on the side of God? We must judge, and that by (primarily) intuition; and act upon our best judgments - but where to start? 

Even before we start:

1. We must want Heaven (see below): want The Good

2. Recognize the spiritual war of this world

3. Use spiritual discernment (by 'intuition', direct-knowing, heart-thinking...).

What attributes does someone need to take the side of God as of 2021; ie. in these End Times characterized by near-universal social and institutional evil by value-inversion? 

1. Being a Christian - that is, wanting to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life eternal in Heaven.

2. Having personal spiritual experience of direct knowing. +/- Revelations from the Holy Ghost. (But nowadays, external guidance, even from the Holy Ghost, cannot routinely or for long be the only or primary guidance.)

3. Display discernment - e.g. of truth from lies, especially of the Big Lies of this era.

To explain:

1. If someone does not want resurrection to Heaven (e.g. he wants annihilation of the self, or Nirvana); then he will not understand this life correctly; nor will this mortal life be both necessary and eternally valuable - and yet also secondary to eternity.   

2. If someone has only secondhand and external knowledge of the divine; then (as of 2021) he will be corrupted (to the side against God; already, sooner, or later) by the fact that this is a world dominated by evil purposes in all institutions and nations - a social world of inverted values. 

3. One who fails to discern with respect to vital matters (those Big Lies that shape the worldly institutional strategies) then (given that the pressure toward evil from these is continual and increasing) his tendency will be towards corruption and self-damnation. Thus the Litmus Tests. 

Remembering that, although we personally need to discern and act upon these judgments - or perish; nonetheless:

1. We can only infer another's real mind and intent. (Nobody knows that, not even God.)

2. We know only about now But not the future, which is subject to personal agency.).

3. Whatever happens in this mortal life; the final decision about Heaven (the possibility of eternal commitment to live by Love) comes after death.

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - and final participation

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell - which I first encountered in 2015 - has become one of just a handful of books in my life that I am almost-continually re-reading. I find it fascinating and delightful, genuinely wise and deeply witty. 

Perhaps this is because it is set in that era around 1800 when  - by my understanding of the development of Man's consciousness - a wrong path was taken. By my way of reading; Strange and Norrell sketches-out what might have happened had Englishmen begun upon the right path - that path towards Final Participation.  

The Raven King is eventually seen as the author and stage manager of the events of S&N - and the guide towards Final Participation that neither Strange nor Norrell can see. 

By 1800, Modern man was alienated (the Age of Reason/ Enlightenment) and in need of healing. Magic is participation - it is the healing of the modern rift between Man and God, Man and nature and between Man and his real, spiritual, divine self.

By contrast with the Raven King; neither Strange nor Norrell are Christian - so on those grounds alone, it can be seen that their ideas are incomplete and distorted. 

Norrell seeks what might be termed a late Medieval, scholastic answer (Steiner's Intellectual Soul) - an attempted re-integration by books and study, by quasi-scientific rituals - calmly, gentlemanly, in a way socially-acceptable. (A Temenos Academy approach!). 

He intends to exclude belif-in, and interaction-with, fairies (and the Raven King) from his magical system - and yet all the magic he does is in fact indirectly dependent on that source but in an unconscious, and indeed dishonestly denied, fashion. 

Strange yearns towards a magic (and spirituality) that is instinctive and spontaneous (unsystematic) - where Men and fairies work together, and Man is (like the fairies) so immersed in nature as to be unable fully to detach himself. 

Where Norrell is the proto-scientific, scholarly, ritual magician; Strange harks back to the Shaman (and shares the Shaman's charisma). He represents the 'Romantic reaction' - and becomes friends with Byron (with whom he shares some attributes). 

This is the yearning for that earlier developmental phase called Original Participation; which, if effective, would lead to a reversal of the conscious, autonomous, deliberately chosen mode of thinking: Men would become (more like fairies) childlike again - ultimately un-conscious. 

By his behind-the-scenes activities; the Raven King ensures that magic is restored to England; but in the process, both Strange and Norrell are removed - along with nearly all the books of magic. 

At the end of the novel; magic is more widely available than ever before; but each Man must find his own way to it. The new magicians may call themselves Strange-ites or Norrell-ites, but each magician has made that personal choice, and each must choose and navigate his own path into magic (which is participation). 

Strange and Norrell ends, therefore, is a hope-full way; with the new generation of magicians representing a start at the great task of moving towards Man's next, destined development of consciousness. Ritual magic and Shamanic magic are being left-behind; and the new magic is not given a name - but it can be recognized as essentially the exact same thing as Barfield's Final Participation; or what I term Romantic Christianity.

Christianity is always in the background of Strange and Norrell; but the hopeful ending implies a Christian faith in the resurrected life eternal, or else any 'positive' outcome would be merely therapeutic and utilitarian. 'Magic' is romanticism in S&N - specifically, the 'romantic' conscious and chosen awakening of direct and experiential Christianity; as our only possible - as well as most desirable, joyous - destiny.  

Forgive, but don't forget

Christians must forgive - for our own personal good, primarily. 

Unforgiveness is resentment - close-cousin to spite: to desire harm against another person or Being (harm even at the cost of our own suffering). And spite is probably the worst, most insatiable of sins. 

Failure to forgive will keep us out of Heaven, because we will not even want to dwell in Heaven - which is a place of love and without spite. Someone who prefers to sustain his own resentment - even on a single topic; and who will not accepts the cleansing grace of Jesus Christ to be purified of it at resurrection... Well, such a person has damned himself.

(Unforgiveness is not-to want-to forgive - forgiveness is the opposite.) 

Forgetting is not the same a forgiving - although forgiving (when effectual) puts an end to that grinding resentment which gnaws at the soul. When one has forgiven there is no particular reason to ruminate obsessively - therefore one may think on it less, or with less extremity... 

On the other hand, forgetting may be undesirable - we may need to learn. 

For instance; it may be right and desirable to remember when someone (or some institution) has lied to us. We ought to know liars, because (unrepentant) liars are servants of the devil; and therefore we may need to regard them differently. 

We need, for example, to recognize when someone (or some institution) is using language in order to manipulate us, and not to communicate truth. This means we are dealing with evil; and therefore it is desirable for us to remember that this is a liar. 

We must forgive the fact they have lied to us - because not to forgive means deliberately nurturing resentment - which will act on us as soul-poison. However, we should not forget the fact; because that They are 'a liar' is spiritually relevant and important.  

But what if "I can't forgive"? 

Well, that is never true - for forgiveness is the inner act of wanting to forgive - forgiveness just-is the recognition that we ought to forgive, and the willingness that we should be enabled to forgive. 

While we are on earth everything - including the human mind and body - is subject to change and mortality, and the limitations of our physical situation (the constraints of our body and mind). 

Therefore, the actual 'process' of forgiveness, which is eternal, comes only after our death - at the time of resurrection. 

Until then, what matters is our recognition and willingness.

Recognize that you must forgive and be willing to forgive - but do not try to forget matters of spiritual importance. 

Walter Scott and the failure of Romantic Christianity

Sir Walter Scott's dates were 1771-1832 - much the same as the life of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834). But if Coleridge stands as an example of how our spiritual life in the West could (and should) have gone towards a fully-integrated Romanic Christianity; Scott is representative of what actually happened to the British culture at large. 

Scott was a very devout Christian - a Presbyterian as a child and Episcopalian as an adult. And he was also a great Romantic - whose influence (both via long narrative poems and dozens of novels; also his widely-read collection of Border Ballads) was international and lasting. 

But the Christianity and Romanticism were kept rigorously separate. It is startling to read in the account of the ballad Thomas the Rhymer, how Scotts assumptions were entirely and unconsciously dedicated to 'explaining away' all the supernatural and prophetic elements of the poem and the author's life. The hypothesis that True Thomas really was a prophet, or really had some kind of an encounter with elves, is not even entertained. 

Scott was, in this respect, entirely an 'Enlightenment' rationalist. And he embodied the duality, the schism, between Christianity and the romantic, which has persisted since - until Christianity has dwindled to very little public significance. 

I mean that magic, mysticism, enchantment, animism and all such - are rationalized and explained away; being both excluded-from, and regarded as hostile-to, Christianity. 

By such maneuvers, Christian life began to be regarded rationally, objectively, sealed off from the whole range of human experience - and became ever more wholly external. The romantic, which was about intense personal experience and gave life meaning at a micro level, was regarded as merely fictional - and psychological. 

A serious Christian like Scott might also be a romantic, but on the assumption that the romantic element was merely a kind of entertainment, a commercial exercise, or an historical document; without reality or relevance for the serious things of life.  

Later - the two split even further apart; so that the archetypal romantic became anti-Christian (as with Byron, or the New Age) and the serious Christians anti-romantic (as with those modern evangelicals who regard Tolkien and CS Lewis as literally demonic). 

The split between Christianity and romanticism is a version of the split between objective and subjective: for serious Christians the faith became 'objective' - i.e. external, public, logical, something to be 'followed' - while Romanticism was merely subjective, and to be explained-away. 

And for those who believed in Romanticism, there was an attempt at thoroughgoing subjectivism/ relativism and living by instinct - which explained-away Christianity along with science and all other attempts at objectivity.  

Consequently, Romanticism and Christianity both became partial and ineffectual. Church Christianity is now almost wholly secular and bureaucratic; Romanticism is quasi-therapeutic, commercial and recreational.

There might be some unconscious integration of the two; for instance, one suspects that Scott had a 'real' interest in the supernatural - that at some level his interest in Thomas the Rhymer was based on the possibility that the supernatural elements might somehow be true... 

But lacking any conscious and explicit acknowledgment and theorization of such an integration; 'modern Man' (since Scott's time) cannot achieve any effective reuniting of inner life. 

It was the project of Rudolf Steiner and then Owen Barfield to provide a conscious and explicit theoretical basis for healing the the subjective-objective, Romantic-Christian split. This, they largely achieved - and our task now is to put the theories into action in our own everyday lives. 

When resisting totalitarian evil - do what intuition says; do not plan

While this is primarily a spiritual war, which must be contested in the realm of spirit; the material realm of action is a sub-division of the spiritual - so there are implications for what we do, or don't do. 

But since we are living in an evil-affiliated global totalitarian System that has captured all the major social institutions; it is playing into their hands to try and fight System with System. 

This means that 'traditional' forms of resistance - which posit an oppositional program against the ideological status quo; and which are based-upon 'organization' and 'planning' - are doomed to defeat - whether by assimilation (e.g. bribing and/or blackmailing the leadership) or by direct confrontation with superior force.

If you agree that the necessary spiritual future is one of individual discernment and responsibility (i.e. final participation, direct knowing, heart-thinking) - then it is exactly these modes of intuition that should be what shapes our response. 

I believe that the most effective, including spiritually effective, individuals will be those whose actions are thus regulated - by their real (divine) selves and by the guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

Such an individual will be unpredictable by The System; uncontrollable by standard procedures, models and tactics - and will (so long as they are genuinely affiliated with The Good), be aided by divine interventions of many invisible types. 

How Sam Gamgee's character was permanently transformed

...Is described over at the Notion Club Papers.

Review of The Nature of Middle Earth by JRR Tolkien (2021; edited by Carl F Hostetter)

The Nature of Middle Earth by JRR Tolkien; edited by Carl F Hostetter. HarperCollins: London, 2021.

This book is significant as being the first collection of mostly-unpublished JRR Tolkien writings to emerge since the death of his son Christopher; being edited by Carl Hostetter. It is a book that serious Tolkien readers will want to own and use; because it is something like a cross between The History of Middle Earth Volume XII and an addition to Unfinished Tales. 

Therefore, those who regard HoME and/ or UT as important, will not want to miss this one: there are many things here which I regard of permanent value; and I am very grateful to know them. 

These are too many to list. Perhaps the essay Osanwe-kenta may take pride of place (I had already read this, but it was previously only available in a small circulation magazine). This is a detailed consideration (relevant to both Middle earth and our own world) of the 'communication of thought' by what might be termed telepathy, including the implications for free will. This was of extraordinary depth and interest to me.   

Another section is given the title of Description of Characters, and is Tolkien's commentary on Pauline Baynes's illustrated map of Middle Earth from 1970. For example, Tolkien regarded the back-view of Boromir as an almost perfect representation of his imagination; while Sam and Gimli were 'good enough'. On the other hand he was critical of several (most!) others including Gandalf, Legolas, Aragorn, Shelob and the Black Riders; and in making these criticisms he gives further detailed accounts of how he saw them.

The bulk of the book is about elves; including a great deal about their different types (also why they ended up different) and very large scale considerations of the justice and wisdom of the Valar in their dealings with elves. All this was absolutely gripping, and operates at a very deep spiritual level. 

 

The book does, however, have a significant flaw in that it begins badly - i.e. boringly. There are 166 pages under the section title of Time and Ageing - with repeated developing drafts of Tolkien's consideration of the time-lines, time-experiences (relative between the undying lands and Middle earth, and between races), movements of elves; and a lot about the elves rates of growth and reproduction. These are often presented in terms of tables of figures, and lists.

There was a great deal to interest me among these 166 pages; but there is no denying that there is a great deal of repetition and minutiae. There is considerable relevance - even here - for those of us fascinated by Tolkien's mind and creative processes. But I think it was - I believe - an error to begin the book with this material; because some readers who open and start reading at page one, will probably get no further. I would have placed this material in the middle of the volume; and probably relegated some of the repetition and tables to an optional appendix.   

The last section of the book, entitled The world, its lands, and their inhabitants - may have the broadest appeal to those whose interest is focused on Lord of the Rings. It consists of 100 pages of extra 'snippets' about all kinds of things. I was particularly pleased to learn more about Numenor (everyday life, reproductive life, ageing etc).

In general; this volume is (I think) the first to provide abundant new authorial material on what might be termed demographic, social and organizational aspects of Middle Earth (and the undying lands) - which are often stated to be neglected by Tolkien because they are omitted from Lord of the Rings. The Nature of Middle Earth proves that Tolkien had indeed considered such matters, often in considerable detail - albeit often after the publication of LotR. 

Overall, this is a book aimed at Tolkien aficionados such as myself; but for us it takes its place alongside John D Rateliff's two volume History of The Hobbit - valuably supplementary to the many earlier (and uniquely, filially, authoritative) volumes edited by Christopher Tolkien. 

What does it mean that Satan has 'already lost' the spiritual war with God?

It is often said that Satan has 'already lost' the war with God; and this is certainly true in one sense, but not in another. 

The sense in which Satan has already lost is that since Jesus Christ established Heaven and opened it to anyone who genuinely wants to go there after death; there is an eternal realm where Satan has no influence. 

So - after death and eternally, Satan has lost.

But Satan keeps fighting the spiritual war because there are billions of individual souls who may choose to reject the gift of resurrection to eternal life; and in the billions of individual battles of that war of salvation - the outcome remains undecided. 

For those souls who have rejected Heaven - there are presumably short-term satisfactions (spiteful pleasures) to be attained in the work of tormenting and damning other souls in the realms outside of Heaven, including this earth. And it seems quite likely that - on this temporary earth and among mortals subject to entropy - the Satanic powers are winning (or have won) the spiritual war, overall. 

But, again, in the other direction; these gratifications are temporary; because at some point the mortal life on earth 'school' will come to an end; and then the damned souls will face a bleak prospect of inevitable decline towards some kind of solitary state of resentful misery, eternally. 

Therefore, Satan has probably won the war for earth, overall; but the battles continue for the fate of each individual soul; while in Heaven, Satan has already been defeated finally and forever. 

It is the complexity of this situation - with different answers from preferences for different timescales, and priorities relating to different locations - which is why some people have chosen (and still choose, in apparently increasing numbers) to ally with Satan.

Fighting demonic evil in the spiritual war

There is a certain island called Farne, in the middle of the sea, not made an island, like Lindisfarne, by the flow of the tide, which the Greeks call rheuma, and then restored to the mainland at its ebb, but lying off several miles to the East, and, consequently, surrounded on all sides by the deep and boundless ocean. No one, before God's servant Cuthbert, had ever dared to inhabit this island alone, on account of the evil spirits which reside there: but when this servant of Christ came, armed with the helmet of salvation, the shield of faith, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, all the fiery darts of the wicked were extinguished, and that wicked enemy, with all his followers, were put to flight.

From Bede's Life of Cuthbert

Just where does the spiritual war take place? The answer is that it is an inner war. 

At the time of Cuthbert, Men's inner lives were also outward; so that devils or demons were perceived - seen, heard, smelled - objectively and externally: in public space. Men's thinking was (to a significant extent) a shared and communal thing, rather as we moderns imagine telepathy. And conversely, Men were not 'individuals' to the same extent - could not (and did not want to) separate themselves from the group (family, tribe).

Modern Men are necessarily individuals now - we look out from our inner subjectivity onto an external objectivity which seems utterly separate and alien; and about which we may feel so unsure as to lapse into the solipsism of thinking that only we our-selves are actually real (and everything else a deluded product of our imagination). This became mainstream in the middle 20th century, and (for example) James Joyce got global fame and Samuel Beckett and Harold Pinter got  Nobel Prizes for depictions of exactly this aspect of the modern condition.  

But Men's minds have changed since then. According to God's plan, different souls (with different needs) are born into different historical places and eras, and armed with different aptitudes - and facing different problems. 

Adult mainstream Modern Man perceives neither the demonic nor the divine. He is not just capable of autonomy from the group - but cursed by it. It is a fact of his life. 

Modern Man co-creates reality, and needs to become consciously aware that he does so. His choice is whether to co-create worldly and mortal Satanic 'reality'; or to join with God in co-creating that divine creation within which we dwell.

Either we work with God; or against him.  

Therefore, what was once only a partial individual responsibility for faith is now all-but complete. Because we just-are autonomous agents, we are responsible for what we believe. And if we subordinate our autonomy to a group (any group) then that is our responsibility as well. 

Modern Man does not, therefore, battle with publicly-visible devils or demons ('evil spirits'), like those defeated by Cuthbert on Farne island; the spiritual war takes place within him. 

Where then are the demons, and how do they 'get at' modern Men? The answer is that all location depends on consciousness - all knowledge involves thinking; therefore the reality of demons is both objective and also dependent on the minds of Men. 

Evils spirits exist in men and their products - when conceptualized by Men. Therefore, demons live (nowadays) in forms of 'communication' - including the spoken word (as experienced and 'reported'), in pictures and moving images, in music, and in computers and the internet. 

Evil spirits are sustained in this existence in the minds of Men (and of demons) and enter our minds when we attend to such stimuli and know them. Demonic thoughts appear in our thinking by such means - co-created by those who originated the stimuli and by ours-elves. 

Thus, every temptation is also the result of an invitation - we 'invite evil by co-creating it in and by our minds. 

In other words; the main battlefield of the spiritual war is in our own minds; where evil is frequently appearing; and our job is to recognize evil as evil, and to align with Good. 

That is how evil is defeated. If we do not recognize evil, it has won, If we recognize evil and accept it, it has won. If we recognize evil and say it is Good, it has won. 

And if we ourselves participate in public discourse on the assumption that evil is Good - we have doubled-down on evil, and are doubly self-damned. 

So, each of us is responsible for fighting the spiritual war in our own thinking, our own hearts; where evil 'stimuli' will seek out and discover our own weaknesses, and our own thinking will betray us to Their knowledge. 

But every such onslaught - being partially self-created - can always be self-defeated by the act of repentance; by inwardly recognizing and rejecting evil - by affirming our commitment to Good. 

There will be periods of respite from such onslaught of evil; but so long as we live the war will never cease because this is why we are here, why we remain alive. Every triumph against an evil temptation is some-thing learned, an extra strength - from which those who choose to follow Jesus to resurrected life in Heaven will benefit eternally. 

All of those who choose Heaven will benefit from their lifelong spiritual warfare; but only those who choose Heaven. This world is for those who choose to follow Jesus. And for everyone else, it really is (as asserted by the above-mentioned Samuel Beckett, for example) that meaningless and miserable waste of time which modern 'culture' supposes it to be.  

But for those who shall follow Jesus (no matter how small and obscure they may seem to be); mortal life will be known in retrospect to be an endlessly challenging, exciting and heroic business.  

"None are safe until all are safe" By believing Satanic lies, we serve evil

Francis Berger has seized-upon and analyzed this new mantra of totalitarianism. It is a nice example of demonic cleverness (and a clever example of demonic 'niceness'). 

Because (obviously!) nobody can ever be safe; what They are actually talking about is fear, not safety; and emotional state, not a material state. 

None-are-safe-until... amounts to the Establishment (the System) claiming the moral necessity to 'treat' an imputed or inferred dysphoria (unpleasant feelings) by means of population-wide coercion - even when the assumed dysphoria is a single person (or tiny minority). 

Even when the fear has itself been (systematically) induced by The System; and even when the intervention claimed to reduce fear actually increases it.

So - "None are safe until all are safe"... An obviously evil ploy, yes? A transparently manipulative lie? Yes, indeed! Yet another Litmus Test suitable for identifying that a person/ institution is on the side of evil in the spiritual war.

So, if any still doubted that the major self-identified 'Christian' churches now serve the side of Satan, and are strategically opposed to God and divine creation; all doubts have now been removed - since the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican leaderships have (for the first time in history) issued a proclamation strongly endorsing this phrase and concept (third sentence), making it the primary global imperative. 

(Note: Significantly this demonic statement, although wholly political and worldly, nonetheless uses 'God' several times; but never mentions the name of Jesus. Others have noticed this pattern in demonic statements, over many centuries: an extreme reluctance of the servants of Satan to mention Jesus Christ. It is not impossible for them to say 'Jesus', but they obviously hate doing it unless they are simultaneously diminishing Jesus to the status of mere-Man. Presumably, however, when They say 'God' they are inwardly substituting the idea of 'Satan', for God our loving Father, the Creator.)

The orthodox-traditional Christian must wake or perish. 

There are but two choices for self-identified Christians: follow your church and obey its leadership; or follow Jesus Christ. 

It is one of the saddest experiences of the past 18 months to observe one after another devout, serious, informed, loyal Christian being-led (by the primacy of their obedience to their church's authority) onto the side of the Global Establishment - which is the side of evil. 

Because; by believing the lies of Satan; we serve Satan. By obeying those who believe the lies of Satan; we serve Satan. 

It really is is as simple as that. 

Why were these End Times predictable from so long ago?

How was it that the End Times were (broadly) predictable so long ago? Why was it clear that evil would (sooner or later) prevail in this world?

The basic reason could be that the demonic powers are immortal spirits while Men are mortal. And this was, of course, a fact well known to our ancestors - who drew conclusions that were, perhaps, much clearer and more obvious (at least, to the more thoughtful and insightful among them) then they are nowadays.  

This fundamental asymmetry means that evil is able to plan and scheme on a timescale across the whole history of the earth and multiple human generations; whereas, by contrast, each human generation must (in a sense) start afresh with learning about the world. 

Thus, the demons tend cumulatively to out-strategize Men. 

Another ways of thinking about it is that this mortal world is ruled by entropy. Although we are created-creatures in a created-world, and God is still create-ing; nonetheless we are mortal incarnates, and entropy must win-out eventually.  

Over time, entropy will overwhelm mortal creations. 

However; evil spirits are excluded from Heaven; and in Heaven, Men are eternal incarnates: There is all-creation and no entropy. 

Therefore, as  this mortal earth wears-down, the odds increasingly favour evil; and the End Times were always inevitable. 

But in Heaven... well, there things are very different. 

Memory versus forgetting in old age

It is especially a feature of Old Age (from the early fifties, typically) that some have a strong memory while others forget - some live in the past, others in the now.

I believe that those who survive to old age do so for a reason - they are sustained by God to learn something important to them. 

Crudely put, to acknowledge and repent their sins, but perhaps a particular sin which threatens salvation - which may provoke them to reject resurrection and Heaven, to refuse to follow Jesus after death.

Everybody who is alive, remains alive for Reasons - and these reasons are spiritual, and these reasons shape our situation.

One who has a strong memory and lives in the past probably has something in need of acknowledging and repenting. Not to feel Guilt for sin (feeling which is akin to fear and itself a sin indicating lack of faith), but to recognise, and ask God for forgiveness.

One who forgets, and whose disposition is to live in present and future, might need to examine motivations. 

One whose drive diminishes and motivations dwindle, may be being encouraged to set aside hopes placed in worldly plans and schemes.

in sum, our actual situation and condition are shaped by The Creator so that we have the best possible chance to learn what we most need  - need Spiritually. 

We Are Alive for reasons, all of us - and learning the reasons is a vital aspect of why we are still alive.

It is that which is eternal plus that which is divine in us, which enables the choice between Good and evil

All Men are capable of choosing to join with Good or with evil, for two reasons. 

The first is that we are eternal Beings whose primordial existence preceded creation - so we know primordial chaos by experience.

Secondly, we are all children of God who each inherit something of that divinity which created our reality. So we know the reasons for creation, its purpose and meaning.

The choice between Good and evil is the choice between affirming and commiting-to the purpose and meaning of creation; or rejecting these (and the divine in us) which is implicitly to desire a return towards chaos.

This is a real choice, based upon experiential knowledge of the goals of evil and of Good. 

And ultimately it is a binary choice.

Not colluding in phobic and OCD birdemic behaviour

It seems obvious that many people are phobic, clinically so, about the birdemic; that is, they are unreasonably afraid and practice avoidance. This merges with obsessive compulsive symptoms (unpleasant, intrusive ruminations) and compulsions (to practice ineffectual ritual behaviors).

All of these are curable by 'behaviour therapy' - which is just practicing doing whatever evokes the phobia; and Not doing whatever is the compulsion (and acknowledging that the obsession is an evil).

As with more mainstream neuroses, the essential component in recovery is to want it; and, again as with mainstream neuroses, this desire to get well is often absent or very weak.

Because people cannot reach the sunny uplands of cure without passing through the tough country of anxiety. In other words, things have to feel worse (for a while) before they get better.

You probably can't make a birdemic neurotic want to get better, but you can avoid colluding in their avoidance. Simple acts of normal behaviour, cheerfully done (or Not done) can therefore be helpful. 

...While your continued compliance makes the neurotics feel better in the short term, but at the cost of entrenching and exacerbating their pathology.

Why does the ruling ideology of the world Not have a name?

This question has often been asked, but the answer is simple and clear. The answer is that the ruling ideology of the world is Evil - and evil has no positive definition. 

The name of Evil does not derive from what it wants but from what it opposes; and that is Good, which is God and divine creation.

Evil is not something you Are, but a cause you serve. It is not a specific group, but one side in a Spiritual war; a war where each individual can and must choose which side he supports. (No abstention is possible.)

The problem with giving a name to Evil thus understood is that it constitutes the entirety of world and national governments (all parties), the mass media, and the (cross-linked) bureaucracies of all major social institutions (including 'Christian' churches).

For most people, Evil thus understood also includes almost every person they know.

So the problem of naming Evil is the problem of acknowledging its overwhelming prevalence and power.

Trial and error is needed in life (from William Arkle)

And now another factor can be looked at, and that is a process in our education which will give us the necessary strength in the upholding of this unique individuality and its objective system of values. And here again, our intelligence will tell us that, if such strength is to be real unto itself, in order that the individual can carry the reality of Divine friendship for another, then such strength can only be gained by encounters with opposition. 

The definition of strength, in this respect, is that it is the ability of the individual to express and have faith in the most valued qualities of its nature. If the individual can lose sight of such qualities, or knowingly resign responsibility for them, then this would be a mark of insufficient strength in that individual.

This type of strength is not the lower order one which we are more often aware of in this world; which is considered to be, like a steam roller, concerned to go its own way at the expense of crushing and pushing aside all opposition. This is not strength but force and, while the former is allied to spiritual integrity, the latter is only concerned with having its own way...

Another way of drawing attention to the significance of strength is to realise that, if we believe that we possess a particular valuable quality, but discover that a situation arises in which we lose it, then that quality was never properly possessed by us. In other words, we only properly possess qualities of character when they are so embedded in our nature that they can never be lost. Such ‘possessions’ are an intrinsic part of our ultimate unique Divine Individuality and we are not strong in that reality until it is unassailable. 

 It would be quite wrong for us now to jump to the conclusion that God has encouraged ‘evil’ in His University in order to supply this very encounter of opposition as a part of the curriculum. The reality must be much more subtle than this, and very important for us to understand.

It would be a harsh and ungracious person who would create a system of education in which he deliberately cultivated evil for his children to face. It would not only be a violation of love towards the children who opposed it, but it would be an even greater violation of love towards those in whom the evil was cultivated.

But there is another way in which evil can arise in the educational system which does not contradict the nature of the educator, and that is to allow the full function of freedom of initiative, invention and exploration, for this will surely lead to mistakes occurring, out of which the quality of evil will quickly grow, as we have mentioned before. In this way, the recognition of the wrong use of our Divine Nature, and the experience of the unpleasantness of the repercussions, will lead to a desire to correct the error. 

Thus the full cycle of divine integrity and responsibility can be experienced in which error breeds evil, which is recognised as distasteful and which leads to the discovery of the means of correction.

...So we have arrived at the need for, and proper allowance for, the principle of trial and error.

From Equations of Being by William Arkle

I have William Arkle to thank for the clearest understanding of what God was aiming for when He designed (created) this mortal life; and (from the opposite, human, perspective) how this actual life as we personally experience it, can be understood as well-designed for God's purposes. 

Here Arkle is talking about the need for 'strength' which can also be termed 'courage' - and the distinction between mere personality-level strength/ courage (in service of within-mortal-life goals); and that divine and spiritual strength/ courage which has to do with preparing us for heavenly life as children of God. 

It is important to recognize that: we only properly possess qualities of character when they are so embedded in our nature that they can never be lost.

But Arkle understood Men as having to develop and 'perfect' this indomitable strength through many situations in multiple incarnations. While I, on the other hand, believe that (because of the work of Jesus Christ) we only need to understand and desire this strength - and we do not personally need to achieve it in life.  

When it comes to the possibility and choice of resurrection, after this mortal life; it is enough for us to recognise the need for such a fullness of spiritual strength - and it will be granted us by resurrection. 

The purpose of learning in this mortal life is therefore to know what is Good: to learn True Values. It is neither an intention nor a possibility of this life - nor of multiple such lives - to attain any kind of perfection; whether in strength/ courage nor in any of the of the essential virtues.

Strength/ courage is offered, indeed, as an inseparable part of 'the total package' of resurrection; and resurrection is wanted by those who love Jesus Christ and wish to follow him to Life Everlasting (by means of our resurrection). 

Strength is one necessary attribute of being divine - and the need for strength is something that some of us need to learn in mortal life; while others of us already know it before we are incarnated as mortals; or else our love of God and of divine creation is already so strong that it encompasses all the essential specific attributes.    

In this global spiritual war, seek your compensatory strengths

That this world is one of spiritual warfare seems more obvious now than ever. Furthermore, the side of Evil - the side of Satan, demons; their slaves, servants and dupes; the side that opposes God, divine creation and The Good - is very obviously triumphant on a global and institutional scale. 

Especially since the global totalitarian coup of early 2020; the self-identified Christian churches are revealed as weak, corrupted onto the side of evil, and also in rapid decline (with international sustained closures, and near-cessation of core Christian activities).  

But because value-inversion* is more advanced than at any time and place in history; this situation is concealed from consciousness among the mass of people. 

(*Value-inversion is the inversion of Good and Evil, by which truth, beauty and virtue are replaced by their opposites; and where lies, vileness and sin are by mass-propaganda, officially and legally promoted.) 

Any honest appraisal of the current situation by an individual serious Christian will know all this. 

But there are compensations! Inevitably and necessarily!

How can I be sure? Simply because God is Good, God is The creator (and always creating), we dwell in God's creation; and God loves each of us as his children. 

Therefore, God will ensure that all who choose to take his side in the spiritual war will be granted the strength to do so. 

When the whole, global public realm has been corrupted and inverted to the active pursuit of evil and destruction of The Good; then (obviously!) God will ensure that each individual who wishes to defy evil and adhere to Good will be enabled to do so. 

So, if you are a Christian who is not yet aware of the compensations of these times; then perhaps you should seek and discover them in your condition?

Because they are Now a fact of life: a fact of your life. 

If hobbits were still alive... What then?

When I first read Tolkien in my early-middle teens; I had a yearning desire that hobbits, elves, dwarves should still be alive in the world. I felt that - if this could only be the case - then life would become magical and beautiful... or would it? How exactly?

Nowadays, I regard this as one of the traps of materialism. When half of us 'knows' (because we are materialists) that there are no other speaking peoples than man, no giants or dragons, no magical wizards or ghosts... 

Then the other part of us - which remains spontaneously and naturally spiritual - automatically concludes that If such things were real For Sure, our world would be magical, re-enchanted, romantic...

And in this half-way house of hope-less yearning - we Get Stuck. 

Because, it would not really be the case that hobbits would make a better world - not unless our way of thinking also changed. 

Because the reality of hobbits somewhere in the world would not transform our condition any more than the reality of the pygmies; the reality of magical sorcerers would just be a different kind of 'science'; the presence of invisible fairies would be just some novel electromagnetic phenomenon... 

Because we are so materialist, so mundane in our way of thinking, that these would be just more facts about the dull, thin, alienated reality which we perceive asif looking-out at a TV screen from inside our brains. 

This, indeed, is exactly what happened with New Age spirituality - it just became another (mundane) alternative-science - based on consciousness understood as vibrations, frequencies, energies or fields (a quasi-physics, mostly); and a branch of 'therapy' - but using acupuncture, crystals and shamanism instead of surgery, drugs and counselling.   

Even meditation - which used to be regarded as the most advanced form of mystical spirituality - is now materialized to the mundane activity of 'mindfulness' (and taught with state approval by mega-bureaucracies). 

Fundamentally; the problem is not in the world, but in our-selves; or rather our lack of real-selves. 

It is because we-our-selves are self-aware at a superficial and externally-imposed level of thinking: our personality, our thoughts, and even our thought processes are passively assimilated from our environment; and our environment in one that is officially dead, meaningless, purposeless; and operating on the basis of some mindless mixture of causality and randomness. 

We take the world, ideas and concepts, and our experiences; and we make them mundane.  

The first step in escaping this Black Iron Prison is to cease assisting in its construction and maintenance. Every thing, all knowledge and understanding, entails mind; so our miserable and pointless world is mind-made; made (partly, and essentially) by our own minds. 

We are our own jailers and tormentors. It was we who painted ourselves into this corner from which we perceive there to be no possible escape. 

Habits are hard to break - especially when it is habitual thinking - as such - from-which we need to escape. 

Yet it can be done; and we can recognize and value when it is done - and repent when it is not. We can understand our lives as the best times when we know the world to be alive, conscious, created; and that the other mundane materialist times are an evil spell with which we collude. 

The materialist mundane miserable reality is real; but only because we help to make it real. The enchanted romantic reality is also real, but only when we acknowledge it as such. 

As usual, it is a choice; and nowadays (and increasingly - for most people) a binary choice. 

Cease hoping for rescue

By hobbit and elf, 

By dragon or spell;

And repent our complicity

In the thinking of-Hell. 

What is the meaning of Establishment language? Manipulation versus communication

When you hear a politician speak, read a press release or a media headline; you are not dealing with an attempt to communicate the truth about reality; you are dealing with language as calculated manipulation ('language' here including visual, symbolic, audio and other media). 

Manipulation is language intended to shape attitudes, thought-processes and actions. 

Such language could also be termed propaganda - that is, language intended to have a particular effect on others; albeit the usage of 'propaganda' tends to be rather narrower than what I intend here by 'manipulation'.  

This is why the Establishment are liars. They are not even trying to communicate information - let alone accurate information; They are always trying to affect our behaviour. 

Their purpose is to get us to do what They want. All 'communication' is just a means to that end.

Real conversation treats 'the other' as a person with agency; however manipulation regards 'the other' as an object to be controlled. (So, for Them, agency is an obstacle to be overcome.)  

They will of course mislead and lie to whatever extent they judge to be helpful to the goal of shaping us. Untruthfulness ranges from subtle distortions, through selection and exaggeration, all the way up to complete fabrication; as when a person with a false identity simulates fake emotions to tell a total lie - in order (successfully) to manipulate public opinion. 

They do not regard themselves as purposive and habitual 'liars', because They are not even trying to tell the truth. 

They are using 'communications' in order to manipulate other in ways They deem to be desirable - and truth simply doesn't come into it. 

The distinction between truth and untruth does not exist for Them, because their language is directed at manipulation, not communication. Lies, truths, or any mixture of them, are simply means to an end - and that end is manipulation. 

 

This is also why one can neither debate nor even discuss things with anyone representing or serving the Establishment. 

While you or I might be attempting to communicate information to Them, They are trying to change us. There is a total asymmetry of intent. 

Which is why it is futile to engage with linguistic emanations from government, bureaucracy and the media. It is a category error. It is treating manipulations as if they were communications; it is treating intentional dishonesty as if it was an attempt at honesty. 

(I first recognized this when dealing with the university bureaucracy, when I was asked why I did not comply with some directive; and I gave honest answers backed by logic and factual evidence... But They were only interested in my answers as potential ammunition to make me do what They wanted. My communications were being regarded as counter-propaganda merely; and a possible source of clues suggesting how better to manipulate me. So I stopped arguing and discussing and explaining; and from then on simply stated that I would not comply unless I was compelled.)  

So, how should we understand Establishment linguistic manipulations? What is the specific meaning of a particular press release, announcement or mass media product? 

The first step is to discern when another party is manipulating us, when he is producing propaganda to change our behaviour rather than communications so that we may better choose. This is easy nowadays, because all major institutions and their leadership are always engaged primarily in manipulation.

Easy... so long as we are not misled by the common tactic by which the Establishment (dishonestly) pretend manipulation is communication. Typically, Their propaganda is constructed to be deniable as such. 

Propaganda is not self-labelled, it does not come to us in a marked package. We must each make an inference by our personal judgment. 

Luckily, such discernment is an easy matter (for a serious Christian); but we-our-selves must do it, nobody else can be relied-upon to do it for us... 

(On the other hand, They pretend that any honest communication which tends to oppose Their manipulations is actually propaganda. In other words; They pretend that their own propaganda is information, and pretend that others' information is propaganda. They are not constrained by Truth!) 

We can (usually) understand manipulations by discerning the effect on our-selves.

For example, much official and media language (such as the NEWS HEADLINES) is nowadays intended to induce fear. By the fear that is induced in us (albeit maybe transiently) we know the purpose of that language. 

Other times it is despair that is being intended, perhaps leading to an impulse towards hope-less compliance. Or resentment - where the intent is to make someone feel himself a victim.

Also typically; the induced negative feeling of (say) fear, despair, or resentment is shaped towards a fake positive feeling. 

So that my fear is reconceptualized as an abstract form of 'altruism' (I'm not afraid for myself, but for other people"; my despair into 'realism' ("it will happen whatever, so we might as well make the best of it"); my resentment into a concern with 'justice'; my self-interest into redressing 'oppression' (as with much socialism, feminism, antiracism and the sexual revolution). 

I believe that we all need to wake-up to explicit consciousness of what should be a clear and obvious distinction. 

The distinction between that language intended to manipulate - which is what we get from Them (from all authority and institutions, 24/7)...

And that language intended to communicate reality truth-fully - which is nowadays typically personal, private, and within a very small social circle. 

Note: This distinction in the use of language was crystalized for me by watching some videos by Christopher Michael Langan. 

Living Jesus, historical Jesus (or, Romantic Christianity in a nutshell)

It is a distinctive aspect of Christianity (as I understand it) that Jesus was an historical person, who changed the world - such that things were qualitatively different after Jesus than before. 

Being located in history, Christianity is a religion that has a time-line. For Christians, time is quite naturally understood as sequential - before Christ; his life and death, and what came after. 

This is why I find fundamentally wrong the long-standing, classical and mainstream theology, desire to make Christianity into a quasi-Platonic spirituality, rooted-in a God conceived to exist in timeless/ out-of-time eternity.  

However necessarily historical, Christianity is also about the living and future Jesus Christ. This is expressed in many ways - but the essential point is that Jesus is alive and active in this world; and can be felt by those who follow him as a daily, hourly, influence, guidance, inspiration.  

The historical and living Jesus have mostly been combined by practices like Holy Communion (whether as re-enactment or as memorial), reading the Gospels, reflecting on the life and teachings of Jesus, and by iconography and symbolism. 

But all these share the primarily backward-looking perspective: the living Jesus is experienced by first attending to the historical Jesus. Whatever the subsequence experience, this is to regard Jesus at one remove, the present seen through the past. 

And therefore all these share the disadvantage of requiring assertions about the past, which have by 2021 become extremely clouded by a vast accretion of rival interpretations - whether theological, traditional, scholarly, or whatever...

My conviction is that from here and now we need to strive for a contact with the living Jesus Christ that is primarily direct, and therefore independent of the historical evidence and theories. 

Having established such primary, direct, living contact; it can (and for most people will) be strengthened and enriched secondarily with whatever is found valuable - and this is where scriptures, churches, and the vast mass of practices, symbolism and art through the ages may come-in. 

But some will probably find that many or most of these referents of the historical Jesus are unhelpful or counterproductive; and certainly a primary focus on the historical Jesus can be very off-putting to the prospective convert, for whatever reason - anything from personal or aesthetic preferences to socio-political prejudices; or simply from the confusing and disorientating morass of controversy that surrounds every statement. 

The search for Jesus Christ has thereby, I feel convinced, become an unprecedently personal and experiential matter. As such, there is always the danger that Jesus will simply be invented to support pre-existent socio-political assumptions. 

Yet nowadays this is less of a problem than ever before; since the evil of the mainstream, official and dominant socio-political assumptions is so extreme and separate from that Good which we know by inner intuition of our divine selves and from direct contact with Jesus Christ (by the Holy Ghost); that confusion and conflation by a sincere, truth-seeking and virtuous spirit is ever less likely, with each passing month. 

Also, the kind of person who wants a Jesus to fit and sustain the assumptions of this modern world is not likely to want Jesus very much; except as an expedient pseudo-belief to support a job or position: that is, as a religious leader. And we observe that Christian leaders (as with leaders of other religions) are almost all exactly thus corrupted. 

But for someone seeking Jesus for himself or herself and who will not profit by it in terms of salary or status; there is a greater chance of knowing the truth of Jesus primarily by inner and direct intuition than ever before. 

Note added: the above can serve as a brief encapsulation of what I mean by Romantic Christianity. 

Audiobook version of Look Who's Back - by Timur Vermes (read by Julian Rhind-Tutt and translated by Jamie Bulloch)

I first noticed this book when it was published in 2012, simply because of the classic artwork on the cover - and after browsing a little, bought a copy. I later watched the movie, and listened to the Audiobook version. 

Look Who's Back has emerged, over the subsequent years and several readings/ listenings, as one of my favourite high-comic novels (at the level of such as Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis, Changing Places by David Lodge, or Towards the End of the Morning by Michael Frayn); and the only one which is a translation; although one would never for a moment suspect it - demonstrating the superb job done by Jamie Bulloch. 

(I usually find translations of novels, even by prestigious translators, to be leaden - and need to 'make allowances'. Not here. It is as well done as William Weaver's version of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose)  

The subtlety and twining-complexity of the humour, as well as the frequent belly-laughs, is first rate; and the whole is beautifully shaped and paced; and (that rare thing) has a satisfying ending. 

The set-up is that (for never-explained reasons) the real Hitler appears in modern Germany, near to the remains of the Fuhrer bunker; and sets about to explore contemporary Germany and rebuild his power. This leads to a lot of very amusing satire, but a great deal more; although it is easier to say what it is not, than what it is. Indeed, the novel is (like all the best books) unique and unclassifiable. 

Julian Rhind-Tutt does a tremendous job of narrating the book. Hitler is given a distinctive but slight, clipped German accent; while the other characters are allocated Received Pronunciation/ Estuary English or Cockney-'Mockney' voices according to social class and position (the Mockney - faked-Cockey - accent is very common in British mass media circles). In other words, with the exception of Hitler's narrative voice, the setting is by implication 'translated' into English, as well as the words. 

Therefore, unless you dislike audiobooks, I would recommend this version above the written text; since Rhind-Tutt is able to guide the listener to the most apt 'tone' by which the novel can be appreciated. 

 

Afghanistan - Arhimanic mistake or Sorathic strategy? And so what?

The recent business in Afghanistan is something most of us know only via the mass media; which means that the meaning of the events has been distorted in order to manipulate us, and key facts are also certain to have been changed or omitted. 

In what follows I am therefore making the assumption that it is true that the Western powers recently withdrew from Afghanistan in something like the disastrous manner reported (i.e. with extremely rapid collapse of the West funded/ trained state military, uncontrollably overrun by the insurgents, leaving behind significant numbers of US citizens, with colossal capture of US (at least) military materiel, and with a mass population transfer of Afghans (mostly men of military age and experience) into The West.

This has been almost universally regarded as a disaster for the Leadership of the Western Powers, a sudden and catastrophic loss of status as a global power, evidence of a collapse in military effectiveness etc. And ushering in a new period of global 'instability'.

The assumption seems to be that all this happened (assuming it did) against the wishes of the Global Establishment. On those grounds, some Christians regard it as A Good Thing. 

This is what I doubt. Good is not an 'emergent property' from evil motivations!

I see the events as further evidence for the ascendancy of a Sorathic tendency of deliberate destruction, of encouraging chaos; and that this 'strategy' is rapidly taking-over from the Ahrimanic strategy of making the whole world into a 'high-tech', Matrix-like, atheist-leftist-totalitarian media-bureaucratic super-state; where the masses are maintained under close and continual surveillance, and subjected to detailed behavioural control. 

I see this as a further step in the breakdown of the high point of global coordination and consensus which was reached early in 2020, and an increase in the evilness of evil from the domination of 'lawful evil' to more and more 'chaotic' evil of the escalating war of each against all.  

In sum; this 'catastrophe' may indeed both be a genuine catastrophe (i.e. an increase in the domination of evil), and yet it may also be a intended outcome of decisions from within the Western powers to whom the events are 'a catastrophe'. 

As always; even this is (for Christians) no reason at all for increased fear - because fear is a sin, and very obviously what They (the demonic powers) want from us. Nor is it a reason for despair; because Christian hope is indestructible and lies beyond this world and mortal life - and is eternal. 

They also want us to 'think globally', to be deeply interested-in and concerned-by 'foreign policy' and geopolitics; to identify-with nations, large abstract 'humanitarian' causes and commit to ideologies. All these are traps for a Christian. 

Our business is (primarily) with our salvation and theosis, with the love of God then our 'neighbour' which means actual humans beings to whom we have a genuine personal commitment. 

In practice, we cannot help but 'have an opinion' on these mass media 'talking points'; but we need to keep reminding ourselves that all of these (and everything we think we know about them) are primarily attempts to manipulate us in ways that benefit the agendas of one or other of the factions among the evil-serving leadership.   

So - although the above is my interpretation of what has happened, I am not wedded to these conclusions, and my main effort is not to 'care' about matters which I can only be concerned with be falling-into ways of thinking that are specifically designed to corrupt me onto the side of Satan and against God.

My faith should be that God - as the creator - can and will always ensure that I can know from personal experience, by my own discernment and the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost, what I need to know for my task in this mortal life.  

When our faith is solid, we need not deny or defend ourselves against pessimistic projections about what might happen if. 

(Those 'might-happens' picked-out and pushed at us from among the boundless and incalculable possibilities of 'might-happens.)

Our task is with what does happen - All this kind of stuff - as it impinges-upon-us is a challenge from which it is intended we may learn. 

But this learning should be directed at eternal resurrected life; and if it is Not in that context, then we will indeed live in fear and despair, and at the mercies of the worldly-powers. 

Resurrection metaphysically supersedes Reincarnation

Reincarnation seems to imply (if not to entail) the eternal primacy of spirit life (unembodied, 'pure' spirit) above incarnation (embodiment). 

That is; with reincarnation Men are primarily - first and last - spirit forms; and the history of a Man's being begins with being-a-spirit and ends with being-a-spirit. 

This spirit undergoes a series of incarnations which may be (eventually, according to some versions of reincarnation) aiming-towards eternal status as a spirit. The spirit learns-from - or is otherwise affected-by - an incarnation; however, it is only the spirit which persists. 

Or else there is an unending cycle of (re-) incarnations (and perhaps transformations, for instance to other beings such as animals) through-which the spirit moves serially. But, equally; only the spirit is eternal, with the multiple incarnate forms being left-behind. 

But the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his promise of resurrection to all who follow him, implies a final incarnation. 

Resurrection (which is an eternal embodied state) is thus implicitly regarded as having a higher status than that of pure spirit. 

For me this means that when someone becomes a Christian, he expects (or at least hopes) that his death will be followed by resurrection; and therefore Not by another reincarnation. 

Against this understanding are ranged several of my spiritual mentors such as Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield, and perhaps William Arkle. Steiner and Barfield are explicit that the ultimate and eternal aim of Man is to be a pure (discarnate) spirit; and that incarnations are 'merely' a series of 'descents' into the material, from-which the spirit is intended to learn. 

I can only regard this combining of Christianity and reincarnation as an error - a metaphysical* incoherence. A failure correctly to discern and understand the core teaching of Jesus Christ and the demonstration that was his life, death, resurrection and ascension.   

And I think the source of this error lies in the (common, almost universal) failure to regard the Fourth Gospel (termed 'John') as the primary Christian scripture; because this text seems to state quite explicitly (and repeatedly) that followers of Jesus can expect resurrection to life everlasting after the death of their mortal bodies: which clearly (so it seems) excludes the possibility of reincarnation. 

A Christian who built his faith from the Fourth Gospel would (surely?) cease to expect - and to want - any further reincarnation? 

*Note - By metaphysical incoherence I mean a matter of incompatible primary assumptions; which therefore has nothing to do with 'evidence' or 'observation', because metaphysical assumptions frame the nature and status of evidence and observation.

Further Note - I am not saying that there never was reincarnation; in the contrary I assume that it certainly has happened in some times and places, and possibly continues to happen. What I am saying is that following Jesus Christ to Heaven necessarily terminates the cycle of reincarnations. 

X-Men - Days of Future Past (2014) in retrospect

From Quicksilver's kitchen scene - one of the most brilliant and memorable sequences of any movie 

There is something I like about the X-Men movie series, which makes them stay in my mind with a pleasing flavour despite that most of them are only moderate movies. In other words, they have grown in recollection.

The best of the actual X-men movies is probably Days of Future Past (although Logan from 2017, which is about Wolverine mostly, is probably better). 

The basic 'situation' of these movies is a simple question, but without a simple answer. Should the mutant population of X-Men try to live in peace with the normal humans? Or; should mutants accept that the normal humans will (sooner or later) try to enslave or exterminate them (which would suggests that the mutants should strike pre-emptively to do likewise)?

The movie plots are driven by two frenemies: Professor X - Charles Xavier - believes in peaceful coexistence; and Magneto - Eric Lehnsherr - believes that the X-Men should rule the world, lest they be ruled. 

Despite that Magneto's views or explicitly linked with the death of his Jewish parents in Auschwitz and the Holocaust; which, in Hollywood would usually be a sign of a dumb plotline based on the innate superiority of this type of victim; instead here Eric's moral authority, his sincerity, is repeatedly undermined by his willingness to sacrifice other mutants (even those he loves the most) to 'the cause' - but not sacrificing himself. 

There is always the suspicion that Magneto aspires merely to be a totalitarian dictator, and that his pro-mutant cause hides (even from himself) the demonic nature of his real motivations.  

While Charles's vision of a peaceful future (with his idyllic school/ college of mutants; set in a beautiful country house and grounds) is also undermined by his tendency to control people towards this end; especially by his ability to read minds and implant motivations. 

There is a suspicion that Professor-X is fighting against his own more politically-correct style of totalitarianism - full of vague idealism, but actually creating social instability and hedonic weakness and passivity. 

However, Charles is overall the 'goody' - not least because of his real care for people, his self-sacrifice, and his capacity to learn. 

As for Days of Future Past; I will say nothing specific - except that has Tolkien-like resonances concerning free will and providence: in this case applied to the science fiction problem of changing the past to aim at a better future. It turns-out that to change the past by violent coercion is ineffective - the evil past merely corrects itself. Evil cannot defeat evil. 

The only way that matters can be made better is by the free choice of an individual; and at the specific instant when that personal agency is used in line with 'divine providence'... the whole world is transformed for the better.

Yet without the knowledge of the participants. Disaster has been averted by an inner act of thought - but the participants do not realize it...

This strikes me as one of the most important lessons we need here-and-now.