People need to see-through the incompetence to the evil-motivations beneath

When I wrote recently about the relationship between evil and incompetence, how evil is necessarily incompetent in proportion to evil-ness (except at destruction); I forgot to mention a very important consequence. 

Too many clever and well-informed people are so aware of the incompetence of the Global Establishment that they regard incompetence as a sufficient explanation for the evil. 

In other words; they focus so much upon the incompetence of the ruling class - the people who are running the global organizations, national governments, major financial institutions, and all large social institutions (and, don't get me wrong - these people really are staggeringly incompetent!); that they fail to notice that behind all the surface chaos and proximate wreckage - there are deep and ultimate evil motives. 

These evil motives are what makes the incompetence work in one (i.e. evil) direction, continuing over many decades; the underlying evil-directedness is what enables the destructiveness of mainstream leftism to be sustained and purposive even across several human generations. 

The evil is what prevents incompetence from being addressed - or even noticed! And what pursues policies that amplify the presence and power of incompetence, instead of attempting to remedy it. The evil is what praises and promotes wicked policies and bad outcomes as virtuous; vilifies goodness as a 'fascism'.  

So - yes incompetence; but doubleplusyes deliberately evil motivations!

Working with a spiritual mentor

All my major spiritual mentors communicate with me via books, and most of them are dead. Many of them are included in the lineage of Romantic Christians. 

An advantage of this arrangement is that it is easier to discern and filter the intentions, words and ideas of a dead Mentor, as compared with a real-life Master - for whom it often seems to be a case of 'all or nothing'; full compliance and obedience, or else expulsion.  

Yet what we want to do, and ought to do - if our relationship with the dead is to be a living one - is to engage actively with their thought. 

But engagement goes through phases...

At first, there usually needs to be an 'absorptive' period of trusting immersion. 

I need to read an author essentially uncritically, on the 'working hypothesis' that he was right - if I am to to develop the capacity to see things from his perspective, and to understand him 'from the inside'. 

This is an exercise in empathy, in sympathetic resonance - and could be spiritually harmful, if the author was evil. 

So, I think we ought not (as a rule) deliberately to engage deeply with someone who we believe, or seriously expect, to have evil intent or affiliations - because to do this we must ourselves become evil... at least temporarily. 

To follow this advice means we must accept that we will not always truly (i.e. empathically) understand the perspective of evil. So be it - it is not necessary to understand evil to eschew it and hold to good.  

But, of course, we may have experienced this evil ourselves in the past, and repented. This is the potential value of Christian converts, and repentant sinners generally - in particular respects they may have a deeper, because personally experienced, understanding of evil. 

For instance, I think that I probably have a deeper and more accurate understanding of atheist ways-of-thinking than do many cradle Christians; because I was that way myself for many decades, and thought critically about atheism and Christianity considerably - while still an atheist. And this understanding has its uses.  

That aside; in my experience after the initial phase of passive and largely un-critical absorption which leads to understanding but not towards truth; a second discerning phase of active engagement with a mentor invariably involves evaluation, selection, different emphasis, extrapolation - and contradiction. 

The end result may be that I end up disagreeing with most of what a mentor has said - regarding him as having made fundamental errors; while yet acknowledging his importance in bringing me to certain key and vital ideas. 

Here is a problem with the societies and organizations - or even friendship groups - that grow-up around influential spiritual teachers; because these typically do not get beyond the first phase of passive and un-critical absorption; and resist approaching the Master's work with critical discernment. 

As an example, I regard Rudolf Steiner as an important spiritual mentor - and I continue to engage actively with his work. Yet I regard most of what Steiner said and wrote as wrong; and therefore I find the Anthroposophical Society which he founded - and via which Steiner's legacy has been almost wholly preserved and disseminated in the century since his death - to be... mostly wrong. 

Furthermore, I find the AS attitude to Steiner to be idolatrous - which has the effect that the AS membership live and think in a way almost the opposite of what Steiner advocated in his deepest and (to me) most significant writings. 

Because Anthroposophists regard Steiner as de facto inerrant; the time and effort expended on absorbing the massive quantity of (I would say) his superficial and false quasi-factual statements concerning every topic under the sun (and elsewhere); utterly overwhelm and bury any possibility of understanding and attempting to live in accordance with Steiner's much fewer - but core, deep and harder-to comprehend - spiritually and philosophically vital teachings.  

But much the same attitude to mentors applies to Christianity - or should; taking into account that Christianity is the most fundamental understanding, upon which all others depend. 

Just as the only way to relate positively and helpfully to Rudolf Steiner is to eschew the authority of the Anthroposophical Society and explore his thought independently and individually; an analogous attitude ought to apply to Christianity if our engagement is to be alive and active. 

It seems likely that in the past most (if not all) Christians remained in the state or phase of absorptive, passive and immersive engagement with Christianity via whatever Church was dominant in their place of residence. 

But here and now, as the churches are already, and increasingly, corrupt and self-contradictory; the challenge is that simply in order to remain a Christian - we need to move into the second phase of discerning engagement with our faith.

That is: Christians should be prepared to enter the second and discerning phase of engagement; in which active engagement may lead to testing for coherence, selection, different emphases, extrapolations and contradictions of ideas that previously were absorbed passively and in-a-lump. 

If such an engagement is to be positive (and Christian), it must be well-motivated - it needs to be rooted in honesty and the desire for truth and goodness (and not, therefore, an excuse for self-gratification, nor a rationalization of wishful-thinking). 

Yes, it is hazardous to approach Christianity in a discerning fashion: and yes, the personal motivations may be corrupt, hence corrupting. 

But the worldwide mass apostasy especially evident since 2020; and the obvious corruption of self-identified Christian church leaders and officials (and of many church-active laity) - those who expend their primary efforts in pursuit of leftist ideology and support of the global totalitarian projects - is equally clear. 

There is no valid spiritual path without hazard. 

It is not just 'hazardous', but spiritually lethal, to maintain 'phase one' - absorptive and accepting relationships with a Church (or other claimed spiritual authority). 

It is time to move-on to phase two.

It is a Big problem that the major Christian Churches/ Church leaders don't repent for what they are doing Now (except when it is a fake sin)

As of 2022; the major Christian Churches are large bureaucracies, which - to survive - must sin (really sin) again and again, strategically and systematically. 

Churches must sin at least by dishonesty - that is by lies, distortions, expedient omissions - and also (which is worse) by deliberate misleading: by saying one thing in a legalistic sense, but intending that it be misunderstood by the laity and/or mass media. 

The Christian Churches must sin to survive; because they are necessarily engaged with the demon-affiliated, global evil totalitarian System by multiple links...

Churches are employers and must comply with employment law, they are involved with the tax system and must comply with these regulations, they engage in buying and selling and must satisfy accountancy rules, charities and must satisfy the demands of these authorities, they obey the legal system and comply with police (for instance with respect to the birdemic)... and in many, many other ways each Church are a-part-of The System. 

All these rules, laws, regulations, practices are - by now - deeply imbued with the evil, incoherent, dishonest (and Satanically-allied) practices of the Establishment.

The System is evil - by intent and motivation - the Churches are part of The System; thus the Churches are components of strategic evil. 

Therefore, the Churches - presumably via their leaders - absolutely need to repent for their many sins (being committed daily, hourly, continuously) that enable them to continue to exist. 

Yet they do not repent, indeed they utterly ignore such sins t0 the point that leaders and laity alike seem aware that they even are sins. 

Instead, all the major Christian Churches endorse one or several of the leftist Litmus test issues by which The System pursues its evil agenda. 

Instead the Churches officially, and by their leaders' statements, 'apologize' and supposedly-repent-for fake non-sins such as 'racism - as defined in 2022; and for past sins committed by other people - and they do so in a way that is prideful and (again) dishonest.

(As always, lies breed lies, sin compounds...) 

The major Christian Churches are (as organizations, as people) thus - systematically, not accidentally - in a state of always-worsening (because neglected), unacknowledged, denied hence un-repented sin.

And sin feeds-upon sin...

No wonder that the Christian Churches are as-they-are!

Why did Jesus die when he did?

That Jesus died was necessary - he was a mortal Man. Like you and me; Jesus could only become immortal via the portals of biological death: mortal death is necessary to immortal resurrection. 

(I cannot explain by what mechanism this is so, but it apparently is a constraint of our created reality.)  

But Jesus was fully divine in his powers before he died - we know this because he was a divine creator, able to create divinely. That is the significance of the resurrection of Lazarus in particular, but also some others of the other miracles; these demonstrate that Jesus was a primary creator. 

Being on the one hand a mortal Man, but on the other hand having this divine creative power, meant that although must die sooner-or-later, he could (in principle) often elude death here-and-now. 

And there are examples in the Fourth Gospel when Jesus does this - for instance John 8:59 "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

So, sometimes - either by his behaviour, or through miraculous means, Jesus chose to delay his own death. This happened many times through the three years of his ministry, between the baptism by John and the death by crucifixion - during which Jesus was fully-divine, and had miraculous powers - but also, in general terms, he made decisions that kept him alive.

But at a certain point, Jesus stopped doing this, let events take their course, and ultimately allowed himself to be crucified. 

Ordinary mortal people may be called-upon to make a similar decision. After spending perhaps many decades trying to stay alive, keep healthy, extend life - a time may come when it is wrong to fight death and right to allow oneself to die... to allow events take their fatal course.  

How did Jesus know, how can we know, when it is right to allow ourselves to die? 

After all, for Jesus, he was still young - just thirty-three - and presumably could have had many more years to preach and teach; and personally to lead the development of a church, built according to correct principles (if that was what he wanted). 

Why then did he die at 33? The implicit reason given in the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus had completed his ministry with the resurrection of Lazarus. 

It is a further question why it was necessary for Jesus to raise Lazarus. Many Christians believe that this miracle was not a resurrection; however, I believe that it was (and that we are told this in in the Fourth Gospel). 

Therefore, apparently, it was necessary for Jesus personally to resurrect Lazarus in order that he would (after death and ascension) be able to offer the same to all Men. And this was precisely what Jesus came to do: offer resurrection to all Men.  

A difference was that Lazarus was resurrected into his own corpse, and into this mortal earth. This was clearly a very important demonstration and teaching - but its cosmic significance was that Lazarus soon afterwards wrote the Fourth Gospel; which is our primary and most authoritative source on Jesus's mission and teaching. 

(Presumably, this interpretation of Lazarus's resurrection suggests; the resulting Fourth Gospel is more than just another historical text, with the inevitable errors and deficits of transmission, copying, tampering and translating through many centuries. Presumably there exists the possibility of its being 'received' in a qualitatively special fashion - by the assistance of the Holy Ghost. So that its message may be directly-known in a way that transcends error and distortion... Such an explanation makes sense of the distinctive nature of Lazarus's resurrection.)  

But, to return to the original question of "why did Jesus die when he did?" - this can now be understood as a more important question than the usual one of "why was Jesus crucified?"

It was necessary that Jesus died (that he allowed himself to die) when he did, but the method of death was only secondarily important. 

In the Fourth Gospel we can read of Jesus meditating, praying, consulting with his Father about whether this was the 'time to die' (or, presumably, whether there was more he needed to do first) - and being assured that Now was the time. 

To this, Jesus needed voluntarily to assent. He might in theory have resisted death for many decades longer, and done all sorts of other things... but Jesus agreed to allow death to happen Now, because his real earthly-work was finished; and it was time for his Heavenly work (as the Holy Ghost) to commence. 

Why leftists affiliate with each other, and with supernatural purposive evil

The only unity to leftism - which now rules the world - is based upon negation, rejection, opposition; and this is what brings leftism (over time) into cooperation with the agenda of the devil.  

Leftism is 'the party' of those whose bottom-line ideology is oppositional - because pacifism, abolition, socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, healthism and all the rest, are oppositional in nature: none aim at any particular state-of-being or -society. 

Of-a-piece is the usual leftist conviction that one is a victim, and/or works on-behalf-of victims: victimhood is just another negation. 

But the ultimate negation of leftism is the rejection of all that is divine, spiritual, eternal... Leftism is rooted in atheism, denial of the reality of the spiritual and the soul, denial that reality is created, denial of any purpose to creation. 

Therefore leftism is necessarily incoherent - because to deny all these is to deny any possibility of meaning and purpose, to deny any possibility of coherence and understanding. For leftist materialists; reality is understood to be merely an outcome of material causes and/or randomness. 

And for conscious allies of Satan; 'reality' is an arbitrary and exploitative construct of a deceptive, manipulative, selfish deity. Evil is therefore, of its nature, (like leftism) also oppositional. 

But the (Christian) truth is that this world is in spiritual war between God and those who ally with God on the one hand - and who desire the salvation of Men's souls; and on the other, those who oppose God's aims, plans and hopes for whatever reason - and who desire something-other-than salvation.

God's party has eternal purpose and meaning; the devil's party does not - but is a (temporary) alliance of expedience between those who oppose God. 

Each human or demon of the devil's party is ultimately 'in it for himself' (as he personally understands and values his self-interest) - and all alliances are therefore understood as contingent means to that end.  

The alliance for-God is (by contrast) ultimately coherent, because it has purpose - and meaning derives from purpose. 

'The opposition party' includes a multitude of heterogeneous motives against God - disbelief, belief but rejection, dislike, hatred, inversion... 

Leftism grows by fomenting opposition, and by collecting-together those who oppose on the basis that it will (for now) aid their personal goals.

The many materialist (ideological) 'leftisms' tend, over time, to develop alliance with supernatural purposive evil; because both are oppositional and materialist leftism is thereby strengthened with a (typically unconscious) spiritual power and purpose. Individual selfish motivation is also strengthened by hope for power over others, and the desire to be part of a large and strong allied-bloc.  

Thus the world of 2020 is dominated by a vast, heterogenous and incoherent party of leftism = evil-affiliation. That is, a party that defines itself by what it opposes - and what it opposes is ultimately traceable to that which is of-God. 

Such a party cannot construct, create or even conserve: it can only lie, subvert, manipulate, torment, invert etc. because it has no ultimate positive purpose, and because the left-alliance is based only on shared-opposition. 

Purpose is impossible in a senseless-meaningless determined-random universe... 

And such a party as the left will therefore necessarily be negative and destructive in its operations and outcomes: such a party will always tend to converge with supernatural evil, and will tend towards more purely-evil forms of evil. 

Evil is always incompetent (insofar as it is evil)

Misguided people get terribly concerned about whether the destructive activities of the leadership class are deliberately evil by motivation, or merely incompetent: "conspiracy or cock-up" as the saying goes.

It's a nonsensical dichotomy, since neither excludes the other. 

But more fundamentally, evil is incompetent to the degree it is evil. Because evil is corrupt, it is not interested in being effective or efficient. Evil cannot be competent, because evil is dishonest - and dishonesty sabotages competence. 

Now that the evil which rules this world is becoming more advanced in corruption (as evil feeds upon itself) then its incompetence has become so extreme as almost to serve as a cover for the evil! 

But the fact is, these are two sides of a coin. We are getting incompetence on a scale never seen in world history; cock-ups so extreme as to seem impossible.  

Yet the root of it is deliberately motivated evil: opposition to all that is Good, of Good, divinely-created...

How rapidly could the world convert to Christianity?

The historical-sociological writings of Rodney Stark concerning the phenomenon of religious conversion suggest that the process is much slower than usually realized; it usually takes hundreds of years before a whole nation or empire really comes to believe in a new religion, or a new variant of an existing denomination. 

Also, much of this conversion has traditionally been due to 'natural increase' whereby the new religion (by one means or another) leads to higher rates of successful reproduction, out-growing the rival religions; and with the handing-on of religion from parent to child. 

Also, new religions tend to grow from a basis in biological relatives of the founder; and relatives by marriage; and the spread is often by friends and neighbours rather than by missionary activity. 

So that, in sum, traditional religious conversion has been much more of a 'family affair' than generally realized.

If such mechanisms applied today, it would mean that any resurgent Christianity could grow only a little faster than the rate of natural increase; and that it would probably take hundreds of years to convert the world. 

But these are unprecedented times; and many of the principles that previously applied to traditional societies are no longer operative - and have even been reversed. And this particularly includes aspects to do with marriage, families and fertility. 

Furthermore, all the major traditional religions are net-controlled by the 'New World Order' - which is leftist, secular, materialist/ anti-spiritual, and anti-religious (particularly anti-Christian.)

From this point of view the prospects of Christian conversion seem so bleak as to be all-but impossible.

Yet - exactly because these times are unprecedented; we might expect that God would ensure that there were also unprecedented opportunities for conversion, of a qualitatively different kind than in the past; and these might potentially be much faster than in the past.

In the past, religion was a social or group-level phenomenon; and without an institutional church it was hardly even conceivable and even less desirable - thus de facto impossible.   

But now it has become possible to conceive religion - including Christianity - as a personal matter; and (although many would disagree) as a thing so simple that it could be apprehended and implemented by wholly personal experience and choice. 

My understanding of Christianity is rooted in the Fourth Gospel, and the offer of eternal resurrected Heavenly life to all who 'follow' Jesus; where the 'following' is seen as something like a commitment spiritually to follow The Good Shepherd through death to everlasting list. 

Something as simple as this can be understood by a child, and can be reasoned out by anyone who desires the end result (i.e. resurrection, eternal life, to dwell in Heaven). 

It could, in theory, be adopted almost instantly, and by anyone who wanted it. 

And such a Christianity could spread very rapidly... as fast as human thought. 

That is, as fast as anyone who rejects what is on offer from the totalitarian global establishment - and instead (for instance by intuition, by contact with the Holy Ghost, by learning from the resources of Christianity that are almost ubiquitous) who decides that this is what he wants.  

Maybe it is now possible for the world to become Christian as fast as thought, in a few moments? 

Maybe that is what the demon-affiliated world-rulers most fear triggering by their actions?   

Rooted in my personal understanding of Christianity - this ultimately-Good outcome, or something en route to it, does seem at least possible. 

In what ways might Men better serve God's purposes in these times, than ever before in history?

As a baseline assumption, I believe that God has (overall) designed this world well; and that it is (in some essential way) 'fit for purpose'. 

If this world was not fit-for-purpose, or if it becomes unfit at any time; then presumably God will bring it to an end! The fact that this has not yet happened, tells me that it remains fit-for-purpose - despite everything...

Considering that the world is so much worse for Christianity in 2022, in So Many ways; implies to me that the world must be much better for Christianity in other, and less obvious, ways. 

Starting from here; I can speculate in what kind of ways this world - here-and-now - might serve God's purposes better than before. 

In broad terms I assume that God has two main purposes for our mortal incarnation: 

The first is salvation of as many souls as possible - which I understand to mean that Men will choose to follow Jesus Christ to eternal resurrected life in Heaven; and also that this choice happens and becomes effectual after biological death. 

The final post-mortal choice of Heaven also entails the permanent (and irreversible) choice to live by Love, which also means to live eternally in harmony with God's will and purposes. 

(Mortal Christians are, obviously, those who have made this choice while still alive biologically - but the decision only becomes irrevocable after death, at resurrection.) 

With respect to this purpose of salvation; it certainly seems to me that the world is worse 'designed' than it used to be - a worse place than it used to be!

Serious Christianity has declined strongly over many recent decades (in terms of age-adjusted numbers and devoutness); and the Christian churches were devastated by the birdemic-excused events of 2020. 

Or rather, the major churches revealed by their behaviour that their leadership, and many of their laity, were not serious about Christianity - and that the churches had (substantially) become 'just another' institutional 'front' for Satanically-allied mainstream totalitarian leftism. 

So, from the quantitative point of view - the number of souls who are likely to be saved (that is, who will choose to follow Jesus); the world obviously seems to be a bad place, and getting worse. 

Yet the world continues... So what may be the respects in which this is a better world in which to be Christian (i.e. 'better' from God's point of view)

Salvation is not God's only purpose for this mortal life across all the humans that have ever lived. 

The divine function of this mortal life is also theosis, sanctification, divination, becoming more -like Jesus... or, as I understand it: our mortal lives are intended to be for learning lessons that will be of value in resurrected Heavenly life. 

In a sense, this developmental process through mortal life can be understood as some combination of growing-up spiritually, and becoming more distinctively ourselves. And it is in these respects that modern Western life in 2022 offers significant advantages. 

I believe that God desires for the inhabitants of Heaven each to be unique; each to make an unique contribution to ongoing creation. 

And God also desires that at least some Men will choose to follow the path pioneered by Jesus Christ - the path to attaining the same level or degree of divinity as God the prime creator (which entails salvation - that is, the Man must, like Jesus, make an eternal commitment to live-by-Love in full creative harmony with God). 

I think, in broad terms, that we can infer that Men of the past were able to achieve salvation in larger numbers, or a much higher proportion, than nowadays; but this was at the cost of each man being less individuated, less distinctive. 

Earlier Christianity (and some forms nowadays) implicitly aim at a standard-Christian - there is a 'template' of the Christian life (or a few such templates, in a hierarchy), into which it is intended that each person shall strive to fit. This can most clearly be seen (and is best documented) for the 'Byzantium' of the eastern Roman Empire and the Catholicism of Medieval Europe. 

There was a 'system of salvation' - which was probably very effective at bringing men to salvation; but I would regard this as, to a significant extent, also a system that prevented Men from attaining their highest possible levels of uniqueness. 

The potential for individual learning and theosis was sacrificed to the group: quantitative salvation was maximized, but at the expense of making Christian 'clones' who were sub-optimally distinctive, under-developed in their uniqueness.

If this is accepted; I think we can see that someone who lives in 2022, And Yet becomes and remains a Christian; is likely to do so as a consequence of individual struggle against The System...

This including struggle against the standard 'Christian Church Systems' (which are now largely corrupted, and corrupting).  

Therefore, I believe that while The World Today is worse at saving many souls; it is also better than any previous era at producing the kind of maximally grown-up and individually-distinctive Resurrected men that God wishes to be inhabitants of Heaven... 

Individuals that perhaps have more to contribute to Heaven's creativity than was possible before?

It is in such a direction of grown-up-ness and unique-ness that I would look-for the Christian excellence of this modern life - and an explanation of why this world continues despite the apparent collapse of societies that support salvation in large numbers. 

Did Christianity make the world better?

It is a common, but mostly rather vague, assumption of Christians that Christianity made the world better. I have seldom been happy about this assumption. 

Matters are seldom made specific, nor tested rigorously; but broadly speaking many (most?) Christians seem to assume and assert that the world has - in some fashion, been made a better place, since Christianity. 

For example; Christians may believe and say that the world was better after Christ than before, that Christian societies are better than the alternatives; and that the more genuinely Christian a society - the better it will be. 

Before I was a Christian; it seemed to me that this was - indeed must be - a circular argument. Modern Christians would therefore think that past Christian societies were the best, because the moderns use using Christian criteria to make this evaluation. But if someone was not a Christian, and held distinctive - maybe opposed - values; then what counted as Good for a Christian may count as bad for the modern. 

The usual way around this constraint, is to try and develop agreed common measures of Goodness; values that are shared beyond Christianity - so that Christianity could be compared with other value-systems. Values perhaps related to social cohesion, prevalence and conduct of war, presence or not of human sacrifice, the harshness of judicial punishments, perhaps?... 

But this doesn't work (even if such prior agreement could be obtained, and was stuck-to during the evaluation procedure); unless the particular shared values are also regarded as the most important values. 

If other values - especially spiritual values, and other-worldly hopes and beliefs - of the kind that will not usually be shared between religions of ideologies (because they are what make religions different) - are regarded as more important than the shared values - then the exercise of comparison of outcomes does not help.  

And my objections to this 'social and comparative' method of evaluating Christianity also go deeper; to depend on agreed 'history', 'scholarship' and reasoning procedures - strikes me as a very insecure basis on which to base my most fundamental and life-shaping beliefs. 

Is it really possible to base a profound Christian belief on what we read in books, what we are told by 'experts'? 

Not for me. I am perhaps hyper-aware of the disagreements between 'authorities', and the way that consensus changes through time - and often for bad reasons; to be able to suppose that Christianity can be justified by such procedures. 

In other words; I do not think it is possible to make a solid and convincing argument - an argument that would convince skeptics or non-Christians - that Christianity has 'made life better' than other religions, or better than no religion. 

We cannot escape our assumptions; and, anyway, this kind of 'proof by history' is intrinsically too weak for the job. 

If Christianity genuinely depends on arguments that are rooted in any form of large-scale consensus; then I think it will prove too weak to survive these times that are upon us now. These times seem to be characterized by accelerating corruption, manipulation, manufacture, and changeability of consensus.

Also by what strikes me intuitively as increasing evilness of actual consensus. 

So, if we demand consensus Christianity as our ultimate - I don't see we can avoid being manipulated by whoever has the most power to manufacture and control the process of consensus. 

But even in saying this, I am already assuming that - ultimately - my intuition is more valid and secure than social consensus. Best to admit this, make it explicit and conscious... 

This is why I 'demand' that my Christian faith ultimately be based on 'factors' that I can evaluate for myself, and from my-self. 

This seems to me the deepest and most secure possible rooting; and the only root likely to withstand and resist the consensus-storms of these dark days for Christianity. 

Typhoon!

 

For reasons I can't explain further than "Biggles began it" - I have lately been reading memoirs of First and Second World War fighter-pilots. I can't seem to stop myself...

I have a soft spot for the Hawker Typhoon*; which was initially a terrible aircraft due to being rushed into service in the middle of World War II without time to iron-out its faults. Many pilots were killed from accidents, at first. From what I now know, I would not want to have piloted of these heavy, fast, brutal machines... 

Yet its successor the Typhoon II/ Tempest/ Sea Fury was perhaps the best propeller fighter of all; and a joy to fly - but these came too-late to make much difference to the war effort.  

Eventually, with the help of excellent pilots, the "Tiffy" made a major contribution to Allied victory; initially by stopping the hit-and-run raids of the (too fast for Spitfires) Focke-Wulf 190; and later making an absolutely crucial contribution to the D-Day landing by destroying tanks, trains, V1-"doodlebug" launch-pads... and essentially anything German that moved in Northern France.  

However, my personal enthusiasm for this warplane has nothing to do with any of this; but is based on hearing my Father describe being a child c1943 and watching RAF Typhoons training on the wasteland near his village in the run-up to the Normandy invasion; diving onto dummy-targets, and exploding them to smithereens with rockets - which were a new weapon at that time, and stunningly effective.

Also, to me the Typhoon always looks Just Great. A real warplane: tough and terrifying (for everyone...)**. 

So I am mostly able to ignore that it was an emergency botch-job; which was unceremoniously scrapped en masse the instant war ended. The Typhoon was there to do the job, in sufficient numbers, and when it was most needed - all of which counts for a great deal in war. 

 

*Note: I have read two Typhoon-focused memoirs: Typhoon Pilot by Desmond Scott, and The Big Show by Pierre Clostermann. The Clostermann story was much the most memorable of these, but less detailed than Scott - who served as a kind of developmental Test Pilot.   

**: A list of other aircraft that have this same kind of raw visceral appeal to me; would include the Junkers Ju 47 Stuka, the Chance-Vought F4U Corsair, and the Bristol Beaufighter. 

Healing the mind of modern Man

It is, I suppose, a vital aspect of Romantic Christianity that it aims to heal the mind of modern Man; as well as to provide the truth of reality. 

But such 'healing' (although vital and deeply desired) cannot be permanent - because this mortal life is a time for learning, directed at immortal resurrected life; and we are neither made nor intended to attain a state of permanent rest and satisfaction. 

Rather, we are supposed to continue learning for as long as we are alive. Yearning is the mortal-human condition. 

Nonetheless it is a fact that modern Man carries a terrible wound of alienation from which he craves healing - because this wound causes the characteristic and deadly sickness that so distorts modern thinking; rendering thought conceptually-incoherent, and dissolving motivation.

So, it is right for us to seek healing; but we must ask what is the goal of this healing?

Does healing - as it should - extend beyond here-and-now happiness combined with a materialistic optimism about the future: amounting to a (delusory) conviction that "my life will get better".  

Or is the healing we seek to extend and include healing the deepest and most distorting trauma of modern Man?

Modern Man suffers alienation, disorientation, demotivation and conceptual incoherence because of the denial of God, rejection of belief in creation, exclusion of life beyond biological death... and other related spiritual deficits. 

This deficit is the wound, the hole, at the very centre of the mind of modern Man; the absence of which causes intractable spiritual despair, and indeed biological sickness unto death... Such that he covertly/ deniably seeks his own death, the extinction of his people and the annihilation of his culture. 

But the wound we carry cannot - therefore will not - be healed by absorbing what previously occupied the hole. 

The world cannot heal us: the world lacks what is needed. 

We cannot restore the mind to what it was before. 

The hole must to be filled, therefore, by God, creation (and purpose), meaning and the reality of relationship. And this we need to discover and know for ourselves: from our-selves.  

The mind's deficit formed and grew because of serial denials of The Known; denials of what we each once knew naturally, spontaneously, by the gifts of God. 

We began by knowing! But by serial subversion, destruction, inversion etc... we made ourselves ignorant. We broke our ties with God, men and the world of nature.

We broke the spring of our faith, hence hope. 

Each Man's deficit is - however - distinctive in terms of its extent, shape, and degrees of absence; and the order of urgency by which we crave healing. 

This is another reason why there can be no standardized and prefabricated 'plug-in' healing patch. 

The healing of this mental deficit therefore requires active, conscious choices from each of us. We must become not just our own Christian theologian (deriving our sustaining living faith from direct engagement with the spirit); but also a physician of the incarnated immortal soul. 

We need to be our own conceptual artist and spiritual craftsman. 

Only thus may we be sufficiently healed. 

Thoughtcrime versus participation in divine creation: Three suggested explanations of why thinking affects reality

Your thinking, and mine, affects reality. 

But this makes no sense to Modern Man, because he regards thinking as a (probably epiphenomenal) brain activity - confined to the skull. 

And probably merely neural activity that is a consequence of other causes (e.g. biochemical, genetic - or socially conditioned). 

Also because he has a false understanding of 'reality'. 

When providing arguments to support an understanding very different from that which is mainstream, habitual, unconscious and based upon unacknowledged and unexamined assumptions... chances of successful persuasion are slim! 

But a particular argument may chime and resonate with a particular individual, and begin to free him from his invisible and self-made prison. 

1. We tend to regard reality as out-there and by definition un-influence-able by our ideas about it...

Against this is that we may remember as young children having the built-in assumption that our thinking could influence reality; for example, that thinking about a scary thing could make it happen to us. That that wishing really hard for some-thing might make it happen. 

This might perhaps be explicable in terms of an evolved instinct with some advantage to reproductive fitness; but it might also be understood by a Christian, as built-in knowledge provided us by God, our beneficent creator.  

2. Then there is a very different argument that the totalitarian leadership of this modern world certainly seem to believe that thinking can affect reality; in the sense that they focus on detecting, punishing, correcting what Orwell termed 'thoughtcrimes'. 

It might be argued that thoughtcrime is only a concern on the basis that thinking may lead to action - thus thoughtcrime may lead to crime. But in fact this link between thinking and action is never investigated or proved - and therefore it looks as if (for example) thinking 'racism' (in the modern mainstream sense of the word) is sufficient grounds for social/ media/ legal vilification, ostracism and punishment - even when no racist action is discovered; and despite there being no evidenced and coherent principle demonstrating that the modern-definition of thinking-'racism' leads to objective crime. 

Clearly, the crime of 'racism' is a thoughtcrime - pure and simple; which implies that mainstream modern government operates on the basis that thinking affects reality directly.  

(This 'spiritual' assumption of government will not seem bizarre to a Christian who regards the world as engaged in spiritual warfare, and the global totalitarian leadership as being on the side of Satan in this conflict.) 

3. My last point is that a clearer definition of reality may help. Here, one must be religious and probably Christian. 

Modern Man tends to regard 'reality' as ultimately dead, unanimate, matter/ forces/ waves/ particles etc. Physics. 

By contrast he regards thinking as part of 'mind' of consciousness; restricted to living-things that have only recently (in the history of the universe) evolved - and might not have evolved. Thus an individual person - like you or me, alone, thinking something or another - seems vastly unlikely to be able to affect reality-understood-like-this...

But if we regard reality as Creation - our understanding may be very different. Creation is the product of a creator, a personal being, of God. And God (for Christians) is our loving Father. Therefore, we are - each and all - a part of creation - and divinely linked to it. 

From such a perspective of reality as creation, it seems quite natural - and indeed necessary - that our thinking would be a part of creation, bound-up with ongoing creation. 

And if we regard humans as having 'free will' or 'agency' - then potentially each person will be able to think from-himself; to think as a 'free agent'...

And in this case, a Man's thinking, which is already understood as a part of creation, will also have an effect on creation. 

Putting together the above, we may reason that our thinking is always affecting reality-creation (for better or worse); and contributing to it - but that this affecting may be on a spectrum from unconscious and passive participation in creation to a conscious, active and chosen participation. 

We may also see that we can chose to think in harmony with divine creation; or against creation - in other words to think in ways that subvert, destroy or even invert God's creative purposes.

This may clarify why evil totalitarians have such an intense interest in controlling our thinking. They are using our thinking to subvert/ destroy/ invert divine creation. 

When a person chooses, or is duped, into evil thinking - this is what he does: he assists in the distortion of reality away-from divine creation. 

Conversely, and positively; we may also reason that by making the opposite choice and rejecting the attempts of evil totalitarianism to control our thinking; we may instead choose to think in accordance with the purposes and meanings of God's creation. 

Thus we can personally strengthen and add-to created-reality, by our thinking. 

Creation-sustaining thinking is indeed the correct Christian understanding of what evil totalitarians call 'thoughtcrime'. 

While it's true that the Global Establishment want to kill c90% of the masses; don't forget that the masses have also chosen their own extinction

In this era when the world leadership class plans to kill the vast majority of the people in the world are accelerating on all fronts; it is easy to forget that - even without this external assault - there has long since been a general decision among the mass populations of the developed world to chose extinction. 

This can be seen from observing the Fertility Rates of all the wealthier and more powerful nations; which are considerably less than the minimum replacement level of two (and a bit) children per woman, and falling. Any (apparent, slight) exceptions are due to recent mass immigration from undeveloped nations - and the sufficiently-fertile sub-groups of native 'Western' populations can only be found among minorities of most religious and most socially-disengaged. 

And the whole scenario is topped-off by the well-known observation that fertility rates go down with increasing average intelligence, conscientiousness, education, health, wealth and status - especially strongly among women.  

What all this means is that the masses of the world have all made broadly the same decision to stop reproducing to the extent that they are most able to afford children, are capable of raising children - and are capable of maintaining the world Industrial System that has allowed the population to increase for a maximum of a billion in c1800 (and through all preceding history) to more than 7 billion now. 

Of course, the overall world population itself continues to increase among those who cannot choose to limit their reproduction, and who are too feckless to do so. In other words, the data suggests that these children are unchosen, and would not be born if the fertile populations of the world could prevent them. 

These children who fuel world population growth are, in effect, kept-alive and raised by technology and subsidies from the dwindling, ageing populations of the developed world; those who have reduced their own fertility to inevitable-extinction levels. 

Consequently, the median-average age of nations has reached an astonishing degree of divergence between countries; with the average Japanese being aged 50 - which means that there are a very low proportion of women capable of having children; while the average citizen of Niger is 15 - which means that more than half the population are children. 

Neither of these population structures are biologically viable; and there are many similar (if less extreme) examples.

So, if we looked at the population structure and distribution of planet earth from the perspective of an alien naturalist; the situation is biologically non-viable. 

The human species has painted ourselves into a corner from which it would be exceedingly difficult to extract ourselves without global collapse, colossal levels of death, and immense suffering - even assuming there was general awareness and recognition of the problem, and a sincere and motivated desire to escape; neither of which is the case. 

Therefore; even if we in The West did not have a literally-demon-controlled ruling class who hate us - and desire to damn, torment, destroy and replace us; it is a fact that the mass of humans have - by their choices - shown that their self-chosen 'revealed preference' is for annihilation. 

Corruption is extreme is on both sides of the ruler-ruled divide - and this fact needs to be kept in mind. 

The world is married to a Psycho Hose Beast; or, how come people didn't notice the 2020 global coup; or, why Men won't wake-up to reality

I had a friend once who told me that he had just begun dating a girl, and they were having a conversation in the bar at the hall of residence where they both resided. 

In course of discussion; she told him the 'funny story' of an ex-boyfriend of hers: that when he broke-up with her she went into his room and threw all his stuff out of the window onto the ground far below. 

My friend said that was very interesting, and asked to be excused for a moment (implicitly to go to the toilet); went upstairs and locked his room, left the building for the rest of the evening, and never spoke to that girl again. 

There are some things that tell you what kind of a person you are dealing with; and these things need to be recognized, acted-upon, and remembered; if you are to avoid being married to a Psycho Hose Beast. 

A Psycho Hose Beast may be attractive, may provide some of the things you most want in a relationship - but the fact remains that that is what she is. A PHB cannot avoid being what she is, and therefore there are always early-warnings - like that 'funny story' of the ex-boyfriend. 

(Just as there are always early-warnings in the analogous situation when a women is dealing with a Right Man.) 

These early warnings are, in fact, a revelation of character. And character is... characteristic, distinguishing, integral, definitive of the nature of a person or entity...

The worldwide events of early 2020 were like that. So were the events in the UK for a few days following the Brexit vote of 2016, and in the US just after Trump was elected president later the same year. 

These (and other Litmus Test issues) are revelations of character - the character of the ruling Establishment and its System. 

Thus the Global Establishment-driven transagenda - with its mandatory and celebrated policy of poisoning, mutilating and irreversibly sterilizing as many children as possible - is not some kind of 'accident' or peripheral matter, but characteristic of our society, our 'civilization'.

These principles and events need to be recognized, acted upon and not forgotten; but it is clear that most people did not recognize the 2020 coup at the time - but instead wholly accepted the birdemic cover story as a complete explanation for sudden, instant, universal totalitarianism.

And having failed to notice the biggest event in world history (i.e. the silent international coup to install a world government) - these people naturally do not take any significant action to disengage psychologically and spiritually; they fail even to remember 'what it was like'.

And indeed they have ended-up married to the Psycho Hose Beast that is The System.  

Why has our civilization of 'specialists' failed to preserve the excellence of specialist activities?

About a century ago; many leading thinkers and writers expressed an intense and focused appreciation of 'the good things of life'. 

As part of secularization - the 'specialist' was given a distinctive role. Each class of specialist was expected to put his specialty first, and to guard and develop its work. 

For instance, scientists understood that truth-seeking and truth-speaking was the essential basis of their work. There were hordes of nature writers who pointed out unnoticed beauties of landscape, and urged their preservation. Secular moralists regarded themselves of accepting, adding-to, building-upon existing Christian morality - by advocating a more expanded and sensitive awareness of human suffering. Art-for-art's-sake (art as the most important value in the artist's life) was the usual attitude of artists and critics - who strove single-mindedly for more exquisite and elaborate forms. Economists regarded sufficient and increasing production of shelter, food, transport, capability as priority; and its 'fair' mechanism of 'distribution' a subordinate question...

Yet none of these have, in fact, been preserved; but all have-been/ are-being destroyed - indeed purposively, actively and increasingly destroyed - with evidence of intent. 

And the specialists have gone-along-with, have supported and assisted, the destruction of their own specialty! 

Every focused and serious secular project has ended by doing almost the opposite; and this trend accelerates. 

The strategy is ultimately sustained by evil-intent, which lies behind the hegemonic atheistic, anti-Christian, leftist ideology - in particular its coordinated 'latest thing' global campaigns. 

The proximate mechanism of implementation is the linked-Global System of bureaucracies, backed by the monolithic international mass media. 

All this became clear in early 2020, when it was evident that there had been an international totalitarian coup. The world now had one ruling group, a group that spoke with one voice - and it immediately began to eliminate and suppress all other voices. 

Whatever one's specialty; in the 2020 birdemic; nothing mattered except the birdemic. 

All morality, religion, aesthetics, art, science, education, policing, transport, commerce, the economy etc was sacrificed to whatever some official said everybody must now do "because of the birdemic". Consequences be damned (or denied). 

All those things that our civilization, our specialists, had - and not all that much earlier! - regarded as necessary to preserve - were discarded (without stated end-point) for as long as the birdemic-problem was officially/by-media deemed to continue. 

This was imposed by top-down, by literal diktat (i.e. in the UK, 'law' was enacted simply via the verbal or written command of an official - disseminated by national media). 

And what did the specialists do when their specialty was closed 'because of the birdemic', activities suspended, rules implemented (distancing, testing, 'quarantining' etc) that crippled its function? 

They complied eagerly!

What did specialists do when it was proposed that they be repurposed into agencies for antiracism, to promote the sexual revolution, 'climate change' imperatives, anti-Fire Nation policies etc. (i.e. whatever dominates among the current Litmus Test issues). 

They complied eagerly!

(And indeed often begged for more self-destruction.) 

But this has been an increasing part of leftism - i.e. the 'New' culturally-focused Left, contrasted with the 'Old' - communistic - Left, which focused on economics - since about the middle 1960s. 

New Leftism has progressively and incrementally become normal in academia for specialists - in technology, medicine, the sciences and mathematics as well as the arts and social sciences. Across the board, academics are working to re-purpose their subjects in line with leftist goals. 

Indeed, in many academic subjects there is almost nothing except leftist politics! - merely re-expressed in terms of the distinctive specialist jargon of the subject.  

This is a very interesting phenomenon to me! I mean specialists colluding in the destruction of their specialism - specialists, en masse, assisting the destruction of exactly that which ultimately gives them status and income. 

The proximate reasons are obvious to anyone who has worked in an institution over the past few decades: that it is immediately, short-term career-expedient to go-along-with destroying one's specialty. To make the most of such trends. 

Destruction is The growth industry within the modern institution, corporation, organization... There is funding to do this, jobs and promotions designated to do it - kudos from doing it...  

Yet, this expediency itself requires explanation. The fact that there are entire specialties whose 'function' is to destroy their function and replace it with leftism is a quite extraordinary situation in world-historical terms! 

In the past, specialist groups - e.g. trades, guilds, professions - would cooperate tenaciously to preserve their long-term security. Indeed, they often took this too-far ("the doctors/ lawyers/ trades unionists always stick-together"), and were often blamed for it!

This was regarded as natural and normal - whereas Now we regard it as natural and normal for a successful specialist to get short-term career advantage from bad-mouthing, dismantling and re-purposing his specialty; and completely ignoring (or denying) the inevitably destructive consequences. 

What has changed?  

What has changed is something very deep and pervasive - which is why it is largely unnoticed. 

It is the spread a general incapacity for coherent thinking deriving from the mental disability that is a consequence of deleting religion as the primary motivator of Men.

It is this 'sickness' - almost universal in our secular society - that has made possible the national (indeed global) coerced implementation of lies; such as the counter-factual, contradicted-by-experience, evil-nonsense of the transagenda - which serves as a stark exemplar of the depths to which we have descended. 

Once the populace have reached such a point of corruption and degradation that they officially accept and 'believe' transagenda assertions that sex change is possible and desirable - any incoherence, arbitrary assertion, or obvious-Lie can and will be accepted as normal, necessary and morally Good.  

That is exactly where we are; in all major institutions (and specialties) and over much of the world. 

Our Western civilization was rooted-in Christianity (of various types) - that was the bottom-line, the source of coherence. And when Christianity  was deleted from the culture of The West; there was at first a brief period (a few decades?) during which the specialist ruled supreme - and specialist activities continued to attain high levels of functional excellence.

(Especially in science and technology - but there was a brief and hyper-specialist growth-era of 'modernism' in the arts; characterized by geniuses - albeit net-evil geniuses! - such as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Picasso, James Joyce and the like. But modernism proved to be the final flare of a firework consuming itself.)  

But the cultural lack of religion from minds in which religion was the essential and core personal motivator and explainer, led inevitably to a culture-wide prevalence of incoherent thinking. 

Effective human motivation cannot be rooted in the standard modern belief of a meaningless, purposeless and dead universe - because such a 'reality' offers zero possible basis for coherence. 

There is now very little remaining of Western Civilization - and all of its elements are under active and destructive attack from the ruling Establishment assisted by the specialists themselves.

A specialist's time-horizon has shrunk from looking ahead to future generations (so that one's son could continue in a father's craft, trade or profession); all the way down to doing whatever is expedient today, regardless of what was expedient last week, and of the consequences. 

Our civilization has moved from a cult of the expert specialist; through indifference to the long-term interests of specialist activities; to the active destruction of specialist functionality driven by the ideological necessity of leftist totalitarian 'convergence'. 

This is the world we live-in; and nothing substantive can be done about it until after Men become religious again: which necessarily means Christianity; since Christianity is The Truth - and in these demon-ruled End Times, nothing less than The Truth will suffice. 

Why dwell on Global Establishment evil, when there's "nothing we can do about it"?

When considering the deliberately-evil plans of the Global Establishment; I think that a common - indeed usual - reaction is some version of asserting that there is no point in thinking-about or dwelling-upon such matters; because at the end of the day We have no power and cannot stop Them. 

At the material level; this is broadly correct. 'They' now have installed demon-affiliated leaderships of nearly all the nations of the world, and powerful bureaucracies, corporations and institutions. 

This anti-God, anti-divine-creation leadership class support each-other with slavish obedience; and are by-now almost completely insulated from influence and control by the masses and by any individual dissenting persons. 

It is trivially easy for them to destroy and induce chaos; and if they continue on this path - some kind of Giga-death apocalypse will surely happen, accelerate and lead to unprecedented collapse - if not today or next week, then sometime not too distant.

However; is not really believable that this can be prevented by any plausibly-possible action on behalf of individuals or (or realistically-possible groups).

(Indeed - although this is not for us to decide; it may be that (in an ultimate and spiritual sense) even a gross and horrific global collapse would be better than the kind of Hell-on-Earth future that the Establishment intend for Us.)  

So it is certainly tempting, and seems like common sense - to ignore (so far as we can - and with modern technology this may be very far indeed) the fact that the world is ruled-by evil-motivated leaders. 

And, in practice; ignoring such a vast and ramifying fact amounts to denying its truth implicitly. If we do not interpret the leadership-class's activities as intentionally-evil - then we misunderstand our world profoundly. 

Therefore; ignoring the reality and nature of the Global Establishment amounts to accepting its ideology: agreeing-with its picture of our world, about what matters most, and what 'ought to' (or 'must') be done. 

This normal and common notion that "After all I can do nothing about it" seems then to lead either to assimilation to evil - or else to despair (which is, for Christians, itself a sin). Thus the choice before us seems to be either to join-in with the System and 'make the best of life'; or else to despair, be utterly miserable, and give-up on life... 

This is why I think it is so vital that we have a spiritual - rather than 'utilitarian' understanding of Establishment evil; why we need to recognize that their real aim is mass damnation; rather than the more proximate and obvious material intentions such as mass misery, suffering and death.  

And because the motivation of evil is primarily spiritual - it makes more sense that our response and resistance to evil be primarily spiritual: be rooted-in the spiritual. 

In other words; our primary duties are to discern and recognize spiritual evil, and to understand when it is operative in our lives. Only after this, after we know the nature and presence of evil; can anything like resistance become possible. 

And then we will realize that in a spiritual war, our own personal spiritual state and choices are actually The Front Line of conflict. 

What is the ultimate role of 'the feminine' in divine creation?

Many writers on theology (in many religions, including Christianity) believe that the masculine principle is primary in divine creation; the feminine being secondary, or perhaps inessential.  

Or else, they believe that such sexual differentiation is superficial, and that primarily/ originally there is no sex, no masculine or feminine - but a single creative principle that includes both. 

Others believe that sex is merely an earthly and mortal accident or expedient; and that the highest form of after-life entails loss of sexual differentiation (either as spirit, or as resurrected Man). 

But I regard God as a loving dyad of man and woman, masculine and feminine; and that original divine creation comes from this creative love. 

This dyadic quality is not a matter of 'equality' - it is simply that both man and woman are the actual basis of this divine creation that we all inhabit. 

A man and woman, who are coherent on the basis of love, were and are the true spiritual 'unit' of both divine and human creativity: thus God (the prime creator) is a Heavenly Father and Mother - both. 

The destiny of individual mortal men and women is a different question. Each person's mortal and resurrected destiny is unique - and we are not supposed to conform to a template, not be poured-into a standard human (or male, or female) mould. Love of God first, and fellow Man second, is mandatory for salvation - because only such persons want Heaven. 

Thus woman/ the feminine is Not subordinate to man/ masculine - both are absolutely spiritually necessary; just as (by analogy) both have been necessary for reproduction in this mortal life. 

We were not originally, nor will we ultimately become, de-sexed or a single sex. The dyad goes 'all the way down' to before creation; because dyadic love was what made creation possible. 

Ultimately; in absence of both - there cannot be love, therefore no real creation nor creativity. 

How do I 'know' this? Simply by having formulated the question; after which it 'answered itself' as these things do. I other words by 'intuition', by direct knowing. 

By contrast, when I asked other questions, when I formulated my understanding in other ways; I came up with answers that did not suffice - as became clear after a while.

This is not the kind of thing that anyone should accept from external sources - not from me, nor anybody else, nor institutions. 

We are supposed-to discern such matter for ourselves - and there is no substitute for this conscious choice. 

(Probably, it was not always thus - at times and among some peoples, it was right that Men be ruled spiritually by their environment or society or church - but here-and-now we must choose consciously.)

To know-for-ourselves, from experience, the nature and motivation of God is perhaps the primary task of Man here and now; given that almost-all external sources of such 'information' are deeply corrupted. 

At the very least, we need to exercise experiential direct personal discernment in relation to the external sources that we choose to accept as authoritative; for instance, choosing a denomination and church; and then choosing-between the conflicting views emanating from denominations and churches. The requirement for each individual person to discern is unavoidable. 

Having gone through this process of discernment - rooted in formulating a question such that the answer is coherently self-validating in ones actual and examined life - I don't really care what 'other people' say about the problem - and certainly will not abandon my direct knowledge of such matters on the basis of people pointing at 'authorities' whose authority to determine my spiritual life I do not acknowledge!

Others should do likewise. 

And what if/ when they come up with 'a different answer? What then?

What then depends upon each individual for himself or herself. Group-orientated policies and behavioural/ belief compulsions can have nothing to do with such matters. 

But whatever happens in each mortal life, we certainly should not attempt to avoid personal responsibility for deciding upon such matters. Salvation is between each Man and God (God would not have it otherwise!); and 'my' salvation depends on 'me' discerning the nature and motivation of God. 

Considering God's nature, and the motivation behind creation

Once a Modern Man has overthrown the culturally-inculcated 'materialist' picture of a mechanical-random universe without meaning or purpose; and has instead made the assumption that he lives in 'a creation' - then he will probably need to consider the nature of The Creator - i.e. God; and God's motivation in creating this reality. 

This whole question was opened-out for me by the work of William Arkle; for whom it was the beginning point of enquiry in many of his books and essays. Arkle helped me to realize that this is, in a sense, the most profound of questions; and one which may provide something like a Master Key for understanding.  

Because, as so often - it is asking the right question that is crucially-important. Most questions are unanswerable; but the Right Questions typically bring their own answers (if we let them) - without need for further investigation. 

Thus, understanding is mostly about questions and the assumptions behind them; such that wisdom is right-questioning.

What this means here is that there is a choice of how to proceed in understanding God the Creator. Do we, for example, follow most Christian 'theologians' through recorded history, and at this point switch to the mode of philosophy - the mode of (for instance) logical reasoning, as The Way to understand God?  

Or do we, like Arkle (and some other Romantic Christians) aim to understand God as a Person? 

Do we, for instance, try to imagine and intuit what it was like to be God the Creator before creation - and to understand empathically what God may have aimed-at in embarking-upon creation, and continuing the work of creating? 

This is a critical point in any Christian's development; the point at which he must choose how God is to be understood: should he regard God as a person primarily, a person fundamentally like-ourselves, and therefore understandable by us -- or something else, fundamentally unlike ourselves.

Judaism and (especially) Islam have decisively chosen to regard God as fundamentally unlike ourselves; but Christianity has been divided on this matter; as we can see even among the Gospels and Epistles - where there are passages in which God the Father of Jesus is spoken of very personally - and others in which the discussion is abstract and unlike human persons.

Each Christian - it seems - makes this choice between God as a person (like us) or God-impersonal (unlike us); although in the past this choice was usually implicit and often unconscious. 

One gets a strong impression that through history most laity (and some saints) had a very personal understanding of God while theologians and priests tended towards abstraction; with an ultimate understanding of God as impersonal, unlike-Man - and these warned against the perils and pitfalls of 'anthropomorphism'. 

Perhaps the matter can be summarized as a distinction between (on the one hand) Christians who saw the gulf between Man and God as between creator and created - and therefore with God the Creator as ultimately unlike Man; and therefore Man as unable empathically to know God, as one person knows another. 

This attitude means that God's motivations for creation cannot be empathically-understood, nor is intuition much help - because God is infinitely un-like us; so God's reason/s for anything (including creation) are necessarily incomprehensible. 

 

On the other hand; there are those Christians who regard Christianity as a religion in which we are God's children - and so ultimately like-unto God; and where Jesus Christ was a Man who was (and is) a fully-divine creator; who we can choose to follow to an eternal resurrected life as divine Men. 

From this choice of a personally-rooted Christianity; Men can (by an empathic intuition) legitimately infer something of God's probable personal motivations for embarking on creation. 

We may also find these inferences confirmed by statements in the Gospels (especially the Fourth Gospel called 'John') and other teachings - but we will also find contradictory statements. 

We can thus assume that God's motivations were rooted in love; and the desire for God's family of Men to be able to rise to the same level of divinity as God the Creator.

Ultimately to form an eternal and expanding Heavenly Family, who will (each in his or her unique fashion) participate in the 'ongoing' work of creation. 

In a nutshell, such a Christian may come to feel that creation was primarily 'about' Men, and aimed-at the raising up of Men from a starting state of divine-childhood, to the fullest and highest possible 'grown-up' divine-status - on a level with God the prime creator...

Raised to the same status - but not The God, not a prime creator; since there is only one such. 

And exactly this can be seen described in parts of The Gospels: the assumption is that God's intent is that what happened with Jesus will happen to as many as possible of other Men. 

Positively, we can understand God's motivations as expanding the scope and differentiation of an eternal loving family, and of raising-up at least some 'divine friends' to the level of full-co-creators - as has already happened with Jesus Christ. 

It is a motive much like that we ourselves experience in our joy at wanting to have a large and loving family, and for each of those family members to develop in his or her own uniqueness; and in chosen and joyous harmony with each other (love of Man for neighbour) and with God's creation (love of God).  

Negatively, we can say that before creation God was lonely, bored, under-stimulated and with an eternity of this stretching-ahead... 

Thus, divine creation may negatively be understood as a 'cure' for God's pre-creation state as relatively solitary, and experiencing a dull, static, uneventful existence. 

We may also realize that the only permanent (eternal) 'cure' for boredom is to dwell among other Men, who are each genuinely free agents, each with free will and individual creativity. 

It would Not be an answer to boredom for God to live among automata, un-free puppets, or any kind of reality (or virtual reality) that had been wholly-created by Himself. To avoid boredom forever requires genuine free agency among Beings. 

This may help understand why free will is an absolute requirement of creation - from the perspective of God's personal motivations. 

The above brief discussion is intended to illustrate how a serious effort to understand God, and God's motivations, can be of real help in understanding this mortal life. And I also take it as a kind of confirmation of the validity (backed by Scripture) of regarding God the Creator as a person; a person sufficiently like-unto-our-selves that God's nature and motivations are accessible to our empathy and intuition. 

Global Giga-death - what are the apocalyptic options?

It seems clear that a significant proportion of the Global Establishment are determined to reduced the world population from about seven-plus billions, to to something like a tenth of its present level - which would involve the deaths of more than six billion persons: something wholly unprecedented in scale. 

I have termed this level of mortality "Giga-death" - and, indeed, I believe it is possible that it may be something that would happen even without intent - due to biological factors.

However, there is now intent to inflict Giga-death - coming from the 'highest' levels of human power (and underpinned by the supernatural and immaterial demonic powers that these humans serve); indeed, the plans for Giga-death are well advanced. 

The causes of death (as in the causes underlying the "Horsemen of the Apocalypse") can be boiled-down to three broad possibilities - one at a time of which has tended to dominate historically, but which can also operate simultaneously and synergistically. 

These are:

1. Disease (including poisoning)

2. Violence (including war)

3. Starvation

All three policies are being pursued pretty vigorously - and it seems that they can all be done with sufficiently deniability to fool the witless and addicted masses. 

The birdemic was a failed attempt at 1; but it is likely that it will not be the last. More effective, in places, was the social restrictions and infrastructural chaos introduced under the excuse of the birdemic; and of course if society is reduced to chaos, then disease could certainly become a very major cause of mortality. 

On the back of the birdemic, there has been a sustained attempt to poison billions of people with the peck - but whether this is effective remains to be seen. 

It is important to realize that, when it comes to anything involving 'science' - the Establishment are grossly incompetent because of their endemic lying and infighting for personal advantage. They are superb at the easy job of causing destruction and chaos, but incompetent at anything requiring skill - and creativity is utterly beyond them. 

Violence is being worked on vigorously at present - in terms of the disorder of mass migration, 'diversity', selective/ no policing and active societal destruction; and by taking advantage of the 2020 coup which has placed a population-hostile, globalist-totalitarian-compliant, political/ corporate/ major institutional leadership-class in control of nearly-all nations. 

But now - and acutely, increasing daily - the 'Giga-death by violence' agenda is being aggressively pursued by provoking and sustaining armed conflict with non-Western nations; and driven towards escalation by putting in place multivalent, interlocking structures and alliances (rationalized and backed by the recently monolithic mass media); that are intended to lead, incrementally but irrevocably, through escalation to world war. 

Presumably, this could rapidly achieve the goal of massive casualties by violence - plus adding substantially to chaos and its consequent disease - and starvation. 

The starvation agenda is being pursued by destroying the world economy at multiple levels and in multiple ways - first with the 'climate change' agenda, from 2020 much more lethally with the birdemic restrictions and testing regime; most recently with the vast damage of 'sanctions', trade blockades - and the multiplier effect that each of these has on disrupting world and local economies. 

As with the planning for war; the intent of the starvation agenda seems to be that damage to production, processing, transport and distribution will incrementally become so great - and be inflicted by so many simultaneous destructive influences; that a positive-feedback process will eventuate. 

This means that each increment of harmful change will cause further and greater harmful changes - in an accelerating, and then runaway fashion. 

Once enough damage has been inflicted in enough places; the process will be irreversible - even if there was any will to reverse it. 

Deliberately to kill billions of people - the Giga-death agenda - must surely involve all three of the major mechanisms of mass death (linked by their common determinant of chaos); and we can see exactly this being implemented before our eyes in real time. 

At some point, presumably, all three causes will interact-with and reinforce each other in a Triple-headed Apocalypse. 

Primary Thinking and the "law of undulation"

One of the obvious things about life is our inability to sustain those moods and motivations we most want. 

This may be because our wants are not good for us, spiritually good; and are therefore sabotaged by divine providence.

But other times it may be what CS Lewis termed "the law of undulation", which means that life tends to alternate between experiences, moods, emotions; with respect to attitudes, goals, energy... In sum, there are many alternations of many kinds.

Ultimately, this is because we need to learn from this mortal life, and most of us need to learn from both of the many extremes or 'opposites' of experience.

What we don't get in 'real life' we may be guided to experience in art, in dream, or by other vicarious means.

Thus life seldom 'leaves us alone' but is continually bringing problems and dissatisfaction, from which (it is intended) we will continue to learn. 

Undulation is part of this business. It does not necessarily mean we are failing, it may mean that we have experienced enough of one kind of difficulty, and now it is time for another.

I need to remind myself of this when it comes to my main goal in life - which relates to what I have termed Primary Thinking, which I regard as a means to the end of Final Participation. 

It is an active, conscious, and self-validating kind of thinking - in which there is the possibility (within constraints of our scope of ability) of direct understanding and correct knowing, and of personal creativity in its purest and eternal form (that is, participation in ongoing divine creation).

Yet I have periods of time when I can't do this - or, at least, it just does not happen. When, instead, my thinking is far more passive and absorptive - for example, I read fiction or memoirs, converse widely but without particular aim, watch TV or movies - and do not write notes or experiences that higher for of Primary thinking.   

Sometimes, this is because I am off-track; but other times it is an undulation; a necessary (or, at least, useful) variation on my life that enables me to widen acquaintance with the work of other minds; and to (les critically) absorb information and ideas - which later should prove the subject matter of the discernments and evaluations of Primary Thinking. 

Overall, I don't much like such variations in my life while I am in them - at times I try to fight them with Will Power - which never works, and is the wrong response anyway. But usually, in the end, it turns-out that something of significance was, in fact, accomplished in such phases. 

Providence is, after all, wiser than my personal plans. 

Habit versus intuition, and how they may be distinguished

There is a fascinating passage in Owen Barfield's What Coleridge Thought, which is of great value in clarifying the difference between intuition on the one hand - upon which our primary evaluations ought to be based; and on the other hand what might be termed habits, including spontaneous (including innate) mechanisms of thinking and (perhaps evolved, or socialized) 'habits' - which are often erroneous. 

In Chapter XII of Biographia Literaria; Coleridge describes two 'prejudices' (or 'certainties') that are aspects of the realism of mankind, which we all spontaneously do, and believe to be real; yet which are contradictory: 

The first 'prejudice' is what Coleridge terms the outness of phenomena; that (in some sense) there really exists things outside of us; such as that table - which we spontaneously regard as being as we perceive it to be. 

This is not some conclusion we derive from observation and reasoning - it is a matter of 'how we are made'. We do Not spontaneously believe that we see merely the 'appearance' of a table (the 'real' table being something else); but we do naturally assume that the table 'is' a thing outside us, a phenomenon out-there to which we do not contribute. 

The second 'prejudice' is the awareness that 'I' am 'in here'; perceiving the things I regard as things, the phenomena are outside. 

In sum - the two built-in and spontaneous assumptions are that 'I' an 'in here'; and there is a world 'out there'. 

And the apparent contradiction is that the outside strikes us as absolutely real and separate from the I inside; but all we know of the outer, depends on the I inside who observes it - so the 'outer' cannot be wholly outer - or else the perception of an 'I' within must be mistaken...  

Then Coleridge makes the crucial distinction between 'outer' and 'I inside'; that although both of these 'original and innate prejudices' are natural and spontaneous - if we proceed to analysis, to reflect on these prejudices - the assumption of outness dissolves, but the assumption of a 'me, inside' that is doing the analysis does Not dissolve! 

As Barfield summarizes: that inner I which is doing the analyzing always remains aware that it is doing it. And even if the inner I denies that it is doing the analyzing - we remain aware that act of denial comes-from the I itself, and therefore refutes the denial!

While, on the contrary, the natural assumption that there is an independent, obvious, 'objective' world of phenomena, of things, out there; is easily theoretically disproved - by several valid lines of argument. 

Thus, despite their immoveable habit; it is quite normal and common for people to believe that the appearances of things 'out there' is not the whole truth of them, and that the real things differ from their 'obvious' appearances.

In other words; our natural sense of realism about the outside world is 'merely' a habit, which cannot withstand analysis - but on the other hand, our natural sense of our self inside is robust to honest and coherent analysis. At the end of any analysis, we still are aware of our inner-self doing that analysis. 

This 'honest analysis' is therefore potentially an important test for detecting genuine intuitions, compared with false habits or prejudices, or 'wishful thinking'. 

Real intuitions are robust to honest analysis by our-self, whereas fake-intuitions (that may be evolved structural mechanisms, habits, or passively absorbed from socialization) are Not thus robust.

But of course that analysis must be honest! 

The persistence of the 'observing I' through all analysis can be dishonestly denied, as can any other proposition! And exactly such denials are meat and drink - the Big Lies - that underpin the activities and ideology of the modern, mainstream, Establishment System.  

This is why intuition requires us to test assumptions for our-selves. Only we can know the difference between honest discernment, and the many possible tricks and fakery of another Being's conclusions. 

Mainstream globalist leftism, and Sorathic conquest by deliberate corruption and chaos

It seems to have been little noticed that for several decades, the West's idea of 'conquest' has been morally to corrupt nations - for the obvious reason that those paid to notice and inform the masses, are themselves among the most corrupt. 

If you follow-up the consequences of any Western intervention - whether an invasion/ occupation; engineered and paid-for 'regime change'; or 'subversion as usual' by means of subsidizing NGOs, 'charities' and funding destablizing leftist groups...

You can see a pattern of Western intervention invariably increasing moral corruption (bribery, theft, sexual immorality, social breakdown with violence); including the destruction of any genuine religion by convergence and suppression (especially Christianity, but also any traditionalist religion with a distinct world-view and morality). 

Thus, the actual and achieved pattern of Western intervention abroad is Sorathic (i.e. doing evil by inducing chaos) rather than Ahrimanic (i.e. evil imposed by systems of totalitarian bureaucratic surveillance and control) - and has been for a good while. 

A clear example is the current conflict involving the Fire Nation - where it seems that (as usual) the main Western 'plan' has been first grossly to corrupt the top-level leadership-class of a nation (by standard techniques of bribery and blackmail); then deliberately - but 'deniably', by proxy - to provoke a war; and now to encourage the maximum of destruction to population and infrastructure. 

By such means has the Western Establishment has pursued the most advanced forms of Sorathic evil abroad - but what about 'at home'? 

Meanwhile, for the past couple of decades and peaking in 2020 with the global coup; the dominant strategy 'at home' in the West has been Ahrimanic. That is, to use a single, linked, increasingly international bureaucracy-mass media, to create a society of omni-surveillance and total control. Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset are some statements of this plan. 

However, there have also been strongly Sorathic aspects in home policy; especially the implementation of mass immigration to the West - including the encouragement of illegal, violent and criminal migrants. 

This inevitably creates social and economic breakdown and chaos; and the chaos has been deliberately concealed by suspending the surveillaince-control Ahrimanic state when it comes to 'multicultural' sub-groups - such as 'no-go zones' of cities, and police policies of 'non-intervention'. 

The actual governance of Western nations (e.g. in relation to the personal behaviour of politicians, and the conduct of elections) has also become extremely, now all-but openly, corrupt - hence chaotic.

Chaos has more recently been fuelled by birdemic-testing-quarantine and the peck, the imposed cult of antiracism and race-sex preferences, and the truly colossal global economic destruction caused by financial and economic 'sanctions'. 

At some point, the forces of chaos become, of their nature, irreversible. Evil feeds upon itself - inevitably, by its nature (when unrepented); and the Sorathic is a more advanced form of evil than the Ahrimanic.   

The triumph of leftism (and it is, indeed, triumphant - worldwide, at the highest levels) therefore turns-out to be the triumph of corruption and chaos. 

That is what leftism is at root, and what it always tended to become over time - because the nature of leftism is oppositional and negative; hence incoherent; and incoherence is another word for chaos. 

In other words; leftism is the ideology of evil, but evil has different forms; and there is always conflict among evil-serving persons and entities.

Yet, over time, evil innately 'progresses' from Ahrimanic to Sorathic; from (partly) constructive and planned, towards very-fully-destructive and chaotic. 

For a while, the most destructive evils of mainstream Western Establishment leftism were mainly exported abroad; where societies were destroyed serially. 

But now, the same chaotic evil is getting a grip 'at home' - overwhelming the bureaucrats, transhumanists, and mind-programmers - and the current triumphs of the left are more about spreading destruction than about increasing control. 

The bad news is that it is much easier to corrupt Men than to encourage morality, to destroy than to create. 

The 'good' news is that the left is - at an increasing rate - destroying its own capacity to inflict chaos.

Yet evil does not destroy itself as it advances, and Good can only arise from Good-aiming Persons - and Good means of-God. 

However, this analysis suggests that there may be coming more spiritual scope for Good, for Christian awakening and conversion, as The System destroys itself... Even though the physical/ material prospects seem extremely bleak.