How does the blanket mind-control system work?

A thread over at Project Avalon made me return, yet again, to the question of how the blanket mind-control system works nowadays? 

On the one hand, there was a decades-long strategic preparation of the masses - and especially the intellectual-managerial classes - to be ready to receive the control system. 

On the other hand, there are tactical and immediate mechanisms by which the control is directed at specific attitudes and beliefs. 

Also there is an underlying spiritual - or anti-spiritual - aspect to this system of control; on the other hand, it is instantiated by material means. 

And the system must be simple-enough to be fast and reliable; while complex enough to be not-too-obvious, and to have fall-back or back-up aspects such that a simple denial or specifci resitance does not allow anybody to escape the Matrix. 

There must also be sufficient complexity that the individual seems to see the same message, wherever he turns (rather than emanating from one locatable direction). 

So - does anyone want to make a try at encapsulating, with reasonable brevity, the nature and workings of our blanket mind-control system, as it is in 2023?

 

What's good about The Wheel of Time? Reflections prompted by Blade Runner

I was reading a review about all the things that are wrong and bad about the Ridley Scott movie Blade Runner and why, therefore it was Not a Great Movie. 

And when I got to the end, it struck me that the criticisms were factually correct but grossly missing the point. Indeed, I felt that the Arkhaven author ("Dark Herald") had loved the movie to begin-with, but then picked and picked at the movie's flaws, until he had eventually persuaded-himself that Blade Runner was Not great. 

But the point is that Blade Runner is great - or, at least, if any movies are great; then Blade Runner is one of them. 

For example, it is true to my own experience that Blade Runner did not make a huge impact on first viewing (I saw it on the first theatre release in the UK, without knowing anything about it)... This reflects its early mediocre box-office earning performance. 

Yet it is the power of the movie that it works on the imagination such that - for the first time ever - I returned to the theatre and watched Blade Runner again, just a short while later. 

I have watched and re-watched it over the forty-plus years since (at intervals of a few years, typically) - during which I discovered its troubled production, its last minute changes, the dissatisfactions of various people, that the director re-cut it a couple of times etc... I had many reasons to down-revise my original opinion - not least that I have changed, and most art-works lose their effect on repetition. 

And yet when I watched it again last year - I was again powerfully moved, and filled with thoughts and reflections afterwards. 

My point is that Blade Runner works - and if we do not consider it a 'perfect' movie, then maybe we need to think a bit harder about what we mean by perfection. 

What should be fascinating us is why - when it is so easy to pick holes and point at absurdities - Blade Runner still manages to pack such a charge - again and again? 

It would surely turn-out that those flaws must have something vital to do with its excellence; and therefore that our idea of 'perfect' in the sense of every component part being un-criticizable/ standing-up-to specific scrutiny... must have something seriously wrong with it. 

Therefore, the highest form of criticism - the only really valid form - would begin with the fact that Blade Runner is a great movie, and then help us to understand why. 

When it comes to Robert Jordan's fantasy series The Wheel of Time, then we are dealing with something much less successful and coherent of its kind than Blade Runner. Indeed, WoT is probably way-beyond the boundary of impossible to do successfully. To write a 14+1 volume novel (+1 = prequel), especially when each volume is so big... and when the author dies before 'completing' it... 

Well, I do not believe it can be done by anyone; and clearly not by Robert Jordan. 

I would also argue that such an entity can never be completed in the same sense a novel can be completed - thus The Wheel of Time becomes (after the first three volumes) more like a Soap Opera than a long novel; and - like a Soap - more concerned with finding new things to say and keeping-itself-going, then with reaching a satisfying and cohesive end.  

So, Wheel of Time is at a lower level of success in art than Blade Runner. Yet, The Wheel of Time was a hugely-loved and life-shaping work (at least in the USA - in the UK it is all-but unknown, hardly to be found in shops or libraries; certainly I never heard of it until after it had been ended). 

I eventually read Wheel of Time through 2017 (in the audiobook version, mostly); and was aware of all sorts of problems and annoyances. Picking-out flaws is like shooting fish in a barrel - I did not even think it ended well (which is, for me, usually a lethal problem). 

And yet... In the first place I kept reading/ listening-to WoT, right to the end (and the prequel). And, more importantly, I have - over the past six years - gone back and reread the whole thing at least once, and parts of it several times...

In other words, The Wheel of Time works - in its annoying way, it has won my affection and goodwill. 

Several of the characters have become like old friends - and archetypal for Life. Several of the events have tremendous and lasting power.  

A valid critique of WoT therefore ought to start with this fact: that it works; and the most important thing criticism can do, is help us understand why it works. 

This 'why?' understanding cannot be about such things as influences and influence. The Arkhaven retrospective on Blade Runner makes this mistake - talking of the cinematic precursors of the Blade Runner aesthetic (Such as Lang's Metropolis - which I find unwatchable), and its literary consequences (such as Cyberpunk novels - which I don't like). 

As experiencers of art; we don't (except as a very secondary activity) care about influences: rightly, because these do not make a work good or bad. 

Influences do not affect whether something works - or, insofar as they do, only by being a means to an end, subsumed within the effect.

Why then does Wheel of Time work? Why did Blade Runner? In both instances, I think we need to look outside the work itself, and consider the nature of the persons involved, and their motivations. 

The work cannot be greater than the artist, and the artist at the exact time he actually-did the work - greatness doesn't happen by accident; but by aiming high.

From reading interviews with Philip K Dick; it seems to me that director Ridley Scott cared very intensely about Blade Runner (which was adapted-from, or inspired-by, Dick's novel Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?), had thought about it a lot, and put extreme efforts into the movie... In several aspects, Scott's efforts were way, way beyond that of any previous movie ever made.

Such motivations are the necessary background to the greatness of Blade Runner.  

I think the same applies to Robert Jordan. Jordan was, it seems to me, an interesting and thoughtful man; who was deeper than most modern writers, and certainly had greater inner goodness than most modern writers. 

Jordan's previous fiction was mostly of the 'hack' variety; and with Wheel of Time he was doing his own thing for his own reasons, writing his own book for the first time: he clearly regarded WoT as his magnum opus - and put his best efforts into it over many years.

Jordan's best efforts were not much directed at artistic form, or concision, or coherence - it was, for him, more a matter of putting-in as much of possible of things that interested and concerned him. The unexpected sales success of the series enabled him to do this, to indulge himself in this respect - to the detriment of the overall work. 

But it was that impulse which led to what is good about The Wheel of Time, and what sends its readers back over and again. 

Therefore; a valid critique that attempts to answer "why it works" should primarily be focused on these engaging aspects of WoT; and should refrain (except secondarily) from the easy but misleading activity of picking it to pieces... until we have eventually convinced ourselves (and maybe others) that it is nothing-but a sprawling-mess. 

The really interesting fact is that The Wheel of Time is indeed a sprawling-mess; but a worthwhile and appealing sprawling-mess!       

"What am I doing here?" - and why Salvation is Not an answer

Colin Wilson said that Existentialism was an attempt to answer the question: "What am I doing here?"

Clearly, there is no answer to this is the mainstream ideology of The West (whatever we want to call it) because it assumes there is neither purpose nor meaning to anything; but neither is there any answer from traditional forms of Western Christianity - which focus, almost exclusively, on salvation as The Problem of life.

And for mainstream Christianity, salvation really is the problem, being terribly difficult and insecure; such that it (ideally) requires constant attention and unremitting effort. 

For a traditional Christian; we can never be sure of our salvation - and therefore a serious Christian can never get much beyond working on salvation. 

Yet when "What am I doing here?" is the question; salvation is not an answer. 

This, especially when salvation is uncertain and insecure, But even at best, salvation merely kicks the can, moves the problem along. 

Why is salvation not an answer? Because - as usually taught - salvation says that the job of this mortal life is... to be saved-from mortal life. 

In other words, we live in order to be rescued from living! What kind of 'answer' is that? 

The obvious problem is that this answer evokes the question of why we live this mortal life, if this mortal life is so fundamentally unsatisfactory that we need to be saved from it? 

Why does God bother placing us into this earthly mortal life At All; when the only point of life is to be rescued? 

Why not create us straight into the after-life?... 

Yet, even then, we will sooner-or-later want to know what is the point of the after-life. 

One who was created directly into Heaven might still (assuming he was a free agent) ask the same question of "What am I doing here?"

Answering the existentialist question therefore requires a very deep answer, if that answer is to be satisfactory. 

There is the immediate aspect of "What am I doing here?" - which demands an explanation for this mixed and mortal life on earth; and there is the deeper aspect of "What am I doing here?" - which concerns the fundamental reason for being as it applies to me, personally. 

I think I have said enough here to demonstrate why secular existentialism could never answer its foundational question; because the question arose from the unsatisfactoriness of this mortal life; yet secular existentialism excluded - by assumption - the after- and eternal-life which might, in principle, make sense of this finite and entropic mortal life. 

Secular existentialism excludes a priori any possible answer to "why?" questions.

The answer is that our personal life exists within God's creation (which has a purpose) and that we matter as individuals because God is a loving parent to us - whose primary concern is with individual persons.

Our mortal lives on this finite earth are therefore both part of the whole scheme of things and also individually significant - and the human condition has been set-up on that basis. 

So; to understanding 'why?' questions about our own mortal life, we must eventually discern an answer to "why?" God created creation. 

Mystical-Peak experiences of two kinds - Original- or Final-Participation in Colin Wilson's Super Consciousness (2009)

Colin Wilson, and his wife Joy, in 2009

I am re-reading Colin Wilson's last substantive book - Super Consciousness: the quest for the peak experience (2009) - which serves as a summation of this area of his interest that began with The Outsider (1956). Wilson cites and describes a 'variety of religious experiences' - or Peak Experiences, in Abraham Maslow's terminology - in which there was an alteration of consciousness and a feeling of well-being, elevation, understanding. 

Looking at Wilson's accounts of these experiences through the perspective on the evolutionary-development of consciousness that I have derived from Owen Barfield; I see the reports can be understood as beginning with our normal, everyday, mundane, socially-functional "Consciousness Soul" state of feeling cut-off from reality, alienated and trapped in superficiality. 

Consciousness Soul is the implicit baseline from-which Peak Experiences/ religious-mystical experience emerge. 

From this baseline, and despite that Wilson did not recognize this distinction; these mystical/peak experiences of positive 'Super Consciousness' can be understood as falling into Barfield's two categories of Original Participation and Final Participation.  

Most of the mystical experiences described can be regarded as a kind of functional impairment, and these seem like a reversion to the Original Participation of early childhood and tribal-Man, by a selective suppression of those (more recently developed) parts of the body (especially brain) needed for the manifestation of self-awareness in the Consciousness Soul stage. 

In other words, this kind of mystical experience deletes consciousness of 'the self' as a separate entity from 'reality'. 

Examples include those reported experiences of William James and Ouspensky which were triggered by nitrous oxide (laughing gas); and the same applies to other consciousness-altering drugs. 

Others were associated with dream-like passivity; stasis of the body, fainting, or sleep - and mentally there are descriptions of  becoming blissful in emotion yet unaware of any thinking (stopping the exhausting and futile treadmill of thoughts, worries, plans...); the apprehension of Time is suspended or deleted. 

The kitchen and garden were filled with golden light. I became conscious that at the centre of the Universe, and in my garden, was a great pulsing dynamo that ceaselessly poured-out love, This love poured over and through me, and I was part of it, and it wholly encompassed me. (Cited pages 54-5)

In this Original Participation mystical state; problems are not solved so much as dis-solved; it is not a matter of 'knowing everything' so much as recognizing that knowledge does not matter. 

Other, less common, reports of higher consciousness states sound more like Final Participation. In this state, the description is of thinking not stopping, but conversely having vastly greater power and comprehensiveness, such that the experience is one of 'knowing everything' - of direct-knowing without need for perception or for reasoning.

My train of thought accelerated and vastly improved in quality... New and convincing ideas came into my mind in a steady torrent, flaws in my existing ideas were illuminated, and as I made mental corrections to the the diminishing gaps in the logical sequence were filled by neat, brand-new linking concepts which made a beautiful logical pattern. (Cited page 56)

I interpret this difference as being due to the Original Participation being what Rudolf Steiner called an 'atavistic' state, that is a reversion to an earlier developmental-state (childhood, 'tribal' Man) which is being-induced by a lowering of consciousness,; resulting in a temporarily 'delirious' impairment of brain function (by drugs, drowsiness, hypnosis, illness etc). 

While Final Participation is an enhancement of consciousness, the next 'evolutionary step' towards a more-divine, and more free and independent, mode of thinking; in which thinking is clarified and strengthened; and increases in scope and validity. 

This relates to the 'flow state' Wilson describes earlier from the work of Csikczentmihalyi; which is associated with increased, indeed the highest, levels of functionality.

For instance; when people such as creative artists, artistic performers, athletes, and craftsmen sometimes attain their supreme performance. Sometimes called being 'in the zone' - they find themselves unerringly doing things they could not usually achieve, and with total confidence. 

Thus Original Participation reduces functionality, and constitutes 'time out'; whereas Final Participation is associated with the highest, most creative and adept, levels of functionality. 

Yet these two Super Conscious states - Final and Original: the one thinking, the other a cessation of thought; the one knowing without constraint, the other an indifference to knowledge; the one a flow, the other a suspension of time and movement; the one cognitive, the other contemplative... these states are not usually distinguished, are indeed generally conflated.  

I do, however, regard Original Participation as potentially-valuable - but mainly as a glimpse of alternatives, a 'holiday', a recharging process, a therapeutic rest. 

While Final Participation is - I hope - the ultimate state of God-like, Christ-like, divine consciousness in which - eventually - Christians will spend most of our post-mortal resurrected lives. 

As for the Consciousness Soul in which we Modern Men spend most of our mortal lives, trapped and cut-off form living and reality - I regard it as merely a transitional phase between Original and Final Participations - much as adolescence should be a swift transition between childhood and maturity; therefore I expect that 'mundane' consciousness will very seldom be experienced in Heaven - although it may be normal, or at least common, in Hell. 

Morgoth's War

The following, I have edited (and slightly adapted, to make explicit and clearer the meanings) from notes by JRR Tolkien written c1958 and published in 1993 as Morgoth's Ring - which was volume ten of The History of Middle Earth edited by Christopher Tolkien. 

Assembling these extracts was prompted by my reflecting on the true (Sorathic) motivations behind The West's large-scale and calculated deployment of land-mine contamination, and the plans for massive deployment of "mucky missiles", in the current Fire Nation war.  

In other words: for the demonic beings who dominate the puppet-leadership of Western Powers; this war is not about winning, so much as staining, destroying, reducing Middle Earth to formless chaos. 

This is increasingly a Morgoth war of destruction, less and less a Sauron war of conquest.  

**

To gain domination over Middle Earth, Morgoth had let most of his being pass into the physical constituents of Middle Earth – hence all things that were born on Middle Earth and live on and by it, beasts or plants or incarnate spirits, were liable to be ‘stained’ .

When Morgoth was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. 

His sole ultimate object was their destruction. 

Men, Morgoth despised because of their ‘weakness’: that is their lack of physical force, or power over ‘matter’; but he was also afraid of them. 

Morgoth became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy Men and rid Middle Earth of them altogether. Hence his endeavor was always to break wills and subordinate Men to, or absorb them into, his own will and being - before destroying their bodies. 

This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object. 

Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them for the destruction of Elves and Men. 

Left alone, Morgoth could only have gone raging on till all was leveled again into a formless chaos. 

And yet even so Morgoth would have been defeated, because God's creation would still have ‘existed’, independent of his own mind, and a world in potential. 

Morgoth could not, of course, ‘annihilate’ anything of matter, he could only ruin or destroy or corrupt the forms given to matter by other minds in their subcreative activities. 

Thus Morgoth had no ‘plan’ for his war: unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share can be called a ‘plan’. 

Morgoth's vast power was therefore disseminated into staining, destroying, reducing Middle Earth to formless chaos. 

The whole of Middle Earth was Morgoth's Ring of Power.

Some Irish Folk Music (from Newcastle upon Tyne)

One of the transformative resources of my mid-teen years was the Bristol City Record Library (with its fierce guardian librarian whom we nicknamed Tape, short for "Tapering Suit" - which suit was mustard in colour). 

This was a tremendous (free to borrow) collection of Classical Music LPs - plus a smaller, but very well chosen, collection of Folk Music - both of which I explored voraciously. 

From the Folk section came an LP called Flute for the Feis; featuring the Newcastle upon Tyne piccolo player John Doonan.

He had swapped this unusual instrument for the more usual flute, because he played a good deal for Irish set-dancing competitions (The Riverdance kind of stuff), without amplification - and the smaller and shriller instrument's sound carried better. 

You can hear how he had developed a remarkably effective and delightful playing method, in which the breathing is incorporated into the rhythm:

I think you will find the above version of the jig The Ace and Deuce of Piping to be a real ear-worm - in the best kind of way.

Doonan also featured on a strange, but surprisingly* compelling, collection of Irish music played on small instruments by a variety of musicians. Like Flute for the Feis, this was one of many inspired productions of the remarkable Topic Records company. 

(*Surprising because I do not usually appreciate folk - or any other - music played only on treble instruments, and generally feel the lack of a bass rather keenly.)

Considering this album features heavily the Jews Harp; it was not something I expected to enjoy; but when that smallest of small instruments is played by John Wright - then the instrument's limitations are forgotten, and a peculiar hypnosis affects me, such that I am forced to keep listening! 

The double-edged sword of romanticism

Romanticism began to arise in the minds of Men from about the middle of the 1700s, in Western Europe - and has spread from there. What romanticism arose from, was Man's new awareness of himself and the world.

In other words, romanticism was a development (or an 'evolution') of human consciousness. 

But there was a double-edged quality to romantic consciousness. 

Men became aware of the wonderfulness of nature, and of the achievements and potential of their own thinking - but also of opposite tendencies. 

With romantic consciousness; at times, for moments or bursts, life seemed raised to a higher level. Various names were given such experiences: Sehnsucht, ecstasy, epiphanies, religious experiences, mystical insights, joy, peak experiences... these episodes were noticed, described and pondered for the first time.

There seemed to be a possibility that these best-of-times might be insights into ultimate reality; and might therefore become continuous and permanent - or, at least, frequent and long-lasting. 

Thus romanticism often led to great optimism, happiness, and the sense of potential for a larger and better life and world. 

However; there was the other edge to the sword of romantic consciousness; which was that - in practice - these periods of romantic ecstasy were brief and infrequent, could not be aimed at and achieved directly - and the opposite conclusion soon began to emerge that they were delusional. 

The everyday reality for everybody for most of the time (and, apparently, for some people all of the time) was of mundane consciousness; of life as commonplace, dull, shallow - pointless, purposeless, meaningless...

Society was so heavily-stacked against romanticism, that the most intensely romantic individuals often felt themselves to be 'outsiders' (to use Colin Wilson's term). And, even under the best imaginable social conditions; Man's life is unavoidably pervaded by change, decay, pain and disease

And, no matter what the degree of attainment was achieved; every life is always terminated by death. 

The contrast between what seemed possible, and what was actually attainable, led to existential angst, to a cynicism that often led to despair - and was fought-against by seeking either for selfish hedonic oblivion, trying to blot-out awareness of failure and futility. Or by seeking an end to all conscious suffering in chronically self-destructive behaviour, and by suicide (whether deniably-sought, or actively-committed). 

Romanticism was therefore a mixed-blessing at best, a curse at worst. Yet, because romanticism was a consequence of the development of consciousness, it could neither be suppressed nor ignored. 

Romanticism changed everything... Yet, there was and is no 'answer' to the possibilities and problems of romanticism within the bounds of this world.

On the one hand, we now have many experiences that create yearnings and expectations for a higher form of life; on the other hand, we cannot achieve these yearnings and expectations in our actual lives; due to the many social, psychological and physical (i.e. ultimately entropic) constraints of this world.  

  

The simple answer requires that we take-into-account a personal life beyond this life; and an afterlife that incorporates those romantic experiences of this life. 

In different words; we need to regard the romanticism of this mortal life as learning experiences directed at full attainment in an eternal life to come. 

Then, but only then, can we cope-with and learn-from our own romanticism; and render romantic experiences into a positive and inspiriting development of Mankind. 

Sun with a big nose today...

 

Four good reasons to read Owen Barfield (even for those who already know Rudolf Steiner)

Over at my Owen Barfield blog, I discuss why even an expert disciple and follower of Rudolf Steiner, can expect to find added-value in reading Owen Barfield.  

Fake Pennant preparations: the UK Government's national "Emergency Alerts" for smartphones

We were told a few days ago that starting from 23rd April 2023 - which is, significantly, St George's Day: the English patron saint) there will be Emergency Alerts broadcast nationally to all smartphone users by default. 

This is a pretty obvious preparation for... whatever "fake pennant" operation They decide is most likely to cause national panic, anger and despair. 

My best guess is that a fake-pennant pseudo-attack will be used to escalate the Fire Nation war - since that seems to be the specially-designated role of the UK puppet government in the Globalist Establishment strategies; and the ground for this is being prepared.  

So, after a little while, maybe a couple of try-outs - the country will be informed of some Big Bad aggression from the FN; told what to do; and while still gibbering in fear/ seething for revenge - the masses will be manipulated into full scale involvement in global war. 

But it could, of course, be a 'Climate' (Extreme Weather) non-event, another pseudo-epidemic, an imaginary rebellion, or indeed something as yet untried. 

The point is that, having implemented a system for generating flash-fear mob behaviour - It Will Be Used. 

Given the possibilities of manipulating a gullible population by some new trick; fingers will be itching to pull the trigger on it. 

And even if the system fails to evoke the kind of herd stampede behaviour desired; it will surely be repurposed to a high frequency harassment and propaganda tool.  

Now the politicians and bureaucrats are being given this shiny new toy - they will be mad keen to play with it. 

Reviewing the strange, experimental, BBC Radio Hobbit of 1968

Over at the Notion Club Papers I review and recommend the BBC Radio Hobbit dramatization from 1968; with its ambitious electronic soundscape, medievalish musical score, weirdly-distorted voices, and strange pronunciations. 

Very much of-its-time - and enjoyable as such.

Mucky Missiles - Sorathic escalation from the UK

The tyrannical puppets who administer the UK under orders from Sorathic demons; continue to paint an ever-brighter target on the British Isles -- with the recent official confirmation that They intent to send Mucky Missiles to attack the Fire Nation; despite... sorry, I mean precisely because the FN has inscribed a scarlet-line defining such an act as molecular-escalation entailing an analogous response.  

Not long ago; the Establishment used to tell us scary bedtime stories about how terr-ifying-rists might 'get their hands on' gamma-ray-emitting materials, embed into-them a powerful detonative substance, and 'hold to ransom' decent people by the threat of spraying emitting-debris into the surroundings. 

So now it is the Guardians themselves who are advocating and defending Mucky Missiles - something once considered beyond the pale - thereby performing a (deniable) attempt at civilizational 'suicide-by-cop'. 

(Almost as-if everything bad of which They accuse others; is in reality Their own Favourite Thing.)   

This act is absolutely gratuitous; having vast potential for destruction and zero possibility of constructive benefits; therefore naturally the announcement has been met with near-unanimous approval from the mass media - who have kindly Fact-Checked it, and discerned that there is nothing here to concern decent citizens. 

Move along folks... Down the memory hole it goes!

Hobbits still exist - Francis Mudge

From the wonderful documentary series Edwardian Farm (BBC 2010), we get to meet Devon farmer Mister Francis Mudge - from 7:45:

I was born, and spent my early childhood, in Devon - although I haven't visited for more than thirty years. From memory, it seems exactly the kind of place where hobbits would have survived. 

My answer to relativism

Modern Men are, like it or not, confronted by what is commonly called relativism; and emerges in the idea that every proposition is 'just' somebody's opinion - and that none are more valid than any other.

This is the deep implicit assumption of modernity - and leads to the totalitarianism of arbitrary (because not valid) behaviours imposed by terror, coercion and propaganda.  

Relativism is not just wrong, but incoherent - yet it is a response to the unsatisfactory nature of traditional formulations of objective knowledge. Traditional objectivity required an unthinking and automatic understanding of what-we-perceive; and when that understanding became contested and the necessary role of human consciousness in knowledge became evident; then this led first to idealism - when everything was in the mind. 

At first, because most people agreed on the nature of reality, that seemed to work; but as disagreements about reality emerged, then idealism required to be bolstered by adding a requirement for cultural or national similarity, in order that there be cohesion and a shared world.

Western Man's self-consciousness continued to increase, until relativism emerged as an individualized form of idealism - each Man creating his own reality; and order and cooperation needing to be externally imposed. 

Relativism = idealism at the individual level. Everything is mind, and ultimately everything is My mind...

The contextual universe of relativism was (is) seen as fundamentally chaotic, with creation and 'order' as temporary and superficial phenomena imposed on a situation of increasing randomness (entropy). 

Nowadays, we can only overcome relativism by explicit means; by clarifying our primary (metaphysical) assumptions and (as it were) inviting others to consider them, and choose whether or not to share them. 

My assumptions include that:

1. There is - as a matter of fact, not principle - one creation, made by one God. 

2. This creation unfolds in sequential Time - which is not reversible, so that creation is cumulative.  

This means that creation is not arbitrary, because it is motivated by one God (given purpose); and made harmonious (given meaning) by the fact of being the product of one God; and because creation cannot be undone. 

Cannot be undone because of the sequential nature of Time; which is the case because Time is intrinsic to the Beingness of God: i.e. because God is a Being. 

And to be a Being entails Life; which entails Time, change, complexity, potential for growth and development, purposiveness etc (this list is not a definition of a Being - which is here assumed to be primary aspect of reality and cannot be further subdivided - but just pointing at attributes we recognize as characteristic of a living Being). 

Thus creation is continuous, and cumulative, and can be reshaped and added to - but none of this alters historical reality. 

The continuity of creation means that creation is harmonious both 'horizontally' (here-and-now) and 'vertically' (through Time) - and that these are inseparable.

It is this quality of creation which means that relativism is false. Some things are coherent with creation, others are opposed to creation - therefore creation is objective with reference to creation primarily, and secondarily with all aspects of creation, all that has-been created (and their creations).

That by which creation coheres is Love: and objectivity reduces ultimately to Love: Love of God primarily, and love of Fellow Man (including other Beings) secondarily. 

That is, the Two Great Commandments. 

Objectivity is therefore as real as Love, and of the same nature. One who rejects, or is incapable of, Love is necessarily a relativist; which is to say he rejects God and Fellow Men, and tries to live in his own personal world...

Which is another way of describing hell. 

  

Why do I continue to use Rudolf Steiner's terminology (e.g. Luciferic, Ahrimanic, Sorathic) despite that I have modified the meanings?

The above question was asked me the other day; and it is a good question. 

After some consideration, I realized that the answer is that I use Steiner's names to acknowledge the substantial debt and origin of the concepts; and then I develop the idea.

I do not attempt to conceal the development - indeed I discuss it explicitly; but typically only when I first start making changes, and not at every subsequent usage (or, only by providing links). 

This seems wrong, lacking in rigour, to those who is operating under the conventions of scholarship in the humanities; where the ideal is to preserve without alteration the original meanings attached to terminology. 

But I am (or was) a scientist, and Rudolf Steiner regarded Anthroposophy as a "Spiritual Science".

In science, this is how concepts (theories, hypotheses, even specific entities) are often developed and used. Names are retained, but their meaning develops. 

Thus concepts/entities such as light, gene, electron, natural selection - all mean something different to later scientists than to their originators; and this is taken for granted because meaning is established by current usage, not by retrospective scholarship.

Science is about developing knowledge, so it is expected that definitions, theories, practices will develop - change their meanings.

So it is quite natural and unremarkable for me to get ideas from Steiner, and to modify them in this scientific spirit; just as it is natural for humanities-orientated scholars to define a new term, every time they modify an existing definition or a theory. 

This also fits with my attitude to Steiner's work as a whole. I disagree with most of what he said and regard it as wrong, and I regard Anthroposophists (and the Anthroposophical Society) as - usually - fundamentally misguided... 

Nonetheless, I regard Steiner as one of a handful of the most important thinkers of recent centuries; and have spent a great deal of time reading and thinking about his work (and his life). 

It seems strange to read and write so much about Steiner while regarding him as mostly-wrong; but, again, this is not unusual in science - where one may base a great deal of research on a particular paper (a finding, an hypothesis), or part of a paper, by a particular scientist - without having any concern with anything else he did. 

This, then, is what I do and have-been doing. It's useful to get such matters clear in the mind. 

Not Even Wrong... the mainstream modern Leftist Establishment ideology is essentially just a series of PSYOPS

We anti-leftists - including serious Christians - are prone to criticize mainstream modern Leftist Establishment ideology for being wrong: for propounding Fake New based on Big Lies. 

But the problem is much deeper, and much worse, than this suggests. The problem is that mainstream ideology is incoherent such that reality and truth have merely temporary and expedient meanings; so that (from the inside) 'reality' makes no sense, and 'truth' is grossly inconsistent. 

So, the root problem is incoherence not wrongness; and the incoherence is so extreme that a categorization of 'wrong' is merely an option, just an opinion in a world where the only opinions that matter are those backed by power, wealth or status. 

Therefore, the deep problem is - for examples - Global Warming, the transagenda or the birdemic-peck strategies; is that they are Not Even Wrong - that they do not even rise to the level of wrongness. 

If they are Not Even Wrong, what are they? The answer is that they function primarily as PSYOPS - intentionally harmful mass psychological manipulations. 

Therefore - since these Litmus Test issues are at the heart of modern Western (and, largely, global) governance; we can infer that the major thrust of leadership is implicitly encouraging/ compelling billions of people align their thinking and feelings to incoherent nonsense.  

If we can then understand PSYOPS as the basic motivation of mainstream ideology; the distinctive nature of evil in the modern world may become clearer. 

Jazz Club - with Louis Balfour (...Great!)

This Fast Show parody of BBC2 late night jazz programmes of the 1970s has had a big - indeed permanent - influence on my household; mainly by its catchphrases and gestures 'aside' to the camera - especially a purred Great! while making the OK sign. 

Weirdly compelling:

I can vouch for the fact that this was exactly how British jazz fans behaved in those days - on the media and IRL. I vividly recall a middle aged chap in a velvet jacket tapping his wineglass with his index finger at a modern jazz event, gently nodding along with half-closed eyes. 

He'd have fitted right in with Louis Balfour. 

  

Self-excluded from the realm of spirit; the materialist West is adrift from even the concept of reality

The delusionary nature of modern public discourse in the West, goes way beyond the realms of merely 'being wrong' or 'unreal' - because there is actually no concept of truth or reality against-which to judge statements and claims. 

Cut-off from any acknowledgement of the primacy of the spiritual - focused entirely on 'the material' - there is no basis in Western public discourse even for coherence; because statements, ideas, policies have no grounds for being evaluated. 

Although there are some claims of modern society being functional - in public discourse functionality means different things to different people, and is unstable even within each usage - sheer power to enforce is the decider of what counts as functional; and as the imperative of expedience vary, so does the public-discourse-acceptable definition of 'functionality'. 

Most claims (in so far as they are justified at all) are supposed to be rooted in their consequence in terms of human psychology - i.e. people claim to do things on the basis that doing-so will increase human happiness, reduce suffering, or gratify what 'people' (of one sort or another) 'want'...

Yet at the same time, there are massive - often successful - attempts to manipulate human psychology - i.e. to induce more people to want such-and-such, or to be happier about X... or to be dissatisfied-with/ afraid-of/ annoyed-by/ resentful-about Y. 

So that there is a simultaneous claim of the sort that 'we' need to do Z because this is what people want... while at the same time manipulating human psychology so that people begin to want Z! 

And this kind of incoherent nonsense is so common, so everyday and mainstream that is goes unnoticed! 

Even more bizarrely; such assumptions of what counts as justification are excluded from awareness and discussion; so we live in a world of purely unmoored and arbitrary theories, that simultaneously itself pretends to be a 'realistic' word of objective facts - and which resists all attempts to expose and evaluate its theories!

Small wonder that the modern world is so helplessly yet determinedly self-loathing and self-destroying! People have consented to self-entrapment in a maelstrom of swirling non-sense; and once inside they can find neither toehold nor grip by which to extract themselves -- despite that the firm ground of God's creation is always present, denied hence ignored, merely a thought away.  

Not Global trends anymore - but a Sorathic breakdown into personal and petty spite?

I have noticed that (at this time of writing) there has not been the kind of Spring Campaign by the globalist Establishment, which we have seen over recent years. I mean, there is no Big Thing being currently given a monolithic push by the coordinated efforts of multiple national governments, the mass media and the leaders of large social institutions. 

Instead, when I survey the 'headlines' - I seem numerous little - and often very petty - stories, claims and campaigns. 

As always with the mass media; the intent behind all of these stories is evil and their presentation misleading, dishonest, manipulative. But we are not being fed a Grand Narrative. 

I interpret this as a manifestation of a mass of individually-selfish Sorathic/ chaotic/ destructive displacement of that Ahrimanic/ totalitarian/ bureaucratic evil that peaked three years ago with the birdemic-inspired global coup, and was revealed as the WEF Great Reset/ UN Agenda 2030. 

None of the individual goals of the surveillance-control advocates have been abandoned - the global warming bandwagon rolls-on, the transagenda is doubled-down upon, antiracism and diversity continue to destroy functionality of all organizations etc... And, of course, the geopolitical goals of the anti-Fire Nation war continue to push towards escalation and the possibility of Giga-annihilation.   

In other words, there is just-as-much evil in the world as in 2020 - perhaps even more; many these many and various evils are no longer being presented, or felt, as part of a supposedly-coherent Grand Plan.

The underlying reality - which was always there - of the Leftist ideological-alliance of negatively-motivated grievance groups; has developed (as evil must, since it feeds upon itself) into smaller-and- smaller, less-and-less cohesive, more-and-more selfish thus mutually hostile antagonists.

The short-termist greed that motivates modern institutions and the leadership class is more obvious; and the imperceptible world strategists who stand behind and control the visible leaders, display increasing destructiveness in their manipulations. 

To my mind; there is now a reflex compulsion at work to make decisions that are intended to provoke resentments and evoke destructive conflict, at all levels. 

If we imagine the rulers of the world as a bunch of spiteful children, whose greatest delight is to goad everyone-else into arguments and fights, and who enjoy the spectacle of breaking-down all alliances, cooperation and - especially - all idealism based upon love (e.g. loving marriages, families, and friendships)... then I think this present an accurate picture of things - at every level from the inter-national to the inter-personal; and by all means from legal to gossip.   

Naturally, evil-motivated strategies get included in this chaos-induction; but so long as the underlying motivations are evil, then the destruction of organized-evil by the greater-evil of pure negativity does not do net-Good.  

We are still confronted by the same choices and imperatives; but the situation will feel very different. 

The great temptation is shifting from that of servile conformity to a single evil ideology; to the temptation to be motivated by our negative fears, resentments and despair - to feel that it is "me against the world" and engage in competitive selfishness... 

...Falling into a life focused around the spiteful enjoyment of the downfall and destruction of our (ever proliferating) enemies.     

Note: The Ahrimanic leadership are not finished and will fight back; but what I am predicting is that They will never again succeed as they have recently; neither in terms of intensity nor in duration of mass attention and obedience. 

Is Clarkson's Farm the best non-fiction TV series ever?

Maybe...

That, anyway, seems to be the consensus across a pretty broad, and very large, public viewership. Certainly, I've never seen anything - in any media (not even for fiction, or classic movies) - to compare with Clarkson's Farm's 9/10 IMDB rating from 45,000 people - and indeed, Series 1 was running at something like 9.8/10 for a long time. 

All this for a documentary!

There are some people who are allergic to Jeremy Clarkson, and cannot stand him at any price, and whatever he does - and have been working tirelessly for years to destroy him. But I regard him as one of the most original and supremely talented TV makers of the past several decades. 

Clarkson's Farm is about his venture into farming, knowing essentially nothing about it - and Jeremy plays the part of himself, as usual - which (by all accounts) is simply an exaggerated version of real life; which is why it comes across as authentic. 

The series is very funny; very interesting and surprisingly informative about farming; very revealing about the soul-destroying horrors of government and bureaucracy in modern Britain; and develops an unforgettable 'cast' of fascinating 'real'-life characters, of Dickensian colourfulness and variety.   

The programmes are superbly crafted - as well as having great content; the editing and thematic shaping are stunningly well-done. 

Of course - there have been much more profound and/or moving TV non-fiction series over the years. There is nothing like as much meat here as in The Ascent of Man, Time Team, Michael Wood's In Search of Shakespeare, or the BBC Historic Farms. 

But at its level of immediately and generally accessible, informative light entertainment - plus a bit more - Clarkson's farm is as-good-as-it-gets.

Or better...

In this entropic world; God merely needs to stop actively-sustaining a civilization, for it to collapse

A commenter asked me yesterday whether God had (in effect) judged Western Civilization, found it wanting, and embarked on its destruction. 

This is not how it works. 

In this mortal life on this earthly world, entropy has the upper hand: the innate tendency is destruction, and towards death - and this must continually be staved-off by energy-consuming creative-effort. 

Therefore, all form and order tends towards annihilation - except when this is continually prevented. 

My assumption is that God has indeed evaluated ("judged") Western Civilization and concluded that it does more harm than good (in a spiritual sense); and He observes that The West has no desire to repent but quite the opposite - and is doubling-down on evil.  

Therefore, God has (I believe) withdrawn his previous civilization-level creative input to sustain The West; and therefore the West is being overcome by entropy. 

Note: God has not withdrawn his creative inputs to individual lives, and smaller human groups (i.e. at lower levels than the civilizational) - i.e. God gives help where where God's help is wanted. He will help you, me, and any families, nations, or other God-loving-groups who desire His help. But God will not (because God is Good) help to sustain The West in its determined strategy to corrupt the world in accordance with its ideology of value-inversion.  

Against luck and chance as explanations for life

It is necessary for Christians to eschew the common practice of attributing the ups and (especially) downs of life to the luck (good or bad) and chance (favourable or adverse). 

To believe in luck or chance as explanations, is to deny God's shaping of this world and our lives by creation - it is therefore, indirectly, a denial of faith. 

Yet this eschewal of luck itself requires some explanation; because this reality in which we dwell originated in purposeless, meaningless chaos; and this mortal life is 'ruled by entropy' such that change, degeneration, corruption and death are unavoidable - and it is from-this entropic-chaos that Jesus delivered us by resurrection to eternal life. 

Therefore, in this mortal world 'stuff happens', and much of this is out-with God's creative intent... 

But that which happens from entropy, does so without meaning, and is not knowable. All that we know - all 'events' - are known because this is God's creation. 

By the time we recognize any-thing (as an entity, as a phenomenon) it 'already' has meaning, and that meaning has-been shaped by God's creating. 

In other words, we cannot know chaos - but can only know only creation; and therefore chance is never the explanation for whatever we know, whatever we have noticed. 

What this means is that we should suppose that whatever happens in our lives has-been shaped by God - and therefore is a part-of God's overall plan of salvation and theosis. 

This does not mean that every-thing has specific, definable, meaning or purpose when considered in isolation and detached from the stream or arc of our lives; but instead that we should eschew the false and lazy attribution of events to 'randomness' - and realize that what we, personally, need to seek is to learn from 'whatever happens'. 

Such learning is, indeed, our primary duty in confronting the life of this world. Learning from all aspects: up or down, good or bad, favourable or adverse... 

This 'learning' is always our duty (as Christians); whereas, by contrast, 'doing something useful about the world' - i.e. ameliorating the evils of the human condition, is a contingent matter; variably dependent upon many and diverse factors - and seldom possible in practice.  

In sum: we are here to learn, always; but the business of actually, genuinely, positively-re-shaping and improving the situation of this mortal world - whether of our own well-being, or that of fellow men...

Well, this is a rare bonus in our mortal lives - and inevitably very secondary to our duty.

(In Heaven, of course, things will be very different! And actually, genuinely, positively-re-shaping and improving the situation of our lives and the lives of all Beings, by participation in divine creation, becomes our inwardly-desired and joyfully-embraced main-work!)

Nuts and bolts of how to deal with fear by love through faith

For Christians; living in fear is wrong, and sinful when accepted or embraced; but how we deal with fear is important - since some apparently-effective ways of dealing with fear are also sinful (such as prideful anger fuelled by resentment).

Yes, this is not a complex problem, it does not require abstraction, difficult analysis, nor any kind of theological 'balancing act' - the proper answers are simple, and clear as nuts and bolts. 

Jesus's idea was that people should follow him because of love, not from fear. Jesus deserves to be followed when we desire what he offers (resurrected life everlasting), and because we regard him as the Good Shepherd; because we love Him and have faith in his love for us. 

This does entail that we believe Jesus has the unique/ supernatural/ cosmic power to 'deliver' what he offers, but we ought not to follow Jesus because of our awe and fear of His power. 

That would be a wrong, negative, sinful - hence a self-defeating motivation; because Heaven has no place for such motivations. 

Therefore, when we fear (and who can avoid fear in this mortal life?) we need to recognize it as wrong, repent it; and fight-our-fears by reflection on what Jesus offers and the always-presence of Jesus in this world and our lives (as the Holy Ghost). 

We are never alone, nor bereft of help. 

The Good Shepherd will lead us to salvation; if only we follow Him; and to follow Him requires no more than this belief in His motives, and His capability. 

Therefore we can fight fear with strengthened faith; and our faith can be strengthened by something as simple and clear as a parable. 

The 1981 BBC Radio dramatization of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings

Over at The Notion Club Papers blog; I review the 1981 BBC Radio The Lord of the Rings, which is something I have listened to many times. 

Although the production is a bit patchy, and limited by the medium; I give this version a definite thumbs-up as a warm-hearted piece of work, frequently enjoyable - and sometimes powerful and moving. 

Furthermore, for one who knows the original text; the dramatic presentation offers the listener the possibility of increased insight into Tolkien's characters and their relationships. 

Incoherence in traditional concepts of sin: Understanding 'sin' as the entropic nature of this mortal world; as anything-other-than resurrected life

Ever since I began to consider the matter seriously; I have found the ways that sin and forgiveness are discussed to be incoherent. They just don't seem to add up, or hold together. 

What I think I was sensing, was a clash between the temporary and the eternal, the individual and the social -- resulting from changes in human consciousness and the concept of 'Christianity' since the time of Jesus. 

I think it likely that, when Christianity was developed as an institutional, then a state, religion; it became bound-up with the prescription and enforcement of good, pro-social, 'Christian behaviour' - and this became regarded as the pre-requisite to salvation. 

So we get the idea of 'sin' as transgression of laws, and 'forgiveness' as some mixture of punishments, penances, and wiping the slate clean of past transgressions. In practice, 'sin' was externally, socially, defined. 

Thus laws and other rules of conduct were societally developed, validated and imposed; the individual was the sinner (law-breaker); and some representative of society decided what ought to be done about it.

This pragmatic system relating to social behaviour (primarily) was then harnessed to the 'cosmic' aspects of Christianity; i.e. the fact of Jesus Christ having change created reality - made possible a new Heaven of eternal resurrected life etc. 

This was the - to me - peculiar picture from Christianity; of a reality made up of moral laws/ legal codes and the system for developing and enforcing them; which was strangely linked with a narrative of the history of everything. 

It seemed hard to grasp how - in creating - God had built-in objective morality of this social kind... I just couldn't picture how this might work. 

When I spent a year or so, reading and re-reading the Fourth Gospel ("John") - I gradually became aware of a very different way in which sin was being conceptualized. 

The IV Gospel (overall) saw sin as ultimately death; and milder sins as including sickness and others kinds of dysfunction, corruption (away from proper purpose and function), wrong attitudes towards God, expounding of false realities, and so forth. 

I gathered that Jesus's work in taking-away sin, was to take-away death; in other words to offer Men the possibility of resurrection into life everlasting. 

Miracles of healing were perhaps Jesus taking-away lesser 'sins' of disease and disability. 

'Forgiveness' is not mentioned as such in the Fourth Gospel; but in some parables and miracles, Jesus seems to be declaring something about a change of mind or heart, or a reorientation, on the part of the one who is healed - this (here-and-now) commitment to Jesus is the 'faith' that has made the miracle possible. 

But this is not necessarily an eternal transformation of behaviour. I don't think we are meant to assume that one who has had faith, and received a miracle, would 'never sin again' in the sense of never again breaking any of the Laws of morality. 

The transformation of those who encountered Jesus was not a permanent change of their behaviour; but a here-and-now change of heart, of desire, of attitude. 

It seems possible that Jesus was talking about repentance or forgiveness in terms of a person turning to Jesus as Saviour, as Good Shepherd - as recognizing that only by 'loving' and following Jesus can we have eternal resurrected life. 

This can only be guaranteed as a temporary state of affairs in this mortal life - because somebody might at first decide to follow Jesus, and then later change his mind. As a sheep might begin following the Shepherd to safety; but change his mind, stray, and fall off a precipice to his death (i.e. to choose damnation). 

Thus, concepts such as 'repentance' and more generally 'faith' may best be understood as referring to the here-and-now; to the current situation in mortal life. 

These concepts are also, at root, personal and not institutional - at least to us modern men. 

Personal and institutional were, indeed, de facto inseparable in earlier stages of Man's development of consciousness, including the time of Christ and the centuries that followed. 

It was only from the late medieval era that Western Men began mentally to distinguish the individual group his group, more and more fully, and then to experience as a fact of reality. 

So, my confusion about 'sin' (and the confusion of Christian teaching, from which my confusion derived) was - in part - a consequence of trying to combine concepts from different stages of Man's consciousness.  

My conclusion is that we have now arrived at a very different point from where Christianity arrived at after the ascension of Jesus and the rapid development of first the Church, and then the Christian State. We are, indeed, now returned to a situation much closer to that described in the Fourth Gospel, during the life of Jesus. 

'Faith' is now something-like a here-and-now determination to follow Jesus to eternal life; and 'sin' is... anything else, i.e. any other commitment or purpose than that of following Jesus to resurrection-specifically. 

'Repentance' (the word itself isn't used in the Fourth Gospel) is (perhaps) simply the renewed commitment to following Jesus; whereas 'apostasy' is, like Judas Iscariot, referring to one who once had faith, later changing his mind and deciding Not to believe or follow Jesus. 

(And then, of course, apostasy may be repented.) 

So 'sin' is ultimately choosing death - meaning not-resurrection; but choosing instead some other fate for our post-mortal soul.

Thus 'damnation' may entail something like loss of personhood, loss of agency, loss of consciousness... Or refusing to leave this mortal world, and remaining bound to the domination of entropy and death. Damnation may be many or several possibilities, because it is anything-but resurrection. 

And, from this, 'sin' is used more generally to refer to mortal life and its innate nature - this world, dominated by entropic change: corruption, disease, decay, degeneration... 

In other words: 'sin' is all of that from-which we are rescued by resurrection into eternal life. 

Plans to reform the economy/ science/ the legal system/ health care/ education... or whatever

How to reform [fill-in the Western social system] are all a waste of time, a distraction, and make matters worse -- by implying that the economy/ science/ the legal system/ health care/ education or whatever actually Can be reformed. 

But they cannot be reformed. 

They cannot be reformed because there are No people of sufficient power, wealth and influence that want to reform them; nor is there a sufficient constituency of 'the masses' who are motivated actively to desire genuine reform (i.e. at the cost of that immediate physical suffering which is the inevitable price of genuine reform in a corrupted system).

Ultimately nothing specific can be reformed because The System itself is corrupt - all its leadership class and controlling institutions are either activists for evil or evil-compliant. 

Purposive evil is written-into the minds and rules by which our civilization operates. 

And the leaders cannot cease from their evil because they are atheist materialists; whose world view (metaphysical assumptions) exclude even the possibility of purpose, meaning, the divine and real values (truth, beauty, virtue - and coherence).

Nothing significantly positive and good can be done at the Systemic level in our civilization until after we have changed our beliefs concerning the basic nature of reality - because our beliefs concerning the basic nature of reality exclude all that is positive and good.  

Nothing can be reformed in this world, until we have a perspective that stands-outside this world, and therefore includes this world.  

Only then can we know and strive for coherence of goodness; only then will change be good. 

Until such a time; all efforts to Do Good in this-world will be subverted, corrupted, and inverted to evil purposes.

Until such a time; we can and must work on our-selves, at the personal level, and by spiritual means. 

Note: Therefore, if we wait for a lead coming from an external initiative from some powerful person or institution, if we wait to follow-a-leader or join-a-group, or we insist on creating-a-group before acting -- then we will wait until the day of our doom without knowing, thinking or acting. 

Ask me a question...

Since there seem to be some new regular readers of this blog, I will repeat an offer that I have made a few times before - which is to answer questions from commenters (one question from each!). 

Because the daily blog has been running for nearly 13 years and has over 8000 posts; I may well be able to point at some previous thing that has already addressed the question. 

Or else, if the question is relevant, and I have something to say on the subject, I may be able to provide some kind of new response.

Anyway - that's the invitation. 

  

The bureaucrats of evil, with minds like 'valves', passively-orientated towards the side of evil: What the birdemic-peck has revealed

It's over three years since the birdemic first wave was imposed on the UK, but at present there has been very little enforcement (in most parts) for considerably more than a year. There is at present far more emphasis on the Fire Nation and Climate than on the birdemic. 

Yet, there is a substantial minority of the UK population who will not let-go of the birdemic mindset; who continue to wear masks, 'test' themselves, self-isolate and avoid (on the basis of these pseudo-tests), accumulate pecks in the face of multiple 'test'-confirmed recurrences, and so forth. 

What seems to have happened is that three years ago, and again two years ago when the peck was being pushed; these people opened their minds to the daily conduit of propaganda about the birdemic, and filled-up on... whatever fluctuating and incoherent nonsense was being piped-in. 

Then closed their minds on it. 

And now they Will Not let go of this stuff. 

It's as if their minds have become valves for evil: with inward-facing flaps that open to allow evil in, but then close-upon evil - preventing it from escape. 

Their minds are a one-way street for evil, with no exit. 

So that once some item of evil propaganda has been allowed into the mind - then it is held-onto tenaciously, and in the face of even colossal quantities of contradicting later information...

Even when those later contradictions come from the exact same official sources that they uncritically believed in the first place!

What I seem to be observing, over the past several years; is that in general most people believe... whatever is currently being pushed by the mainstream media. 

This means that, in most respects, minds are wide-open in both directions: by believing today's narrative, people can easily change, and reverse, their ideas - and believe stark contradictions.  

But there is a large segment of the masses - particularly (I think) among Nice people of many kinds... Among the middle-managerial, public-sector, and professional classes, the young-retired ('boomers'), and women. 

...I mean those who selectively and tenaciously believe... whichever is most spiritually-harmful among the daily-input. 

What I envisage is a mind-set that is passively orientated to evil. 

This is not an active or originative mindset, it lacks evil-intent; but it is instead a mind that implicitly desires to serve evil.  

Such an orientation to evil appears to be unconscious, and would certainly be denied; but by their revealed-preferences it can be seen that such people - who are servile by nature - strive to place their minds and efforts at the disposal of whatever is most evil among the mass of conflicting and fluctuating mainstream ideology. 

My point is that such people (and there are a lot of them!) are not neutral with respect to propaganda. Among the vast avalanche of fake news and dishonest information; such minds display a definite bias towards attending to that 'information' which is most long-term evil in its potential, and once they have absorbed such information - they will not let it go! 

They will selectively grab-and-hold-onto stuff relating to the birdemic-peck, climate, antiracism etc. - in other words the Litmus Test issues, by means of which the global establishment impose their totalitarian agenda. 

Such agendas are internalized - and will then be followed permanently, even in the absence of encouragement, even in the face of discouragement... 

Beyond this, they gravitate towards whatever are likely to be the most destructive policies and theories - those which would (if pursued) destroy whatever is loving, true, beautiful and/or virtuous. 

And they will do this, and continue to do it; even when current official information changes, and contradicts it.    

This mind-set is therefore one of the primary manifestations of evil-affiliation in our time - but, because it operates passively and unconsciously - is usually overlooked, and generally denied. Yet if we understand evil to be a chosen allegiance to the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world; then these bureaucrats of the devil are among the most numerous and dangerous agents of evil in The West today. 

 

Getting beyond embarrassment, and pretentiousness...

It is my impression that many who have communicated their philosophy of life, have been more or less seriously impaired in this work by a kind of embarrassment: a fear of damaging their social status and self esteem because of saying or doing something.

This embarrassment leads to an attitude of guardedness, defensiveness - the embarrassed Man develops a continual self-filtering of communications to try and avoid spontaneously revealing something that might be used against him, or might lead to him being rejected. 

Such embarrassment can blend with attempts to impress others - with pretentiousness; but it can also be found in an almost purely negative form by a sense of inhibition. 

This is so common as to be normal - yet when it comes to the communication of matters of the greatest depth, embarrassment can provide a formidable barrier to generating what ought to be as clear and comprehensible as possible - or else it probably will not be understood.

When I consider some of the influencers and 'mentors' who led to my Romantic Christian perspective; I can see that William Blake was a Man who was free from embarrassment, and who communicated in a spontaneous and bold fashion - apparently without caution against being misunderstood, or mocked.

Another of this ilk was William Arkle; who seems unconcerned about making an impression, who seems unguarded in his attitude - and whose communications appear to flow without going-through a filter of caution. 

A third 'William' of this type, is Bill Ryan of Project Avalon; who is unembarrassed about revealing and discussing his strange experiences with ETs - and many other unusual subjects - without regard for how such comments will strike other people. 

Bill Ryan (although not a Romantic Christian) is helpful in understanding this, because I knew him some forty-seven years ago; and can therefore recognize that his candid spontaneity seems to have been characterological, innate - a gift of nature. Yet a gift he still retains at the age of seventy. 

And I think the same applies to Blake and Arkle - they were 'made this way', from childhood, presumably from birth - yet also they 'stayed this way', throughout the stresses and temptations of their long lives. 

Therefore; the achievement of the Three Williams has the quality of retaining that which was, in origin, a natural confident unguardedness.

There are far more examples of writers whose work is hampered by - greater or lesser - degrees of embarrassment. 

One is CG Jung; who was mostly a confident and bold thinker; but who would (again and again, as he approached his conclusions) back-away-from the direction of his reasoning and the implications of his thinking; exactly as if he had suddenly become embarrassed, and feared the effect of his words. 

For Jung; this negative tendency to take away with one hand what had just been given by the other, was exacerbated by a positive desire to impress people, a pretentiousness. He would back-away from clarity and honesty, partly so as to impress others, and gain the rewards of higher status. 

But embarrassment can impair communication even among those who are wholly lacking in any pretentiousness; such as Owen Barfield. 

By all accounts, and confirmed in his writings, Owen Barfield was a very modest man - although with a great inner strength that was generated by intellectual mastery, deep thought, and inner confidence. 

Yet I find that Barfield's ability to communicate clearly is impaired by what seems like embarrassment - a diffidence at expressing anything that might seem like boasting, a reluctance to speak simply about the deepest matters of his understandings - such as the nature of God, God's nature and purposes. 

Just as Barfield approaches his conclusions, again and again he veers off into defensive abstraction - or excessive brevity - so that his argument is set out with meticulous clarity, but the final 'answer' is ambiguous, unclear, difficult to understand.  

The writer Charles Williams was someone who was remarkably unembarrassed in all social situations - even when mixing with the rich, prestigious, and famous; but also one who pretentiously desired to impress people. 

His life and work were both impaired by this pretentiousness: because it led to a strong element of play-acting, and indeed dishonesty, in his social relationships.

While in Williams's poetry, theology and novels there is a strong element of deliberate obfuscation and obscurity - a striving to appear profound.

Well, we are what we are - at least to begin with; and only a few of us have been blessed with unselfconsciousness. 

But character is a beginning only - and innate disposition can either be corrupted by choices made and habits developed; or it can (to some extent) be overcome by effort and practice. 

For myself; I had an original disposition somewhat the opposite of Owen Barfield and more like that of Charles Williams; in that I did not suffer much from embarrassment (i.e. negatively, I did not much care about how other people might react in a negative sense); but I tended towards pretentiousness - (i.e. I positively wanted to impress people - or, at least, some people). 

This was an obstacle to communication - because anything is an obstacle to communication that interferes with the primary desire to communicate. 

On the one hand, we cannot help the way we are; but on the other hand we are here (in this mortal life) to learn. Part of this is learning about ourselves. 

Often, our strengths are the obverse of weaknesses; but by recognition and striving we can move in the right direction. 

Conversely, by failing to recognize and acknowledge our defects; the modern world has a strong and pervasive tendency to corrupt people, to encourage people to ignore their deficits and instead regard them as strengths. 

Thus (as we sadly observe among family, colleagues, acquaintances and friends), however they start-out, most people get worse.

And these applies even to those who are innately and naturally Good. 

Thus the originally confident and unembarrassed child becomes a self-conscious and peer-group dominated adolescent - and never goes beyond this... 

While the 'show-off' child becomes the pretentious adult; more concerned about the impression created and rewards obtained than making actual achievements.   

These are among the lessons of life that we need to learn - and we can learn them from our own experience, and also by sympathetic yet honest understanding and critique of the lives of others.

Understanding telepathy - a 'clew' to reality?

Most people believe - from personal experience - that telepathy is a real thing, that it can sometimes happen. But not many people think much further about what this might mean. 

Telepathy is therefore an example of the way that our personal experiences interact - or rather, do not interact - with our metaphysical assumptions. 

Belief in telepathy (for modern people) is therefore encapsulated: it is a free-spinning cog, a belief unintegrated-with and separated-from our basic understanding of the world.  

A belief in telepathy therefore does not affect the basic materialism - and disbelief in 'the spiritual' - that is characteristic (indeed mandatory) in public discourse in our Western civilization. 

Unless there is a transformation of our basic (metaphysical) assumptions concerning the nature of reality; telepathy cannot be understood and integrated with life-in-general - even when it is believed. 

Yet, if people started-with their already-existing belief in telepathy; and took it seriously; then honestly, and rigorously followed-through its implications - then the thread might well lead to metaphysical transformation. 

...And the same applies to other 'paranormal' (or 'supernatural') phenomena such as synchronicity, near-death-experiences, seeing ghosts - and the like; all of which seem to be highly prevalent experiences among ordinary people in the modern West. 

Each of these is, potentially, a clew - the loose-end of a thread which, if grasped and followed, could potentially lead to a revolutionary reappraisal of how life is understood. 

With telepathy, following the clew might initially lead to a recognition that one's experience of telepathy was not one of language, not a hearing of words nor a seeing of images; but instead just knowing some-thing. 

While hearing words or seeing visions might at first seem to imply that telepathy worked by some means akin to radio or television transmission; on further consideration - if telepathy works without the senses, this seems to imply something more like a sharing of knowledge - which implies that different people have access to other minds, or to some other common source. 

This seems to suggests that two people may be thinking the same thoughts, simultaneously; and perhaps by some means that does not involve back and forth communication - but through simultaneously accessing an underlying shared-world. 

Since the underlying shared world does not seem to be material - and is not, apparently, detectable or measurable - then it might be recognized as a spiritual world. 

Therefore, such a line of rigorously following-up the experience of telepathy - or some other analogous experience; might lead to telepathy being regarded as a possible manifestation of some common (maybe universal) spiritual reality, that can simultaneously be tuned-into by many people - but which continually exists whether or not it is being tuned-into. 

This 'common spiritual reality' might then form an hypothesis, which could be tested against other past and future personal experiences; to see whether such an understanding cohered with our own life.  

Yet this kind of reasoning very seldom happens; and instead most people believe this, that, and the-other - each as encapsulated assertions - without any attempt to relate them to each-other or to a coherent overview of reality. 

In fact, such encapsulation of beliefs (of all kinds) turns-out to be vital to the continued (albeit short-term) existence of our current - deeply dishonest and corrupted, value-inverted - society. 

Our lives, our actual experiences, are full of clews to a larger, meaningful, coherent and much-better world - if only we weren't so adept at ignoring them!

 

We need a theory-Of-everything - but we don't need a theory For everything

We need a theory-of-everything - but we don't need a theory for everything. 

Yet a Theory For Everything is the implicit demand of mainstream discourse. 

We need a theory of everything; because an understanding that there is a Good and loving personal God, who has purposes that provide the many meanings of this our mortal life...

Because a grasp of this theory-of-everything is what underpins our deep sense of direction and motivation we must have if we are not to become the tools of wicked-affiliated Men and the supernatural powers of evil. 

But we do not need a theory for every little, or big, thing that happens in our lives and in the world today. 

We do not need to know why They do what They do, nor do we need to predict and recognize ever-thing they do, in order to live well. 

We expend far too much effort in striving to find or generate a theory to 'explain' every little thing in our personal lives, or every phenomenon that is reported in The News; every announcement and change imposed by politicians, managers and pundits. 

All this type of discourse is what I am calling the socio-cultural demand for a theory for everything. 

This type of micro-argument, proof and counter-proof, evidence and refutation, hypothesis and anti-hypothesis, weighing and considering etc. constitutes 99.9% of our public discourse and private conversation.

(Plus 99.9% of it is dishonest and misleading - designed to manipulate rather than enlighten.) 

This stuff is not just a waste of time and a displacement of effort; it entails a fundamental loss of that profound, strategic, purposive, consciously-chosen and sensitive direction and mode of living which we absolutely need to make if we are to survive this pervasive public world of evil-intent. 

I do not need to know exactly why They have done or said This, nor do I need to know how exactly the did it, nor do I need to predict what their precise plans will be nor their timescale. 

All these are mere eddies in the river of living - surface disturbances that are real, but trivial in the context of eternity. 

We need only be aware of navigating past the counter-currents of evil, whirlpools to hell, sharp rocks of despair when we encounter them and on the basis of our inner guidance. 

We cannot possibly know the cause or predict the advent of every splash and ripple; and while we are trying to discover and explain them, we will swept over the weir. 

What we Do need; is to be operating from our own inner, divine-connected, creation-harmonious, tidal current - that divinely-sustained way of living which (whatever our short-term trials and errors) makes any river a rising river; and which ensures that we will, sooner or later, be lifted above all possible hazards.

   

God offers nothing less than what is best for us: but we need to think That through, in a context of eternity

I think that most people, including most Christians, short-change themselves in terms of what they hope-for from God. 

Since God is the creator, and regards us each as His most ideally-beloved child, He surely wants for us whatever is Best for us - and 'best' over the timescale of that eternal life which has been made possible by Jesus Christ. 

Therefore, we can measure our aspirations against possibilities by rigorously and honestly attempting a thought experiment - an imaginative fantasy, if you like - in order to understand what kind of life would be the best imaginable over an eternal timescale. 

And do this on the basis that surely God (the loving creator) would, in principle, be able to create some such situation. 

(Whether the imagined situation would be good-for-us, or for others, is a consideration we can leave until later - at first, the experiment is to consider only our personal gratification - but through an everlasting lifespan.) 

The problem and pitfall with this kind of thought experiment is that there is a tendency to look only one step ahead from our current situation, and therefore see no further than a situation that is better than now. 

Eternal life is then seen as nothing more than an 'improvement' on our present life. 

This is easy to do; but such improvement may entail no more than a relief from present suffering, a relief from boredom, or indulgence in some favourite pleasure.

But if we stick to the task, and imagine an eternal timescale, we will soon see that very few such 'improved' situations will satisfy us for very long. 

Once we were used-to a suffering-free existence, or even a used-to static state of blissful well-being; we would surely want to Do something! 

And nearly all of the imaginable pleasures of mortal life (sensual, sensuous etc) lose their enjoyment and eventually become boring upon repetition, especially when that repetition has no end... 

I regard this as a very important, perhaps a vitally important, exercise; as a means of testing whether we really want that which we habitually tell ourselves we want. 

And it is an experiment which each person needs to do for himself. 

Yet, the only near-example I have ever come across of this experiment - and where I got the idea - is William Arkle; firstly in Letter from a Father; and then, more fully, in Equations of Being. In fact, Arkle goes a step beyond what I am suggesting, and takes the stance of God, the Creator, who is trying to design a world that offers the best possible life for his Children (i.e. us). 

Here is the start of the experiment, in Equations of Being: 

We could, for instance, design a scheme, as many of us would, which would be like a continuous, perfect, summer holiday situation. We would all begin our designs with the idea of ease and happiness in mind. We would all find that our schemes did not contain responsibility or difficulty. I think we would find that our plans would take for granted that it was easy to include other people in our perfect world. 

I think we would find that we would make up a perfect and easy world where everyone was like ourselves and where all the things that really mattered to us were simply put into the picture, ready made, as though the reality of them could be programmed into them. All our schemes would contain other people, for none of us would want to be lonely, and all of us would soon begin to realise that other people were an integral part of all that we enjoyed about ourselves. 

We would discover that a sort of mythical ‘deckchair on golden deserted sands’ situation was a trap that we all fell into. A little would be pleasant, but only because it is what we are most short of in our experience of life as it is on Earth. 

Even if we allowed ourselves a companion, or even a family, we would find that there was still a lot wrong. The family who sat about with us would get restless as we would. 

 So we would want to explore a bit, go for a walk, see something new. We may go for a swim. Swimming and short walks, on a perfect beach in perfect weather, with all our loved ones about us; such might be a beginning. But the walks would have to get longer and the swimming would have to include diving. The diving would lead to exploring the seabed and the walks would become voyages of discovery. 

We would wish to feel that the family or friends were on the sands for us to come back to, but we would want to feel free to explore, we would want to feel free to experiment with different sorts of walking and swimming, different combinations of walking, swimming and sitting in the sun. 

We would wish to talk to our companions, we would wish to enjoy their company. We would wish to laugh and have a bit of fun. 

We would wish for them to be real in their own right so that the laughter and fun was real and full of surprise and the unexpected. If we had programmed the other people to be like ourselves we would find it very difficult to keep up the pretence of enjoying their company, their fun and their affection. For pretence it would have to be, since we were really entertaining ourself in other guises.

I hope you can see what Arkle is doing here. He first posits the first step of such a fantasy - which is often something like the deckchair on golden deserted sands situation. For anyone who is currently suffering, this is an improvement.  

Then we might realize that 'other people' would be required; and, at first, we might be tempted to put into place companions who were idealized 'automata' - beautiful friends and lovers who would do only exactly what we wished. 

But, on further consideration, this is revealed as merely a reaction to this mortal life, in which we are often at the mercy of other people who wish to exploit or harm us; and that an eternity of living among obedient 'androids' would be without any interest - since we would be doing no more than try to entertain ourselves. 

Therefore, after several more steps, we might eventually realize that (for us) nothing less than a world with other 'real people' and a life of both solid family love and open-ended creativity and new friendships would suffice.

And we could continue to explore and test such a world, probe its constraints and possibilities; and so the thought experiment might proceed. 

Each individual would have a different first-step or starting point, and a different path through the later options - and maybe (or maybe not) a different final resting point when our idea of 'Heaven' seems to have stabilized and taken some clear and comprehensible form.  

But maybe not - maybe, for Christians, we would find that our ideals converge upon a single kind of 'ideal world' - which could be the real Heaven - and which all Christians might aspire to share. 

At this point we might examine our idea of eternal Heaven; and consider whether this is compatible with the hopes and ideals of our loving creator God for his children. And, if our idea of Heaven does conform to such ideals - how such a situation might be achieved? 

Then, whatever we conclude, we would surely want to seek spiritual guidance about whether or not all this was true. 

We would seek confirmation from our deepest and most sustained intuition; from contact with the Holy Ghost; and from whatever external sources (scriptures, persons etc.) we intuitively regard as most authoritative, understandable, and reliable. 

This is a path of discovery, an individual quest and a spiritual adventure; and if we don't do it for ourselves - it will not be done. 

But if fully achieved; we will have the great advantage of a clear and comprehensible - therefore motivating - understanding of Heaven. 

Looking back, we will then know know if we had-been settling for less - perhaps much less - in our life-aspirations, than God has made it possible to achieve.