The innate sense of "cosmic importance"

Young children have an innate sense of the "cosmic importance" of what they do - and what they think. At such an age, our selves and our minds are part of a larger group. 

We may not be exactly aware of it, and we certainly don't know the exact scope of it (it often seems to include not just people, but other animals, nature, gods, spirits ghosts...), but we know that we are connected. 

This immersion in a group mind is for both good and ill, and is just a fact of life,

There is an in-between phase or stage, in which the inner contact is no longer a spontaneous, direct, quasi-telepathic thing; but instead is sought via symbols, language, image, stories - meand to an end; methods by which people get back (partially, temporarily) that childhood state.    

At this time and place of history; this is mostly or entirely lost. If people do feel connected and part of a large group, then it is not even at secondhand - via symbolic communications. The recent and current addiction to mass and social media is not about symbolic contact with a group mind, but about emotions; excitement, distraction, triggering of feelings. 

The experience is apparently of isolated selves observing a display of phenomena, hoping to be stimulated. 

But not entirely thus. I think there is always a sense of cosmic importance, of connection of "just being" part of something much larger - at back of people's minds, even though not-believed-in, even in these here-and-now conditions. 

Such "cosmic" intuitions are nowadays publicly mocked and pitied as necessarily immature, deluded, wishful, self-aggrandizing, sad, psychotic - in a word anyone who harbours or expresses them is insane. 

And, of course, they may be - especially when somebody tries to persuade and argue others into objectively accepting "his" special importance and significance on a large, even cosmic, scale!

Yet, this typically-modern way of explaining-away anything that might serve as a basis for purpose and meaning in life is altogether typical of our civilization - where is it a core element of the demonic "Project Despair".

This nihilism encompasses the whole of science (when science is taken to be a complete picture of life) as well as the workings of The System, its laws, bureaucracy, media and the rest of it. 

All public and official aspects of modern life are predicated on their being no "cosmic" purpose or meaning in our personal existence.   

The insanity slur is a typical modern value-inversion. 

The opposite is true: 

The reality is that anyone who does Not have a sense of cosmic significance is insane. That is; their thinking is necessarily incoherent. Their behaviour can be of personal and immediate significance merely - adding-up to nothing whatsoever.   

I think we should regard intuitive assumptions of cosmic importance as one of those aspects of innate knowledge that were built-into us by The Creator; to serve as a necessary basis for... everything else. 

What is "reality", and "real life"?

We all agree that this isn't reality - but what is? 

There is a deep confusion as to the nature of reality. 

People are, much of the time, engaged in distinguishing "real life" from something else - whether that be virtual (online) life, the memo-interactions of bureaucracy; or contrasted with media such as novels, movies or TV. 

But the "reality" that is supposed to be contrasted with these un-realities, is unclear. 

For some people reality means politics; whether international, national or local.

Yet politics is very much second-hand; with its facts, concepts and meanings all learned from secondary sources. 

"Political reality" is thus a highly theoretical thing. What's more politics is a miserable, dishonest, manipulative and destructive business. 

So if politics is real life... Well, for most people: "You can keep it!" It has near zero appeal. 

For other people, reality is the social life involving the people around them; with all the expectations and duties, the complications of sex and love for themselves and friends, the activities of their workplace, the functional business of living... These are what they mean by "real life". 

Yet this is - in a different way - a mundane business. It has pleasures and pains in various mixtures, but of-itself, our social life has neither purpose nor meaning. Social living is just something that happens, won't go away, cannot be avoided. 

Social life is also experienced (by most people, most of the time) as earthbound and ephemeral, without depth or resonance - "Just one damned thing after another" - and always ending badly. 

Other examples could be given of the basic, bottom-line unsatisfactoriness of what modern people regard as Real Life. 

My point here is that - as most people actually envisage it - reality is much less appealing, much less enjoyable, than the various forms of unreality on-offer. 

However, it is unsatisfactory to know that one is avoiding reality, and pretending that unreality is real. 

Indeed, this just does not work as a life strategy. We cannot voluntarily become pleasantly-deluded and live by those lies we calculatingly tell-ourselves. 

We cannot just believe what we want, just because it makes us feel better. It doesn't work. So those who try to make the choice of unreality, are caught up by the failure of trying to convince themselves of untruth. 

To live "as if" simply isn't strong enough to make a basis for existence.    

Consequently, when Real Life is hopelessly miserable and unappealing; and when both options of reality and virtuality/ unreality are equally hope-less - then despair seems unavoidable. 

The question of what is real, what is real life - what is really-real... Such matters are vitally important here-and-now - because this is something we really Need To Know. 

It seems paradoxical; but the most "realistic" thing that the archetypical modern Man can do, is to focus his best attention onto "metaphysics". 

That is, we need to make the basic nature of reality into the main subject of our primary effort. 

Like it or not; for us modern Westerners; right living depends on our right thinking. We don't do it; but we need to do it. 

Spiritual effects of World War Two - totalitarianism and dishonesty

Huge subject - but I've been reading memoirs and histories of WWII in the past couple of years, and pondering the spiritual effect this six year conflict had on the British people, especially. 

I have known for a while that WWI was the last time there was a significant Christian revival in the UK, in terms of a great increase in interest in "higher things" as well as full churches and more participation in public activities. 

This is confirmed by comments by CS Lewis and his circle, who noticed the revival and specualted about its meaning and direction. 

But I have become more aware of the negative effects of the war on British spiritual life. The obvious thing was recorded by Orwell - the qualitative acceleration of totalitarian bureaucracy, which is intrinsically evil - by which I mean, the totalitarian systematization and directing of Mankind is evil, and corrupts men; no matter what purpose it is used for. 

As part of this totalitarianism; the war brought a tremendous increase in systemic dishonesty. It seems that - from top to bottom - the attitude became focused on the predicted behavioural effect of statements - to which an understanding of actual reality would routinely (and indeed compulsorily) be subordinated.

   

I suspect that a great deal of the Christian revival was atavistic, backward looking, and attempt to recover an irrecoverable earlier stage of human religious consciousness. 

The revival mostly took the form of a (doomed to fail) attempt to revive the church-rooted ("medieval-premodern) form of top-down and mediated Christianity - and Christian spirituality was linked to this earlier, traditional, social form. 

After the war, the nation moved forward from its totalitarian (hence atheistic) wartime basis; and this was extended by the merger, bureaucratisation, and nationalization of many major industries and social activities. This created a secular public discourse, hence excluded Christianity, and the wartime revival rapidly collapsed. 

It appears that, in this era of human consciousness, war is always totalitarian, therefore innately hostile to the kind of spirituality that is necessary to Christianity. 

The sense of a nation or people in unity, self-sacrificing and cooperating on communal projects, working together for a common cause -- these are no longer net-benefits, but mostly mass psychological manipulations with evil intent behind them. 

I suspect that it would now be mistaken to expect any large scale spiritual benefits from war - which may be why so much high-level geopolitical activity is currently focused an escalating and spreading wars. 

In other words, mass Christianity used to be a benefit of war; but I think that mass Christianity is no longer possible - and the attempt to revive it will instead feed into the evil of totalitarianism. 

Of course, any individual person may choose to take personal spiritual responsibility, and learn spiritually from whatever his situation - including war. 

But modern war is extremely hostile to this situation of "ultimate beingness". 

For proof, we need look no further than the sin of dishonesty - and the extent to which systemic misrepresentation (untruthfulness of all kinds: hype, spin, selectivity, distortion, lies; i.e. a focus on shaping mass behavioural responses to "information") - has become integral to societal functioning. 

Once you become aware of this lethal defect, and begin to look for it; you will find manipulative dishonesty to be pervasive - not just at the political-institutional-corporate level, but almost everywhere and continuous among those who contribute to public discourse (including bloggers!). 

Of course, everyone who is part of the systemic dishonesty will publicly justify himself by claiming that it is in a good cause. But unless he recognizes and repents (privately, at least) the innate evil of dishonesty; then he is lost - spiritually speaking.  

When puppets "fight"

 

We know for sure that all the Western leaders are puppets*.

So when the puppets of the USA "fight" the puppets of European nations, then both puppets are being controlled by the same entity. 

When the puppeteer makes the puppets fight each other, this is because a fight is a necessary part of the plot, part of the driving narrative. 

*I don't know exactly who is the puppeteer-entity, the covert strategic intelligence/s controlling the puppets from outwith the public gaze. 

I don't know, and am not going to waste my time guessing -- because I do know who controls the puppeteer - and that is sufficient. 

"Cannot" end well, or "will not"

When somebody says "it cannot end well" they are usually making a pessimistic prognosis that is probabilistic. They are saying that it is too risky, that the strong likelihood is an adverse outcome. 

But when it is asserted that something will not end well, this relates to the underlying motivation. If the motivations behind a change are bad or wrong, then whatever happens (which may not be predicted) "will not" be good, because whatever happens will be expressive of that wrong motivation.  

That will not end well expressed my interpretation of the past six weeks. Whatever bad outcomes ensue are not probabilistic, but a consequence of being built upon wrong motivations.

 

Comment moderation on this blog - policies and pitfalls

For a blog that is currently (by the apparently wildly unreliable Google feedback) accumulating some 300K views per month (c 10K per day) - I do not receive or publish many comments. 

This is partly because I am not seeking comments - except from those who have something to contribute to the posts. 

I greatly value comments that have read, and engage with, the post - or blog matters more generally; and (almost) all of those I actually publish are ones I either regard as potentially helpful, or at least harmless! 

I'm very grateful for such commenters (they know who they are!), and owe a good deal to some of the matters they have raised and debated over the years.

Indeed; without them I would probably have stopped blogging years ago.   

I neither read nor publish anonymous comments, and I block (filter-to-delete) all comments from those whom I suspect to be trolls or shills (e.g. from people who appear from nowhere, having just opened a pseudonymous Google account, and suddenly submit at least one comment for every post!) 

Nor do I publish comments from people who seem to want to use the blog for confessional psychotherapy; or to "set me right" on matters concerning which they are ignorant - e.g. by informing me of the official orthodox theology of whatever is their church - as if that was a refutation of my views - views that they have not troubled to discover.  

In fact, one of my own nasty little Schadenfreude tendencies; is when I delete Anonymous comments, or block what I have decided are troll-shill commenters! 

I repent this spiteful glee... But not the acts of deleting and blocking, which is necessary work. 

Schadenfreude derangement syndrome

The current orgy of Schadenfreude continues to escalate - energized a few days ago by a staged, acted and broadcast PR pseudo-spat over the Fire Nation war; a news-event which has been uncritically accepted at face value, and thereby ecstatically celebrated, by (apparently) hordes of people; individuals who, just a few weeks ago, expressed deep scepticism over the machinations of mainstream politics and the mass media. 

Yet another Litmus Test massively failed! 

It is becoming clear that the double-negative agenda is alive and well, dominating and sweeping-aside what has thereby been revealed as a shallow, feeble, self-gratifying, and this-worldly Christianity.   

Double-negative values are a hallmark of The Left - which is united only by its opposition to (ultimately) God and divine creation. 

The self-identified political "Right", including advocates of an imaginary and impossible "nationalism", have recently come-out as crypto-leftists - which, indeed, is the inevitable convergence of all primarily this-worldly and double-negative ideals.

In sum: The Right is united only by its rejection of The Left (i.e. particular-labelled individuals and institutions) - such that the only powerful source of Right triumphalism is when their Left-identified enemies appear to be getting humiliated and destroyed. 

(Note: In our world, all is of-the-left - except where religion is put first - and where that religion is motivationally-rooted beyond this world). 

There is a strong lure in religion that seems to combine success and status, power and prestige, pride and self-esteem, progress and historical inevitability, with aspects of real Christianity that is "not of this world". 

The proposed syncresis of this and next-world benefits appears in many guises through history - and dominates much of online Christian discourse; which is the reason behind current ecstasies of virtual Schadenfreude. 

The "prosperity Gospel" is indeed much more widespread than its crudest evangelists: the idea that the path to economic, or sexual, success lies via Christianity is a very popular and influential one online. 

Of course, Christianity must and should be-of-this-world as well as the next: not least because the incarnation and mortal life of Jesus Christ is evidence of this. 

In other words our mortal lives have purpose for as long as they are sustained by God. So a retreat from The World is not even a theoretical option for Christians - we must and should engage. 

But... in a civilization and society so completely built upon materialism and the denial of the spirit; in a world dominated by corrupt, and demonic-allied, institutions; it ought to be perfectly clear and evident that goodness cannot, therefore will not, emanate from, nor be gifted top-down by, those with institutional and official power/ wealth/ social status.  

It ought to be evident that politico-media-events intended to demonstrate the humiliation or destruction of people, organizations, nations - are not going to be evidence of, nor harbingers of, goodness. 

Indeed, the likely reality behind the façade of apparent destruction is not even difficult to discern for those with a bit of accurate knowledge who stand-back from the contrived frenzy - even when these people have no religious basis. 

(In a geopolitical world of puppet leaders; the spectacle of one puppet berating another for the cameras, should be obvious as what it is: a puppet-show.)  

The spiritual war of this world is essentially about "hearts and minds" - and the great aim of the various factions of evil is not to impose physical/material slavery or misery; but to induce individuals to choose to commit themselves (hearts and minds) to one or another of the agendas of evil. 

Evil is only spiritually effective when it has been freely embraced. That is why our enthusiasm, support, and hope; are so assiduously cultivated by The Establishment. 

And that embrace of evil is precisely what we are observing, in real time, on a day-by-day basis. People who were, until recently, apparently Christian; are changing sides; abandoning salvation as their primary goal -- 

And instead they are committing more and more of their support, energies, enthusiasm, efforts (and, worst of all, hopes) on what is at root a negative, destructive, demon-motivated agenda. 

Like Son, unlike Father: King Henry the Eighth, versus Henry the Seventh

Henry VII and VIII - These two portraits express well their differences

It is a sad reflection on the English that Henry VIII continues to get continual attention, and a kind of sneaking admiration, for his (unsurpassed except by except by William I) rapacious brutality in the Dissolution of the Monasteries; together with his "achievement"of having six wives. 

Yet Henry the Eighth left England far weaker, poorer and more internally conflicted than he found the nation. 

By contrast, Henry the Eighth's father, Henry Tudor, was one of the best of English Monarchs, the last King of Merrie England. 

This is not recognized for various reasons. Henry Tudor's character was shrewd and compassionate - he was not "larger than life" like his son. 

Also, English people have forgotten the colossal destructiveness of "the Wars of the Roses", decades of selfish and self-destructive civil war between Lancastrian and Yorkist aristocrats; to which Henry VII put an end. 

As a measure of destructiveness; when the English population was only about 2-3 million, the Roses wars were a terrible drain on the fittest and most productive of the national population. For instance, the Battle of Towton (hardly known by anyone, nowadays) probably killed something like 4% or more of the military-age and physically able men (ie. something like 25,000) in a single horrific day of mutual slaughter.  

But the saddest reflection on our national memory is related to the marriage question. 

While Henry VIII married six times (plus mistresses, and illegitimate children) of which he killed two, and "divorced" (technically had-annulled) another two - in contrast, his father Henry Tudor had what has been described as perhaps the most genuinely loving Royal Marriage in English history. 

This, despite that the marriage was originally a "political" alliance between the houses of Lancaster (Henry) and York (his wife Elizabeth). 

Henry seems, indeed, to have been that most unusual thing among monarchs - a loving husband and father. The husband and wife were devastated by the premature death of his first son and heir Arthur, Prince of Wales at age 15; and then Henry was even more affected by the death of his wife - after which he was never the same again. 

Nonetheless, and despite the fault of a somewhat miserly greed in his final widowed years; Henry VII left England a stronger, richer, more peaceful, unified and powerful nation; and the English monarch probably the most secure and dominant leader in Europe. 

Most of which achievement (except domestic power) his son then exploited and dissipated for personal gratification - with adverse consequences that extended for several generations.   

If nations usually get the monarchs they deserve; then the relative English reputations of these two Henrys may partly explain how this happens. 

Are explanations really necessary? Must we personally seek understanding?

It's often been recommended that we should cease to seek explanations (which are, anyway, always wrong by ultimate standards); and should instead just accept what is. 

It is said: We should acknowledge that we cannot know, and strop striving for something unattainable, and very probably misleading. 

Indeed, it is often asserted, that searching for explanations is just a waste of time, because it will fail to find anything with which we can be contented.

Sooner or later; we will give-up the quest - so why not do it sooner?  

Another way of saying the same thing is that it is the activity and process of seeking which justifies the exercise. For instance, this is a common New Age-y suggestion - the ideal of being be a perpetual "spiritual seeker". However, on examination this advice reduces to meaning that seeking explanations - discovering, trying-out, then dropping one after the other -  is justified merely because it passes the time before death fairly-pleasantly, and relatively-harmlessly. It reduces spirituality from a matter of primary human concern, to the level of a hobby.  

Even since I became a Christian; I have often tried to stop myself seeking explanations; tried to be contented with some kind of simple faith. 

I have tried this with more than one Christian denomination/church. Tried to stop myself questioning and trying to understand - on the basis that such activity was futile at best, destructive of faith at worst - because it never seemed to reach an end point. 

Yet - especially - the events of 2020 hammered-home why - in a world such as that we inhabit; which is a world where public discourse is near-monopolistically dominated by evil-affiliated powers - the seeking of explanations and personal understanding is now almost essential for Christians --- if Christians are not to be led away from salvation and into voluntarily embracing damnation. 

I have noticed again and again that the attempt (here and now I mean - and I note that it was not always and everywhere thus) to be "content without explanations", to seek to "rest upon "the mystery" of existence", are attitudes that have long-since been weaponised as a tool of Satan. 

It seems to be a psycho-social fact that the only matters upon which people Actually Do cease to seek understanding, and are contented without explanation, on which they rest-comfortably as if upon the ultimate mysteriousness of existence... 

In practice, the only much matters are those where knowledge/ ideas/theories/facts are supported by the civilizational, media, official, bureaucratic, institutional consensus. 

In practice, therefore; the advice to cease seeking personal understanding is equivalent to recommending that we live in accordance with the dominant social consensus. 

There are many theoretical possibilities for conducting our spiritual lives, but in practice it seems that the only alternative to accepting social consensus, is personally to keep seeking understanding and a satisfactory explanation. 

So, I would remind myself - and suggest to others - that in the situation of a Modern Man of 2025 it is a snare to cease striving for understanding.

And that we ought instead to discover for ourselves, and to our personal satisfaction, explanations for every aspect of existence that we regard as important. 

Of course (as always) such a search must strive to be completely honest, and must Christianly-motivated; because if we seek (whether consciously or unconsciously) any this-worldly and hedonic outcome such as comfort or convenience, therapy or thrills - then our "explanations" will be expedient merely, and we shall not achieve solid understanding. 

The only real alternative to a personal quest for explaining and understanding the essentials of our faith; is to accept spiritually lethal rule by consensus external values -- which is embrace the side of damnation in the spiritual war of this world. 

*

(Note added: The relationship between understanding and explanation is synergistic. We must first understand, then try to explain - primarily to our-selves, and to our own satisfaction. Difficulties with explaining may reveal lack of understanding; or the attempt to be clear in our explanation may reveal problems with that understanding. Therefore explanation is a check, a test; and one that may lead back to searching for better understanding.) 

For the record: I Was Wrong, with my recent geopolitical prediction

Just to note that my recent geopolitical prediction that there would, before March, be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - was wrong.