It seems possible that what we are currently witnessing - i.e. passivity, submission and indeed active support-of (in the extreme actual infatuation-with) those who entrap and terrorise us - may be conceptualised as an evolved response to extreme and inescapable fear; in other words, the world has been swept by a mass version of Stockholm Syndrome.
The plausible evolutionary basis of Stockholm Syndrome has been well described by Chris Cantor - I used to use his work in my university teaching. Here are excerpts from a popular account:
Captors cleverly cultivate psychologically hostile environments involving total domination, so as to massively dis-empower victims. Ambiguous and confusing threats will be involved which contribute to the unpredictability of the experience, unpredictability being one of the most potent inducers of chronic anxiety.
The psychology of the predicament emerges from a combination of sensory deprivation, usually induced through blindfolding and isolation, disgusting conditions, physical abuse, death threats, powerlessness, dehumanization, general humiliation and the need to avoid the further anger of captors.
Cantor and Price argue ... that we switch into appeasement as a survival mechanism when held in captivity. They suggest that this basic response may be hardwired into our brains and therefore could possibly be even beyond our control, so victims should not be condemned for exhibiting this response.
Appeasement comprises pacification, conciliation and submission. Appeasement serves a de-escalating function in dangerous situations, subordinates using appeasement suspend efforts to win conflicts, thereby decreasing the often fatal costs of losing.
After being attacked, monkeys and apes tend to turn to the attacker for comfort and safety, which is referred to as 'reverted escape', because after fleeing from the attack the attacked animal returns, or reverts, to the attacker, rather than turning to another member of the group for succour. Appeasement appears widespread in the animal kingdom
Submission is so widespread as a strategy that it probably promotes survival, so the transmission of genes for appeasement now makes evolutionary sense.
Another dimension of the peculiar psychology of slavery is that in a closed environment in which a hostage lives, there may be only dominant oppressors to turn to for comfort - a kind of reverted escape as seen in the animal kingdom. Under stress we are genetically designed to seek bonding and affiliation with others for comfort and protection.
(It is also relevant that Stockholm Syndrome is more common and severe in women - since women - on average - have a significantly lower threshold of fear and are considerably more sensitive to fear threats.)
The above description has considerable similarities with our current situation. It is perfectly possible that the recent combination of fear, physical confinement and social isolation have been calculatedly and systematically deployed (with unpredictable, ambiguous and confusing threats) to create... Exactly what we now observe, on a global scale.
And such a strategy would be expected to be far more effective where there was no possibility of existential escape - in other words where death was regarded as a final annihilation; such that there may be a subjective belief that the choice is support and appeasement or... nothingness.
The bad news is that "traumatic entrapment produces possibly the most difficult to treat form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as it involves a deeper shame in victims, blaming themselves for what happened."
Better news is that "once victims understand the appeasement reaction, they can begin better to understand psychologically what really happened, and recover from the shame."
However, against this is that it is notoriously difficult to get people to admit that they have been manipulated, conned and fooled; as is obvious from the immunity to experience and indifference to evidence of nearly all modern people - especially 'intellectuals'.
Nonetheless, our main spiritual task in the birdemic is understanding, as a preparation for valid discernment; and I think the Stockholm Syndrome concept adds to that.
Wednesday, 20 May 2020
Death as an end, or death as transformation?
Perhaps a major element of the challenge of the birdemic is related to the fact that it has focused minds on the subject of death; and this compels people to think (perhaps for the first time) about the nature of death.
There seem to be only two possible views: either death is an end, and the moment of death is an annihilation - or death is a transformation, and the moment of death is one of transition of the self to some other state.
Death as the end is by far the commonest belief in the The West, and the official doctrine. If this is true, the dead are gone - and there can be no connection with the dead ever again.
No more need be said of death as the end, except that it is always an intrinsically undesirable state - not least because it is irreversible; nonetheless, death may be sought as a way to end present suffering and/or the prospect of suffering stretching ahead.
Death as a transformation is by far the commonest belief in the world as a whole - and there is a great deal of disagreement about the nature of this transformation - also a great deal of difference in the confidence with which this belief is held.
Confidence in the reality of death as transformation depends partly on the existence and degree of contact between living and dead. In some societies, the dead are present to some degree - ranging from the dead (spirits) as an everyday reality; to rare contact, perhaps as a consequence of special ritual or technology.
Furthermore, the expectation of the nature of the death-transformed state of being dead ranges from the most positive extreme of Heaven (of varying descriptions); through paradise; a neutral state of non-conscious, 'mere being'; or to types of misery and suffering.
Another aspect concerns our degree of control over the transformation of death - the extent to which it is a choice compared with the extent to which it is imposed upon us.
It may be that this time is, therefore, the dawn of an era in which death becomes an unavoidable centre of cultural concern. Of course, it may be an unconscious (implicit) cultural concern; when, as now, it is simply assumed that death is the end. Nonetheless, the consequences cannot be avoided, and this assumption has (with extraordinary rapidity) ramified to affect every aspect of society and everyday life.
But if we do Not want passivley to go-along-with this prevalent and dominant assumption; we have no alternative but to make death the subject of active and conscious personal consideration - in a way that has not happened for several generations.
Note: For example, and to get to specifics: My understanding is that the Christian Hell is a choice (that is, a preference - including the rejection of Heaven); whereas for many Christians, everybody wants Heaven and Hell is an imposed punishment.) This leads to a further aspect of control - some Christians believe (mostly implicitly) that Heaven is something that happens-to them; the transformation of the soul to Heaven is a matter of being acted-upon; entirely a matter of being done For us by Jesus Christ. Whereas I see Heaven as something that is primarily done for us by Jesus, but that secondarily we must personally and actively do ourselves: that Jesus leads, and we must follow. My point is not that You ought-to have the same attitude to death as I do, but that you need as a matter of urgency to sort-out what attitude you do have - unless you are contented to live in a world structured according to the implications that death is annihilation.
There seem to be only two possible views: either death is an end, and the moment of death is an annihilation - or death is a transformation, and the moment of death is one of transition of the self to some other state.
Death as the end is by far the commonest belief in the The West, and the official doctrine. If this is true, the dead are gone - and there can be no connection with the dead ever again.
No more need be said of death as the end, except that it is always an intrinsically undesirable state - not least because it is irreversible; nonetheless, death may be sought as a way to end present suffering and/or the prospect of suffering stretching ahead.
Death as a transformation is by far the commonest belief in the world as a whole - and there is a great deal of disagreement about the nature of this transformation - also a great deal of difference in the confidence with which this belief is held.
Confidence in the reality of death as transformation depends partly on the existence and degree of contact between living and dead. In some societies, the dead are present to some degree - ranging from the dead (spirits) as an everyday reality; to rare contact, perhaps as a consequence of special ritual or technology.
Furthermore, the expectation of the nature of the death-transformed state of being dead ranges from the most positive extreme of Heaven (of varying descriptions); through paradise; a neutral state of non-conscious, 'mere being'; or to types of misery and suffering.
Another aspect concerns our degree of control over the transformation of death - the extent to which it is a choice compared with the extent to which it is imposed upon us.
It may be that this time is, therefore, the dawn of an era in which death becomes an unavoidable centre of cultural concern. Of course, it may be an unconscious (implicit) cultural concern; when, as now, it is simply assumed that death is the end. Nonetheless, the consequences cannot be avoided, and this assumption has (with extraordinary rapidity) ramified to affect every aspect of society and everyday life.
But if we do Not want passivley to go-along-with this prevalent and dominant assumption; we have no alternative but to make death the subject of active and conscious personal consideration - in a way that has not happened for several generations.
Note: For example, and to get to specifics: My understanding is that the Christian Hell is a choice (that is, a preference - including the rejection of Heaven); whereas for many Christians, everybody wants Heaven and Hell is an imposed punishment.) This leads to a further aspect of control - some Christians believe (mostly implicitly) that Heaven is something that happens-to them; the transformation of the soul to Heaven is a matter of being acted-upon; entirely a matter of being done For us by Jesus Christ. Whereas I see Heaven as something that is primarily done for us by Jesus, but that secondarily we must personally and actively do ourselves: that Jesus leads, and we must follow. My point is not that You ought-to have the same attitude to death as I do, but that you need as a matter of urgency to sort-out what attitude you do have - unless you are contented to live in a world structured according to the implications that death is annihilation.
Tuesday, 19 May 2020
An update on the Jesus Prayer
I first wrote about the Jesus Prayer some ten years ago; on the one hand, I have continued to say it; on the other hand my usage is very different.
The (usual) Jesus prayer is repetition of a prayer consisting of, at the briefest, the word Jesus - up to various lengths of the phrase: Lord Jesus Christ/ Son of God/ Have mercy on me/ A sinner.
For a while, my practice was to say this prayer as much as I could, whenever I remembered. I did not find this valuable, and stopped.
Nowadays, I use it when I am mentally blocked, my head is 'full', I cannot concentrate, I am in a depression, utterly uncreative, unmotivated, dissipated...
In sum, I say the Jesus Prayer when I am driven to it, and cannot do anything else.
What happens is that I repeat and repeat the prayers, and then suddenly I get a spiritual impression (but not in words) distinctly along the lines of:
Okay, okay! I hear you. No need to shout! Please Stop.
(I stop.)
Now... (kindly and - as it were - quietly) What is it? How can I help?
And at that point I can engage in a proper, properly respectful, usually brief, personal 'dialogue' with Jesus/ the Holy Ghost (but not in words).
So, the Jesus Prayer has become a last resort; but remains valuable, as such.
The (usual) Jesus prayer is repetition of a prayer consisting of, at the briefest, the word Jesus - up to various lengths of the phrase: Lord Jesus Christ/ Son of God/ Have mercy on me/ A sinner.
For a while, my practice was to say this prayer as much as I could, whenever I remembered. I did not find this valuable, and stopped.
Nowadays, I use it when I am mentally blocked, my head is 'full', I cannot concentrate, I am in a depression, utterly uncreative, unmotivated, dissipated...
In sum, I say the Jesus Prayer when I am driven to it, and cannot do anything else.
What happens is that I repeat and repeat the prayers, and then suddenly I get a spiritual impression (but not in words) distinctly along the lines of:
Okay, okay! I hear you. No need to shout! Please Stop.
(I stop.)
Now... (kindly and - as it were - quietly) What is it? How can I help?
And at that point I can engage in a proper, properly respectful, usually brief, personal 'dialogue' with Jesus/ the Holy Ghost (but not in words).
So, the Jesus Prayer has become a last resort; but remains valuable, as such.
Monday, 18 May 2020
Looking-back from generations hence: A tribal elder speaks on the self-immolation of evil
[The scene is some generations in the future, the Elder of a clan - speaking to his gathered people - describes the extraordinary deep history of the earth; as it has been pieced-together and assembled by the wise, the bards, and the scholars.]
It will be hard for you to believe that there was once ten-times-ten alive for every Man today. What happened to them all, you are wondering?
Well, it is a sad but beautiful story.
Once upon a time the world was full of wickedness. Not just Men who had wickedness in them, like us; not just the rare bad Men whom we exile or kill; but a whole world where nearly everybody hated God, hated goodness, and celebrated that their life and this world was futile and meaningless.
But of course, Men cannot live this way. At first they became frenzied, then sad, then they despaired.
Underneath everything they spoke, they began to loathe and despise themselves; and they knew - with the last little bit of Good in their hearts - that they themselves should be eliminated.
The realisation spread over the world like a wave, like an avalanche... The decision was sudden, and almost everybody agreed.
Suddenly, everywhere, at the same time: almost everyone Just Stopped.
They stopped doing almost everything! They mostly stayed at home; but when they went-out they shunned each other - even their own family and closest friends.
You will find this the hardest to believe: they stopped seeking husbands and wives. They stopped even trying to have children and sustain families. They even ceased from their wicked sexual depravities of which I will not speak.
And, as they no doubt intended, deep in their hearts; their whole world collapsed.
Vast structures that we cannot imagine collapsed - great groupings of Men growing and making, carrying and sharing, trading and travelling... Suddenly they ceased to share pictures, plays, music and conversation. They did not dance together!
They gave-up constructiong, repairing, inventing. All of it.
And soon a whole world of Men came to an end; like a wave, like an avanlache...
We do not know how the Men reacted to what their hearts had done to them. Perhaps they were very afraid?
Perhaps they even changed their minds and at the last moment tried to save themselves?
But it was too late.
Not quite all of them died - because our great grand ancestors lived-on to make our world of clans and tribes.
Our scholars say that the the world of Men quietly accepted what was necessary and best, and quietly they expired.
Ten-times-ten for each one of us...
They were terrible, our great grand ancestors; very powerful, makers of vast and intricate things: some beautiful, most horrible.
They were very wicked indeed - but not completely wicked.
Deep, deep down inside, buried unders their sins and their despair - in their secret souls God lived. God told them the truth, God shaped their sleeping and their hidden will...
So they made their own ends; and they did so before the whole world was fully and finally damned.
And for that we are grateful.
It will be hard for you to believe that there was once ten-times-ten alive for every Man today. What happened to them all, you are wondering?
Well, it is a sad but beautiful story.
Once upon a time the world was full of wickedness. Not just Men who had wickedness in them, like us; not just the rare bad Men whom we exile or kill; but a whole world where nearly everybody hated God, hated goodness, and celebrated that their life and this world was futile and meaningless.
But of course, Men cannot live this way. At first they became frenzied, then sad, then they despaired.
Underneath everything they spoke, they began to loathe and despise themselves; and they knew - with the last little bit of Good in their hearts - that they themselves should be eliminated.
The realisation spread over the world like a wave, like an avalanche... The decision was sudden, and almost everybody agreed.
Suddenly, everywhere, at the same time: almost everyone Just Stopped.
They stopped doing almost everything! They mostly stayed at home; but when they went-out they shunned each other - even their own family and closest friends.
You will find this the hardest to believe: they stopped seeking husbands and wives. They stopped even trying to have children and sustain families. They even ceased from their wicked sexual depravities of which I will not speak.
And, as they no doubt intended, deep in their hearts; their whole world collapsed.
Vast structures that we cannot imagine collapsed - great groupings of Men growing and making, carrying and sharing, trading and travelling... Suddenly they ceased to share pictures, plays, music and conversation. They did not dance together!
They gave-up constructiong, repairing, inventing. All of it.
And soon a whole world of Men came to an end; like a wave, like an avanlache...
We do not know how the Men reacted to what their hearts had done to them. Perhaps they were very afraid?
Perhaps they even changed their minds and at the last moment tried to save themselves?
But it was too late.
Not quite all of them died - because our great grand ancestors lived-on to make our world of clans and tribes.
Our scholars say that the the world of Men quietly accepted what was necessary and best, and quietly they expired.
Ten-times-ten for each one of us...
They were terrible, our great grand ancestors; very powerful, makers of vast and intricate things: some beautiful, most horrible.
They were very wicked indeed - but not completely wicked.
Deep, deep down inside, buried unders their sins and their despair - in their secret souls God lived. God told them the truth, God shaped their sleeping and their hidden will...
So they made their own ends; and they did so before the whole world was fully and finally damned.
And for that we are grateful.
Who fights the spiritual war? What are they fighting over?
Jesus brought life eternal in Heaven for those who want it. That's what needs to be communicated.
If we can understand that, if we want that gift, recognise that we want it, decide to accept that gift - then the rest follows, sooner or later, one way or the other.
(Thanks to the Holy Ghost - the spirit of Jesus Christ - our guide and comforter; all this is available to anybody at any time, for the asking - sooner or later.)
The spiritual war is between those who want what Jesus offers; and those who reject it.
The battles in spiritual war are fought over the undecided souls, the waverers, the drifters, the sleepwalkers, those who Love but whose love is misdirected.
(The undecided souls' personal battles are to understand, to know, to decide, to commit.)
Those who are incapable of love are self-doomed, they are the demons and the servants of demons - they are the other side, but the battles are not 'about' them.
To try and evangelise demons is misplaced effort that might save others. We should be battling them, not arguing with them.
(Of course we may be mistaken that some specific person is demonic in desire. But we must discern, judge and act on that judgment - to the best of our ability. Once one is personally sure - by clear intuition confirmed by the Holy Ghost - then such persons become The Enemy; they are not the subject over-which we struggle.)
If we can understand that, if we want that gift, recognise that we want it, decide to accept that gift - then the rest follows, sooner or later, one way or the other.
(Thanks to the Holy Ghost - the spirit of Jesus Christ - our guide and comforter; all this is available to anybody at any time, for the asking - sooner or later.)
The spiritual war is between those who want what Jesus offers; and those who reject it.
The battles in spiritual war are fought over the undecided souls, the waverers, the drifters, the sleepwalkers, those who Love but whose love is misdirected.
(The undecided souls' personal battles are to understand, to know, to decide, to commit.)
Those who are incapable of love are self-doomed, they are the demons and the servants of demons - they are the other side, but the battles are not 'about' them.
To try and evangelise demons is misplaced effort that might save others. We should be battling them, not arguing with them.
(Of course we may be mistaken that some specific person is demonic in desire. But we must discern, judge and act on that judgment - to the best of our ability. Once one is personally sure - by clear intuition confirmed by the Holy Ghost - then such persons become The Enemy; they are not the subject over-which we struggle.)
Sunday, 17 May 2020
An image of impending dehumanization - from Amo Boden
The above literal nightmare image of contemporary British life comes from Amo Boden; whose (Owen Barfield/ Rudolf Steiner influenced) 'Brief Outlines' blog and video channel are always worth a visit.
The above image apparently came to him in the early hours of the morning; and seems to reflect an earlier blog post where he wrote (emphasis added):
Our society views the human being in the image of the machine. Perhaps that is why so many have accepted the lock-down without much fuss. To such a view-point, locking-down the entire world until the virus burns itself out is an obvious solution. In fact, if it saves lives this is the only moral thing to do.
Now a machine can be isolated from other machines and put on stand-by indefinitely, and then re-booted again to operate just as normal, as if nothing had happened. A human being, however, cannot. And we are about to witness the consequences of assuming otherwise.
For the reality is that we are not machines, and to someone who sees that civilisation is fundamentally held together, not by the machinery of bureaucratic rules and armies of police forces, but by real-world relationships between individual people, all supported by a myriad of common customs, traditions and mutual agreements, will see in concepts such as social distancing and the indefinite suspension of the right to assembly something far more sinister than anything a virus could cause.
An Eastern Orthodox monk writes beautiful and wise words on a proper attitude to the birdemic
This is well worth a look (H/T commenter Joseph A); inspiring in its clarity and en-couraging about a properly spiritual attitude to the birdemic specifically - and worldly crises in general - coming from the contemplative, monastic Orthodox perspective.
Excerpt:
Ever since the Lord performed the Mystical Supper and handed down the most holy mystery of the Divine Eucharist, the world-saving Divine Liturgy has not ceased to be celebrated to this day.
Neither Diocletian, nor the Turks, nor the communists in Russia, nor the Germans during the years of the occupation managed to stop the Divine Liturgy and the faithful from approaching Holy Communion. And now, with the fear of the virus, the churches have closed down and the faithful are deprived of the saving grace of the mysteries, of which they have so great a need.
On the contrary, while everyone here [in Greece] remains fearfully silent, in the Orthodox Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Georgia divine worship continues unhindered, the churches are open, Divine Liturgy is celebrated, and the faithful are not afraid of being affected by the virus.
The protective measures employed by the present government are unconstitutional, unbearable, extreme, and unfair to the Greek Orthodox, while they have also created an atmosphere of terrorism, which the media aggravate.
Yes, the virus exists and we must protect our health and the health of those around us. Fear, however, must vanish, because when man is in a state of fear he cannot think and act rationally and discreetly.
Excerpt:
Ever since the Lord performed the Mystical Supper and handed down the most holy mystery of the Divine Eucharist, the world-saving Divine Liturgy has not ceased to be celebrated to this day.
Neither Diocletian, nor the Turks, nor the communists in Russia, nor the Germans during the years of the occupation managed to stop the Divine Liturgy and the faithful from approaching Holy Communion. And now, with the fear of the virus, the churches have closed down and the faithful are deprived of the saving grace of the mysteries, of which they have so great a need.
On the contrary, while everyone here [in Greece] remains fearfully silent, in the Orthodox Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Georgia divine worship continues unhindered, the churches are open, Divine Liturgy is celebrated, and the faithful are not afraid of being affected by the virus.
The protective measures employed by the present government are unconstitutional, unbearable, extreme, and unfair to the Greek Orthodox, while they have also created an atmosphere of terrorism, which the media aggravate.
Yes, the virus exists and we must protect our health and the health of those around us. Fear, however, must vanish, because when man is in a state of fear he cannot think and act rationally and discreetly.
Fear of hell is a useless method of evangelism for Romantic Christians
Fear of hell is nowadays a useless method of evangelism for many reasons; one of which is that we already (here, now) live in a time of fear unprecedented since the 20th century world wars; and in important ways a fear greater than then, because unjustified; and without courage or hope of betterment.
But more deeply fear is useless; because I understand hell to be essentially self-chosen; therefore it is not feared by modern people.
So, to threaten modern people with hell is to threaten them with what they want.
This is a consequence of the extremity of modern corruption; as evident in widespread and officially sanction-implemented value inversion. This, because the cutting edge of modern 'morality' is an inversion of Christian values.
Now, hell is something desired...
Or if not actively desired, then at least regarded as preferable to Christian Heaven that excludes transgressive pleasures.
To the depraved modern sensibility; Heaven seems vulgar, sentimental and boring (especially when contrasted with the dark fascinations of the sexual euphoria promised by modernity - and with the consumerist fascinations, distractions, novelties and safe-adventures of virtual reality).
So fear is not an effective tool of Christian evangelism; on the contrary - hell is a thing wished-for, not a place of terror.
If not avoidance of the feared; what then should Christian evangelists do? What could we offer instead (honestly, truthfully)?
The answer is: alternative and superior good.
Modern Man needs to be inspired by a more-desirable actuality and prospect.
An example is Alcoholism and the sometimes-successful strategy of Alcoholics Anonymous.
To begin with, the addict wants nothing more than the drug - as much and as often as possible - a reliable supply.
It is only when the Alcoholic has had his life and happiness destroyed by the drug; and has been brought low - to the very bottom - that he will consider anything else.
And at that point (looking up 'from the depths' - de profundis); AA offers the vision of a creator God, a loving divine being, hope beyond the world; sustained by frequent and supportive fellowship (a 'church', in effect; with many meetings).
But this can happen only when alcohol is explicitly recognised and acknowledged to be the root of the problem ("I am an alcoholic"), and is repented and repudiated.
Modernity will need (typically, overall) to follow a similar trajectory; and at that point Romantic Christians needs to be ready to speak of the better hope we can offer.
But more deeply fear is useless; because I understand hell to be essentially self-chosen; therefore it is not feared by modern people.
So, to threaten modern people with hell is to threaten them with what they want.
This is a consequence of the extremity of modern corruption; as evident in widespread and officially sanction-implemented value inversion. This, because the cutting edge of modern 'morality' is an inversion of Christian values.
Now, hell is something desired...
Or if not actively desired, then at least regarded as preferable to Christian Heaven that excludes transgressive pleasures.
To the depraved modern sensibility; Heaven seems vulgar, sentimental and boring (especially when contrasted with the dark fascinations of the sexual euphoria promised by modernity - and with the consumerist fascinations, distractions, novelties and safe-adventures of virtual reality).
So fear is not an effective tool of Christian evangelism; on the contrary - hell is a thing wished-for, not a place of terror.
If not avoidance of the feared; what then should Christian evangelists do? What could we offer instead (honestly, truthfully)?
The answer is: alternative and superior good.
Modern Man needs to be inspired by a more-desirable actuality and prospect.
An example is Alcoholism and the sometimes-successful strategy of Alcoholics Anonymous.
To begin with, the addict wants nothing more than the drug - as much and as often as possible - a reliable supply.
It is only when the Alcoholic has had his life and happiness destroyed by the drug; and has been brought low - to the very bottom - that he will consider anything else.
And at that point (looking up 'from the depths' - de profundis); AA offers the vision of a creator God, a loving divine being, hope beyond the world; sustained by frequent and supportive fellowship (a 'church', in effect; with many meetings).
But this can happen only when alcohol is explicitly recognised and acknowledged to be the root of the problem ("I am an alcoholic"), and is repented and repudiated.
Modernity will need (typically, overall) to follow a similar trajectory; and at that point Romantic Christians needs to be ready to speak of the better hope we can offer.
Saturday, 16 May 2020
Where should we look-for God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Ghost?
My belief is that we find God the Father in creation - in the continuous-process of creation.
Jesus Christ is present in our mortal lives, everywhere and at all times as the Holy Ghost.
If we seek 'evidence' for God the Father, we should regard creation. We may (albeit intermittently and briefly) apprehend dynamic, poetic creating - living Beings all around, conscious, purposive. This may be seen, heart, felt and known; not abstractly but as living experience.
Evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ comes when we experience the presence of the Holy Ghost, here-and-now, and all around us. This is confirmed when we need and receive guidance, encouragement and comfort; as a result of communicating in 'telepathic' thought, from shared thinking, direct knowing.
It would seem fitting that we would turn to our Father (with complete trust, knowing his love for us) when creation is concerned; the shaping of the world, incidents and actions (including miracles).
The Holy Ghost is more like an elder brother, protector, mentor, teacher, philosopher, wise advisor...
Jesus Christ is present in our mortal lives, everywhere and at all times as the Holy Ghost.
If we seek 'evidence' for God the Father, we should regard creation. We may (albeit intermittently and briefly) apprehend dynamic, poetic creating - living Beings all around, conscious, purposive. This may be seen, heart, felt and known; not abstractly but as living experience.
Evidence for the reality of Jesus Christ comes when we experience the presence of the Holy Ghost, here-and-now, and all around us. This is confirmed when we need and receive guidance, encouragement and comfort; as a result of communicating in 'telepathic' thought, from shared thinking, direct knowing.
It would seem fitting that we would turn to our Father (with complete trust, knowing his love for us) when creation is concerned; the shaping of the world, incidents and actions (including miracles).
The Holy Ghost is more like an elder brother, protector, mentor, teacher, philosopher, wise advisor...
The West failed the 2016 test: made its choice, and is getting what it asked-for
At the end of that year, I wrote a post called: 2016 - the year of ridiculous optimism. This built on the fact that around 2011, David Icke predicted that 2016 would be the crucial year, the beginning of a period of about three years when it would (at considerable cost and sacrifice) be possible for the world to turn back from the path of materialism, control and coercion being planned by the (demonically-motivated) Global Establishment.
2016 was indeed a crucial year on a world scale; and the first such since 1967. 1967 was when the New Left agenda began to dominate, and when the sixties cultural revolution began to shed its positive and optimistic possibilities; to turn towards corruption, top-down manipulation and bureaucracy.
But for some years following, the issue stood in balance; and there were some hopeful counter-developments - such as the 'distributist' self-sufficiency movement - with its yearning for a smaller scale, folkish and crafts-based, more human society.
2016 was the beginning of another, but lesser, period of possibility. In that year there emerged an increased clarity of vision, so that some people began to see what has happened to the Western societies, and what was intended for them. There was a chance to say No; and to take another path.
The nature of that alternative path was unclear even in outline. My understanding was (and is) that it was a path initially of spiritual awakening, specifically Christian awakening - and more specifically of Romantic Christianity.
Through the second part of 2016 I had (uncharacteristically!) intermittent intuitions of 'ridiculous optimism'; because it seemed that quite a mass of people, perhaps a majority, had reached the point of recognising the malign intention of the ruling elites towards them and their nations.
But following on; there was a strong, swiftly growing, backlash and counter-attack from the Establishment and its organs of government, education, law and the mass media; but at first this 'anti-populist' onslaught brought the repression out into the open and made it less easily deniable. There was a chance, it seemed, that the backlash might feed the movement it is intended to crush.
2017 and on was therefore a period of moral testing for The West. Pressure was increasing, so the period was limited.
There was (I believe) a chance to escape certain doom and take another path. But the different path would entail accepting - upfront - a considerable personal sacrifice in terms of material goods, comfort, convenience, etc.
The moral test was whether people were prepared to pay the necessary costs now, for the chance of a better future. The failure of this test would be when - by clinging to their addictions and distractions, by privileging the short-term - the masses would tacitly embrace the down-slide into despair, self-hatred and chosen damnation.
I concluded: "If we fail the test, as a culture, then we will (as a population) have no serious cause for complaint about what happens after."
Well, The West failed 'the test of 2017' and onwards, and seems - indeed - to have made little complaint about what has happened since... I mean the international totalitarian takeover, the near-universal curfew, state prohibition of most human activities, regulation of the permitted behaviours, and abolition of nearly all human contact, etc. Indeed, many of the masses insistently demand more of the same treatment.
So, it looks like people did reach a point of decision after 2016; and decided then that the Global Establishment was, after all, the preferred option; decided that The System was a benign force, working for human good; and that They should be trusted to do what was necessary and best for the mass of people.
And that is how the events of the past few months have been interpreted. People have rejected spirituality and Christianity; and are now getting what they then chose.
2016 was indeed a crucial year on a world scale; and the first such since 1967. 1967 was when the New Left agenda began to dominate, and when the sixties cultural revolution began to shed its positive and optimistic possibilities; to turn towards corruption, top-down manipulation and bureaucracy.
But for some years following, the issue stood in balance; and there were some hopeful counter-developments - such as the 'distributist' self-sufficiency movement - with its yearning for a smaller scale, folkish and crafts-based, more human society.
2016 was the beginning of another, but lesser, period of possibility. In that year there emerged an increased clarity of vision, so that some people began to see what has happened to the Western societies, and what was intended for them. There was a chance to say No; and to take another path.
The nature of that alternative path was unclear even in outline. My understanding was (and is) that it was a path initially of spiritual awakening, specifically Christian awakening - and more specifically of Romantic Christianity.
Through the second part of 2016 I had (uncharacteristically!) intermittent intuitions of 'ridiculous optimism'; because it seemed that quite a mass of people, perhaps a majority, had reached the point of recognising the malign intention of the ruling elites towards them and their nations.
But following on; there was a strong, swiftly growing, backlash and counter-attack from the Establishment and its organs of government, education, law and the mass media; but at first this 'anti-populist' onslaught brought the repression out into the open and made it less easily deniable. There was a chance, it seemed, that the backlash might feed the movement it is intended to crush.
2017 and on was therefore a period of moral testing for The West. Pressure was increasing, so the period was limited.
There was (I believe) a chance to escape certain doom and take another path. But the different path would entail accepting - upfront - a considerable personal sacrifice in terms of material goods, comfort, convenience, etc.
The moral test was whether people were prepared to pay the necessary costs now, for the chance of a better future. The failure of this test would be when - by clinging to their addictions and distractions, by privileging the short-term - the masses would tacitly embrace the down-slide into despair, self-hatred and chosen damnation.
I concluded: "If we fail the test, as a culture, then we will (as a population) have no serious cause for complaint about what happens after."
Well, The West failed 'the test of 2017' and onwards, and seems - indeed - to have made little complaint about what has happened since... I mean the international totalitarian takeover, the near-universal curfew, state prohibition of most human activities, regulation of the permitted behaviours, and abolition of nearly all human contact, etc. Indeed, many of the masses insistently demand more of the same treatment.
So, it looks like people did reach a point of decision after 2016; and decided then that the Global Establishment was, after all, the preferred option; decided that The System was a benign force, working for human good; and that They should be trusted to do what was necessary and best for the mass of people.
And that is how the events of the past few months have been interpreted. People have rejected spirituality and Christianity; and are now getting what they then chose.
You want it? You got it!
Friday, 15 May 2020
Luciferic versus Ahrimanic totalitarianism
The twentieth century was the era when evil transitioned from Luciferic to Ahrimanic as the dominant form.
Luciferic evil is the 'traditional' type; hot, impulsive; characterised by violence and murder; the gratification of sub-human, 'animal' instincts; and the cult of personality:
During the late twentieth century; evil transitioned to become Ahrimanic: not just sub-human, but sub-animal - Men became regarded as meat robots and flesh computers. The evil was not concentrated into a dictator, but became impersonal, unlocatable.
Evil is now dispersed among committees, faceless bureaucrats, institutions: The System.
Then people celebrated a person - a man represented a nation; now people celebrate the largest organisation in Europe - a bureaucracy represents a nation.
Then the masses celebrated an individual; now an abstraction.
Then the dictators aspired to mould the population into a cohesive functional unit that could be whipped into a frenzy of productive or destructive action, worship or hate - as required; and this mass could be directed to do whatever the dictator wanted doing...
Now The Matrix aspires to destroy all human society, break the population into individual, mutally-fearful, docile and despairing individual units - ultimately to reduce these units down to a sub-animal level of cogs in a machine; or ideally software components.
(If living tissue can be reduced to binary code simulations - so much the better.)
Then we could see evil; now we cannot.
Luciferic evil is the 'traditional' type; hot, impulsive; characterised by violence and murder; the gratification of sub-human, 'animal' instincts; and the cult of personality:
I love Uncle Joe!
During the late twentieth century; evil transitioned to become Ahrimanic: not just sub-human, but sub-animal - Men became regarded as meat robots and flesh computers. The evil was not concentrated into a dictator, but became impersonal, unlocatable.
Evil is now dispersed among committees, faceless bureaucrats, institutions: The System.
"Clap for NHS Carers" - or, I love The Matrix.
Then people celebrated a person - a man represented a nation; now people celebrate the largest organisation in Europe - a bureaucracy represents a nation.
Then the masses celebrated an individual; now an abstraction.
Dictator subordinated to abstraction
Then the dictators aspired to mould the population into a cohesive functional unit that could be whipped into a frenzy of productive or destructive action, worship or hate - as required; and this mass could be directed to do whatever the dictator wanted doing...
Now The Matrix aspires to destroy all human society, break the population into individual, mutally-fearful, docile and despairing individual units - ultimately to reduce these units down to a sub-animal level of cogs in a machine; or ideally software components.
(If living tissue can be reduced to binary code simulations - so much the better.)
Then we could see evil; now we cannot.
With great power comes great responsibility
This pearl of wisdom comes from Spider Man; and it can be applied to the modern spiritual condition.
Modern Man is in the rare position of being able Not to believe in God; in effect Man can now defy the creator of the universe by the simple choice of his will.
This is an intoxicating realisation. We can, and most do, entirely deny the divine, the spiritual, the eternal - and choose to believe only in the sensory perceptual and material.
Furthermore, in recent decades Modern Man has asserted his ability to believe in things that are false; to regard ugly as beautiful; to insist that sin is a higher morality.
And, of course, vice versa: truth is hate, beauty is kitch, and virtue is opporessive. Modern Man, having unbelieved God, has chosen to live in an inverted world.
That's where we have been, for some time: a staple of public discourse in modern societies; and has within the past weeks it has been enforced by a new and global qualitative acceleration of centralised surveillance and control.
I can recall exactly this intoxication in my childhood at six years old. I was told that if I did not want to believe in God, I did not have to.
What a feeling! Nearly everybody around me said they believed in God, but I could defy them all by a single act of unbelief!
I could defy any God, if there was one. I did not have to believe anything just because some people said it.
This experience was pride in action at one level; in another sense it was potentially the beginning of wisdom. To an adult mind, the beliefs of society-in-general ought not to be regarded as binding.
For example; at present general societal beliefs are incoherent, since they are mostly digusting, immoral and/ or lies. But I can choose to believe them - and most do so choose.
The Modern lesson here is that belief is arbitrary, and no belief should to be regarded as perverse or wrong. We believe whatever we want to believe.
(In practice, we believe whatever we judge to be most expedient - here and now. But what of the long term? What about those we love, our nation and civilisation, the planet?)
Believing in God just because we have been told to believe, cannot be regarded as wise or sufficient, except for young children. It is necessary for each person to take responsibility for his own primary and ultimate beliefs.
But that is Not what has happened. Instead the whole of modern society is one vast denial of personal responsibility - we call it bureaucracy, or The System.
Everything 'important' is decided by committees, votes, procedures, lotteries, algorithms, precedents, polls, authorities, peer reviewing... almost anything is regarded as preferable to personal judgment and individual responsibility.
Well, Pandora's box is open, the genie is out of the bottle; we are too far down the track of consciously deciding what we believe to return to passive acceptance - even if that were possible... Which I do not believe: I think the process has been driven by the divinely-driven developmental transformation in Men's minds, 'evolution of consciousness'.
We need, as a matter of extreme urgency - i.e. starting this instant; to take full responsibility for our mental choices - including our deepest and least-examined fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality.
And we need to recognise that when we get to the very bottom; we must make an intuitive decision - from our-selves - of what genuinely seems true and right; and which we are happy to base everything else upon.
Fundamentally there must be some ultimate and foundational belief-assumptions, which we are prepared to regard as self-evidently true; and upon which we are prepared to built the whole of our lives; fully recognising that this can be done by nobody but our-selves, and that what happens to us in an ultimate sense hinges upon these assumptions.
No more excuses: we have our freedom, we have the power not to choose God and to believe anything; and with that power comes responsibility.
To shirk responsibility is to refuse life.
Modern Man is in the rare position of being able Not to believe in God; in effect Man can now defy the creator of the universe by the simple choice of his will.
This is an intoxicating realisation. We can, and most do, entirely deny the divine, the spiritual, the eternal - and choose to believe only in the sensory perceptual and material.
Furthermore, in recent decades Modern Man has asserted his ability to believe in things that are false; to regard ugly as beautiful; to insist that sin is a higher morality.
And, of course, vice versa: truth is hate, beauty is kitch, and virtue is opporessive. Modern Man, having unbelieved God, has chosen to live in an inverted world.
That's where we have been, for some time: a staple of public discourse in modern societies; and has within the past weeks it has been enforced by a new and global qualitative acceleration of centralised surveillance and control.
I can recall exactly this intoxication in my childhood at six years old. I was told that if I did not want to believe in God, I did not have to.
What a feeling! Nearly everybody around me said they believed in God, but I could defy them all by a single act of unbelief!
I could defy any God, if there was one. I did not have to believe anything just because some people said it.
This experience was pride in action at one level; in another sense it was potentially the beginning of wisdom. To an adult mind, the beliefs of society-in-general ought not to be regarded as binding.
For example; at present general societal beliefs are incoherent, since they are mostly digusting, immoral and/ or lies. But I can choose to believe them - and most do so choose.
The Modern lesson here is that belief is arbitrary, and no belief should to be regarded as perverse or wrong. We believe whatever we want to believe.
(In practice, we believe whatever we judge to be most expedient - here and now. But what of the long term? What about those we love, our nation and civilisation, the planet?)
Believing in God just because we have been told to believe, cannot be regarded as wise or sufficient, except for young children. It is necessary for each person to take responsibility for his own primary and ultimate beliefs.
But that is Not what has happened. Instead the whole of modern society is one vast denial of personal responsibility - we call it bureaucracy, or The System.
Everything 'important' is decided by committees, votes, procedures, lotteries, algorithms, precedents, polls, authorities, peer reviewing... almost anything is regarded as preferable to personal judgment and individual responsibility.
Well, Pandora's box is open, the genie is out of the bottle; we are too far down the track of consciously deciding what we believe to return to passive acceptance - even if that were possible... Which I do not believe: I think the process has been driven by the divinely-driven developmental transformation in Men's minds, 'evolution of consciousness'.
We need, as a matter of extreme urgency - i.e. starting this instant; to take full responsibility for our mental choices - including our deepest and least-examined fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality.
And we need to recognise that when we get to the very bottom; we must make an intuitive decision - from our-selves - of what genuinely seems true and right; and which we are happy to base everything else upon.
Fundamentally there must be some ultimate and foundational belief-assumptions, which we are prepared to regard as self-evidently true; and upon which we are prepared to built the whole of our lives; fully recognising that this can be done by nobody but our-selves, and that what happens to us in an ultimate sense hinges upon these assumptions.
No more excuses: we have our freedom, we have the power not to choose God and to believe anything; and with that power comes responsibility.
To shirk responsibility is to refuse life.
Give me summer loving
Such is the title of one of the best R&B singles (R&B? in feel yes, but not in chord structure), by the Spencer Davis Group; as heard, as known aurally.
A cheerful, feel good single.
Of course, I couldn't hear a single word of the verses - I could only hear the chorus words: "So happy baby, Give me summer loving!".
But it didn't matter, because the voice was really great (a plump, middle-aged, Black American from the Deep South, obviously - presumably Mr Spencer Davis himself), the rhythm playing superb, the Hammond organ interjections tasty. Altogether typical of why (in the pre/early-Beatles era) most of the best pop music was imported from the USA.
Well, music is for listening, and that's what listening tells you.
But a bit of background research reveals a different story:
"Gimme Some Lovin'"
Well my temperature's rising and my feet are on the floor
Twenty people knocking 'cos they're wanting some more
Let me in baby, I don't know what you've got
But you'd better take it easy, this place is hot
[Chorus:] I'm so glad we made it, I'm so glad we made it
You've gotta gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
Gimme some lovin' (gimme gimme some lovin'),
gimme some lovin' every day
Well I feel so good, everything is sounding hot
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and I don't know what to do
Wait a minute baby, it could happen to you
Well I feel so good, everybody's getting high
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and nothing went too good
Now I'm gonna relax honey, everybody should
Gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
I need it (Gimme gimme some lovin') I need it
Ooh, gimme some lovin', every day, every day...
A cheerful, feel good single.
Of course, I couldn't hear a single word of the verses - I could only hear the chorus words: "So happy baby, Give me summer loving!".
But it didn't matter, because the voice was really great (a plump, middle-aged, Black American from the Deep South, obviously - presumably Mr Spencer Davis himself), the rhythm playing superb, the Hammond organ interjections tasty. Altogether typical of why (in the pre/early-Beatles era) most of the best pop music was imported from the USA.
Well, music is for listening, and that's what listening tells you.
But a bit of background research reveals a different story:
"Gimme Some Lovin'"
Well my temperature's rising and my feet are on the floor
Twenty people knocking 'cos they're wanting some more
Let me in baby, I don't know what you've got
But you'd better take it easy, this place is hot
[Chorus:] I'm so glad we made it, I'm so glad we made it
You've gotta gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
Gimme some lovin' (gimme gimme some lovin'),
gimme some lovin' every day
Well I feel so good, everything is sounding hot
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and I don't know what to do
Wait a minute baby, it could happen to you
Well I feel so good, everybody's getting high
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and nothing went too good
Now I'm gonna relax honey, everybody should
Gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
I need it (Gimme gimme some lovin') I need it
Ooh, gimme some lovin', every day, every day...
Thursday, 14 May 2020
This is just what we need, and should expect, from church leaders, concerning the birdemic
Kudos to the group of Roman Catholic Cardinals and an Archbishop (with many other signatories) who have produced a statement concerning the birdemic which is exactly what is most needed.
This is solid evidence that real Christianity remains active and effective (if not dominant) within the Roman Catholic Church; and puts to shame the other major Christian denominations who have failed to make similar statements (who have indeed actively colluded-with the global powers of anti-Christian materialism).
Excerpts:
The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the [birdemic], the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good.
We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against [the birdemic], however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy.
Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry. The rights of God and of the faithful are the supreme law of the Church, which she neither intends to, nor can, abdicate. We ask that restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.
This is solid evidence that real Christianity remains active and effective (if not dominant) within the Roman Catholic Church; and puts to shame the other major Christian denominations who have failed to make similar statements (who have indeed actively colluded-with the global powers of anti-Christian materialism).
Excerpts:
The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the [birdemic], the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good.
We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against [the birdemic], however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy.
Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry. The rights of God and of the faithful are the supreme law of the Church, which she neither intends to, nor can, abdicate. We ask that restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.
"I don't believe in the devil"
I don't believe in the devil.
You should: he believes in you.
Thus a key exchange in the movie Constantine (2005). This should be a meme blazoned across the world, because it is strikingly true.
In a world where people don't believe in purposive, personal supernatural evil; such evil becomes pervasive and general.
Obvious evil ought to be obvious - and it used to be. When it is the case that people have to have evil explained to them, for example in terms of its effect in causing extra suffering - then we are already lost. We ought to be able to recognise extreme evil as such; but our society lost that ability when it denied God.
Thus the evil of "social distancing" is dealt-with as if it was a sociological research problem. Yet this evil is so obvious that not to see it immediately - and instead to demand an explanation of exacly how it is evil - is already to be deeply complicit in evil oneself.
Because evil - like good, like creation - is participative. It requires Men; it requires Men's thinking.
For evil to do its work, we must meet it halfway - or even invite it into our hearts. Demonic powers do half the work, but we must do the other.
For example, evil may provide visions or words of corruption; but Men must interpret these, conceptualise them, give them meaning - or else they would merely be raw stimuli.
Looking around the nation, I see evil established deeply in many hearts - especially among the educated sections of the population. I see a smug, self-satisfied mass of 'concerned' people, who expend vast efforts on moralising in a socio-political discourse - and who are dishonest, blind to the devil, utterly convinced of the reality and sufficiency of their own 'good intentions'.
Yet whenever some new and extreme evil is proposed (e.g. mass routine abortion, castrating boys and calling them girls, grooming of children into premature and pathological sexuality - and now 'social distancing') these people are always at the forefront.
They don't merely sin themselves - which is unavoidable for many; but their own sins are made invisible; therefore (far more seriously) they do not repent, and instead propagate sin by word and deed. Such constitutes the great bulk of the mass media, much of 'education' and 'law' - and indeed all major social systems.
But these are only the worst and most extreme because a large majority are so affected. All that can be said in favour of the 'silent' majority, is that they have retained an instinctive, unconscious awareness of sin; which makes them uncomfortable, even though it does not make them repent.
Our task in this modern word was, and is, to bring to explicit consciousness the spiritual - which in past ages was natural and spontaneous. We have lost the natural but inarticulate awareness of absolute intrinsic evil - thus we need to choose to acknowledge the reality of evil.
The same, of course, applies to God. Everyone used-to believe in God, from direct personal experience (indeed, we all did in early childhood) - but we no longer get these divine contact experiences. Therefore, our belief in God has become a free choice. We can believe, or not.
And since the devil, Satan, demons (and purposive personal evil in general) are defined by their opposition to God, the good, and divine creation - we need also to choose to acknowledge their reality as well.
Belief in the devil is a choice. This is no longer (or hardly ever) a matter of spontaneous personal experience of personal evil powers, but of conscious thinking, direct knowing.
We moderns are free-er than ever before, thus more responsible. In the past, people were more passive and unconscious - hence they less blameworthy, but also less praiseworthy. But for us, now; innocence and ignorance are not an excuse, because we really do know better.
We Are Responsible - and this is unaffected by propaganda, laws, regulations, social pressures... We are responsible, we know better, but have chosen the worse.
Evil has become just a branch of politics; consequently, modern evil is defined and redefined at will by the usual political means of propaganda, law, bureaucracy and physical coercion (police and mobs).
When - as now - intrinsic and extreme evil is rampant and triumphant through the land - yet unrecognised, unopposed; this is because evil has become (by will) utterly invisible, concealed, denied; inverted into a new-kind-of-good.
Therefore, there can, and shall be, no resistance to evil until after spiritual change. People need to know God, know that we live in a creation, repent evil, and acknowledge the reality of the devil.
(We may not know him, but he knows us.)
And such spiritual change can only arise from each person, individually, by choice and in freedom. Lacking which; we have - en masse - freely chosen evil; and thereby have chosen the unavoidable consequences of choosing evil.
You should: he believes in you.
Thus a key exchange in the movie Constantine (2005). This should be a meme blazoned across the world, because it is strikingly true.
In a world where people don't believe in purposive, personal supernatural evil; such evil becomes pervasive and general.
Obvious evil ought to be obvious - and it used to be. When it is the case that people have to have evil explained to them, for example in terms of its effect in causing extra suffering - then we are already lost. We ought to be able to recognise extreme evil as such; but our society lost that ability when it denied God.
Thus the evil of "social distancing" is dealt-with as if it was a sociological research problem. Yet this evil is so obvious that not to see it immediately - and instead to demand an explanation of exacly how it is evil - is already to be deeply complicit in evil oneself.
Because evil - like good, like creation - is participative. It requires Men; it requires Men's thinking.
For evil to do its work, we must meet it halfway - or even invite it into our hearts. Demonic powers do half the work, but we must do the other.
For example, evil may provide visions or words of corruption; but Men must interpret these, conceptualise them, give them meaning - or else they would merely be raw stimuli.
Looking around the nation, I see evil established deeply in many hearts - especially among the educated sections of the population. I see a smug, self-satisfied mass of 'concerned' people, who expend vast efforts on moralising in a socio-political discourse - and who are dishonest, blind to the devil, utterly convinced of the reality and sufficiency of their own 'good intentions'.
Yet whenever some new and extreme evil is proposed (e.g. mass routine abortion, castrating boys and calling them girls, grooming of children into premature and pathological sexuality - and now 'social distancing') these people are always at the forefront.
They don't merely sin themselves - which is unavoidable for many; but their own sins are made invisible; therefore (far more seriously) they do not repent, and instead propagate sin by word and deed. Such constitutes the great bulk of the mass media, much of 'education' and 'law' - and indeed all major social systems.
But these are only the worst and most extreme because a large majority are so affected. All that can be said in favour of the 'silent' majority, is that they have retained an instinctive, unconscious awareness of sin; which makes them uncomfortable, even though it does not make them repent.
Our task in this modern word was, and is, to bring to explicit consciousness the spiritual - which in past ages was natural and spontaneous. We have lost the natural but inarticulate awareness of absolute intrinsic evil - thus we need to choose to acknowledge the reality of evil.
The same, of course, applies to God. Everyone used-to believe in God, from direct personal experience (indeed, we all did in early childhood) - but we no longer get these divine contact experiences. Therefore, our belief in God has become a free choice. We can believe, or not.
And since the devil, Satan, demons (and purposive personal evil in general) are defined by their opposition to God, the good, and divine creation - we need also to choose to acknowledge their reality as well.
Belief in the devil is a choice. This is no longer (or hardly ever) a matter of spontaneous personal experience of personal evil powers, but of conscious thinking, direct knowing.
We moderns are free-er than ever before, thus more responsible. In the past, people were more passive and unconscious - hence they less blameworthy, but also less praiseworthy. But for us, now; innocence and ignorance are not an excuse, because we really do know better.
We Are Responsible - and this is unaffected by propaganda, laws, regulations, social pressures... We are responsible, we know better, but have chosen the worse.
Evil has become just a branch of politics; consequently, modern evil is defined and redefined at will by the usual political means of propaganda, law, bureaucracy and physical coercion (police and mobs).
When - as now - intrinsic and extreme evil is rampant and triumphant through the land - yet unrecognised, unopposed; this is because evil has become (by will) utterly invisible, concealed, denied; inverted into a new-kind-of-good.
Therefore, there can, and shall be, no resistance to evil until after spiritual change. People need to know God, know that we live in a creation, repent evil, and acknowledge the reality of the devil.
(We may not know him, but he knows us.)
And such spiritual change can only arise from each person, individually, by choice and in freedom. Lacking which; we have - en masse - freely chosen evil; and thereby have chosen the unavoidable consequences of choosing evil.
Wednesday, 13 May 2020
Perspectives on the birdemic
My pen-friend Andy Thomas has compiled a series of perspectives on the birdemic. Andy is Not arguing from a Christian perspective, so these do not cut as deep as I believe they really need to - but they are clearly and coherently expressed, and may serve as a bridge for some people to escape from the 'official story', and open them to other possibilities.
The Supergod delusion - by WmJas Tychonievich
Some outstanding theological clarification on a vital topic from WmJas Tychonievich. What William calls the Supergod conceptualisation is what I have blogged about here under the name 'omni' God - that is, the idea that our God is abstractly defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent etc.
By contrast, I believe in God as described in the New Testament (and the Old) who is The Creator and Our Father. Scripture does not use abstract terms from Greek and Roman philosophy to pre-define God; God is known by us as a person - not a set of attributes into-which the person of God must (for some reason) be hammered.
What William and I share is a foundation in Mormon theology - William due to upbringing, and me due to having discovered Mormon theology in middle age. But, for whatever reasons, you will seldom hear Mormons arguing against the Supergod concept in the kind of ultra-logical, no-holds-barred fashion that WmJas approaches the subject.
Yet, this is an extremely important matter; because many people are (permanently) deterred from becoming a Christian by the insistence of mainstream churches that the omni concept of God is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable. For most Catholics and Protestant priest, pastors and theologians alike: if you don't believe in Supergod then you are not a Christian.
I regard this claim as lazy, incoherent, deadly nonsense; and the fact that so many Christians for so many centuries have stuck with it makes no difference. It was, in my opinion, this intransigence over an incoherent assertion that led to the rise of the major monethistic rival to Christianity - which has now outstripped Christianity in size.
Christianity's most formidable rival asserts the much-more-coherent abstract omni-deity; that is not necessarily nor always Good - according to human evaluations; and is not our loving Father whom we may know personally. If the omni-God is insisted-upon and given priority by Christians, the rational result will be a Christianity that is a second-rate version of its rival.
If an individual Christian is happy with the omni God and it does not spoil their Christianity, then fine. We are not all called upon to attain coherence.
My objection is the exclusivist preaching of philosophy at the expense of religion; and the insistence that church members assent to non-sense.
In practice, most Christians fudge the question in real life; and also in practice many or most Christian laity do not believe, and never have believed, in Supergod - but instead implicitly the benevolent Father Creator, such as I (and William) regard as true.
Anyway, WmJas has written an essay that I would have loved to write - so I endorse it without reservation.
By contrast, I believe in God as described in the New Testament (and the Old) who is The Creator and Our Father. Scripture does not use abstract terms from Greek and Roman philosophy to pre-define God; God is known by us as a person - not a set of attributes into-which the person of God must (for some reason) be hammered.
What William and I share is a foundation in Mormon theology - William due to upbringing, and me due to having discovered Mormon theology in middle age. But, for whatever reasons, you will seldom hear Mormons arguing against the Supergod concept in the kind of ultra-logical, no-holds-barred fashion that WmJas approaches the subject.
Yet, this is an extremely important matter; because many people are (permanently) deterred from becoming a Christian by the insistence of mainstream churches that the omni concept of God is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable. For most Catholics and Protestant priest, pastors and theologians alike: if you don't believe in Supergod then you are not a Christian.
I regard this claim as lazy, incoherent, deadly nonsense; and the fact that so many Christians for so many centuries have stuck with it makes no difference. It was, in my opinion, this intransigence over an incoherent assertion that led to the rise of the major monethistic rival to Christianity - which has now outstripped Christianity in size.
Christianity's most formidable rival asserts the much-more-coherent abstract omni-deity; that is not necessarily nor always Good - according to human evaluations; and is not our loving Father whom we may know personally. If the omni-God is insisted-upon and given priority by Christians, the rational result will be a Christianity that is a second-rate version of its rival.
If an individual Christian is happy with the omni God and it does not spoil their Christianity, then fine. We are not all called upon to attain coherence.
My objection is the exclusivist preaching of philosophy at the expense of religion; and the insistence that church members assent to non-sense.
In practice, most Christians fudge the question in real life; and also in practice many or most Christian laity do not believe, and never have believed, in Supergod - but instead implicitly the benevolent Father Creator, such as I (and William) regard as true.
Anyway, WmJas has written an essay that I would have loved to write - so I endorse it without reservation.
Tuesday, 12 May 2020
Cosmos and the problem of 2-hour movies
A couple of days ago I watched a recent, enjoyable and worthwhile, ultra-low budget movie called Cosmos (2019). At the end I thought, as I have thought scores of times before: "That was a good movie, but it would have been a really good movie if it was half-an-hour shorter."
I can't be bothered to do the research; but I would guess that a much higher proportion of the very best movies are around 90 minutes than clock-in at two-plus hours. Clearly, it is easier, more natural to construct a good movie at the shorter length.
I must say, I find it hard to understand why so many movies end-up too long. So obviously too long - such that almost any audience member could tell the maker where the cuts could and should be applied.
My main theory is that good editors are rare, and/or that the editor is given too low a status in devising the final cut. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that 'director's cut' movies are almost always worse; which suggests that editors make a vital input to quality (albeit director's cuts are only done for already-successful films; and this may tend towards meddling with the final product being a case of 'the only way is down').
Considering how vital is the art of editing to the success of a movie; it is striking that the public don't know the names of the best film editors, in the way we know the best directors, writers and actors.
But the difference editing makes can be seen between the first and third movies of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - which are superbly edited - and the Two Towers movie, which is much less-well edited. This is something like a controlled experiment; in that the other key members of the production 'team' were unchanged, and the editor was the major difference.
Another suspicion is related to stars demanding a certain minimum amount of screen time (as when the first Batman revival movie (1989) was structurally spoiled and the impact diminished by an over-extended final scene with Jack Nicholson's Joker).
Or, it may simply be that the film makers get too attached to particular scenes, and cannot see that they are making the movie as a whole worse.
Anyway, I am confident that if all 2 hour movies were forcibly subjected to a skilled and insightful re-editing down to half an hour shorter; nearly all of them would be improved significantly.
Social distancing PSYOPS
Social distancing (SD) has surely been the most effective deployment of PSYOPS in human history. In the space of a few months, this recent, controversial, empirically un-tested hypothetical model about how best to manage influenza epidemics; has been universally propagated and imposed by the governments of the world.
The two metre separation has redefined, and begun the annihilation of, all human social functions and interactions.
To varying degrees, in varying ways, the way we relate to other people has been transformed.
People now treat each other as potential threats; walking down your own street has become regarded (internally) as a high risk activity.
When we approach a stranger (if indeed we dare to venture outdoors or into a supermarket, and if there is anybody else outside at all - since many places now resemble towns of the dead: ghost towns, with human beings deleted from the scene), there is a new social evaluation and negotiation.
Some people are friendly, others (like me) apologetic - and only really concerned not to offend; others are looking-out to take personal offence, and engage in self-righteous indignation and condemnation, or signal their own virtue and concern.
Some people radiate terror, others glare with baleful hostility.
(I suspect that there are significant numbers of people who - from the way they avoid these activities - believe the birdemic plague can be caught by making eye-contact, or by saying 'hello'.)
My point is this: all over the world, billions of people have suddenly had their basic human relationships transformed for the worse by a theory!
This is a solid fact. It is necessary to grasp and consider it - without inserting more theories about 'why'.
No doubt the legislation, surveillance and fines were a trigger; the unrepented and uncontextualised fear was a strong contributor; and the almost eager agreement and embrace of these restrictions by the masses has surely been a vital element.
But whatever the cause (and asserted necessity), thanks to this hypothetical epidemiological theory (presented as a known fact) the whole world is now a worse place.
If you could rewind the clock six months or a couple of years and point to a handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether SD made outbreaks better or worse; it would not have been possible to believe that this single idea could have been propagated to cover the world and change everything.
Yet it has happened.
Here we are.
The two metre separation has redefined, and begun the annihilation of, all human social functions and interactions.
To varying degrees, in varying ways, the way we relate to other people has been transformed.
People now treat each other as potential threats; walking down your own street has become regarded (internally) as a high risk activity.
When we approach a stranger (if indeed we dare to venture outdoors or into a supermarket, and if there is anybody else outside at all - since many places now resemble towns of the dead: ghost towns, with human beings deleted from the scene), there is a new social evaluation and negotiation.
Some people are friendly, others (like me) apologetic - and only really concerned not to offend; others are looking-out to take personal offence, and engage in self-righteous indignation and condemnation, or signal their own virtue and concern.
Some people radiate terror, others glare with baleful hostility.
(I suspect that there are significant numbers of people who - from the way they avoid these activities - believe the birdemic plague can be caught by making eye-contact, or by saying 'hello'.)
My point is this: all over the world, billions of people have suddenly had their basic human relationships transformed for the worse by a theory!
This is a solid fact. It is necessary to grasp and consider it - without inserting more theories about 'why'.
No doubt the legislation, surveillance and fines were a trigger; the unrepented and uncontextualised fear was a strong contributor; and the almost eager agreement and embrace of these restrictions by the masses has surely been a vital element.
But whatever the cause (and asserted necessity), thanks to this hypothetical epidemiological theory (presented as a known fact) the whole world is now a worse place.
If you could rewind the clock six months or a couple of years and point to a handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether SD made outbreaks better or worse; it would not have been possible to believe that this single idea could have been propagated to cover the world and change everything.
Yet it has happened.
Here we are.
Monday, 11 May 2020
The core objective of this birdemic is total destruction of human society
It has now become apparent that the primary reason for the fake response to the fake birdemic is to impose social-distancing: that is, to isolate individual people from each other, forever.
As the lockdown is 'eased' in the UK (gee thanks!), the SD 'laws' (currently a separation of at least two metres apart) are actually being reinforced; including fines that start with 100 pounds and double for repeated 'convictions' up to 3,200 pounds.
Given that the birdemic is now proven trivial, and SD is (scientifically speaking) just a new, untested, controversial and implausible hypothesis for spreading-out the impact of a trivial problem; it is clear that the global imposition of social distancing is itself the prime objective of the recent totalitarian takeover.
Why? Why have They (the Global Establishment) atomised the entire human species in this way?
Obviously, because SD does things that They want to do. What are these things?
From a purely biological perspective, Man is a social animal - thus SD negates our basic animal nature.
From a psychiatric perspective, the damage from social isolation is clear and extreme - as jailers and torturers have long known.
From an economic perspective, SD renders impossible urgent and vital production, service and trade; thus makes it impossible to sustain the world population.
From the perspective of education, police and military, sports and tourism, religion, the arts, sciences, health care... these and other social functions are de facto destroyed by SD.
1. In sum - human society as such is being annihilated by social distancing.
2. And SD is exactly the policy They are doubling-down on.
3. Therefore the annihilation of human society is the core objective of the birdemic.
So, now we know...
As the lockdown is 'eased' in the UK (gee thanks!), the SD 'laws' (currently a separation of at least two metres apart) are actually being reinforced; including fines that start with 100 pounds and double for repeated 'convictions' up to 3,200 pounds.
Given that the birdemic is now proven trivial, and SD is (scientifically speaking) just a new, untested, controversial and implausible hypothesis for spreading-out the impact of a trivial problem; it is clear that the global imposition of social distancing is itself the prime objective of the recent totalitarian takeover.
Why? Why have They (the Global Establishment) atomised the entire human species in this way?
Obviously, because SD does things that They want to do. What are these things?
From a purely biological perspective, Man is a social animal - thus SD negates our basic animal nature.
From a psychiatric perspective, the damage from social isolation is clear and extreme - as jailers and torturers have long known.
From an economic perspective, SD renders impossible urgent and vital production, service and trade; thus makes it impossible to sustain the world population.
From the perspective of education, police and military, sports and tourism, religion, the arts, sciences, health care... these and other social functions are de facto destroyed by SD.
1. In sum - human society as such is being annihilated by social distancing.
2. And SD is exactly the policy They are doubling-down on.
3. Therefore the annihilation of human society is the core objective of the birdemic.
So, now we know...
Rose Maybud's waltz song from Ruddigore
To continue my long-running series about the benefits from looking more closely at Gilbert and Sullivan arias; here is another special favourite from Ruddigore: the soprano character's signature song: "If somebody there chanced to be".
There is such a lot to enjoy about this one. On the one hand, Gilbert's lyrics are literate, clever and witty. The (typically absurd) idea is that this is a beautiful, 'poor but virtuous', working class girl whose manners are derived from a popular manual of etiquette; that she constantly consults and which she follows slavishly, whatever the consequences.
[VERSE]
If somebody there chanced to be
Who loved me in a manner true,
My heart would point him out to me,
And I would point him out to you.
But here it says of those who point,
Their manners must be out of joint -
You may not point – You must not point –
It's manners out of joint, To point!
[CHORUS]
Ah!
Had I the love of such as he,
Some quiet spot he'd take me to,
Then he could whisper it to me,
And I could whisper it to you.
But whispering, I've somewhere met,
Is contrary to etiquette:
Where can it be
(SEARCHING BOOK.)
Now let me see
(FINDING REFERENCE.)
Yes, yes! It's contrary to etiquette!
[VERSE]
If any well-bred youth I knew,
Polite and gentle, neat and trim,
Then I would hint as much to you,
And you could hint as much to him.
But here it says, in plainest print,
"It's most unladylike to hint" –
You may not hint, You must not hint –
It says you mustn't hint, In print!
[CHORUS]
Ah!
And if I loved him through and through –
(True love and not a passing whim),
Then I could speak of it to you,
And you could speak of it to him.
But here I find it doesn't do
To speak until you're spoken to.
Where can it be?
(SEARCHING BOOK.)
Now let me see –
(FINDING REFERENCE.)
Yes, yes! "Don't speak until you're spoken to!"
On the other hand; Sullivan sets each verse to a wistful minor key melody, with a spare orchestration, that brings out an innocence and yearning not obvious in the lyrics; then he transitions to major key for the chorus in waltz time, with the Big Tune. But he holds back the full accompaniment (doubling the voice on violins) for the repeat of the tune in each chorus.
Furthermore, Sullivan achieves that extremely-rare thing of fitting the music to the specific emphasis of the language, on a word-by word basis. This subtle art is prized in, for instance, Purcell - while being largely absent in, for example, Handel.
Thus, Sullivan gets the emotional impact of the waltz; while avoiding the problem of excessive schmalz to which waltzes are prone.
The combination is one that I find strangely moving, with a genuine sweet freshness that captures what is so special about Gilbert and Sullivan. I can only compare it with what Mozart achieved in some of his operas like Figaro or The Magic Flute - where farcical words and situations are given sudden and unexpected depth and power - in the lightest and deftest manner.
This combination is really rare in music, and in art generally; and I greatly value it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)