Making good strategic decisions (individually, or nationally). We know the moments when they arrive. They cannot be forced.

We cannot plan stuff and stick to that plan (force it through if necessary), except to make it worse. 

Maybe there was a time when good strategizing was possible, but if so, that time has gone. 

But what I do see, in individual lives and also in the lives of nations; is that key moments, cruxes, arise; when there is one right thing to do... 

Or Not. 

Good strategy amounts simply to this: Recognizing the moment is now, making the right choice now. 

Because if the right thing is not done, then it does not much matter what else is done, because it will not suffice. 

In sum: "we" (personally, individually, nationally) need to do The Right Thing, at The Right Time - or else It Will Be Bad. 

Doing the wrong things will be bad, and doing the right thing too late will also be bad. 

We just have to make the right decision when that decision needs to be made...

And this is something we can know: or rather we should know, and will know... If we allow ourselves to recognize it. 

These moments ought to be recognizable, because they are forced upon our attention: ourselves, other persons, or larger groupings. 

And the right decision is usually clear enough - but only if you are honest, and only if you have the right motivations, and only if you can stop trying (and pretending) to predict the outcome of that decision. 

This predicting stuff is a killer! Instead of staying focused on making the right decision when teh need has arisen; instead people try to make the decision that will (or will probably, or can convincingly be argued) work-out to have the best consequences. 

And so the moment is missed - and we get bad stuff. 

 

The trouble is that people need to choose the right decision. Choose freely. 

It does no good to compel or manipulate people to the right decision, because then they will not really have decided, will they?  

Modern life more or less compels everybody to make plans, strategies, schemes - and at least to pretend they are being pursued (and succeeding!) - but really it all comes down to doing the right thing at the right time. 

(Or Not.) 

Mediocrites - Socrates' more-successful brother

Some scholars claim this is an image of Mediocrites

Socrates's older brother, Mediocrites (c 485 BC-?), is regarded by most modern Westerners as the most successful and (therefore) most emulation-worthy of all philosophers; although we know nothing specific about him; and he never said, did or wrote anything interesting, honest, or of any value.

While Socrates was condemned to death by poison, having published nothing; Mediocrites success was objective and permanent - he was (it is supposed) given the highest honours of the Athenian democracy, paid a lavish salary, put in charge of all political and social institutions, and granted power of veto over all major public projects.

Mediocrites's curriculum vitae was lengthy and consisted attendance at prestigious institutions, examination results, awards, grants, tax breaks, subsidies.

We have detailed descriptions of Socrates' appearances, and manners; he attracted eminent followers; his words were transcribed; and he was parodied by the great playwrights of that era. 

But despite his brother's much greater success, Mediocrites remains a mystery wrapped in an enigma. We know he did a lot of things but not what any of these things actually were...   

From contemporary accounts it seems that Mediocrites had his name upon numerous essays and books, and often spoke at large public gatherings. But, sadly, it seems that nobody remembered anything Mediocrites said, and nobody bothered to preserve any of his writings... 

Indeed nobody can remember anything about him!

Whereas Socrates is all-but unknown, despised; and his model of religiousness, truthfulness and integrity have become the most hated and persecuted of values; Modern Britain, and indeed the Modern World itself, is run entirely by the disciples of Mediocrites.

Wherever we look, and the more so the higher we look; we see Mediocrities in charge, Mediocrities making all the important decisions, Mediocrities garnering all the highest plaudits.

Plato (and Xenophon) both recorded the Apology of Socrates, the defence argument at his trial: the justification of his life and work. However; despite its philosophical and literary greatness, Socrates' statement cut-no-ice then, and was indeed counter-productive.

But success was the Apology of Mediocrites - the justification for his life. 

Against success - there is no argument. 

Socrates was a loser, Mediocrites was a winner; and that is all that needs to be said.

Note: Adapted from an earlier post. 

Gollum: poet

 

Gollum in reflective mood

At my Notion Club Papers blog; I give three favourite passages from The Lord of the Rings, in which Gollum's talk - while he is dominated by the Smeagol persona - sometimes displays a moving lyricism.

Saturday morning music - The ending of Das Rheingold by Richard Wagner

The ending of Das Rheingold by Richard Wagner* is one of my absolute favourite pieces of music; for its dramatic complexity but also the unsurpassed grandeur of the sound and harmony. 

The mood (in this except) begins with a vision of the new home of the Gods Valhalla, expressed in great chords dominated by the special sound of Wagner's brass instruments. 

But then all kinds of more dissonant (and emotionally-discontented) harmonies break in as various characters reflect upon the terrible price paid for this paradisal residence. 

These complexities get more and more extreme almost to the very end, as the Rhine Maidens lament the theft of their gold; but at the very last minute the triumphal procession of the Gods becomes the theme with the most magnificent closing to any piece of music, with the enormous orchestra generating huge major chords to finish. 

The final impression is an almost irresistible mood of exaltation and excitement - despite all the sordid greed and lies that have gone before. 

 

This is musical drama, something that can only fully appreciated by following with a libretto, and understanding the dramatic context. 

Musical drama began with Mozart, in The Marriage of Figaro; when he uses the music to slow-down dramatic time in order to unfold, expound, and explore the emotions of participants. 

The action on stage gets almost suspended, so that the dramatic situation and words may be accompanied by touches of orchestration and harmony that bring-out depths and complexities in the character's current thoughts and emotions. 

As context for such "moments"; there must be dramatic progression in the action on stage if this to be effective; and the earliest operas were just too static for the contrast to be effective: an opera like Purcell's Dido and Aeneas is a series of (superb!) set-pieces, rather than a drama. 

In Wagner this is taken to an extreme which is, at times, almost intolerable! 

As the words are sung - very slowly - the orchestra unfolds in detail what the character is thinking; e.g. what he is reminded-of, and even foreshadows - by the use of Leitmotiven (and their development) as well as by Mozart's method of orchestration and harmonies. 

(See Bryan Magee's Aspects of Wagner for a more detailed description.)   

Rheingold ** is my favourite (by far) of Wagner's operas - and short and action-filled enough to be just-about manageable! 

So if you want to experience music drama at its peak, then you might try listening Rheingold while reading a libretto - or even better a score (which may be borrowed from a specialist library). 

* The linked recording is a live-one of the famous version done in English by English National Opera in the 1970s, and conducted by Reginald Goodall - which happens to be the one I own on CD; although I regard George Solti's Decca Ring recording as The greatest. 

** Be warned, I usually Anglicize/ misspell Rheingold as Rhinegold. 

Goodness - including truth and all values - are not given-by God, but arise from love-of-God

What follows is an attempt to explain that we are profoundly mistaken when we try to picture God's creation as an objective and unavoidable reality - because that is excluding the foundational role of love. Our picture of ultimate reality, needs to have love as the basis. This has many implications, including an inescapable role for each individual person. 

Matthew 22: 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38. This is the first and great commandment. 39. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

I find this a very striking story (it also appears in the Gospel of Luke); because it seems to contain something profound - on the basis that it is not immediately apparent why all the "law and prophets" could depend on love of God and neighbour. 

How can law depend on love? They seem so unlike. 

And yet here it is stated, and the statement carries for me an innate authority, that love must come first - which I interpret to mean that without love there can be no "law". 

If therefore love must come first and as foundation; this has profound metaphysical implications. And some of these implications run counter to a great deal of Christian doctrine and practice. 

What I believe this means is that Goodness - including truth and all values - are not given by God, but arise from love-of-God.* 

Love is the basis for goodness, truth and all values. 

There can be no goodness/ truth/ values without love-of-God. 

If there is not first love-of-God, then divine creation and its purposes and methods are not evident. 

There is then no basis for persuading people that we inhabit a divine creation. 

Without the basis of love-of-God; other pictures of reality - such as the mainstream materialist-scientistic-atheist picture of reality as mostly-unalive, purposeless, meaningless, accidental - cannot be refuted. 

Gods creation - goodness, truth, values... These are coherent only for those who first love God and neighbour; and who themselves choose to affiliate with God: to join themselves with God in the work of creating. 

This is not enough to define Christianity - which also requires the essential intervention of Jesus Christ; but does form an essential basis.  

*I think that love of neighbour is intended to indicate that this love is not a matter of just our-selves and God only; but implies our endorsement that divine creation intentionally includes many other Beings, as well as our-selves. 

Note added: One consequence of the above is that arguments for the reality of God that take the general form of the Book of Job are futile! I mean, people cannot be persuaded of the reality of God by pointing at entities of power, magnificence, terror - nor at qualities such as beauty, goodness, moral-values - as if these were objectively present in the world. They are not. For beauty or morality to be real entails that we already acknowledge the reality of God - otherwise these are just arbitrary classifications. 

Of course; this analysis kicks-the-can on to how can, do, or should, people come to love God? Perhaps this is partly a matter of innate character or disposition (e.g. some people are more loving than others); but it is also a matter of what we choose to want-to-want; of where we place our priorities and ultimate hopes.  

And it is also a matter of how we conceptualize - or experience - God. IMO the God of the Old Testament (and of monotheism generally) is not loveable - but is instead fear-inducing; or else just too abstractly-defined (in terms of "attributes" like omnipotence and omniscience) to be genuinely personal - and only the personal is genuinely love-able. 

Then again, the loveable God must also be believable! But believability is largely a matter of fundamental assumptions. When these metaphysical foundations entail an unloveable God (e.g. because un-understandable, or "jealous" and tyrannical) - then naturally a Good and Personal God will seem too good to be true. 

For instance my God - Heavenly Parents who think of humans their divine children; children whom they hope will choose to develop their own natures in the direction of becoming more conscious, more divine, more actively-creative - may seem no more than a consoling delusion unless the metaphysical basis of reality is regarded as (roughly) animistic pluralism. 

Recognizing the Absolute Detachment of Christian Knowledge-Systems (scripture, theology, history etc) from the real thing

In the past, it was a reasonably effective way to become a Christian (or a better Christian) to learn and practice Christian knowledge systems - such as theology, the history of Christianity, the Bible, doctrines, rituals etc.   

In other words, once upon a time, some generations ago; knowing-about and talking-about Christianity had some relationship to being a Christian; some correlation to the reality of actual Christian experience. 

Not any more. 

Because of changes in human consciousness; the world of knowledge systems has become detached from actual experience. Knowledge systems are now wholly abstract - that is, when they are not merely subordinated components of the over-arching totalitarian-bureaucratic system.

As of here-and-now; it does not help At All for a Christian to be knowledgeable about The Bible, theology, or history of the church - or any other knowledge system*.  

Indeed, the most knowledgeable and expert in such fields are often not-Christian or anti-Christian - and it would probably be a true generalization to state that the more adept someone is in Christian knowledge-systems, the less likely they are to be a Christian. 

That this detachment or inversion of the role of knowledge-systems is ultimately caused by changes in human consciousness, in the way that people think and behave - is evident from the fact that it affects every domain of human activity, every knowledge system. 

"Expertise" nowadays has a zero or reversed relationship with the true and original functionality of systems: 

In medicine, the higher up the ladder of expertise and status and power; the less likely it is that the person will be motivated by real-life, inter-personal, medical considerations - and at the highest levels of the medial profession, it is very probable that the net-motivation is anti-health, anti-well-being, anti-human. 

In science; the real scientific attitude (which is itself very rare) is found only at lower levels or among amateurs; and is rigorously excluded-from (or stamped-out in) professional researchers as they ascend the ladder of expertise in knowledge systems.  

This applies across the board in modern society: the most senior and expert lawyers main activity is to subvert justice; the leading journalists and media people are almost full-time engaged in manipulation and systematic dishonesty rather than informing; the highest level people in the arts subsidise and reward anti-art and calculated ugliness etc. etc.

The fact that people spend much of their lives thinking-about, communicating about symbolic-knowledge of some particular sort; does not lead-to - does not even correlate with - genuine motivation and experience of the underlying reality to which these symbol-systems supposedly refer.  

Always we find that any formerly-existing broad relationship between knowledge-about and practice-of, has now been severed.

The knowledge-system expertise is therefore a distraction at best, and actively misleading more often.   

But recognizing the absolute detachment of knowledge-systems from the real thing is probably of the greatest significance in respect to Christianity; because that is the most important subject in the world.

 

* This is how we typically find that priests are less good Christians than laity and Bishops worse than priests; why the most experts Biblical scholars - including the ordained - are the most distorted in interpretation, the most worldly, and subversive to faith... and so forth. 

Christianity is the religion of want-to-want

If we have concluded (perhaps from reading the IV Gospel) that it is true that Jesus came to save sinners; then Christianity is neither a doing nor an achieving religion - and being a Christian is not about self-transformation during this, our mortal life. 

All of these attainments are mostly about our character and circumstances - and as such they are contingent and selective...

Whereas Jesus Christ's offer to Men was not to the best and luckiest - but for people of essentially all characters and circumstances. 

Indeed, Christianity is not even about what we want... 

Instead, being a Christian is about what it is we want-to-want! 

To clarify; we may, here-and-now, not-especially want salvation to eternal Heavenly life - at least, we may not currently want it more than we want some-thing else...

But we Do, absolutely, need to want-to-want to follow Jesus Christ to eternal Heavenly life more than we want anything else. 

The Good News is that want-to-want is the actual, essential, and sufficient basis of being-a-Christian and attaining salvation - and this is a thing attainable by Men of any character and all circumstances.

Christian conversion as a loyalty-test initiation

One of the reasons that so many deeply-dissatisfied atheist-materialists are repelled from Christianity; is that Christianity means picking a church or denomination and then obeying it. 

As with a gang or cult; the prime demand is for loyalty to the institution; and this is enforced by initiation through loyalty tests. 

Typically, the covert is required to believe and affirm some things he regards as false; and (which is probably worse) must state that some bad things are good.  

There is often a honeymoon period after conversion when everything seems easy - but the loyalty tests will soon arrive!

One classic is Abraham being ordered - as a test of obedience to divine will - to sacrifice his son Isaac; so that he is faced with a choice of disobedience to God and ritual murder of his child. 

The test is that we must agree and believe that the Right Answer was to kill Isaac: that the goodness of God is axiomatic whatever God asks of us; and obedience to the incomprehensible divine will is essential, while eschewing gross evil and doing what we personally believe to be good is irrelevant. 

Well, that is the Old Testament - but there are also some stark loyalty tests in the New; such as the story of Ananias in Acts of the Apostles*. First Ananias, and then his wife, are struck dead by divine will for some combination of withholding tithes from Peter, and then lying to cover the sin. 

The episode seems to be presented as an exemplary punishment - as a warning and deterrent to others not to do this kind of thing. 

No doubt it would have been very effective at ensuring tithes got paid; but... Well, this kind of justice is more like the Forest Laws of the Normans, than the behaviour of a wholly good God whose children we are. 

What such loyalties resemble is a kind of bait and switch con practiced on the convert - who hopes and intends to buy one thing, but being induced to accepts another, and much less desirable thing. 

Or the Christian feels like a Man induced to sign a contract; who then finds himself bound by all kinds of things written in the "small print" of which he had been unaware, and would not wanted to agree-to.

Each church has its reasons for such practice; and claims that the requirements are all logically entailed and/or absolutely necessary for the integrity of the whole. Such tests are seen as a part of the process of learning what it really means to be a Christian. 

However; I have come to see these loyalty-tests as corrupting of Christians, in a process that continues and worsens. 

This process is one I regard as corrupting, because it always seems to push converts towards a conceptualization of God rooted in power not love; and a conceptualization of Christianity as derived-from the group and enforced by authority via rules and tests and practices.

It is this effect of Christian conversion (or devout practice) that is so repellent to non-Christians; and is worsened by Christians who assert that there is no alternative. 

And indeed, there is no institutional or this-worldly alternative; since the attempts at "liberalization" all lead out from Christianity and into conformist left-secularism.  

The only real alternative I can imagine is to recognize Christianity is primarily and essentially a matter between Jesus Christ and each Man individually - not bound-up vitally with any institution; and concerned primarily with what happens to each of us after death, rather than what happens during this mortal life.

Of course institutions are essential and anyway unavoidable; and of course post-mortal expectations can and should influence this moral life...

But it is a matter of what is primary, essential, and mandatory; from which the rest grows and develops. 

It is a matter of the true and necessary root of Christianity.   

* Acts. 5 [1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, [2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. [3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? [4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. [5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. [6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. [7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. [8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. [9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. [10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.  

The West (the globalist totalitarian project) is Not "Marxist"

It embarrasses me when anti-Left bloggers use the word "Marxist" to describe modern Western governments and society. 

There are no Marxists in The West now, at least not in politics or public life; and have not been for several decades. 

Indeed; there are in practice no Marxists even among those who proudly embrace the term for themselves! This is evident from what they actually say and actually do: what they make their priorities, and it does not matter to what they merely pay occasional lip-service. 

(Leftism is in its essence incoherent, because oppositional in nature - therefore, in a rhetorical sense, any of its old manifestations may be re-activated at any time, in order to neutralize opposition or garner support for the dominant agenda. Leftists are quite happy to pretend that they still care about the proletariat and will do something effective to help native working men... So long as this does not interfere in any way with their current project - which may be directly opposed to the well-being of the Proletariat; whether this be antiracism, feminism, the Birdemic/ Peck, or currently "AI". Words and promises mean nothing to the ruling Establishment - except as means to manipulate.) 

Marxism was a form of Leftism that had the Economy as its focus; especially economic ownership, and the "distribution" of wealth and/or salaries. 

Economic organization (i.e. nationalization, public ownership) was of great, often central, importance to Marxism. 

And Class was its primary unit of analysis. 

Thus although Marxism was one of the formative ideologies of modern Leftism - so were Abolition, Pacifism, Trades Unionism, Womens' suffrage, and Nonconformist activism (including prohibition). 

However, ancestral influences are not present realities. Long-term incremental evolution eventually makes a qualitative difference.  

In fact: Marxism is long-since dead in The West.

The prevalent and hegemonic Leftism is a post-1960s New Leftism that includes but is not restricted to various mixtures of: antiracism; feminism (i.e. firstly pandering to women, however later favouring some other sexual identities); the sexual revolution (originally advocating promiscuity and divorce, but since continually developing); and CO2-climate-"environmentalism". 

The modern dominant Left is almost entirely uninterested by social class; except where class attitudes are, in practice, inverted: with the "native male proletariat" becoming probably the major demonized group in The West; and globalist finance-billionaires probably the most-influential and admired social grouping - whose strategy conceptualizations statements (especially United Nations Agenda 2030) are fundamental to all Western Establishment strategy. 

The New Left is profoundly uninterested by Nationalization, and indeed the Nation and the people. Indeed- quite the reverse; since international-money vampirizes and discards nations in pursuit of global strategies. 

Accusations of "Marxism" may be evidence of confusion or ignorance on the part of the user; or apparently may be an attempt to discredit a point-of-view,  or sow confusion and weaken opposition. 

But using the word does harm in clouding our understanding of the nature and scope of the Left-themed ideology of dominating globalist totalitarianism.  

Which is why the Marxism-accusation has (much like its inverse "Capitalism") become a hallmark of malign PSYOPS. 

There are no negative-virtues - therefore obedience, service, humility are Not virtues

I can understand why negations such as obedience, service and humility became popular things to advocate (including in Christianity - but also as part of many other religions and ideologies); as an intended corrective (or, at least, limiter) to motivations that are sinful or lead to evil - such as pride, selfishness and the seeking of personal gratification. 

That may be the intent - but if so, it is a misconceptualizations. For example the negation of humility is not the opposite of pride. 

The opposite of pride is love of God and fellow-Men. And love is positive, not a negation. 

This always applies: 

Virtue is never a negation. There are no negative virtues. 

So despite that they have (and often) been advocated and promoted by Christians: such negations as obedience, service and humility are not virtues, and they ought not to be pursued as if they were virtues; because this is harmful. 

They are, at best, merely temporary (perhaps necessary, or at least expedient) constraints...

As when a delirious or insane person is just about to commit suicide or violence and must be restrained immediately; whether physically or chemically (e.g. by sedation, by putting him to sleep). 

Restraint is not a cure of the problem of wrong-motivation, but a way of generating some "breathing space" to consider who (if at all) the problem may be cured. 

And, indeed, the problem often resolves with time (for example, post-operative delirium), or may be cured by a period of rest and sleep.  

Such negative preventive restraining action to thwart wrong-motivations may be necessary acutely, to avert some bad outcome. But when the constraint becomes chronic, "permanent" then this is a very different business... 

It is, at least, much less-straightforwardly justifiable that someone should be tied-up, put into a locked space or drugged to insensibility in the long term. 

Even if this is needful for the well being of other people; permanent "restraint" does not solve the problem, nor cure the sin*. 

And that is the analogy with promoting supposed negative-virtues such as obedience, service, humility. 

Inculcating these negative states to thwart wrong-motivations or intentions; may be needful or expedient in temporary situations, such as young childhood; or may be all-but unavoidable in some persons, a lesser-evil...

But successfully inducing habitual negation of motivations is nonetheless and of-itself harmful: It is intrinsically an evil. 

When applied strategically, purposively, doctrinally; negations of motivation become a policy of malign constraint and coercion.

*In this mortal worldly life; it is a tragic reality that what is necessary and unavoidable, may nonetheless be evil. 

Powerful and robust motivation seems essential to a good (mortal) life; yet many effective motivations are delusional or evil

The question of motivation is one that has occupied me since before I began blogging; because I regard the modern West as a profoundly demotivated society. And without powerful and robust motivation - we are easily externally manipulated, and indeed come to desire and depend-upon external motivations. 

This much was recognized more than a century ago by CG Jung, whose therapy and philosophy was mainly about encouraging people to discover their own strong motivations - usually searching in our unconscious memories and emotions, and trying to strengthen and make conscious what we find. 

This either foreshadowed or led-to a while branch of mainstream and popular therapy and spirituality that (in various words) suggests that people discover what they really want to do: and then do it!

Thus far - the advice would be that we each, and individuals, need to discover that which motivates us powerfully and robustly. 

But, on its own, such advice implicitly assumes that all strong and enduring personal motivations are necessarily A Good Thing - or, if not good in any general of societal sense; then at least things necessary and inevitable for our personal development and happiness. 

Clearly, this is not the case. 

In the first place; some people are powerfully and enduringly motivated by selfish, exploitative, spiteful of destructive intentions towards other people, or other entities. 

And secondly; some people are motivated by falsehoods - including the psychotic delusions of the overtly insane (which can be overpowering motivators). Such strong delusions can immiserate and even destroy the life of the person who holds them.  

The conclusion seems clear: powerful and robust motivation is a very effective way of subjectively-improving the experience this mortal life - of providing direction and meaning. not enough - at least from a bigger perspective. 

Unfortunately; this works almost regardless of the nature of motivation. Religious-, political-, artistic-, lifestyle-, cult-motivations of opposite and incompatible kinds, have provided similarly life-enhancing for different people. 

And actually delusional (even self damaging) false beliefs and desires can motivate people towards (what apparently feels like, and perhaps is) a better everyday life overall.  

Motivation Is Not Enough!

As an example from my own life: From 1994 (and I know the exact day and circumstance!) and for about 20 years I was very highly motivated as a scientist. 

After a decade of working as a scientist - doing research and teaching - I "found my problem"; which was evolutionary theory as (mostly) as applied to humans, and (mostly) psychology. This strong and (relatively) lasting motivation enhanced my experience of life; and greatly enhanced my "achievement" as a scientist, albeit not my career as an academic.   

However; the enhancement was partial, and was initially harmfully-distorting to my world-view; as I increasingly tended to regard my "subject" as The most fundamental description of reality. The motivation introduced a major and damaging incoherence to my "life" (in the largest sense of life). 

Such harmful distortion is almost inevitable given the partial, and inevitably evil-tainted, nature of nearly-all actual specific motivations in this world. 

Furthermore, after a couple of decades - which is actually a long time to be a dedicated and active scientist, not many people manage as long or longer - this motivation, and indeed all forms of motivation, faded significantly, and I was no longer self-propelled with directional vitality. 

Finding my motivation was therefore substantially helpful, but contained the seeds of its own demise; and was anyway radically-insufficient in an ultimate sense.  

It is because our motivations have such a foundational role in the good experiences of life, that they are so tenaciously held - and that which provides the motivation may be absurd, mistaken, or evil makes surprisingly little difference, or no difference at all. 

What this adds-up-to; is that it is potentially very helpful to our enjoyment of our life, if we can discover what it is that "works for us" as a strong and lasting motivation...

But even if that is effective, and even if we succeed in the Jungian project of finding-out and following our personal "bliss";  this is an essentially subjective and idiosyncratic phenomenon; so the subject of motivation is pretty much arbitrary, may be grossly false; and may be evil (evil, even including as judged by our own evaluations). 

My interpretation is that the problem of "me" having the most-satisfying and most-gratifying mortal life on earth that I can manage (albeit temporarily); is essentially separate from the ultimate problems of goodness - of truth, beauty, and virtue. 

Because that which motivates effectively may be (and perhaps always is, to some significant extent) bad: false, wicked, and/or ugly. 

It is therefore fortunate that the salvation of Jesus Christ does not depend upon us having found a life-enhancing motivation! 

Indeed; the motivation for a person to accept, desire, work-towards resurrected eternal life in Heaven through following Jesus might well be a personal failure to discover what works for himself as a powerful and robust motivator. 

Indeed; it is evident that there are many people who - by their nature or from circumstances or pathologies - are only weakly motivated; and experience their mortal lives as purposeless and meaningless.

And these relatively-unmotivated people may be more inclined to embrace the salvation of Jesus; than are those seemingly-fortunate people of greater health and vitality, whose busy and successful mortal lives are shaped and directed by some strong motivator!

"I don't have time to read books" - Or, if people really want to do something, they Do It (Or: The problem is Wanting)

As a teen and young adult, I wanted to read books - especially fiction, especially novels: so I did. 

I read a lot of books even when I was very busy doing other stuff: e.g. studying at school or college - even when I was working as a doctor, even when I was a House Officer/ Intern - even when doing the 80 hour shift at weekends... 

My point is that I wanted to read novels, so I made time to read novels.

I don't claim any credit for this - I was simply indulging my personal preference - other people have other preferences. But people who claim not to read books "because" they don't have time; are actually saying they don't much want to read novels - they would rather do... something else. 

This applies across society. People are able to do what they really want to do, and if they don't much want to do something - then they are easily put-off doing it. 

Modern people do not go to church, meet and participate in groups; don't do hobbies like they used to; don't play sports; seldom dance, act or make music. And so on.  

Yet people did all of these things and more - somehow but avidly, as best they could - in the middle twentieth century - despite living under the oppressive and invasive conditions of communist dictatorships. 

They don't do them because in general they don't sufficiently want to do them; but want to do other things instead. 

Busy people nowadays make time, and spend money, to go to the hairdressers for elaborate interventions; get tattooed; go to the gym; go jogging - and interact on social media. 

That is what sufficient numbers of people want to do, and they do it. 

The problem is in the wanting.

When people's wanting is socially influenced, it is (substantially) externally-controlled; and when that external-control is (overall) malign - then people want to do bad stuff, or at least suboptimal stuff - and they don't much want to do good stuff, so they don't do it. 

The effort, time, and money is channelled into doing stuff they want, and that wanting is externally motivated.      

What is futile, is to complain/demand that external influences are not making me want better things. 

Do we, here-and-now, seriously expect society to want us to do stuff that is good for us? 

Do we seriously hope that in the 21st Century in The West - external influencers will start encouraging purposive, meaningful, positive, creative, loving activities?  

If we expect a better society as the starting point for better lives, if we intend to reform social institutions such that they will begin to influence people for good; then we will wait a long time, and wait in vain. 

But if we want to want better;  then we, as individuals, will first need to detach our own wanting from external influences. 

We shall need to discover what we ourselves actually want from life; and encourage others to do the same. 

Functionality is taxed, parasites are subsidized and enforced

Functionality is taxed, parasites are subsidized and enforced - there, in a nutshell, is the reason why the globalist totalitarian project has already collapsed; because this is happening in all social institutions, and the effect is synergistic. 

There is now no way out, because there are more parasites than functional people or groups: the parasites have wealth, power, and influence. 

Of course, when the functionality has become so weak, impoverished and rare - the functional offer slim pickings for parasites. 

The parasites have turned-upon each other; which is why the world is suddenly (in just a few years!) full of rumours of war, preparations for war, and ever more actual wars - all of which are escalating and spreading - on purpose, strategically - albeit invisibly to the masses. 

The globalist totalitarians - with their shrinking time horizons - see war as a last-ditch justification and possibility for achieving total control of all functionality in context of actual (or perceived) total war. 

They don't realize (or suppress the knowledge) that channelling all functionality into war is itself intrinsically destructive in an absolute sense of consuming and annihilating resources, people, effort. 

In the past, such profound destruction was somewhat mitigated if the war was genuinely well-motivated among participants having truly positive motivations - perhaps of a religious or patriotic nature, in a world where groups were rooted in a family feeling that was itself positive. 

But that is not the case for the dominant world civilization as of now: its people are not so much "motivated" as bribed, coerced, deceived; and manipulated by negative-motivations such as fear, resentment, and spitefulness - and they know it! 

And, often, celebrate it. 

Good does not come from evil; and evil can only be turned to good by those who are motivated by good - and none of the actually-existing grouping of Western humanity with wealth/ power/ influence are good. 

No, not even "your church" - which is actually part of the problem - as you know deep down; even when you have hope that it may cease to be so.

Even when your core hope is that your-church's goodness may enable it to be rebuilt from the relatively-powerless micro-minority of those you regard as honest, correctly aligned and good-motivated persons. 

Social functionality is not, and never has been, spontaneous: when it happens it is a secondary consequence more powerful motivators, all of which have been eroded to near-extinction. 

Functionality therefore cannot be attained as a primary goal. It arises, if at all, consequent upon some more profound and general motivation of a positive kind. 

And that is what is required; starting with me and you - because we are not going to find it waiting to be taken off-the-peg from anyone, or anywhere, else. 

The weakening effect of metaphysical mismatch (when you *know* something, but cannot explain it)

There are many situations in the modern world where people are in a situation that they know something, but cannot explain it; they cannot justify this "knowing" in terms of their underlying assumptions - their "metaphysics". 

In such situations, their knowing is weakened to the point that it is usually overcome easily, and the person is unable to resist the corrupting effect of immediate and chronic societal and personal pressures. 

Such a mismatch between metaphysical assumptions and intuition is one of the most significantly malign factors in the world today. It therefore ought to lead to an examination of the assumptions, but it almost never does - for a variety of reasons. 

To clarify; I mean the situation when a thing is asserted or proposed, and initially we experience a clear and deep (and true!) intuition that X is wrong. 

But then we find that our scheme of explanation fails to provide us with sufficient understanding of why or how X is wrong. 

And the consequence is that we assume that X must be okay after all... we go along with X; and maybe end by supporting X - if that is expedient. 

It works the other way around too, and with just as bad results. 

Someone or some-thing that our hearts - at first - tell us is of great and profound positive value* is challenged, is threatened... We would tend to defend this vehemently. 

But then we discover that our basic assumptions do not allow us to explain or grasp why this has such extreme importance. We realize that cannot justify its importance on the basis of fundamental metaphysics! 

*(A clear example is music, visual art and architecture. People may love some piece of music, greatly value a picture, building, landscape - or they may viscerally be morally-revolted or aesthetically-repelled - but they cannot find any fundamental reason why even such strong positive or negative feelings should be regarded as important.)

Lacking fundamental understanding; therefore our defence is enfeebled, at best; and often we are are crippled from defending that we value - even to ourselves! 

The threatened Good Thing is allowed to disappear without dissent, without resistant, without a fight...

 

Modern Man was thoroughly set-up for this situation by mainstream modern atheistic materialism; which inculcated the idea that metaphysics (the examination of fundamental assumptions) was meaningless nonsense. 

Instead our beliefs ought to be based on "evidence" and pragmatism - what is "helpful" and what "works"... 

This is a thoughtless, stupid or dishonest philosophical assertion; because what counts as valid or compelling evidence - what is regarded as helpful or working-well - are concepts embedded in fundamental assumptions. 

And this should be evident when people with different metaphysical convictions argue; the same "fact" means something different to each, because interpreted differently. 

But such is the ignorance-of, prejudice-against, or incompetence-at metaphysical reasoning; that such fundamental differences in assumptions are instead interpreted as moral differences (as in "anyone who disagrees with me must do so because he is a fool, insane, or a bad person"). 

Sometimes, especially in the past, such a mismatch did not matter too much; in the sense that people could recognize and defend goodness (and vice versa) despite the lack of metaphysical foundations. 

But, as CS Lewis said, what characterizes this current era is that "things are coming to a point", or, more exactly, this has already-happened. 

And one consequence is that metaphysical mismatches are now being exposed and probed as never before. And (by no coincidence) at just the time when we are less capable of metaphysical reasoning than ever before. 

This has fundamental Christian implications - implications which are generally denied, precisely because of our modern tendency to be ignorant of, or denigrate, or be unable to examine and analyse our fundamental assumptions. 

The most important of these is in relation to Jesus Christ, and why he is essential. 

In the past, justifying and explaining this did not seem so pressing; and the fact that classical theology cannot provide a clear and direct answer did not seem to matter - Christians were simply absorbed in the demanding and complex business of obeying their church and being-a-Christian (as defined by their particular church) to "bother" about metaphysics. Leave that to the experts! 

Consequently, yet astonishingly; the failure to explain metaphysically why Jesus is essential persisted through the Great Schism, the Reformation and the Mormon Restoration and up to now!   

But to the modern mind, a failure to explain simply and clearly why Jesus is necessary means that Jesus is not necessary, is inessential; hence Jesus is seen as ultimately disposable. 

This is one deep reason why so many modern people see nothing distinctive or definitive about Christianity, and no essential difference between the major religions. 

Another, for Catholics, is related to Mary, Mother of Jesus. 

In many times and places of the past, and especially Medieval England, Mary was venerated at the core of Christian practice - but not of Christian theology. 

Yet, in the past the inessential nature of Mary to theology, demonstrably comfortably coexisted with her centrality to devotional practice.  

But nowadays this just will not work. Nowadays it seems clear that if Mary is fundamentally inessential to theology, then this means she is optional: which boils down to Mary being no-more-than a personal lifestyle preference. 

Quite a change and come-down from the last days of Constantinople! When Mary united Eastern and Western Christians; and was the motivation for thousands of men courageously to fight to the death in defence of the city. 

With Mary; I mention a Catholic example, because intellectual Catholics are so devoted to logic. But there are innumerable other examples. 

The point is that there are many and vital instances where our intuitive knowledge is contradicted by our fundamental metaphysical assumptions: when we know but cannot explain. 

I regard it as imperative that we, each of us as individuals, are able to support our fundamental heartfelt convictions with deep metaphysical reasoning. 

This is a must because without the underpinning of a fundamental understanding and ability to explain-to-ourselves; all our convictions are built upon sand, and shall be swept away by the next flood of Establishment propaganda and public pressure or immediate expediency - as became all-too-obvious in 2020.  

And unless these mismatches are sorted-out - by discovering and analysing the validity of our assumptions, and bringing intuition into harmony with metaphysics - then we shall continue fatally to be enfeebled, and controlled by malign powers.  

Hobbits have Big Hands

Hobbits have Big Hands: the argument is presented at my Notion Club Papers blog.  

Evil is a subtype of Entropy, in this Pluralistic-Animistic divine creation

I have often written about the twin ultimate-problems (ineradicable insufficiencies) of this, our mortal life; under the headings of Entropy and Evil. 

My understanding of reality is that its fundamental divisions or units are eternal Beings, i.e living-Beings; such that (to modify the title of William James's book) this is an Pluralistic Animistic universe; i.e. there are many fundamental entities (not one); and these fundamental entities are alive, purposive, with agency and other attributes of Beings.  

Because things began with many Beings; God's divine creation (that we inhabit) is the primary source of cohesion: in a crude sense, by creation God imposed harmony on pre-existing and originally autonomous Beings. 

For creation to be sustained (insofar as it is sustained) there must me harmony/ cooperation/ cohesion etc between the Purposes and motives of the many Beings which constitute creation. 

Otherwise, divine creation will tend to fall apart - with different Beings pursuing different goals, or living by different values.  

It is this tendency for divine creation to fall-apart into a chaos of competing directions and behaviours that is the essential cause of the tendency named Entropy: i.e. the tendency of all life, order, organization, forms, functionality etc to decline towards chaos, with time. 

The primary source of Entropy is therefore the disharmony of Beings.

Therefore we need to stop thinking of Entropy abstractly, as if it was a branch of physics, as if it was some kind of force (or anti-force) that broke-up stuff... 

Instead, we should think of entropy as a consequence of the fact that the Beings of divine creation are imperfectly aligned in their nature and purposes. 

Our situation is that we may find ourselves loving God and experiencing profound desiring to live in harmony with divine creation; but we simply cannot do this in reality as we experience it, in this mortal life - because of our innate nature, because of the way we are (and have been) eternally.  

We may want to live in harmony with divine creation, but we cannot. 

But not all Beings want to live in harmony with divine creation, and some Beings hate God; and these are Beings that have chosen (or, at least, are currently choosing) Evil.

So, Evil can be defined as a kind of chosen Entropy; when the inevitable disharmony between our-selves and divine creation is made into the positive choice our-selves to oppose divine creation.  

From this perspective we can see that Evil is a type of Entropy - in a sense a worse type of Entropy: a positive decision to pursue negative outcomes. And worse than non-evil-Entropy; because Entropy is universal and unavoidable, whereas Evil makes the personal choice to oppose divine harmony....

Motives for Evil are various, but perhaps some kind of resentment or grudge against God and the imposed aspect of divine creation, might be the most basic motivation.  

Aims of Evil, too, are various. 

Perhaps the aim is to exploit divine harmony in pursuit of personal gratification or other selfish benefit; perhaps (more extremely) to oppose divine harmony simply from a desire to see it destroyed, taking spiteful pleasure in the destruction. 

This was the unavoidable human condition, blighted by ineradicable Entropy, and worsened by chosen Evil; and the situation for all Beings, until the advent of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus was a mortal Being, incarnated into this world of imperfect harmony between Beings - but Jesus himself loved God wholly; and was himself (at least, at the time of his ministry, after his Baptism by John) wholly-aligned with divine creation. 

Jesus was himself mortal: which is to say he was subject to Entropy. And Jesus was subject also to Evil. However; because Jesus was perfectly aligned with God and creation he knew that after death he could (and would) be remade as himself but "perfectly" - in other words, resurrected into eternal life, freed from Entropy. 

Resurrection takes our aspiration to live wholly in harmony with divine creation, and rebuilds us from that basis.

Furthermore, Jesus knew that if or when others had followed him into this eternal (because wholly-aligned, Entropy-purged) state of resurrection - which remaking process would be guided by Jesus himself - then a world of such persons would be a world without Evil.

In eliminating Entropy, resurrection also eliminates Evil, as a subsidiary effect. 

And this wholly-harmonious and wholly-God-aligned post-mortal world would be Heaven: in which the deepest and ineradicable problems of this mortal life are eliminated; and free and creative Beings live spontaneously in harmony (loving God and each-other), and from common aims and motives. 

 

The esoteric occult focus: From Far East, through Middle East, to Celtic

The Occult Revival in the West (esepcially the UK, spreading to Europe and the USA) began with Madame Blavatsky and the Theosophical Society in the late 1800s which led to the Golden Dawn magical societies. 

This regarded the fount of secret wisdom and magical power to lie in the Far East of India, China, Japan - but especially India in the early 20th century. 

Theosophy also gave a structural emphasis to the Qabalah/ Kabbalah; with its Hebrew origins in the Middle East, and a fascination with Ancient Egypt. 

The favoured religions were Hinduism, and later Buddhism and (Islamic) Sufism - with a selective and much-subordinate interest in mystical Christianity from the Neo-Platonic tradition. A uniting feature was belief in progressive reincarnation towards deity.  

The second phase, which regarded itself as "Western" is most associated with Rudolf Steiner and later Dion Fortune, and was most active in the early decades but especially the era between WWI and WWII.  - but their idea of the West was relative. 

They discarded the Far East focus, but retained a basis in the Qabalah; instead were interested by Egypt and the Middle East of Palestine. Steiner was much interested by the specifics of native European "folk souls" but Anthroposophy never developed an explicit magical practice, nor was it regional in practice or aspiration - being much focused on the power centre of the HQ in Dornach, Switzerland. 

This era of magic is Christian, or at least pro-Christian (depending on interpretation) - at any rate, many of them (including Steiner and Dion Fortune) regarded themselves as strongly Christian in essence. However, progressive reincarnation (rather than salvation and resurrection) remained at its heart. 

From the post WWII era (e.g. Robert Graves's The White Goddess) but especially from the 1960s and 1970s; the magical tradition began to focus on genuinely Western sources, and especially on the (supposed) Celtic aspects of Britain and Ireland before the Roman conquest. 

This led to the various manifestations of Neo-Paganism such as extremely popular Witches/ Wiccans, Druids; and the modern magical societies and groups (including much of the broad "chaos magic" tradition.  

Modern occultism and esoteric actuiivity has retained the idea of progressive reincarnation towards divinity. 

However, in contrast with the early 20th century occultism of Steiner and Dion Fortune; post millenial occultism is, and increasingly, essentially anti-Christian/ "anything-but-Christianity" - usually actively and vehemently so. 

Indeed, 21st century occultism typically embraces the Christianity-inverted values of mainstream Western culture - especially with respect to morality; which among Neo-Pagans is often explicitly and deliberately transgressional in its ideals and actuality. 

Leftist Western supporters of bureaucratic totalitarianism ("knowledge-workers") are One-Step dupes of the Agents of Chaos

Just an observation. 

It is striking that the Leftist Westerners who support the ideals of bureaucratic totalitarianism - I mean mostly those "knowledge-workers" of the managerial, state official, and intellectual-worker class - are operating in a bubble of inverted misconception. 

These folk are passionately committed to institutions such as the UN, WHO, EU, the Left political parties, Environmentalist and other "charity" NGOs with ideals such as diversity and equality. They see themselves as wanting a compassionate and fair society, with utilitarian aims, operated on rational grounds by technical and professional experts (such as themselves). 

Yet they actively support, admire, pin their hopes on the Agents of Chaos - the top leadership class who now control the UN, EU and all the other agencies and groups to whom the Western totalitarians affiliate. 

And the Western knowledge worker class viscerally oppose the global representative of exactly that kind of utilitarian, bureaucratic, legalistic totalitarianism which they so much admire! Especially fearing and hating the Fire Nation to the east of Europe, and the Earth Kingdom of the far east: nations that are (overall) striving to retain and restore a version of the late twentieth century system of international law and relative "toleration" between the nation-powers. 

My interest in this phenomenon is that almost all of the Western knowledge-worker class - e.g. lawyers, academics, religious leaders, teachers, scientists and the multitude of bureaucrats and managers - i.e. those who are, in principle, the most intelligent and "well-informed" of the masses; have been duped into solidly, stubbornly, supporting exactly that ideology of mutually-destructive chaos which aims to wipe-out the entire utilitarian-totalitarian project (starting with its most powerful national advocates). 

The Western knowledge-workers therefore diligently sustain and serve the agenda of those who strategize to destroy everything they most cherish!

In a nutshell; the Western supporters of Lawful Evil, oppose the not-Western supporters of Lawful Evil; while vehemently actively promoting and sustaining the Western agents of Chaotic Evil*. 

I find this fascinating, as a psycho-social phenomenon. I mean, the way that such a large group of people can be so thoroughly brainwashed to work so hard against their own interests**. 

It is a telling example of the domination of One-Step self -interested reasoning I discussed yesterday. 

It is exactly because the Western knowledge-workers are so in-thrall to One-Step reasoning, that they are so pathetically (and indeed despicably) vulnerable to such gross manipulation. 

+++

*The situation somewhat resembles that described for Saruman and the Uruk-Hai in the Lord of the Rings.

Saruman represents the Western Agents of Chaos in the leadership class of the West; and the Western knowledge-workers are the Uruk-Hai. 

The Uruk-Hai are presented as law-abiding orc-Men (hybrids specifically bred by Saruman...), who are loyally devoted and obedient to Saruman, who himself spouts a cynically-dishonest rhetoric of fairness, control, order... which cynical rhetoric is taken at face value and believed-in by the Uruk-Hai... 

Meanwhile; Saruman has become a petty, sadistic, spitefully-destructive individual - whose overmastering motivation is increasingly rooted in resentment and fear; and whose primary desire is vengefully to torment and kill his grudge enemies. 

Thus the Lawful Evil of the hard-working and conscientious Uruk-Hai/ Western knowledge-workers are set to work on a campaign of Chaos.

**The same applies mutatis mutandis to (almost) whole nations, such as the entity I have termed CHOAM (word-search it) whose people (it seems to be a large majority of them) are being willingly, indeed enthusiastically (?), led-towards their own descent into chaos and annihilation; under the deceptive rhetoric of of their rulers' pretence to be pursuing increased national power and system-expansion/ -consolidation.   

 

Note: I am presenting this as an observation, and not intending that it be interpreted as a prescription for how the supporters of bureaucratic evil ought more effectively to pursue their self-interest! I do not wish to support either of the main strategies of evil: neither totalitarian nor chaotic. But I believe that we can only avoid being drawn-into supporting one or the other species of evil, by understanding the actual situation - including its wilfully self-blinded and delusional nature. 

The end of Two-Step self-interest

The Old Left in Britain was largely rooted in the self-interest of unionized skilled workers, who strove to protect their pay and conditions over the medium to long-term. 

It was accepted that, in the short-term, workers would lose-out. 

By union activity they would become less popular with employers, need to pay union dues, attend meetings, maybe embark on self-education; and if there were strikes they would lose wages. 

My point is that at this time - from the 1800s right up into the middle-1900s; ordinary people were thinking in the medium to long-term; on a timescale that encompassed years ahead. 

That is what was going-on with the rioting and resistance of groups that resisted technological changes that would tend to destroy their long-term interests; groups now generically described as "Luddites" - hand-loom weavers, for example. 

Workers would be aware of changes in laws and regulations that constituted structural threats to their future power and autonomy; and these would often be the focus of industrial disputes. 

Let's call this Two-Step self-interest. 

But we now (and increasingly over the past half-century) inhabit an era of One-Step self-interest. 

The concern is with me, here, now. Proposed change to our work and life is evaluated on the basis of what may benefit me today, tomorrow, next week, maybe next year? 

This is part of the change from an Old Leftism based around class, economics, and power; to a New Leftism based around lifestyle, personal identity, social status, self-esteem etc. 

New Leftism is a top-down ruling class project. It does not seriously seek support among working class unionized workers; but instead among the managerial and intellectual workers, among "youth" (and youth-minded) who value being "cool"; and by pandering to an expanding client class of disaffected self-conceptualized victims. 

New Leftism has coincided with and also abolished Two-Step reasoning from all public discourse.

The pursuit of basic self-interest is nowadays regarded as despicable - except among the designated victim class; who must accept subservient status and live by grace and favour of The System to retain this contingent privilege.  

There is simply no place in mainstream societal and professional public discourse for considering the medium/ long-term consequences of changes.  

Consequently (or from some other cause) people have actually become incapable of Two-Step reasoning, of evaluating their own Two-Step self-interest. 

They can, and do, look no further ahead of more widely than me/ here/ now; and become very uncomfortable or angry when anyone tries to make them consider the medium-long term consequences of proposed change. 

All that people ask, all that they can conceptualize; is that proposed change be approved officially or by their chosen "authority; and have some superficially-plausible chance of yielding One-Step self-interest - better conditions or pay, perceived chance of promotion, higher status among peers etc. 

When there are Two-Step strategizers are leading those who are blind to consequences; what happens is that multiple short-term (One-Step) benefits, will accumulate towards long-term (Two-Step) annihilation. 

It happens unwittingly, without awareness on the part of those being manipulated towards their own destruction. 

That some proposed or actual change may abolish their job, impoverish them, create environmental threats, lead to war (inter-national or civil) is simply outwith the scope of their reasoning. 

What was the normal "common sense" reasoning of ordinary working men just 100 years ago - i.e. the ability to evaluate longer term and structural consequences from their own point-of-view - now seems like merely arbitrary, or actively irresponsible, speculation! 

Irrelevant at best, but mostly negativistic, subversive, dangerous to organizational cohesion 

As a result of this cognitive deficiency, whole functional institutions - such as my personal areas of experience and interest such as academia, scientific research, medicine; and the Christian churches - have been taken-over in an incremental, step-wise fashion; and brought under external bureaucratic control. 

And, at least since the 1990s; all this happened essentially any significant awareness, opposition or resistance. 

I am not calling here for a restoration of Two-Step self-interest - this is apparently impossible: people are just incapable. 

Neither am I suggesting that it always or even usually led to long-term betterment - Luddites failed in their resistance. 

I am instead describing what happened, what used-to-be: a way of thinking and reasoning that was possible, almost automatic, for ordinary working people for many generations. 

And how it has almost disappeared. 

The livelihood of whole sectors of the population in, say, 1800; might be, often was, abolished; and the world was changed. 

But this did not happen without people being able to work-out in advance what was on the cards, and without recognizing the cause of what was happening to them. 

Nowadays; the mass of UK people are literally too stupid, stupefied even to work-out such simple Two-Step self interested logic that immigration at a rate of 800K-plus per year is the cause of housing shortages. Or to know the inevitable long-term consequence of decades of severe native sub-fertility plus mass immigration.

The nature of this stupidity has nothing to do with relative intelligence; because it is commonest among the intellectual classes. 

Neither is it explicable merely on the basis of propaganda; because the olden-days workers were subject to a very complete mind-control system via Establishment-religion, and very harsh punishments for transgression. 

But this regime could not eradicate peoples' ability to know their own long-term self-interest - even when they could not effectively defend it. 

The cause of this modern incapacity of reasoning seems to me more like a loss of basic protective instincts; perhaps at a biological, genetic, level*. 

But loss is loss; and this is a very real fact of life - something that must be taken-into-account, worked-around.  

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed Man is king. 

And in a world of where most are capable of only One-Step self-interest; the Two-Steppers will rule. 

The Two-Steppers will easily manipulate the One-Steppers without their awareness, and without resistance.

And that is the world we inhabit.

**

* Loss of the motivational primacy of the religious-spiritual perspective is also crucial. I believe that past people were able to favour the medium/long term because they genuinely expected to live after death. Once self-interest is confined to our own mortal life, then it tends to become shorter term; because the closer and more personal the benefit hoped-for, the surer and more certain it is that we personally will get it.       

Note: And this is yet another reason why there is no hope from the Christian Churches. The churches are being strategized into annihilation. Churches consist-of, and are led-by, One-Steppers; who are unwittingly manipulated - by one short-term beneficial increment after another - by a ruling class headed, ultimately, by Two-Steppers. 

Note added: The above is an example of why common sense has not just zero traction nowadays, but is actively stigmatized; and why (as I analyzed in my 2011 mini-book Thought Prison - see sidebar) there cannot be a genuine (i.e. *not* spook-generated/ manipulated fake-opposition) and effective political party based on common sense. CS just does not motivate sufficiently in the modern atheistic-materialistic mind - probably it never has. This has been repeatedly confirmed in the 15 years since, when high profile pseudo-common sense politics always turns out to be a sham - as with the current "leader of the free world", and the Brexiteers of the UK...  

The "concentration camp guard" argument

In relation to today's earlier posts, the following may help concretize and clarify the nature of the argument. It picks up on the pub discussion about whether you or I would refuse to work as a guard in a concentration camp. 

The "concentration camp guard" argument is usually framed as a matter of principles and courage; 

First; whether you or I would recognize the moral principles we currently uphold despite living in a society that propagated the opposite; and 

Secondly whether we would then have the courage to resist coercive social pressure and refuse to do something that we regarded as evil.

  

Leaving-aside the observation that Of Course the person raising the "concentration camp guard" argument would go along with social majority opinion, and would not resist even the mildest of social coercion... 

But would instead enthusiastically embrace and pursue a new career, in what would probably be re-framed as "public-protection and offender-rehabilitation". 

(This, because such is what that kind of person (i.e. people who raise moral dilemma questions of the "concentration camp guard" type) invariably actually does. (e.g. as was/is seen in every Litmus Test issue, but especially the Birdemic-Peck business of 2020.)

But leaving-aside such practical and behavioural considerations, and acknowledging that extremely few people can (or perhaps should) resist extreme social coercion; especially when, as usual, these include sanctions against family and dependents...

The proper question would Not link recognition of true moral values with the capacity to act upon them.  

By linking principles to the need for courageous action - all that we do is to ensure people will modify their principles in order to accommodate the strength of their moral courage.  

As St Paul bitterly complained; there will always be dissonance between a Man's moral principles and his moral behaviour. That is inescapable; because the nature of human beings and mortal life on earth. But it is wicked to seek consistency by adjusting our principles to the reality of our actions.     

What can and should be required of a moral person is simply that he recognize and affirm true principles; that he acknowledge what is evil, and inwardly reject it. 

That recognition, acknowledgement, inner-rejection is what is necessary; and that is what is always possible. (This is what Christians term repentance.)

So; no matter what their own behaviour, or career choices, or social compulsions may be; people should always be able to know that (for instance) concentration camps are evil, and that personally profiting from such an evil is wrong. 

Anything "AI" can do, is, fundamentally, Not Worth Doing or Better Not Done: A potentially valuable lesson of this Litmus Test

One thing about the Litmus Tests of our era is that they are learning opportunities: but more emphatically they are opportunities to learn something important and especially relevant to ourselves and this era of human history. 

This is because the very success of Litmus Test issues - the large degree of (often passionate) public support they attract - makes it evident that the "tasks" of recognizing their fundamentally evil falseness is one of especially great value.  

Even when we personally happen to be largely immune to the appeal of a specific Test, we can learn valuable lessons from considering the nature of their appeal - from considering what particular (maybe distinctive) modern weakness they are probing and exploiting. 

The current dominating Litmus Test is probably the (post-November 2022) "AI" project; and the lesson comes from observing and analysing the nature of its appeal - from studying what it is about "AI" that AI-advocates focus upon or enthuse about - including both its actual capabilities, claims of capabilities, and hoped-for effects and consequences.

Each of these have different causes; but I have noticed that when it comes to the actual capabilities of post-2022 "AI"; it is apparent that:

Whatever "AI" can do, ought Not to be done. 

Either because it is not worth doing, which covers a good deal. 

Or because it is actively harmful to the human spirit that this task be automated. 

To recognize this requires that we be able to detach our-selves from the here-and-now worldly imperatives, such as making a living while dwelling in a totalitarian System that has (increasingly strongly) net-evil aims, values, and methods.  

If this can be achieved, then we notice that "AI" is actually being-used for anti-loving and anti-creative purposes. 

(And for a Christian anti-loving and anti-creative means evil: it means an opposition to the nature of divine creation.) 

I mean that "AI"-systems are being used to reduce and ("ideally") eliminate human to human, and therefore any potential for genuine inter-personal relationships. 

Instead we get automated simulation. 

And "AI" is being used to reduce and ("ideally") eliminate from tasks any potential for genuine human creativity.   

Instead we get automated simulation. 

This is the actual effect of actually-existing "AI" systems. 

And on the flip-side there is the situation that anything "AI" genuinely does do, which is not a simulation - should not be done. 

This insight can be helpful because there are many aspects of modern life that are (whether in practice, or fundamentally) unavoidable and pervasive; but which we should spiritually recognize as intrinsically un-Good, evil. 

As so often, it is the clear spiritual recognition of a reality that is necessary - and that is the proper task of a Christian; and not our personal ability practically to eliminate that which is a necessity. 

Because, often there is nothing we can do to alleviate an evil necessity. 

But we can always recognize and acknowledge that a necessity is evil - and that is our proper task.