Was Boudicca's revolt originally intended as a distraction from the Roman annihilation of Druidry?

"Bolshy Boudica", a British heroine, 

as depicted by TV Horrible Histories 

The story of Boudicca's revolt against the Roman occupiers in AD 61 is well known; and it is usually explained as having been caused by Queen Boudicca having been whipped and her daughters raped by agents of Nero. 

But another idea struck me while reading Geoffrey Ashe's history of Glastonbury, King Arthur's Avalon (1957). Ashe emphasizes that the Druids were a major obstacle to Roman rule in Gaul, due to the proximity of the Druidic colleges in Britain, which Julius Caesar said was the centre of Druidry. 

Druids seem to have been an elite and secretive caste, with a very long (twenty year) initiatory apprenticeship into an organization that combined many functions such as priests, prophets and augers, healers and repositories of history and lore. 

In sum, British society could not function without Druids. 

Ashe makes the plausible suggestion that the destruction of Druidry was in fact the major motivation for the successful Claudian invasion and occupation of Britain from AD 43.

It is therefore very  likely that Druid control and coordination was extremely strong in Britain; since they were the grey-eminence rulers of the British regional kings, a national organization that bridged between the regional Kingdoms. 

If their destruction was indeed the Roman aim, then from AD 43 onwards, the Druids were fighting not just to retain their power, but their lives. 

This danger to the Druids became potentially terminal in AD 60 into 61, when the Romans had pushed the Druids back into the Island of Mona (modern Anglesey) off the north coast of Wales, and the Romans were preparing an invasion. 

The Romans then planned to invade and occupy Wales, thereby completing the conquest of Druidic Britain. 

My suggestion is that - as this threat to Druidry developed, and the Romans sent their legions to the north-west of Britain to attack Mona - the Druids sent word to Boudicca instructing her to start a rebellion in the South East of the country. 

In other words, Boudicca's rebellion may have started as a military distraction, intended to divert Roman resources away from their plans to destroy Druidry. 

The Boudicca diversion, if that is what it was, was partially and temporarily successful. 

It did not save Mona, nor the Druids gathered there - perhaps the rebellion was too late; or perhaps the Roman's anti-Druid strategic priority trumped their desire to save the Romanized populace of south east England?

In the event, the Romans were able to win their battle against Mona, invade the island, kill the Druids and everybody else, and burn the sacred groves.

But thanks to Boudicca, the Romans could not consolidate their victory - not yet. The island of Mona was not occupied. The conquest of Wales was delayed. 

The legions were compelled to return to the South East, where they defeated the Boudicca rebellion - which had by then grown to enormously destructive proportions. In their usual fashion the Romans proceeded to crush the responsible populations, in order to deter and prevent any similar event recurring. 

But this took time and resources. So that Mona was not occupied by the Romans until another sixteen years had passed, and mainland Wales was not occupied until AD 78.

So, if Boudicca's rebellion was a distraction motivated by the Druids, it proved very costly and only temporary in effect. 

On the other hand, Boudicca did kill many tens of thousands of Romans; and destroyed Colchester, St Albans and London. 

And she delayed the conquest of Wales - and thereby probably delayed the final annihilation of the socio-political structures of Druidry - by a significant period. 

In sum - what I am suggesting here is that the causality of Boudicca and the Druids of Mona may be the reverse of how these are usually explained. 

Traditionally; the explanation is that Boudicca rebelled because the Roman legions were occupied in the opposite corner of the country in destroying the Druids. The rebellion was allowed by the attack on Druidry. 

What I am instead saying is that Boudicca rebelled under instruction from the Druids, with the intention of bringing the Roman back from Mona: in hope of saving the Druids. 

The idea is that Boudicca rebellion was instructed, not allowed. She was not taking advantage of the absence of Roman legions; she was instead intending to divert the legions from destroying the Druids.  

The Absolute stupidity of (totalitarian) bureaucracy

There is an absolute and ineradicable stupidity at the heart of The System: the bureaucracy that controls our totalitarian society. 

This is something that I observed first-hand in the year and a half I worked in the National Health Service administration. What is characteristic of the stupidity is a conviction that because we need it to be so, then it can be so*. 

When The System finds some-thing necessary, then The System will believe that it is possible. 

Indeed, The System cannot comprehend that what it regards as necessary, is actually impossible - because The System only takes regard of itself. 

The System is its own world; and works by assuming that itself is the whole world. 

So that when The System recognizes something as necessary, or even as simply desirable - then The System also automatically-intrinsically regards that something as possible. 

We see this characteristic everywhere - or, at least, we can see it if we stand outwith The System, which apparently not all that many people can or do (or even want to do). 

We see it at the large scale and at the small scale of bureaucratic operations. 

At the large scale there is the colossal socio-economic phenomenon of the Global Climate Warming/ Change Emergency; by which something not-a-problem, and anyway immeasurable (i.e. the temperature of the earth/ocean surface/ atmosphere is not measurable coherently); and which has unknown determinants; is claimed by The System to be understood, predictable, and controllable (by The System) down to fractions of a degree... So The System regards the climate problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

On a smaller scale there is the current wave of AI ("Artificial Intelligence"), which The System believes it needs in order to exert what The System regards as the necessary degree of monitoring and control over the mass population. And the fact that "AI" cannot by its nature possibly work in the real world for such purposes, and therefore it does not work; is unknowable by The System. So The System regards the AI problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

And implementation of such schemes is also something that The System knows how to do, to its own satisfaction, by the means it has generated internally. 

So that the actually accelerating collapse of social order and capability in the world outside The System, and that this collapse is actually caused by The System, simply does not register; because it is not part of The System.

From inside The System, the only "real" problems are ones of implementation: the problem that "people" simply aren't properly doing... whatever it is that The System currently wants them to do. 

Which means that the only "real" problem for The System is that of monitoring and controlling "people". 

And thus the circle is completed.    

 *The specific instance when this became clear was when I was questioning a government minister in a meeting at the Health Authority. The NHS bureaucracy had set as a numerical-monitored-target, that national suicide rates should and would be reduced. I pointed-out that this was nonsensical, because nobody knew how national suicide rates could be reduced. The minister rather impatiently explained to me that it was necessary that Psychiatric services had a target (or else they would be neglected), and this was the only suitable measurable outcome; so now it was "up to us" to discover how to reach that target - i.e. how to reduce national suicide levels in line with the targets. In practice, The System generated some (totally conjectural) methods that it believed ought to work. These were accepted (eagerly) because something must be done. The hypothetical notion was, basically, prescribing more antidepressant drugs (because that must stop suicides, right?... Ignoring that the SSRI drugs actually increase suicides, which was what happened in the real world). And so drug-pushing was the policy which got implemented. At least until The System changed the targets, for reasons of its own.

Note added: The above is a soft version of the Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann - which is summarized and developed in the Appendix of my (pre-Christian, and leftist) book The Modernization Imperative.  

Deity is a person

When I think back across my conversion from (almost) lifelong atheism to Christianity, it seems clear that the biggest barrier was that God the creator is a person. 

Even in my youth I was prepared, even keen, to adopt abstract deistic principles, and assumptions about the directional or cohesive structure of reality...

But the idea of the creator as a person was an assumption that I ruled out - quickly, effortlessly - as obviously absurd, obviously childish. 

Yet now I regard creator-as-person as an absolutely foundational and essential fact (and assumption). 

Spawn of Hartley Hare?

My life seems to have been plagued by Hartleys; which I blame upon that archetypal Hartley: Hartley Hare - who I tentatively presume to have been a transdimensional and temporally omnipresent being; capable of exerting influence of many kinds, by many means.  

Such were my thoughts when I saw notice that our latest local Church of England Bishopess is yet another Hartley (Helen-Anne). The resemblance to HH is obvious:

Then there was, of course, that old fly-fisherman JR Hartley - whom I have mentioned before:

And I have also referenced Hartley Coleridge (who was born in the most boring town in the world, and whose erstwhile home I have stayed in) - eldest son of Samuel Taylor; who also has the look of Hartley Hare about him:

A malign presence in mid-childhood was the ubiquitous product Hartley's New Jam, especially its strawberry manifestation; which (from memory) was low on fruit, high on pectin; and relied heavily on various flavourings and preservatives and shocking pink food colouring. A typical Hartley-inspired product, as the makers signal by their almost demonic depiction of the Hartley-childrens' faces:

 If my experience is anything to go by; whenever you encounter a Hartley - beware. 

On the appreciation of beautiful experiences, truth-telling, or moral-acts... Doing Good is not necessarily "a good thing"...

A problem we have - a real problem! - is that "doing good" does not mean that good is done. 

Of course, in practice, this was usually only a loose-ish connection. But overall it made sense to talk in terms of virtuous or moral actions, of beautiful artistic products and performances, of truths (from science, philosophy, history etc) that were valuable of themselves.  

But nowadays there is a very substantial disconnect - up to and including opposition between Doing Good, and being good. 

To be blunt; a lot of the generally-accepted "good stuff" in life (especially the stuff that we get to hear about) is nowadays produced by people who are actively on the side of evil. 

This Is A Problem - and one that challenges the usual ways of thinking; not least because it often means that the bits of good which are done, are often/usually used for net-evil purposes. 

Such has always been the most effective form of propaganda - e.g. is the elements of truth within propaganda that make the lies believable. It is the experience of beauty that makes the ugliness of the message seem appealing and convincing.

Yet, at the same time; when the System/ Matrix/ Black Iron Prison mixes Good with its evil, truth with lies, beauty with vileness, virtue with manipulation; it also thereby somewhat undermines itself. So the combination is unstable. 

On the other hand, at the level of institutions; things have becoming more evil for long enough to show that this is not enough to cause self-correction. 

There has been no pendulum-swing back towards net-Good motivations. There are no grounds for complacency! - and it seems entirely likely/ possible that things will continue to get worse, as the underlying motivations of more and more participants continue to get worse.   

And when the civilization is totalitarian (as ours is) then any aspects of truth, beauty or virtue that require resources or organization, anything involving publicity or media - will normally and mostly be harnessed to the agenda of evil. 

Thus, in the spiritual war of this world, Doing Good (in an obvious and public way) is nearly-all on the side against God; and that which is truly motivated by Good tends to be invisible and unappreciated at a cultural level - maybe known only among the circle of family or friendship.

The situation is that there is still a sense in which truth/ beauty/ virtue are as real as ever they were; yet there is also a sense in which they have - in practice - been weaponized against God and Divine Creation. 

For this Not to happen, and for public-Good again to evoke inner-good; we moderns of 2025 must become more consciously aware of the situation, we must make discernments and choices. 

We need to be able to know what is good, and distinguish the good from the evil uses being made of it. 

Our thinking needs to be active and purposive; not passive, not dreamy-drifting. 

Returning to my recent experience of choral evensong... 

To give ourselves up to a contemplative-appreciative state of immersion in external "Good" - on the basis that external Good can-must-and-shall "do us good"; is actually, in practice, to open-our-selves to manipulation and exploitation by the system of evil. 

If, instead, we yield to the overall experience like floating in a warm bath, half-asleep, with eyes closed; we will be absorbing toxin through our dilated pores, even as our minds are beguiled! 

It is a matter of spiritual trust, and who can or should be trusted here-and-now. So long as there is a likelihood that the "provider" of Good experiences is on the wrong side in the spiritual war; for so long we must aim to exercise continual discernment. And be ready to repent when (as inevitably happens, sometimes) we fail to do so.  

Thoughts after attending sung Evensong at King's Bollege, Bambridge

I recently attended choral evensong at King's Bollege Bambridge - which is perhaps the most famous choir, and choral venue, in the world; thanks to its many decades of BBC world broadcasting on Christmas Eve.

They certainly lived up to their reputation, with a beautiful sound and extraordinary precision of diction and intonation. 

I was particularly fortunate in that the music was provided by what are - for me - the very best of choral music - viz that of the "Renaissance" era, including the English Tudor composers Byrd and Weelkes. 

The event provoked some interesting considerations. 

First, although it was a a liturgical event in a chapel; it was not really Christian, but a high quality classical music concert that happened to have free entry and a famously fine architectural setting. 

Consequently, a very high proportion of the very large "congregation" were tourists; and anyway I knew that the clergy and choir were not really Christian, but instead and inevitably mainstream Church-of-England bureaucratic-leftist.  

They have to be, because otherwise such a lavish and high quality event could not be provided (as it is) on almost a daily basis and for pretty much the whole year. 

This requires a colossal degree of planning, funding, and sheer organization that can only arise from institutions that are thoroughly (and successfully) embedded in the standard workings of the Totalitarian State, with its vast monitoring and regulatory apparatus. 

As well as the upkeep and maintenance of the chapel itself; the running of a choral school - and its recruitment and training of boys and adult singer, is an enormous work in itself, with traditions and practices spanning many decades - indeed centuries.  

The Evensong was therefore the culmination and continuation of a high civilization; which is itself absolutely dependent on the apparatus of the State. In the past, that State was Christian (officially, and to various degrees in practice). 

However; as of 2025 the UK State is integral to the Global Totalitarian System - with its overwhelmingly evil motivations, policies and plans. Even among the evil-states of The West, the UK is striving to become the most destructive in a specialist fashion (terror, sabotage etc), on an international scale. 

Therefore, the beauties of King's Bollege Evensong come at a cost, and that cost is high; not only in terms of money and resources, but in terms of all the above. 

The cost is one of willing collaboration in systematic evil... Of course, these costs are not all evil (nothing is), and those within usually justify themselves in that basis - such as, in this instance, virtues such as the high aesthetic standards, and hard work. 

But overall, overwhelmingly, and increasingly evil - for sure. 

In order to be allowed (and enabled) to put on high-level aesthetic events like the Evensong I attended; the elements that go to make it possible (the university, college, chorister's school, all manner of charitable and artistic groups); must all consent to (and, increasingly positively endorse) most of that large and increasing range of ideological programs that characterize the modern State - and which are innately hostile to God and divine creation and, of their essence, materialistic, reductionist, opposed to beauty and quality. 

There has been a Faustian bargain pursued by the academic and artistic Establishment for many decades; by which The System has permitted aesthetic (but not religious-spiritual) values to continue (including in a self-identified) Christian context in return for ideological servitude. 

But the scope of that aesthetic activity has inevitably been been shrinking overall - and the materialist-demands and value-corruptions have incrementally escalated.

Anyone who attends a church, university, art gallery, museum, theatre, or concert hall nowadays - is far more likely to be confronted by crude political propaganda, than high aesthetic or scholarly values. 

If current motivations and belief-realities persist, and trends continue, the only-possible, hence inevitable, end of this process will be one of spoilage and destruction of all that is beautiful. 

There are many and powerful external factors that would annihilate King's Evensong very rapidly and completely. Such things have often happened before.   

But even without destruction from the waxing alien imperatives of many kinds; since the civilization that makes it all possible is now consumed by self-hatred and a covertly suicidal impulse.

If it survives external destruction; then an end will come from internal factors 

The paradox is that the many value-inversions and materialist metaphysics that had to be embraced by those people and institutions who make a King's Evensong possible; are exactly what will ensure that it becomes impossible, and will cease to happen. 

Benefit of the doubt? Supporting net-evil

A lot of self-identified Christians believe that it is right and "Christian" to give institutions and powerful persons "the benefit of the doubt" when they claim good motivations. Or even when they espouse bad intentions.

This is assumed to be good in principle or at least harmless.

Not so, because when an institution i corrupt, untruthful, net-evil, then to fail to discern such reality, to support it; is to join with the side that opposes God, divine creation, and The Good - and thereby oneself to become spiritually corrupted.

Surely we ought to support Good not evil? How can it be right to lend spiritual (maybe material) aid to Satan?

Why not set-aside manipulative and self-annihilating propaganda that tends to ur damnation. We should instead discern, and keep learning - and when we err, we should repent.

Biggles Learns to Fly, revisited

 About four years ago, I picked up secondhand a few of the first published Biggles books (by WE Johns), which triggered a serious revival of interest in WWI, then WWII, military aircraft. 

Since then, I have read many scores of memoirs and histories; and watched movies and documentaries by the dozens.

Going back to re-read what began it all, I find that, in particular, Biggles Learns to Fly holds up very well indeed; in terms of being an accurate account of actual experiences of the WWI pilots.

Naturally, since the books were aimed at boys, there is more concentrated adventure and humour. But everything described is based on reality, gathered from numerous sources - personal experience, discussion with colleagues, and published accounts.

The style and stories are also enjoyable, and emotionally powerful - stresses, horrors and deaths are there in proportion - and given proper weight.

Yet the essential heroism and chivalry of the pioneer pilots is dominant - as is right and proper.

Change and changelessness - the oldest philosophical problem

The earliest recorded ("Pre-Socratic) ancient Greek philosophers were metaphysicians who seem to have been focused on explaining change and changelessness - which was the most fundamental, and/or how the two were related and interacted*. 

Since change is so obvious, why did they feel a need to impute or explain changelessness? 

The answer is that if all is change then there can be no purpose, meaning, knowledge, no values - just a kind of chaos 

And then one needs to explain why we spontaneously and tenaciously assume that there are such things as purpose, meaning etc.

In sum; there is explanatory need for something other-than-change if we are to have purpose, meaning, values; there would need to be a sense in which there is both directional change and eternal preservation in reality. 

For Christians, in particular, there must be a way of understanding how eternal Good is possible when there is change. 

When we start (as I do) with the assumption of Beings as the "units of eternal reality" we need to explain how Beings - which are alive and conscious, hence dynamic and exist in time - can both change purposively and also eternally preserve that which is Good.

If Beings must both change and retain; this implies the expansion of Beings - because beings must accumulate as well as change. 

And if this is to be eternal, Beings must be expansible without limit. 

Tis is easily understandable by the analogy of development - that is, the development of an organism, for example an animal, from its formation by fertilization through to mature adulthood. Such a process of development includes both directional change and is also cumulative.

For instance, in an animal there is innate or instinctive behaviour which is "given"; and there is also learning added-to (and interacting-with) the instinctive; and learning must be retained, and accumulates. 

All that we need to add to the analogy is that the organism (or Being) potentially is able to continue this development without limit, and everlastingly. 

That cannot happen during mortal life on this earth; but it is (I believe) what happens in Heaven, when we are resurrected eternally. 

 

*I get this mostly from FC Copleston's History of Philosophy, reinforced by Rudolf Steiner's Riddles of Philosophy. 

The literal impossibility of putting theory into practice in Life

Theory is always and necessarily a simplified model of reality. Extremely simplified - because everything in the universe is left-out, except what is specifically included in the theory. 

If you think about it, this must be the case - the vastness and unboundedness of life (which is not really divided spatio-temporally, except into Beings) - otherwise there would be no point in having a theory!

A good theory renders graspable the most significant aspects (for the current purpose) of that vastly interconnected web of communication and interaction which is Everything. 

This is why even the very best theories can never be put into practice. 

It explains why we always come-up against the intractable problem of actually living by our understanding of God, creation and salvation.   

And, in Christianity, even the true-est and real-est and most-good theology cannot be put into practice in Life. 

Life is just so much greater than any theory!

When we try (and many have tried) to implement theoretical understanding, to live by The Book, The Rules or whatever - then it will fail.

This does not mean that theory is worthless, yet it never is the truth. It does not mean that theory is useless in some particular practice, yet theory should never be a blueprint. 

(For instance: Even the most perfect system of law is unjust; unless interpreted by a good and wise judge - who takes into account the many ways in which the law fails to describe reality.) 

However, we cannot just dispense with theorizing; because we live inside theory. Indeed, we live inside totalitarianism; which is a theory of everything, that denies any limitation, which tends always to encroach everywhere. 

This is because totalitarianism is rooted in negation, in the double negative values of a theory being against itself - a self-consuming, self-destroying theory of all. 

Our problem is to escape from the habitual thinking of the inculcated self-tyranny of this System, which theory we actually accept by socialization; because the totalitarian theory dominates public discourse, and we are compelled to live-by-it in most (and ever more) areas of life. 

So one value of theorizing is if it helps us break free from the mind-control of the actual-and-evil theory under which we Live. 

But whatever alternative theory we discover or devise (even the best imaginable theory of Christianity); we shall come up against the necessary fact that our theory is ultimately wrong because grossly incomplete; and cannot (as well as should-not) be implemented as a blueprint for Life and Living. 

The ultimate goal is perhaps always to go beyond theory to live in freedom in accordance with divine creation - not by theory but by intuition, divine inspiration, by knowing reality. 

In the meanwhile, in this mortal life on earth, we must continue to use theories; but should strive not be used-by theories.  

"The poor always ye have with you" - Jesus's harsh rejection of double-negative theology

John: 12: 3-8. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus is both impatient and decisive in his rejection of Judas Iscariot's attempt to impose the deadly trap of double-negative theology on Jesus's message. 

The danger of this demonic lure is evident. 

If Christianity becomes primarily a matter of dealing with the sufferings of this-world, there will be no end or limit to such activities, such a mind-set. 

To live for "compassion" is un-Christian and spiritually lethal; because it excludes the ultimate life-purpose of salvation*. 

"The Poor" of one sort or another (including our poor-selves, our own sufferings and needs!) will always be with us, their needs will always be present and, unless a higher and positive life-purpose is in place and dominant, will always usurp the purpose of salvation  - as the present self-identified-Christian churches exemplify with such horrible clarity. 

Only from the primacy of a commitment to following Jesus Christ through death to Heavenly resurrection; is it spiritually virtuous to consider the endless, boundless, intractable problems of this mortal life and world. 

And then only from personal love - because abstract, universal, unconditional love is another net to catch the devil's prey**. 

Make no mistake about it: we are talking about a Satanic snare! 

To live double-negatively in order to alleviate the ills of this mortal life is evil - even-more evil is to advocate this, to push an "altruistic" ideology.

Jesus's harsh, aggressive, repulsion of Judas's concern for The Poor should help make this evident. 

+++

* That it was not just Judas's hypocritical motivation for helping the poor that Jesus was rejecting, is evidenced by the larger scope of Jesus's explanation. 

** That promiscuous altruism and alleviation of the ills of this world is indeed a devilish trap, lure and snare; is indirectly suggested by the way in which not-Christians and anti-Christians are so addicted to making accusations of an un-Christian attitude; if or when any Christian person or institution fails to lend public support to a socio-political scheme that presents-itself as intended to alleviate some species of suffering. 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat...

 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat! 

Beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! 

All shall love me... and despair!

H/T - My wife; for the idea. 

The spiritual failure of All objective Systems (including institutions and corporations, including churches)

What we have witnessed over the past century is the failure of each and all Systems to be sufficiently spiritual that they can avoid the gravitational pull of corruption by totalitarianism (which is intrinsically evil). 

In other words, all Systems - which include all churches, and every other kind of spiritual organization (such as Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophical Society) have become detached from the individual and personal sources which were their only link with the spiritual. 

In making religion or spirituality into a System - the essence has been made objective, social, public - and therefore they have been corrupted. 

This did not necessarily happen in the more remote past, because individual humans who operated within Systems were spontaneously (often unconsciously) spiritual Beings - that is, people just-were in-touch-with the world of spirit, gods, the dead - the supernatural, the magical etc. This inevitably had a spiritually-leavening effect upon even the most rational, mathematical, objective kind of System. 

Another aspect was that people were spontaneously and necessarily group-ish in their consciousness and behaviour. 

But as people became more fully "modern" - which is to say alienated, cut-off from the world of spirit, and from human groups; they ceased to leaven the objective structures of institutions with an unconscious spirituality - and the institutions became "objective" - on the surface, public, bureaucratic - in their essence. 

The individual human had to conform to the System, subordinate to it, obey it; in a one-way fashion - and thus totalitarianism was born.

Now, from here-and-now, there is no hope in Systems; including no hope in any possible or conceivable Church or spiritual organization - because these are now objective social structures in their essence. 

Detached, alienated, cut-off from the spiritual. Their structure and processes exclude the spiritual. 

That is why all Systems/ Institutions/ Organizations etc have become assimilated to totalitarianism. It is impossible that they would not be, because they cannot be anything else.  

To put it another way: As of 2025, there is no System that can - of itself - lead to positive spiritual results; and the stronger and more comprehensive is the System - the more spiritual harm it will be doing. 

**

Note added: If you are one of those who manage to convince yourself that Yes, this is true! All Systems are indeed assimilated to totalitarianism for everyone... But not for my church...

Then I would say - think again just how much discernment, evaluation and selectivity you have to apply to your church in order to be able to deny that it is fundamentally corrupted... just how much of your church you must in fact ignore in order to regard it as essentially true. 

And consider that the amount of discernment, evaluation, selectivity and ignoring that you must apply is continually increasing. 

Commenting suspended for a while

As I like to do from time to time, I'm taking a break from monitoring and moderating comments. Old comments are hidden but not lost, and will be restored when my current laziness has diminished. 

The weird delusions of geopolitics (to which we are nearly-all prone, nearly-all of the time)

If you can imagine yourself to be a human from another planet who had arrived to observe the denizens of the "Western" civilization on earth; I think you would be amazed at the amount of mental time and effort that we expend on having (strong!) opinions on geopolitical matters. 

So much of our public discourse is occupied by political and social issues, national and international - which are remote, second-hand (to put it kindly), and over which we can have no conceivable influence. 

It is a spell cast over almost all of us; and from which we only seldom and briefly awake to be astonished at ourselves... Before lapsing back into the bizarre world view in which "my opinion" on something geopolitical is supposed to be crucially important - both to the world and to my own identity and moral status. 

What is strangest of all, is the inbuilt expectation that - not only must we all have the "right" understanding of... everything; but also we are each supposed to have some sort of plan or blueprint for "fixing" the world! 

Indeed, the expectation is that we are not really entitled to an opinion unless we also have a plan to fix it: not only are we required to consider all the questions, but we are expected to know all the answers...

Not only should we have a plan to fix everything; but we ought to be doing something about fixing it. That "something" may, objectively, be of ludicrously trivial - like participating in an election every few years - but it is nonetheless believed to be morally mandatory, and causally linked to all that happens in the world! 

We are defined by that microscopic act - defined, I mean, in our own minds. 

More exactly, we must subscribe to, subordinate ourselves to, be loyal to; some kind of ideology (if not religion) that claims to be coherent and comprehensive: to have all the answers to all the questions - because any gap in the Qs or As is supposed be be a fatal deficit! 

That loyalty is (supposedly) what makes us a responsible human being.  

And if our ideology doesn't have a viewpoint on everything that happens to be in the news today - then it's no good, and we ought to change it!

 

I do not exempt myself from membership of this obviously-delusory way of living - it's just that very occasionally, such as the past few minutes; my mind clears of the smoke, I come-to-my-senses, and realize my insanity. 

Before lapsing back into the morass. 

"AI" and Schadenfreude

One of the multi-pronged and actively-corrupting effects of the current global establishment push of so-called text and image-generating "AI" is its encouragement (if encouragement were needed!) of that besetting sin of this time: Schadenfreude.  

I have come across many online binges of spiteful (almost erotic) glee, when people imagine the devastating effect that AI will supposedly have on destroying the livelihoods of journalists, illustrators, script-writers, novelists - and in general those involved in the visual and verbal aspects of mainstream media and public relations...

Nearly-all of whom enthusiastically put their talents in service to the agenda of value-corruption, and who appear to be 101% on-board with the demonic program of totalitarianism. 

The orgies of delight at what is hoped will be the deserved sufferings of these myrmidons of Satan is a certain evil in its own right... Which evil has nothing to do with the fact that these most of these people are apparently on the wrong side in the spiritual war of this world.

The idea that those destroyed deserve their sufferings, and that therefore it is right to take pleasure in their misery; is just one of those deadly rationalizations that prevent sin from being repented.

Therefore; the evil I describe comes from  resentment - not repented but instead actively celebrated, and rhetorically-intended to induce celebration in others. 

Of course; this is only a small aspect of the many evils that AI is planned to wreak upon the human spirit; yet it is a calculated consequence of the strategy of implementation, and deserves at least cursory acknowledgement. 

Jesus Christ and the ongoing Second Creation - reason for a personal relationship with Jesus during this mortal life

I have been blogging recently about the idea that Jesus's "cosmic" role was the Second Creation that is Heaven - Jesus made possible resurrected eternal life, and therefore Heaven. 

But, in addition, Jesus has a role as the Good Shepherd, who will lead each of us to Heaven, if we choose to follow him from love. 

One part of this leading, is for Jesus to show the way and make possible our transformation from mortal to immortal that is resurrection. 

Another aspect is that Jesus - who is the Holy Ghost - can (if voluntarily sought) provide guidance, comfort and positive encouragement, on a moment-by-moment basis, during this mortal life on earth. 

This guidance/ comfort/ encouragement from the Holy Ghost may come via prayer - in other words, by prayers addressed to Jesus. Or it may come by any other manifestation of a loving friendship with Jesus; such as in meditation, or by directing our thoughts and attention to Jesus at any time or place or situation.   

(It's not that I regard prayers and thoughts directed at God the Primary Creator as a wrong thing to do - but it seems to me that these are not specifically Christian. A Christian should, surely, be focused on Christ? And that includes prayer, meditation, and our best kind of thinking.)  

The purpose of this mortal life can be conceptualized negatively and positively. 

Negatively, there is the matter of learning from problems and mistakes, from disease and death, repenting sins... and the like. 

But a positive and strongly-motivating life goal is essential in these adverse times; and this motivation (because of the corruption of churches, along with other institutions, to the-side-of-evil) must be something that arises-from and works-at the individual personal level. 

In the first place it seems evident (from our own set-up and the way the world now is) that this motivating-purpose is something we need to work-out for ourselves, consciously and by active choice. 

This needs to come primarily from our intuition - which means from our real and eternal self. 

But this inner source is, of course, prone to error and self-deception; and that leads to the special role of the Holy Ghost. 

I think that, in general (there are exceptions), the role of the Holy Ghost is Not to provide primary guidance: Not to "tell us what to do". 

But instead the Holy Ghost is meant to serve as a check and confirmation on what we have personally discerned and worked-out. 

As a mega-simplification (!): First we decide what we ought to do; then we consult with the Holy Ghost that we have got-it-right; that this is, indeed, what we ought to do. 

So far; we are still in the double-negative territory... 

However; the positive role of the Holy Ghost is then in the comfort and encouragement, the energizing and enthusing, deriving from "knowing" that we are indeed personally and in these exact circumstances: doing the right thing.    

Destroying "enchantment" in the arts

Ever since I became self-aware in my mid teens, I have valued "enchantment" - that magical quality of what I might now call "participation" - which is depth and breadth, significance and beauty. Enchantment is the same thing that CS Lewis called Joy, and Novalis called Sehnsucht - and was something of an obsession for the Romantic Movement.  

I found it first in Tolkien - and realized quickly how rare it was, and how it was altogether absent from most of what most people valued and praised. Furthermore, there didn't seem to be anybody else who valued it as I did - rather, more exactly, there were differences of opinion as to where it might be found, even among those who did value it. 

Finding it was therefore something of a personal quest; and I began to realize that even when I located a source of enchantment, the trend of our times was working against it. 

I found enchantment in the work of the electric folk group Steeleye Span, especially in their supernatural and magical ballads. But after seven LPs of reliably enchanting music - I noticed that in 1975 "All around my hat" was a considerable step down in this respect. It was something to do with a feeling of "overproduction" in the music - which was apparently intended to make it more "commercial", more instantly appealing to a mass audience; and this being achieved by what seemed like excessive messing around with sound and arrangements and (presumably) performance; excessive production-control - such that the delicate bloom of the songs was somewhat rubbed-off. The following album - Rocket Cottage - was poor, and then the band broke up. 

The thing about enchantment is that it isn't usually a conscious goal, but happens as a by-product, as a part of a larger and spontaneously integrated activity. Indeed, it is not possible to get enchantment by making it primary - as CS Lewis describes and explain in Surprised by Joy.

But enchantment can be prevented or destroyed by any focus on almost any specific - it can be pulled-down, but also killed by breaking-up.

So, whereas I quite often found an almost accidental enchantment in many amateur plays and music; I only seldom found it in the work of professionals - especially when they were required to repeat performances, and these became routine. I have never seen a play with enchantment in the West End London theatre, for instance - where actors do long runs of the same play. 

Routine is a killer of enchantment; as is management, "mugging" (exaggeration for effect, as when performers show-off); more generally a striving for entertainment, shocks, horror, laughs. 

A political agenda dominating is maybe the commonest cause of deadly disenchantment. Politics is one of the most disenchanted of all domains. 

Any priority, that is, which arises from outside, and imposes onto the creative process and interaction.

The death of enchantment is a product of separation... Modernity takes an original unity, analyses it into components, treats it as a collection of attributes - and then pursues these singly, perhaps in sequence - or emphasizes on or a few at the expense of the whole.

I have even come across modern attempts - some genuine, others probably insincere - to make enchantment itself an externally imposed priority, to layer it onto works or an intrinsically anti-enchantment aspect of life (such as politics, bureaucracy, mass media, or corporate life) - as if it was some kind of sauce! This never works, but achieves the opposite. 

Enchantment is either integral to the creative process, to Life; or else it is absent   

Now, although enchantment is still discerned and valued by a few people, and can still be found and still arises (but almost exclusively outwith professional and official sources); our civilization lies on the far side from it - the nature and trend of our whole world is systematically and pervasively hostile to enchantment.  

This is apparently what I sensed fifty years ago, back in 1975; although I didn't realize how far the process had yet to go. 

And, as usual, we can't go back. The future of enchantment in the arts, or anywhere, must be something essentially unprecedented; because it can only arise from the large perspective of a lived enchanted life - more exactly from that part or aspect of a Man's life which is enchanted. 

Note: Exactly the same problem of disenchantment happens in churches, and over much the same timescale. There is near zero enchantment in church services, or in any aspect of church life - even when the Christianity is sincere, the atmosphere is as mundane as an office. And probably a majority of serious modern Christians have set their face against many of the manifestations of enchantment - which they reject vehemently as demonic. The truth his the opposite: enchantment is a manifestation of the divine, is indeed Heavenly, and the hope of resurrection. Whatever its intent; mundane Christianity does the work of Satan, quite literally.  

The Beings of this world are neither wholly-evil, nor wholly deluded - but always these are mixed with good

The entities of this world (excepting demonic spirits or resurrected angels) are mixed Beings, including illusion and evil as well as good. 

But it is important that they have good in them. It is impossible for a Being to survive in this world without some good - by which I mean, some-thing that is aligned with the purposes and nature of divine creation. 

If there was any such Being that wholly excluded good - it would die, and presumably become a demon.

Likewise, all Beings in the world are subject to illusion (which is the partial but wrong insight of "Maya" that this world is of-its-nature and wholly a delusion: that is to say absolutely false, and we convinced that falsity is true) -- because this world is, in many respects, deceptive; and we are limited and flawed Beings. 

However, no Being is wholly deluded else he would not survive more than a few moments. 

The assumption that this is a mixed world, includes that all Beings are mixed Beings; which is a hopeful reality; because it means that there is some good, and some apprehension of reality, in every Being. 

This doesn't really have any implications for our everyday conduct - since we must deal with the realities of evil and error, despite their ultimate self-curability. 

But it does mean that there is always grounds for hope with respect to any Being, any person, in an ultimate sense. 

We can't ever be sure that anyone has irrevocably chosen self-damnation - that necessary goodness which is mixed into them; means they have the potential to make that choice for God, divine creation, The Good - and to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven. 

Mystical experience in 2025

Claims of mystical experience are not popular in our culture! 

There are bad and good reasons for this: 

A bad reason is that (in a world without God, purpose or meaning) mystical experiences are always and necessarily false (e.g. insane, dumb or dishonest); because there is No Such Thing. 

A good reason is that those who claim mystical experiences often claim that it has given them knowledge and authority - such that "we" ought to  believe and do... whatever the mystic tells us. 

However, when all is said and done; it seems to me that nothing is more important in life than real mystical experiences. Even when (as usual) these are infrequent and pretty mild or incomplete; nonetheless, they are "what it's all about". 

On the other hand, there does seem to be a strong tendency for many people to deal with their mystical experiences in mistaken and adverse ways - for instance, by trying to persuade other people and convince them that a mystical experience was really-real, and true, and really-happened...

Or to get hung-up on explaining the experience in terms of causes, meanings, implications etc. - explanations that tend to get more and more complicated. 

Yet it is surely valid to seek an understanding of any mystical experience. 

But for understanding ourselves, primarily. And not in relation to other people, and the world. 

And in seeking understanding, it seems likely that the real answer is neither complex nor abstract; but some-thing very simple - easy enough for a child to grasp. 

Cosmic significance and "will power"

There is a recurrent spiritual problem in relation to what might be termed will-power. A vast amount of spirituality has been, and is, about study, training, practice, knowledge, technique... all manner of relatively arduous things that need to be acquired as a matter of habit. 

In sum: the spiritual path is seen as one that requires will-power... with the proviso that in some traditions the will-power is supposed to come from the divine; and this divine-will merely be "channelled" by an individual human being. 

(This may be paradoxical in practice; as a self-less, ego-less person is somehow supposed to overcome other temptations and idleness; and instead strive continuously at years of arduous spiritual exercises - which are themselves dedicated to expunging his personal will!) 

 

It seems natural and inevitable - and is indeed true! - that our spiritual cosmic significance will have effects on material this-worldly affairs. In other words, insofar as we have spiritual experience, and attain spiritual learning; this will benefit "the world". 

But! This effect of the spiritual on the material, the effect of the cosmic on the earthly, does not happen in accordance with our personal will!

A Big Mistake (it seems to me) - and one that recurs often - is that spiritual people explicitly strive to change the world in accordance with their spiritual insights. What specifically they do varies greatly; but the general point is that the individual spiritual person tries to change the world in accordance with a pre-decided goal. 

Attainment of this goal then becomes an index against-which spiritual power is calibrated.

Another way into this matter is via "power". Most people want power in some sense, for some reason; but it is pretty foolish to supposes that it would be a good idea if a person's spiritual power was equated with his ability to achieve (pre-decided, explicit) worldly plans. 

On the flip-side, it is equally absurd to adopt a view that spiritual power can lead to absolutely anything in this world, including catastrophic outcomes for those we most love and value. 

Yet the question of what counts as spiritually-catastrophic, rather than materially-catastrophic, is a necessary one to consider. After all; the powers of spiritual evil dominate this world, especially in The West; and these demons may engineer materially bad outcomes for spiritually good-motivated actions; just as they often engineer worldly success, status, wealth and influence for those who serve demonic interests. 

My conclusion is rather one of understanding than of advice. 

We (and especially men) inhabit and intellectual environment that grossly overvalues a caricatured Nietzschian version of will-power; we tend to hero-worship and wish to emulate examples of people who set ambitious (worldly) goals, and go on to achieve then - by sustained and long-term endeavour against temptation and difficulties.   

But a closer examination of these persons will reveal that almost all or then are pervasively corrupted, and spiritually malign - such that it seems their efforts have in fact been in an opposite direction to good.  

Spiritually good persons are rare indeed, but they seem quite different; and much more concerned with learning and experiencing and developing creatively; than with imposing their will upon other people and the world.