Bureaucracy is identical with totalitarianism - a world (such as we inhabit) in which bureaucracy is constantly growing and increasing in scope and penetration; and in which the bureaucracies are linked, just is a totalitarian world: that is, an evil world.
It is not the aim of bureaucracy that is evil, it is the fact of bureaucracy which is evil. The medium is the message.
Most educated people are primarily bureaucratic functionaries; all are significantly bureaucrats, and in all instances the bureaucratic element is increasing.
The origin of bureaucracy is that deep impulse of rebellion against God and creation that we call Leftism - and most bureaucracies are concerned with Leftist projects - but bureaucracy's great advantage (as an instrument) is that its evil is in the form rather than the content: it appears to be a machine or tool, usable for various purposes - thus the enemies of he Left hoped to use bureaucracy against the left.
However, the opposite happened. All opposition to the Left was absorbed-into bureaucracy; and became the Left.
And bureaucracy is everywhere. Bureaucracy has become Real Life: What is not bureaucracy is not really real - bureaucracy is The Bottom Line.
Any attempt to attack, must bureaucratise to be Real; hence is absorbed before it achieves anything.
If the material world was all there is, we would be doomed. If groups were primary and the individual existed to serve groups, we would be doomed. If the public world of laws, regulations, and communication; of power, propaganda, punishment were the only Reality, we would be doomed. If what we did was all that mattered and what we thought was irrelevant - there would be no hope.
But it isn't, it isn't, it is Not.
And realising this; all may be well. Because there is God, direct knowing, participation in creation; because life extends beyond mortality - because of all that is left-out of bureaucracy; we are not helpless.
The demon's problem is that, by Not incarnating and having separated themselves from God's direct presence in Heaven, they are not-easily brought-to-a-point...
They are eternal and indestructible spirits who have taken the side against Creation; and as such they are Not-very-good at learning from experience.
Perhaps, the hellish economy works more by a kind of 'natural selection' among demons, rather than by the learning and development of individual demons.
That is, maybe the individual demons stay much the same (because they don't learn from experience), but one or another comes to the fore at different times and places and situations; for which they happen to be best adapted.
Some rise, some fall back down the hierarchy; and the supreme Leader varies at different times, and perhaps too in different places - hence the several names for the chief demon in different sources and cultures.
So The Devil may be sometimes the passionate and charismatic Lucifer, sometimes the coldly bureaucratic Ahriman, sometimes the sadistic Sorath - whatever is working most effectively here-and-now in the work of opposition to God, Good and Creation?
Theosis is the process of becoming more like God, more divine, more saintly (sanctified) during mortal life; theosis is the purpose of an extended mortal life (rather than simply being incarnated and then dying).
But this idea of becoming more divine tends to make theosis sound more rare and difficult than it really is; perhaps because we tend to regard it in a primarily moral way - so that the assumptions is that we are supposed to become more virtuous. Well, that is one type of theosis, the theosis of some great Saints: the saints of virtue.
But there are other kinds of Saints, and other kinds of theosis - for example of knowledge; specifically knowledge of truth, knowledge of reality - which is also a god-like attribute.
This fits ith the idea that extended mortal life is mostly about having experience and learning from it; every person, every place, every day is different - there is a lot to learn-from and a lot to learn... And we ourselves change, in both mind and body - for example we develop through childhood, mature, have emotions, get sick, age and die. We make decisions (good and bad) and live with the outcomes...
Mortal incarnate life therefore seems to be an excellent situation in which to learn; and perhaps/ presumably in this respect it is far superior to pre-mortal spirit life, and post-mortal resurrected life.
Theosis could be conceptualised, in a general and inclusive sense, as exactly this learning; we are meant-to learn from our life experiences; and when we do this is theosis - it brings us quantitatively closer to the divine level of knowledge as well as virtue.
I have never been able to make coherent sense of the standard explanations for the nature of Jesus Christ.
This, of course, does not matter when it comes to being a Christian - we simply need to acknowledge that Jesus was who he said he was (eternal Son of God, Son of Man), and to love him, have faith in him...
Christians, as such, don't need to assert the exclusive validity of any specific theory of why-and-how that situation arose.
Nonetheless, it is natural enough to seek an answer to questions about how and why Jesus got to be what he was, what was the 'mechanism' by which his unique status came-about: how it was that Jesus lived, died - like other men - but also, uniquely, brought us resurrection and life everlasting.
Anyway, an answer to this came to me yesterday that Jesus Just Was. That there is no causal expanation for why Jesus was who he was; but that he Just Was who he was.
The background is that all Men are unique, and various; so we become God's children as already-unique and we are incarnated as already-unique; and we end-up as unique resurrected Beings. And that Jesus was able to be our Saviour simply because he is, was, always had-been just that.
Not as 'part of a plan' from eternity; but an an unique person who enabled this unique possibility; which would otherwise have been impossible.
Somehow this insight seemed to quell the doubts, answer the nagging questions... Jesus Just Was. He was uniquely capable.
Of course, Jesus then had-to choose to, agree to become our Saviour - and he did, for which our gratutude and love are due.
I plan to re-read Rudolf Steiner's; this time focusing on the later books (rather than the much greater bulk of transcribed lectures) produced after the philosophical trio (i.e. the books from c. 1898 onwards, published after GA/ Opus 2, 3, 4).
The re-reading is based upon five principles I have adopted with respect to Steiner:
1. Anthroposophy is a spiritual path; but Spiritual Science (Geisteswissenschaft) is a systematised expression of what has been discovered by Anthroposophy. Thus Anthroposophy is primary and directly-known; Spiritual Science is secondary and communicated. Anthroposophy I can and must know for myself; Spiritual Science must be understood and interpreted.
2. Steiner is a major, vital thinker of our era.
3. Most of what Steiner wrote (and to a lesser extent said) is derived-from Anthroposophical insights that are true; and therefore such writings contain that which is likely to reward consideration.
4. However, most of what Steiner wrote (and to a greater extent said) is Spiritual Science, and is presented in a way that is over-specified, over-elaborated, over-systematised. Therefore, it required a substantial degree of personal intuitive interpretation.
5. The Plan, therefore, is to seek for the simple and true insights that lie below, behind and within the complex and error-scattered surface.
Why cannot people perceive the reality of a malign, covert top-down strategy - considering that it has been so successful for more than 200 years, and is still running according to plan? And - one might be tempted to add - considering that there is so much evidence for its reality?
Well, as I have often said; evidence is secondary to metaphysics; and the Evil Global Conspiracy is invisible because of our metaphysical assumptions; therefore its existence can never be proved by evidence.
More precisely the Conspiracy is spiritual, and has spiritual goals; whereas mainstream modern thinking is materialist/ positivist/ scientist/ reductionist - which means that it excludes even the possibility of a spiritual dimension.
So a Global Spiritual Conspiracy cannot exist for most modern materialist people, because such things are not real. Evidence is irrelevant.
Things are - in actuality - even more extreme than that; because mainstream modern people cannot even conceptualise the goals of strategic evil, because such goals are spiritual not material.
By contrast; the modern notion of 'evil' is simply 'material selfishness' pursued with indifference to the means (i.e. being prepared to inflict suffering and death as a means to that end). Modern people cannot really conceptualise evil 'for its own sake' - but only as a means to self-gratification; and therefore actual evil is reinterpreted or invisible.
The mass of Mainstream Conspiracy Theorists are generally correct about the identity and actions of the Global Establishment - but because they too are materialists, they utterly misunderstand the motives of The Conspiracy; and nearly-always emphasise that the Evil Elite want power, pleasure, sex, luxury for themselves... whereas genuine evil would desire primarily to harm others. Thus evil is more like spite than greed.
MCTs point at problems such as poverty, violence, disease and death - and explain them in terns of being deliberate inflictions of the Global Establishment. But against any specific examples of such sufferings; the world population continues to rise, life expectancy continues to rise, standards of living continue to rise, and the prevalence of inter-national and civil-wars is much lower than it could be.
The 'evidence' is ambiguous - as would be expected if what is being measured is not what is being aimed-at.
The reality of the situation is that of course there Is a Global Conspiracy, and there always has been - the side of evil in the spiritual war. It's just that they are far more successful, powerful, pervasive than ever before.
So, in a world of evil triumphant-but-invisible; what does it mean, from the individual perspective? We are each and individually challenged to perceive reality and to respond appropriately.
Much of what happens in public discourse has the fingerprints of strategic evil all over it for those with eyes to see; and if we fail to observe that fact, then our failure is spiritual. But if we do notice, and do not respond as the manipulation intends; but instead think as as we ought to think, know waht is real rather than fake - then we have grown spiritually. Which is the point of an extended mortal life.
One of the great manipulations of evil has been to make most people regard Good in terms of specific, atomic, detached acts (such as giving money to someone poor, diseased or miserable); whereas in modern reality such acts are more likely to promote evil than Good.
But (as a generalisation) each individual person, and act, is a balance of Good and evil; terefore in an ultimate sense ther are extremely-few-and-rare Good or evil persons or acts.
Good and evil are sides - they are not people or what people do.
The primary way to be Good and to do Good is to be on the side of Good.
Therefore, we need to acknowledge the reality and nature of the Global Conspiracy, and be able to discern the fingerprints of evil. And on the other side, we need to discern, without our-selves and the world; the impulses of Good - to acknowledge and value them.
We need to join the side of Good.
That is one of the most important things for us to learn; hereand-now; in the modern world. It is remarkable how very few people have learned it yet; it is remarkable how few people are able (or willing) to make this vital discernment. These are the facts we live-with.
Well.. no matter how many are on the side of evil; we cannot be like them, nor serve them, nor advance their causes.
No matter how few are on the side of Good, we must join them.
The quote is slightly adapted from Charles Williams; it struck me as both absurd and true.
Absurd, because of the idea of the modern masses looking up from their mobile phones and asking their Christian pastors (which they don't have) for metaphysics!
(However, if they did; they would still be given morals.)
But the statement is true, nonetheless - in the sense that nothing less will suffice to address the modern malaise than a different basic understanding of the nature of ultimate reality.
Christianity gets nowhere in stressing morals rather than metaphysics; because morals depend on metaphysics; and when the basic understanding is modern materialism, then morals will inevitably be some species of the hedonistic (as well as incoherent): there is nothing else for them to be.
But when Christian metaphysics is dry and abstract - as so much of mainstream traditional Christian theology is dry and abstract; and as Charles William's own metaphysics was dry and abstract - then the sheep may feel that their fundamental problems are not being addressed.
The sheep find The World - the world as described by their assumptions and as experienced in daily life; and indeed them-selves as people, as souls - to be utterly dull and deadly: hence the mobile phones.
Modern Romanticism, as accessed via those mobile phones, and social media; is nothing but distraction, escapism, superficial stimulation: thus cumulative despair. It is just politics, sex and pleasure; the mere stimulation of responses - anger, hatred, resentment, schadenfreude, lust, laughter, luxury, smugness etc.
What the sheep need, what they 'really want' is a Romantic Metaphysics that is true, hence liveable. They don't know they want it; but nothing less will suffice.
Metaphysics needs to be Romantic, hence desirable; and True, hence liveable.
Luckily, it is.
But so far, Romantic Christians have done a poor job of explaining their metaphysics - often because they understand it in ways that are abstract, over-complex, too systematic - until Romantic metaphysics sound like just-more-bureaucracy...
Charles Williams fell into this trap with his writings on Romantic Theology. His basic ideas were exciting: that falling- and being-in love could be a path of Christian life; that a life of creative activity could be a path of Christian life; that life was an adventure quest and we were part of an altruistic and mutually helping fellowship.
But when Williams got down to specifics; the exciting ideas dissolved into complex, incomprehensible terminology. More crucially, Williams's detailed ideas were either wrong or simply incoherent.
In fact, Williams could in practice make around-himself a world of Romance, in which he and his circle of friends, disciples, colleagues could live their lives. It was this magical personal charisma that so impressed so many people; which made Williams so popular and admired.
But this was the person, not the metaphysics. Once Williams had died, it could be seen that his writings held only the shadows of that ecstasy in living that the man' presence could impart.
So, the problem of Romantic metaphysics remains unsolved.. at least by Williams. But there is an answer.
The answer can be found in the writings of fellow Inkling Owen Barfield; albeit again in a complex and abstract way. The answer can also can be found in William Arkle, and at times much more simply expressed; but Arkle is hardly known.
Probably, in practice, people will have to solve it for themselves or it will not be solved at all. And one would suppose that there are strong incentives to do so. Yet who - of the millions of mainstream, miserable, modern hedonists - is making any serious attempt?
There exists an answer. But one thing is sure: without personal effort, there will be no answer.
To define Romanticism with precision has proved impossible - because it is a movement, a phase in human consciousness; but those who feel it will recognise it when we see it.
To be included in this list, one must be both Romantic and Christian (and be someone whose work I personally respond-to):
Then came several generations during which the Romantics were not Christian, and the Christians were not Romantic. Exceptions include George Macdonald and GK Chesterton, who link between the early Romantic Christians and the Inklings. Both of these I somewhat like, especially GKC - but I am unable to engage whole-heartedly.
Current representatives of whom I am aware include Jeremy Naydler, Terry Boardman, and the Albion Awakening bloggers: William Wildblood, John Fitzgerald and myself.
The influence of Rudolf Steiner is evident; since although Anthroposophists are extremely rare in England - Barfield, Naydler and Boardman are all of that ilk. This is evidence that Romanticism fits most comfortably with heterodox Christianity - despite that Tolkien (Roman Catholic) and Lewis (Church of England) were orthodox in their practice. Indeed; Blake, Barfield (for much of his life), Arkle and most of the currently alive people - are (I believe) essentially unaffiliated Christians; whose religious and spiritual practice is mostly and in-principle individual rather than communal.
The Steiner link is also important because Germany (in the sense of the Central European German-speaking culture - including Austria and Switzerland, and some culturally-Germanic cities not nowadays in Germany) was the other great origin of Romanticism - with Herder, Goethe, Schiller etc. However until Steiner's 'conversion' in about 1898; the German Romantic literary tradition was not really Christian. An exception is Novalis - the father of Romantic Christianity in Germany.
It might also be argued that CG Jung (1875-1961) is also part of the German tradition of Romantic Christianity - although (as so often with Jung) his status as a Christian is ambiguous - overall, I would say that by the end of his life, Jung should indeed be regarded as a Christian.
There are not many on this list; because I don't know of many Romantic Christians. It is a job still to be done, by each individual - since Romantic Christianity must be experiential (knowing 'about' it does not suffice).
However, I regard both Barfield and Arkle as having essentially done the necessary work and, uniquely, achieved Romantic Christianity: both in their theory and in their living.
Mainstream Christianity still tends to regard Traditionalism as a 'safe' path to salvation; and theosis as too 'risky' - and Romanticism is about theosis.
But for the Romantic Christian there is no 'safe' path in the modern world; and traditionalism has in fact become impossible (judged at the deepest level of motivation); as well as sub-optimally desirable. We feel that, in modern conditions, salvation requires theosis; so a purely salvation orientation can only be a kind of 'rescue' procedure.
Because ultimately Romanticism is not a 'reaction' against the Industrial Revolution, modernity and bureaucracy; rather, Romanticism is a positive path of divine destiny, concerned with human evolutionary-development of consciousness.
The aim of Romantic Christianity is (implicitly) to attain the divine form of cosnciousness (what Barfield termed Final Participation) as the primary goal of mortal life at this era of history. In different words: the aim is to restore the unity of Life - including the healing of the split between mind and matter, subjective and objective... to cure the malaise of alienation.
Romantic Christianity is both theoretical (metaphysical) and practical (experiential) - ideas and living both need to change; because otherwise the two aspects will be at contradictory, at war - and therefore unattainable in life.
The Romantic Christian demands that life be Christian - as its root and frame; and also demands that life (including Christianity) be Romantic - therefore it cannot accept the ultimate of primary necessity of System, organisation, institution, bureaucracy... these are all to be regarded as evils; even if, sometimes (in mortal life); expedient or even temoprarily-necessary evils - evils that challenge us to love, faith and hope; and to grow.
Love and creativity are the goal; with creativity as located in thinking, and thinking regarded as universal and primary.
Blondie were one of the very best New Wave bands (late 1970s early 80s); with several first rate singles. Atomic is certainly one of their finest - an extraordinary composition and superbly performed, which repays repeated listening
What I like about this: The Duane Eddy style guitar riff repeating over modal harmonies, the driving hi-hat percussion, and superb bass playing - here and throughout. The unexpected key changes between sections. The subtle way that synthesisers are used - hardly noticeable early and coming forward throughout. The way that the everything drops-out to almost nothing halfway, merely synth keeping-time, before rebuilding via a bass solo, and drum break, leading back to the main riff and the full-on sound.
As usual, Debbie Harry's vocals are outstanding; especially her low register singing.
The general atmosphere projected is decadent, appropriate to that era and that stage of my life: partying on the verge of (perceived) annihilation - alluring but deadly.
We aren't winning - we are losing; and we never will start winning - so long as we expect change via participation inthe instruments of our bureaucratic-totalitarian oppression; all that demonic-Democratic System of votes and committees...
Votes and committees are anti-Romantic, anti-Christian and intrinsically evil. Of course, Goodness comes only from people - not from systems - and Good people may be able to work-around and manipulate votes and committees in order to do Good* - but as soon as they start to assume that votes and committee decisions are, by their nature. authoritative over the individual - they will be doomed.
Once a system of Vs and Cs is in-place - then the individual is rendered structurally helpless; and can only change The System by participating in The System, which then strengthens The System.
If genuine and positive change is to come in The West; it will come from people rejecting the authority of votes and committees; and of recognising the individual as the only possible source of discernment and judgement - and authority.
No impersonal System can save us, all Systems will kill us - kill if not totally, then system will kill a part of us.
We see around us an actual collapse of the Goodness of Systems; the triumph of totalitarian bureaucracy; and we see this advocated, pushed and celebrated - more and bigger bureaucracy is wanted, a single all-pervasive Global bureaucracy - as the only possible way of attaining universal (hence inescapable) justice, equality, democracy, flourishing, health, education, freedom...!
All of this is rooted-in and flows-from impersonal System, in votes and committees. If you want to do something about stopping it, if you are serious about stopping it - you must, minimally, cease participating in votes and committees.
That's only a Start, of course - but it is the necessary beginning.
*To clarify: Voting and committees are also an evil within churches - evil both in effect and tendency. This evil may be compensated and overcome in the short-term by Good individuals; but the evil of V&C in churches (and elsewhere) can be seen to be long-term cumulative, by the bureaucratic attitude that they implicitly inculcate.
Over the past couple of years I have come to regard Romantic Religion by RJ Reilly as one of the very best books I have read - I am now on my third slow, detailed read-through.
The book is probably the earliest (1971) serious study of the ideas of The Inklings - and its central chapters focus on Owen Barfield, C. S. Lewis, Charles Williams and J. R. R. Tolkien. As such, and despite its narrowish selectivity; RR remains far-and-away the deepest and best explanation/ analysis/ advocacy of the underlying (implicit) significance of this literary, philosophical and theological group of friends.
The title Romantic Religion encapsulates the thesis; although in fact it would be more accurate if the title were Romantic Christianity, since that is The religion at issue here; and one that could not be substituted by any other.
The method is to define Romanticism, mainly by means of its historical lineage; and then (in the first main section) to use Barfield as the philosopher who best understood Romanticism and its unique significance and necessity. Lewis, Williams and Tolkien are then considered separately in terms of how they exemplify, and how diverge from, the framework of Barfield.
This time reading; I have become convinced that Romantic Christianity is the best term for what I personally believe, and regard as the essential future of Western Man - and especially English Man! I shall probably be referring to myself, in shorthand, as a Romantic Christian from now onward.
Of course Romantic (and Romanticism) are mostly, in the cultural mainstream of the past century and more, rather widely differently understood from the Inklings (and especially Barfield) mode. Indeed, 'romantic' is usually a pejorative or pitying term, signifying escapist, wish-fulfilling unrealism.
Nonetheless, Romantic remains the best term, for both its historical and etymological accuracy - and because many of the common ideas of 'Romantic' are entirely appropriate and correct from a Barfieldian-Inklings perspective: for example, a focus on love, creativity, fantasy and imagination, nature, ecstatic emotion, inspiration and intuition.
All of these seem to me desirable, as well as necessary; so long as they are rooted in Christianity. Indeed, it was-and-is the subtraction of Christianity from Romanticism, as early as Byron and Shelley, that led to the degeneration of the historical Romantic movement: degeneration into hedonism, Leftist politics and the sexual revolution.
No doubt I shall quote from Romantic Religion in the future; but anyone who shares my conviction on these matters, and who is prepared to make the effort to engage with such a book, would need to read RR if note entirely, then at least extensively.
Note: I find it significant that such an outstanding piece of intellectual and critical work, by such an deeply intelligent and rigorous scholar, should originally have been done as a PhD thesis at Michigan State University (a long way from the Ivy League); by an academic who was teaching rather than research orientated (he spent his career at the University of Detroit); and it was issued by an obscure publisher: The University of Georgia Press. This confirms a pattern I have often observed with genuinely high quality and original work in the late 20th century - it comes from the cultural periphery, not the centre. Or rather - what is officially the centre is actually trivial, derivative or corrupting - almost wholly, and vice versa. The reasons will be obvious to regular readers of this blog.
I have had a tendency to think of premortal life as being like me, now; but 'floating around' without a body. However, it seems likely that my mind was more like the mind of a young child.
So my agency was like that of a young child. Because I was a fully-physically-competent spirit living in a Heavenly realm I could do lots of stuff. And I was immersed-in divine love (something like a perfectly happy childhood in a perfect family) - God's will could flow-through me to do all sorts of things in obedience. I mostly operated by 'channeling' divine knowledge, motivation, competence...
But my capacity for autonomous thinking and choice was more like that of a child.
This is why (perhaps) I have few and vague memories of that time and state of being (and why many people claim to have none) - because it resembled the memories of early childhood, which are also diffuse and relatively-few (albeit extremely important to me).
And perhaps it also explains the nature of my positive desire and choice (and of almost all of our choices) to live a mortal and incarnate life - to accept the risks in pursuit of progression towards greater divinity (theosis)...
To incarnate in this body, this family, this time and place was the desire, the free and informed choice, of a spiritual-child - and necessarily so, because it was precisely in order to 'grow-up' that the choice had to be made.
But thinking of things like this may help explain not just why we don't remember much about pre-mortal life; but also why some people apparently 'regret' their choice to accept the specific mortal life they once regarded as 'a good prospect'.
They regret, rebel, resent... because all choices are always made on the basis of incomplete information; but this choice was also made by a being of greater spiritual immaturity trying to predict his future response to a situation experienced by a transformed self...
Modern media and public policy has reached a point where it cannot be understood except in the light of spiritual warfare: Good versus evil, God v the demons, Heaven v hell...
Creation versus the Transhumanism - i.e Man claiming to have-become God-the-creator, and to offer (Here! Now!) an 'Alternative' and better 'Reality'.
Satan has a big problem - which is that he and we and everything are part of God's creation: how then can they be rejected?
The answer is to create what is claimed to be an immaterial Alternative Reality; to choose to inhabit that AR, and by denying that we have made such a choice to claim that the Alternative is really real. In other words, Satan is the lead architect of the transhumanist agenda.
There is no need for you to do a thought experiment and imagine this situation - we are already there (albeit not yet fully so) - with the transgender agenda that has been very rapidly and aggressively imposed by the entirety of the Western ruling Establishment over the past decade.
The transgender agenda (by which self-defined gender incrementally-replaces, completely replaces, sexuality) needs to be recognised as a component of the transhumanist agenda; and both as the major strategy of the demonic agenda in the spiritual war.
Because most of this analysis (God, Good, Creation) is denied; dissenters and realists in The West have been helpless to prevent the imposed-reality of transgenderism - which is now assumed by law, and dissent from which is punished by law (and, worse, by mass media and bureaucratic employers).
The trans-agenda should be seen as a perfectly rational step towards the kind of Alternative Reality that the demonic powers need to be successful in the context of God's creation. It is part of a world picture that has been building-up over several generations; which has denied God, Creation and Reality - and asserted that this world is humanly constructed ('socially' constructed). The 'Reality' in the phrase itself assumes that reality is man-made, at will.
The appeal of the AR is the promise of freedom and pleasure - since, IF the AR really-was equivalent to created-reality, then in principle we might make Reality any way we pleased; without constraint. For instance; people could choose to be men or women, and swap back and forth at whim! Differences between sexes, classes, races, nations, individual people could be made or abolished!
If all that was true and possible (which of course it is not) there would still be the question of Who Exactly Is In Charge? - and the overwhelming probability that they would be evil-motivated people, who would shape reality to their own selfish ends.
But the problem is compounded by the fact that it is evil demons that arein charge of AR - it is their project; and demonic motivations are different and worse than human motivations; and their agenda goes beyond the gratification of their their own short-term selfishness into the long-term desire for universal damnation.
And - finally - the the very desire to create and dwell in an Alternative Reality on the assumption it is the Only Reality is itself intrinsically evil; because dishonest, because prideful, because of its hedonic hence self-centred/ self-ish motivations.
At some level, perhaps deep, we all know this to be true; which serves only to make its denial more shrill and spiteful.
In a world that denies Good, the Creation and God; the desire for life inside a 'reality' built-around our own pleasures and preferences, yet wholly convincing, is so great that all objections are swept aside by this desperate craving.
And so, Ladies and Gentlemen (to use forbidden terminology): This is the modern world!
The second Doctor - "quintessentially and eccentrically English"...
Over on Albion Awakening, John Fitzgerald shares his spontaneous reaction to the 'vicious, calculated and deliberate spoiling' of an English institution. Interestingly, it is exactly three years ago that I finally walked away from this programme, never to return.
For the past couple of hundred years in The West, influential groups of people have been trying to get-by with less than the unified-Good.
For example, aesthetics - the beautiful, the idea of Art for Arts sake - was popular in the late 19th century, and recurrently since. But it does not suffice. One intrinsic reason is that The Beautiful is a part of that unified totality which is The Good, and while beauty may be distinguished from the totality it cannot be conceptually separated.
We also know this because living with beauty as priority has been thoroughly tried, and comprehensively failed. We ourselves can try the experiment, and discover this.
We may try to put aesthetics first and final; but will find that Truth and Virtue are unavoidable. People can, and do, split The Good into components - assert one or some and omit another - but the rejected will return. People will find themselves asserting that the Beautiful is also the Virtuous, and that it is also True.
If they try to escape this by focusing on feelings, and reduce Beauty to that which evokes Pleasure - they will find themselves asserting that this is True, that Pleasure is a Right, that the promotion of pleasure is a Virtue; that the infliction of pain, suffering, misery is Sin...
(I am here describing mainstream modern morality as asserted in the public sphere: hedonic utilitarianism.)
When Beauty is rejected, they will find themselves asserting the the Ugly is really, deep-down or when you properly consider it, Beauty. And that this is True.
Or - they may reject Morality, but find themselves asserting that Morality-rejection is the proper form of Virtue.
The Good turns-out to be unified and primary; and then the Good turns-out to be a part of Creation...
(Because if the universe was caused by physics, life caused by chemistry, and consciousness by biology - then The Good is merely a product of meaningless and purposeless and non-human historical processes - so is not really Good.).
And so we get back to a Creator.
It's an all-or-nothing situation - deny any component of The Good/ Creation/ Creator - and you are put into the position of denying everything - including the reasons for your first denial. THIS fact may, of course, itself be denied - but That denial doesn't affect the fact that the resulting is incoherent and contradicts itself all the time and in multiple ways...
...Which has consequences (even when these consequences are denied!)
My basic assumption is that in God's creation the default is that we need to choose damnation: that damnation is self-damnation. (A loving creator who is our father would not have set-up this reality - for his spirit children - on any other basis.)
However, we must agree to be saved. We just-are free, we have agency, we cannot be compelled to accept what is best for us. Jesus Christ has given us great possibilities, but if we do not 'believe on' him, if we do not love him; then we will not want his gift.
I guess that throughout most of history, and perhaps even now throughout most of the world, nearly everybody has chosen/ will choose to accept Christ's gifts; and do what that acceptance entails - but in the End Times this is Not the case.
The End Times are when the default state in a society is chosen damnation.
This could be for a variety of reasons; one might be the denial of any alternative - regarding the gifts of Jesus as a falsehood, a delusion, untrue.
A situation can be created and sustained in which the societal default is to choose damnation - in which expression of this choice becomes (in public discourse) normal, approved and rewarded. In which the expression of a desire for salvation is treated the opposite way: as unusual/ foolish/ insane/ evil; is condemned and punished.
Choice is - ultimately - individual and free; and cannot be compelled - but a society may embrace self-damnation and call it Good. Insofar as the individual follows mainstream, modern society - so he will choose damnation.
So we can see that The West is, indeed, here-and-now in the End Times.
As I keep revisiting Rudolf Steiner's now-validated century oldprophecy; I realise that, although the prophecy is about Western society, and what it needed to do - but hasn't done; and although the prophecy has been fulfilled at this social level - its true implications are for the individual.
The prophecy was based upon an understanding of what would happen if Western man continued in the path of increasing materialism/ positivism, scientism/ reductionism in public discourse and private thinking - and we did continue.
The spiritual realm is now regarded as purely 'subjective' - hence not really real, hence without relevance for social living. Reality is mainstream-structurally-regarded as meaningless, hope-less, going-nowhere; and we our-selves as irrelevant.
It is, of course, a disaster that The West has made these choices; but the lesson of the prophecy was actually for individuals primarily - it was that we must (and must means must) develop our spiritual consciousness into new realms - more exactly into a 'animism of thinking': a recognition that ultimate reality consists of living, conscious, purposive Beings in a creation that has been transformed by Christ.
This means that the modern public discourse has become - in rejecting God, Christ and the Holy Ghost - (quite literally) insane - as well as calamitous and dull.
But this operates at the individual level - and the social level cannot budge without first the transformation of individual consciousness - and this transformation can only be done by conscious choice; it cannot be coerced or compelled; nor can people be induced to do it by unconscious manipulation/ propaganda/ habit-training.
We must now choose the Good - because evil is the default.
The the lesson of the true prophecy is for you, and me, and everyone as an individual. It tells us what we must do if we are to avoid the general fate of our society: mental sickness, despair and demotivation.