Everything always changes, and yet everything stays the same?

Is it true that everything changes, and yet everything stays the same? 

It does seem to have a general truth, especially over the long term, and in one-direction - when the first "everything" is taken to mean the superficial aspects of daily life and things, which are always changing; but the second "everything" means the fundamental and overall goodness of daily life.

For instance, the design of an entity - whether a car or a constitution, fashions or laws - tends frequently and always to be changing (especially in this age of left-totalitarian bureaucracy), and these changes can be "sold" as improvements; however, these changes do not add-up; they fail to lead to any fundamental improvement in things-in-general (e.g. the totalitarian society of left-totalitarian bureaucracy continues, and indeed solidifies). 

What I mean by "one-direction", is that while it is common and easy for surface changes to make life overall and in the long-term worse; this seldom works in the inverse. 

It seems difficult and rare for a multitude of superficialities to improve life in a lasting and qualitative fashion. 

This is related to the observation that while it is relatively quick, easy and cheap to corrupt people and make them worse (It happens All The Time; and I have seen this qualitative corruption of people more often than not over the past decades; e.g. in relation to my class of people in medicine, science and academia). 

On the other side; it is so slow, difficult, and costly of effort to improve people; that I think it fair to say that there is no known method by which it can be done. 

To put it differently; people can be made worse passively and unconsciously, simply by their going-along-with the changes of life, passively responding to the incentives towards evil...

But for people to improve, to become better-people; requires in inner, active and conscious change in their attitudes and motivations. 

Since getting-worse is unconscious and passive and energy-absorbing; while getting-better is conscious and active and energy-consuming - getting-worse naturally happens more often and more widely. 

This, I think, is a reason why well-meaning people so often err in their optimism. 

After considerable investment of times and effort, they have been able to reform some evil or injustice, or to introduce some improvement; and the tendency is to regard all such positive steps as accumulating towards a hoped-for positive and general transformation. 

For instance; institutions, including churches, may have achieved many little-but-surface improvements - in some objectively-measurable area; such fund-raising, attendance, missionary/ evangelical activity, implementation of one or another scheme... 

And these several or many surface changes are mistakenly summated into the optimistic expectation that things are going their way. 

The model they believe is that any step in the right direction is of-positive-value; and so long as there are such steps, then things are optimistic. 

But, after a while, a step-back and an objective eye reveals that although "everything" changes in the desired directions over the short-medium term; over the medium-long term, fundamental decline continues... 

Christian apostasy continues, churches continue to shrink in seriousness and size; faith is rarer and weaker; assimilation to the values of secular-left totalitarianism is increasingly dominant. 

However, such is our addiction to institutional optimism, that an objective retrospect seldom happens, and lessons are never learned. 

Instead, over and again, some novel strategy is embraced, some new set of optimistic "initiatives" becomes the centre of attention and efforts, and some of these are achieved with superficial success...

And the cycle repeats. 

 

This is how it is with The World, and apparently how it always has been. Even when (perhaps stimulated by a religious revival, or a Good Monarch) there is a genuine positive transformation at the large scale - this cannot be made into a system, and the attempt to so so reveals flaws in the original basis for positive change. 

Such that new kinds of corruption emerge, and the benefits are soon dissipated then overwhelmed. 

Everything changes, yet everything stays the same? 

This is why Jesus Christ did not promise a better world, and did not construct a system for attaining a better world. 

He knew that such is impossible in this mortal life, by the very nature of this-world. 

But instead Jesus promised something genuinely attainable (thanks to His work): that individual people might, after death, have resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Is the Barrow Wight episode of Lord of the Rings a gratuitous plot-loop?

I have always found "Fog on the Barrow Downs" the least satisfying chapter of The Fellowship of the Ring. 

Over at my Notion Club Papers blog, I analyse the structural reasons why. 

Choosing our Ultimate choices - the necessity goes all the way down

The world provides choices. 

We must choose - and we can personally choose; or else we can accept external (societal, institutional) choices. 

That is to say: some things we choose to accept, others we choose to make a personal choice. 

Therefore, we choose what to choose.   

In some cases our situation provides a menu of choices; and the expectation (or instance) that, in our personal choosing, we choose from the menu. 

But we may choose Not to choose from the menu! 

Because it may be that we (choose to) assume that the menu provided by "society" does not include all the possible or best options!

In sum: sometimes we choose to choose from the menu of choices; but other times we choose our choices. 

 

If we decide to choose from the menu; then we have already-chosen to immerse ourselves into society as it actually-is. 

This is important: choose only from the menu; and you are in-effect endorsing society. 

When you choose from the menu; you are implicitly endorsing the values of those who have provided the menu. 

The question arises: Can we, should we, choose to go outwith the menu of choices? 

This model of choosing applies to Christianity: the the fundamental way in which we conceptualize and understand Jesus; it applies to the choice of denominations and churches - their doctrines and authority - it applies to dealing with differences and disagreements within churches; it applies to choosing how we read the Bible...

Always, there is choosing of choices; always the choosing of choices goes All The Way Down. 

 

Your don't need to find and marry "a girl" but a particular person: The false aim of the generic instead of the particular

I see a very general problem; that is of people seeking generic experience, rather than particular and specific experience. 

Consider the vast edifice of advice and aspiration for men concerning "marriage"; the question of the "how to get a girl" type - including all that "manosphere" stuff. 

The problem is in the generic "a girl" - and that problem is not solved by narrowing the search to a particular sub-type of woman: the problem is that people are encouraged to seek a type, not a person. 

And the problem is not that such advice does not work, the problem is that so many people actually agree with the quest for a category - internalize it, believe it, defend it. The problem is when this kind of thinking leads to people getting what they want. 

If you want "a girl", the deepest problem is that you may get exactly that: a relationship with someone who is regarded as a member of a generic category. 

The problem is that - like the arranged marriage of a monarch - you (as member of the category King) will marry a representative of the generic category of "young beautiful princess" - rather than any specific and actual human Being. 

And the worst is when you are so shallow or corrupted as to be satisfied that this is indeed the ideal of your life!

Of course there is some truth in some generic categorizations; and it may be that marrying a woman of a certain category is better than not being married. But that is a "lesser of evils" argument, which can be used to justify anything (even voting in elections!) - not the basis of your life quest. 

"A girl" is not what is needed - "a girl" (not even a particular sub-category of woman, tailored to your personal preference) will not and cannot satisfy our profound and inescapable spiritual aspirations and hopes and needs. 

What is needed for marriage, and what ought therefore to be aimed-at, is not a girl but "the girl" - a particular person. 

Now; this idea of "the one", or "the soulmate" has been much abused and is often ridiculed - often rightly so. 

Because like all the highest of human aspirations - including the search for God - it may be corrupted into an excuse for selfishness, hedonism, spite, status-seeking, money-seeking, cowardice; or any other of the sins to which Men are prone. 

Yet, when all has been said, and rightly said; in this world, if we do not seek the right goal, if we do not rightly direct our intentions and efforts; we are very unlikely to attain what we most deeply need (or anything like that) given our own weaknesses, and this world of so many and such adverse possibilities. 

My point is that what we most need (and rightly need) as individual and unique human Beings in this mortal life, is specific and typically unique; not generic. 

This applies to many thing - generically, one might say! 

For instance; we don't need "a religion" (such as King Chas. III has so often recommended). Different religions offer very different things. 

If we want what Jesus offers us (resurrected eternal life in Heaven) then we need "Christianity": we need to follow Jesus.

Or if, as Christians, we desire direct spiritual experience; then we ought not to seek this generically. 

For instance, it is a mistake to seek to speak with angels - because angels are a category. 

The proper aim is to have an experience of "an angel"; but a relationship with some particular spirit-Being. And, as such - as with Human Beings, from a motive rooted-in love of that Being... not in order to get something from an angel; such as help or advice.

(And the same with Saints - who I take to be resurrected Men.) 

This is one aspect of the reality that creation is rooted in love, and love is (contrary to so many common and false conceptualizations) between particular Beings; and our highest and deepest life as loving (and creating) Beings is about actual, particular other-persons.

Any good and real marriage that fulfils our deepest yearnings and is a fundamental basis for our mortal life will be unique, as a fact; rooted in an unique and loving relationship between two absolutely specific human Beings. 

The more generic the marriage, the more it conforms to an institution relating to categories of persons; the less it will satisfy our fundamental needs and hopes. 

Because when we regard our-selves as primarily members of a category, and seek for a relationship with another person on the basis of their categorical membership - then we have certainly subordinated the status of love in our life, and we may have excluded love altogether. 

So, we should be careful what we want and seek for. When we need some-thing specific, we err if we seek something generic. Especially because we may then get what we want: get that and nothing more. 

Electricity as the medium of techno-spiritual enlightenment

Because spirit is primary: the material, the embodied, that which is perceived by the senses - is a kind of spirit. 

Incarnation is indeed a developed form of the spirit - which is why the timeline of creation manifested as physical beings, such as ourselves. 

And why the pre-mortal spirit of Jesus manifested as a mortal incarnated Man, and why Jesus resurrected as an eternal incarnated Man (rather than returning to the realm of immaterial spirits). 

The spirit is therefore inescapable, especially when it is being most vehemently denied; because the exclusion of the reality of the spiritual is actually a malign form of spiritual manipulation. 

The globalist-totalitarian overlords are engaged in a spiritual strategy aimed at inducing humans into spiritualizing the material. 

The mainstream and dominating materialist agenda; vast projects such as "AI", climate, Birdemic-peck-type healthism, the sexual revolution and many others - are "sold" as material mechanisms for "making this world a better place" and for "saving" lives, the "environment" - even the planet; but this agenda is continually being spiritualized under another name. 

My class of people - middle class "intelligentsia (the managers, professionals, artists, scientists, educators, lawyers etc) are deeply spiritualized now; believers in a complex and mutually-reinforcing ideology that they regard as ethically-imperative and factually-obvious. 

Whether such people regard themselves as Christians, or members/ adherents of any other religion or spirituality, is ever-less relevant. The actuality is a spiritual materialism in which approved themes and plans are regarded as spiritually-good. 

Their lives have an obvious public facet of adopting and advocating particular themes relating to carbon-climatism, the Fire Nation war, the Birdemic-Peck etc. But my point is that this now goes very deep, and has a primarily spiritual dimension. 

There is far more to electric vehicles, as an apparently trivial instance, than the matter of subsidized virtue-signalling - which has been abundantly critiqued. 

I mean the (to me) familiar phenomenon of a married couple with three cars - two internal combustion powered and the other an EV - is being superseded by a couple with a single (large, expensive) EV; whose wide-ranging (and strictly inessential) travel revolves around the location and timing of EV charging points. 

The more inconvenience suffered, the more spiritual they feel - to the point of ceasing to feel, and therefore denying, the inconvenience. 

Likewise; complicated and time-consuming rituals of "recycling" are not merely a pointless waste of time, not just a drag on the economy; nor merely a resource-consuming hypocrisy - nor are they strongly linked to a belief - or even the ideal - of their actions having any effect At All upon the environment... 

The reality of the problem ("climate change"), and the effectiveness of their approved answer, has long-since ceased to be the point. 

Just as we saw with the Birdemic; when people were indifferent to the actual effect of "face-coverings" on a supposed disease. The masking business rapidly took-on a spiritual dimension; in which the ritual humiliation and public abasement became a positive and personal spiritual action - akin to the simultaneous "taking-of-the-knee". 

Electricity has itself become the material manifestation of a spiritual ideal. 

These material-spiritual types love electricity to the point that it is the medium of enlightenment. 

The colossal electricity consumption of "AI" centres is felt as a form of spiritual power - analogous to the building of large, expensive temples and cathedrals - Good In Itself.  

Even internal combustion-engined vehicles have suddenly (in less than five years) become primarily and necessarily electrical in operation - such that for the only time in half a century, I cannot get into a car and drive it; but first must laboriously learn to serve the (continually changing) electric-computerized demon that has taken it over. 

Furthermore that great fetish vehicle the bicycle, except for weekend leisure/ sports activities, has (in the space of a handful of years!) been all-but replaced by (de facto) electric motorcycles of multiple types: which EVs now use the vast network of "cycle tracks" - originally advertised as facilitating the replace internal combustion cars and buses. 

In other words; because IRL bikes almost-never substituted for cars, but in practice replaced walking or were used by hobbyists; in practice now electricity-powered bikes have replaced leg-powered vehicles - or are used as motorbikes but with additional access to footpaths and cycle lanes. 

Yet, in the eyes of their class-advocates; electricity-consuming bikes retain the spiritual mantle of the intrinsically-good bicyclist.     

This is the tip of a very large iceberg that is sweeping through Western civilization, which is itself becoming Western civilization - not merely in practice, but as a spiritual goal. 

It is inside people's head, it is in their thoughts, it is the subject of their day-dreams. 

Something is afoot that is larger than the conventional modes of analysis and explanation. I feel that I am dwelling in a far less human, far more alien and abstract, world than anything experienced in human history thus far. 

For them, for its millions of enthusiastic and fanatical adherents; this is all of-a-piece; and none of the institutions, none of the churches, have even begun to understand - let alone resist! - what is going on. On the contrary they are all a part of it - even or especially when they pick on some tiny aspect for discussion or even resistance. 

More than ever those who desire the salvation of Jesus Christ need to be not of the world, even though we cannot escape living in the world. 

Which entails seeing the world as it is: that its very materialism is spiritual. That we ourselves and our neighbours are complicit - and some of them are not just consenting, nor merely willingly complicit - but are deeply affirming of an alien, un-biological, anti-life "techno-spirituality". 

It entails understanding that the spirituality of this world has already become inhuman/ antihuman and anti-Christian to an unprecedented degree; and in the most profound way. 

  

Electro-swing dancing

A while back, there was a very enjoyable musical style called electro swing; which led to a style of solo dancing (mainly for men) which is just about the most enjoyable I have ever seen. 

As an intro, with snippets of the style; there was a German TV advert 

featuring the dancer JustSomeMotion. 

But, so far as I can tell, the best dancing stuff is in these dancers' home made videos. 

This is because professional directors and editors want to make cuts, and show the dancers from different angles and doing different things. 

Whereas what is wanted by dancers is that there should be full length shots of the whole body, from in-front, and with long un-cut sequences.

Such as you get in a Fred Astaire-directed movie (where, presumably, FA had the authority to enforce this) - That's how you can really see the dancing. 

Even better than JSM, to my eye, is tSM - takeSomeCrime: This is wonderful stuff. The guy is just so fluid and rhythmic in his movements, the dance moves are continuously interesting and inventive. 

When it comes to dancing I am definitely a case of "I don't know much about it, but I know what I like". 

And what I like is exactly this fluidity - a dancer who is naturally loose-limbed, "puppetlike" - as if invisibly suspended from above, with a rubber-hose flexibility: e.g. my preference is Fred Astaire rather than the athleticism of Gene Kelly. 

Among women dancers; fluidity is also essential, but also a decent degree of attractiveness is required, and probably a graceful quality. Cyd Charisse had all this in abundance, and was my favourite woman dancer of Hollywood. 

But, my emphasis on beauty in female dancers shows I am not a deep appreciator of dancing; as does the fact that I must like the music. I can't really enjoy dancing unless I am enjoying the music.  

Note: I was an okay but mediocre dancer (mostly done in amateur musicals and ceilidhs), even before arthritis kicked-in. But both my parents were very good, my brother is a fine comic dancer, and my daughter was exceptionally gifted - evident from age two. I'm glad to say that none of them took dancing too seriously, however; since serious dance training (and, especially professional dancing) seems to be bad for psychological health! 

Tech start-up launches "95% accurate" trainable AI-Witch-Pricker

Inspired by reading the inspiring tale of the 1650 Newcastle Witch Trials - a covertly-funded Tech start-up company have harnessed the burgeoning wonder that is AI, to develop a solar-powered, computerized, retractable witch-pricker. 

Primitive mechanical witch-prickers have, of course, been around for hundreds of years; but these were notoriously unreliable - sometimes leading to the death by execution of innocent witch-finders. 

The new device overcomes all the old problems of inconvenient bulk, infected points, bending, jamming, and snapping. 

Small enough to be concealed under a shirt or between the buttocks, sharp enough to penetrate even the toughest witch's undergarments; this state-of-the art investigative tool can be assembled anywhere by 3-D printing - and is guaranteed completely harmless to middle managers and accredited government officials.  

The soon-to-be launched apparatus has already achieved "95% accuracy" in extensive trails (performed under condition of extreme secrecy, to exclude East-Asian industrial espionage); but these numbers will surely improve with repeated usage due to an inbuilt self-learning neural network. 

Even the notorious problem of false positive results has become "a thing of the past": 

"Ancient witch-prickers tended to become quickly obsolete due to changes in religious mores and government policies; but utilizing the literally-infinite expansion of "AI" capability, users are assured that the old problem of false positives has been vanquished. 

"Our AI-WP is constantly-updating to operate in full conformity with the vacillations of dominant fashions, laws, and hostile mass media. 

"Even better, the power is cleanly and sustainably generated by renewables; either from a micro-windmill activated by large gestures of the arms; an almost-invisible-yet-ultra-sensitive photovoltaic panel responsive to bright moonlight; or, for emergencies, it can conveniently be plugged-into your EV rapid-charger for a few seconds."  

The makers have disseminated and funded an international press release; in which they describe "pre-orders of 100 million dollars, already!" 

Numbers that indicate merely the tip of an iceberg of demand.  

In order to avoid disappointment; potential purchasers are recommended to e-mail or message their bank details "while stocks last" to: prince.abudlsalami@AI.not.nigeria.  

Why Christians used to regard mass baptism (e.g. by order of the King) as A Good Thing

The above beautiful pool is at Holystone in Coquetdale, Northumberland; and the legend has it that three thousand Northumbrians were baptized there by St Paulinus (died 644AD), following Edwin their King's conversion to Christianity. 

However accurate to historical fact, this legend makes it evident that such mass baptism by order of the monarch was regarded as A Good Thing by Christians of that era. 

Whereas nowadays such an event would probably be regarded as at best meaningless (a result of coercion), and at worst a kind of blasphemy.  

Why the difference? 

My understanding is that back in the 600s; Men were much less individuated and alienated; less self-conscious and more group-minded. 

A good King, such as Edwin, would both love his subjects, and be loved-by them; and a real and strong spiritual connection existed between them in a way we might nowadays term "telepathic". 

Therefore; the King knew and felt what was good for his subjects and sought it (within the constraints of his character and circumstances), and his subjects (overall) implicitly granted the King a paternal authority - including over their souls. 

Such that King Edwin would not have become a Christian unless he "knew" that this was best for his people; and equally the people trusted the King's judgment and endorsed it. 

So when King Edwin became a Christian this was because his people wanted him to become a Christian, then by that same act King Edwin's people also wanted to become Christians. 

In the 600s this was simply the nature of that group-mindedness in-which people lived; but in 2026 the situation with respect to Men's consciousnesses is very different. 

We no longer experience this real and spontaneous "telepathic" connection - or, at least, we do not do so above the scale of a loving family.  

So in 2026 mass baptism of three thousand people would (almost certainly) be regarded as a consequence of some combination of top-down compulsion with propaganda. 

Such is just one instance (not a proof, but an illustration) of the difference in Man's consciousness across some fifteen-hundred years; a difference in the experienced-reality of Men of the past, and that of Men of the present. 

It is this change that underlies the decline in spiritual authority, hence what used-to-be, the necessary and intermediary role of Christian churches - and of all other religious institutions. 

(And indeed, also of all state institutions.) 

Leaders - whether spiritual, such as Saints; or temporal, such as monarchs - are no longer in a significant state of reciprocal mental connection with those they rule. 

What was possible then, is not necessarily possible now. 

That natural, indeed unavoidable, groupishness of consciousness which was (e.g. in the early 600s, in Northumbria) both inevitable and (potentially) a cause of good; is no longer our reality. 

AI-dolatry is an Antichrist phenomenon, because the Antichrist is The System

I just stumbled across a post of mine from 2018 on the (now stale) subject of Jordan Peterson; in which I described him as an Antichrist figure. 

The idea of an Antichrist is not really of any general and public use for discernment, because of the mass and institutional breakdown in truthful consensus. 

Nonetheless it is a subject to which I find I recur, because so many individual people remain spiritually wedded to external authority, and in a totalitarian "System-" world, that means that almost all self-identified Christians are following Antichrists. 

The question I ask is: will such people follow their Antichrist to self-chosen damnation, or at what point will they realize what is happening to them?

(Luckily for Mankind, by my understanding; this point of recognition and repentance can be post-mortal.)

The current AI-dolatry (i.e. the positive embrace, and in-practice promotion, of the "AI"-agenda) is evidently motivated by evil-intent when advocated by mainstream left-materialist ideologues; but the phenomenon takes-on an Antichrist role and quality when found among self-identified Christians. 

What I see is Christians who support (and spiritually I am inferring an inner support) an actually overall- and net-evil strategy; on the basis that they see in such a strategy the possibilities for a selective, partial, "if-only" possibility of Good.  

IMO, this rationale is how people justify to themselves an inner subordination to external authority.

Because when all actual external authorities (all formal and public institutions; including all the churches) are actually integrated-within the System of global totalitarianism - then this just-is the Antichrist phenomenon, as I understand it.

I mean; people choose to subordinate themselves spiritually (and therefore psychologically) to a powerful and influential entity (i.e. The System), even when that entity is net-evil; by an argument that there are aspects of The System that may be turned to good... 

Which "may" be good understanding, then gets transformed to an assertion that it "will" be good... in my hands, the way that I will use it...   

So the world is (apparently) full of Christians who support one or more of the primary agenda items of global totalitarianism (such as "AI", a foreign war, the Birdemic-Peck, CO2-climatology, sexual revolution...); because they have convinced themselves that they have nuanced these strategies into specific pro-Christian activities.

From overall-evil intent, they finesse particular Good Works, "Christian" works; of one kind or another. And claim that this particulars are then the main thing: that they personally can nuance the particular Goods, without spiritual-complicity in the overall evils.     

The reason why this kind of reasoning has become so massively-dominant is exactly that The System is everywhere, and inescapable - we are all sustained-by-it and work-for-it.   

Therefore - in this-worldly terms - as a brute fact we are all of us deeply-complicit in strategic evil, in this-world. 

Which means that - to do good works in this world, to be "practical"; we can only work with The System: we can only "make this world a better place" (including better for ourselves, and those about whom we care) by accepting The System in some overall fashion, and despite specific dissent.

This brute fact of a self-identified Christian - in-practice and inescapably - supporting the large-scale demonic agenda; becomes a potentially agonizing "cognitive dissonance" insofar as Christianity is regarded as a this-worldly religion - i.e. a religion that "makes this world a better place". 

It is to avoid this cognitive dissonance, indeed stark contradiction! - that so many Christians end by choosing spiritual-subordination to the the ubiquity of global totalitarianism, while asserting an officially-propagated false and virtual understanding of the world. 

Thus, most Christians - including serious Christians - are engaged in whitewashing the actuality of global totalitarian evil: either they deny its reality as an existing fact, or else they falsely construct a fantasy of the fundamental, coherent, and purposive evil of The System of global totalitarianism - as if it were instead a drama of good versus evil Establishment people and institutions. 

As if minor distinctions between greater and lesser evil purposes somehow included the operations of purposive good; as if a mass of competing negations could eventuate in positive values...  

Things have come to a point; compromise is no longer validly possible; we are compelled to choose between clear and distinct alternatives of evil and Good. 

It is not a matter of what we do but what is our faith. If we base our ultimate faith in-this-world, we shall become of-this-world.  

Either we recognize that Christianity is, and (deep down) always was; a next-worldly and individual religion - i.e. a faith that does not depend on practical obedience to the authority of any specific institution/s - or else we will be following one or another of the many Antichrist phenomena that constitute The System. 

Either we are rooted in this-world, in which case we shall be in truth supporters of "The Antichrist; or else we locate our faith and hope in post-mortal resurrected eternal life, in Heaven. 

Lightning rods are everywhere

A few years ago, I was looking at our local church - which has a tall campanile-style tower; and noticed the lightning rod on the highest point, and traced the copper strip down to earth. It made me wonder why other similarly tall buildings didn't have lightning rods - since it would seem that they would be equally vulnerable. 

But then I took a walk around town, and discovered they they did!

All of the tall buildings I found have lightning rods and copper strips. 

These had (presumably) always been there - presumably this is part of building regulations; but for decades I had never noticed them, except on churches. 

Which all goes to show... something or another. 

Note: Unlike what most people, including my younger self, think; lightning rods are not there either to attract lightning, nor to conduct a lightning strike safely into the ground. They are there to prevent lightning striking in the first place. This works because (in summary, as far as I remember) a tower sticking up from the surface of the earth gets polarized with an opposite electrical charge by the thunder clouds, and this opposite charge then streams up from the tower to make an "electrical path" up to the thunder clouds, down which path the lightning will strike. The purpose of the lightning rod is to conduct this charge from the point of the tower down into earth, before it gets a chance to accumulate and stream up to the clouds. Hope I've got that right.  

Reluctant, grumpy gardener

Red geraniums are my favourite flower to grow

We have a largeish and somewhat feral garden, always an overgrown mess; that I greatly appreciate - but, despite theoretically liking the idea, I need firmly to be pushed into gardening it. 

This pushing my wife does; by buying large numbers of flowers and runner beans, pots of many sizes, and the compost to fill them (she enjoys this kind of shopping. I do not); and then leaving them around until my compassion for the desiccating plants compels me to do the needful. 

Once they have been potted, we arrange them in suitable places; then it is down to me to water them every couple of days for four or five months, and periodically cut-off the dead geranium heads to keep them blooming. 

We both pick, and the family eat, the runner beans - or, what remains after the slugs have done their worst; and my wife freezes any surplus we can't eat. 

So, although these activities are pretty limited compared to what we could and should be doing; for a reluctant gardener, I spend a fair bit of time doing it.

And, although I make a point of grumbling, I enjoy the process - particularly watering the plants on a warm dry evening; which I find to be a highly spiritual and enchanting business. 

This Whitsun (Pentecost) weekend looks to be very dry and warm - and because Monday is a national holiday; the roads will be choked with traffic, and the all the "attractions" (such as stately homes, or pretty villages and seaside places) will be chock-a-block. 

So; the plan is to spend a lot of time in the garden - where there is plenty to do; indeed still a couple of dozen sadly pot-bound flowers seeking a more permanent home, and a tray of beetroots wanting a few feet of bedding. 

It is rather a pleasing prospect! 

But that won't stop me grumbling. 

  

"Stevie" (1978) - a movie about Stevie Smith

If you have an Amazon Prime subscription, and live in the UK; there are a few days left in which to watch the 1978 movie Stevie - a biography of the writer Stevie Smith; which I have found nigh impossible to get-hold-of otherwise (at an acceptable price). 

Stevie originated as a stage play; and the movie sticks pretty closely to this format - mostly taking place in one room; and mostly consisting of Stevie herself, talking to camera or else to the elderly aunt with whom she lived. Nothing much "happens": this is - necessarily - a talking movie. 

The acting of Glenda Jackson as Stevie, and Mona Washbourne as her "Lion Aunt" is absolutely first class. I have never before seen this kind of deeply loving family relationship portrayed so convincingly, affectionately, humorously, and in such detail! 

And Glenda Jackson's central performance is just superb - so engaging, so varied and consistently interesting with extremes of light and shade, and yet so well-integrated. My only criticism is that - like nearly-all actors - she sometimes doesn't speak the poems as poetry - indeed, they are sometimes spoken so prosaically as to be miss-able. 

But the main thing I took away from the movie was the emotional power with which it focused on "life" - Stevie Smith's unique, witty, bleak, and incisive insights into life... 

And death - which was her great recurrent subject. 

Stevie Smith was very odd, very eccentric, almost fey; inwardly a woman of unstable extremes. 

Superficially she strikes as very old-fashioned and traditional, one who lived a routine, hardly varying, apparently mundane middle class existence. 

And yet, in truth, she was a modern woman - albeit part-time; fundamentally an existentialist - decades before that became a fashionable pose.

Modern, but much more honest and explicit than most moderns. 

By her ultimately anti-religious, anti-spiritual (therefore modern) assumptions; Stevie had - like nearly-all modern people - painted herself into a corner of despair, from which her honesty could perceive no genuine possibility of escape. 

But rather than trying to deny or distract-herself from this terrible vision of life and of death - she confronted it head-on, again and again....

She tormented herself with death, almost; perhaps to test her own strength, or to challenge others with this "reality". Perhaps in hope of finding a flaw in her reasoning, or of being convincingly contradicted.  

Well... This is how the movie encapsulates Stevie, and does so very movingly, in a dramatically satisfying way. Thus, it has her firmly rejecting "the Christian religion" for its covert "cruelty" behind a mask of sweetness. 

The main cruelty being to pretend to offer the delusory hope of Heaven.

Stevie Smith certainly wrote this, at one point, and doubtless felt it on that day and others; and surely believed it at those times and points. 

Also, because she experienced living as hard ("tiring") she sometimes looked-forward to death; perhaps as a long and restful sleep - but other times death was seen as an utter annihilation that apparently rendered life insignificant. 

Yet it is easy to detect, behind the fact of her writing so much and so harshly on the subject, that Stevie Smith was not sure that she was correct in her rejection of all hope after death. 

This comes-out in that extreme inconsistency which is so characteristic, especially in the stream of consciousness of her longer poems and prose. 

Contradictions of opinions, variable moods, extremes of generosity and selfishness, compassion and spitefulness. A good deal of sharp statement - then self-subversion. 

This was her nature. 

Stevie Smith was almost a household name in England from the 1960s and into the 80s, on BBC Radio frequently (when that commanded audiences of many millions) and even on TV; quite widely enjoyed and recognized as strange but significant. 

However, I think her name and reputation are fading into obscurity and neglect. The fact of her being of an earlier generation, as well as her one-off oddness, is unappealing to the current generation. With SS; the average contemporary reader will not find ideological and emotional confirmation of current prejudices and obsessions - which is what so many seem to want from their reading! 

With Stevie Smith, either the reader allows himself to be drawn into her world view, to see things (for a while) in her way - or else you will not find her interesting or enjoyable. 

Which is a great pity! Because there are never many real poets, even fewer women poets, and even fewer poets whose quality is spontaneously unique - absolutely one-off. 

If you value and want what Stevie Smith gave us, then there is nowhere else you can get it; because there was nobody else who did it.   

 And never shall be. 

Stereotyping is a functional necessity in this world - yet an evil, all the same!

Stereotypes - I mean valid ones, which spontaneously stereotypes tend to be - are useful; indeed they are essential to social functioning in this-world. 

Of course in the modern West, several key stereotypes have been inverted; and this is a significant cause of societal dysfunction, and (sooner or later) collapse.  

because of this inversion; reactionaries have been re-affirming the old and functional stereotypes, easily proving by observations that their (on average) validity, usefulness, etc. etc. 

But the radicals do have a point, and the reactionaries are missing it! 

All stereotyping - even when statistically valid and even when the stereotype is overall a positive contribution to worldly functioning and happiness - is an evil. 

This evil is not abolished by the harsh fact that stereotyping is a necessary evil. 

We are, and we know (in our hearts) that we are, each unique individuals - not representative members of a class: not even of the best kind of class.

Therefore when reactionaries, and Christians, talk stereotypically; this is often experienced (to some significant degree) as an external oppression. 

Such a stereotypical categorization of our uniqueness Will Be dysphoric - an adverse inner state experienced in the form of negative emotions such as anxiety over social ostracism, depressive misery, anger, resentment, self-assertion - and guilt...

For instance; an inner perceived (or feared) failure to live up to a dominant or preferred stereotype, and to continue to live up to it year after year - is, maybe, the commonest cause of chronic and pervasive guilt.  

Also, an inner reluctance to conform to the imposed stereotype is probably a major cause of demotivation. As when, at a mass level, people are neither inspired nor energized by any of their actual and possible choice of life stereotypes - and therefore cannot find any strong and sustainable motivation to participate socially - or even to stay alive. 

Even those few individuals who are currently healthy, energetic and conforming enough to be (or, at least, to advertise themselves as being!) exemplars of an approved stereotype; are very obviously insecure. They are always seeking (because needing) repeated affirmations, reassurances, and approval from others. And living in (denied) fear of their hypocrisies, exaggerations and lies being exposed; or that they cannot sustain this endless necessity of proving themselves. 

(But there I am: stereotyping yet again! It just can't be avoided!!)

So; on the one hand it is true that (real, valid) stereotypes are necessary to our own lives and to societal functioning - we simply cannot do without them. 

But on the other hand; stereotypes are ultimately always false, therefore evil; and those who argue for their reality and their imposition - even when the stereotype being proposed is net-good, usually personally positive, socially desirable etc... will be experienced as oppressive and dishonest.

This is one deep and ineradicable reason why there is considerable resistance to those (and I have surely been among them!) who try to rehabilitate valid and necessary stereotypes on the modern West; I mean such distinctions as those relating to sex, race, religion, political affiliations; intelligence and personality differences; and the various ideal "models" of being A Good Christian that are integral to many churches. 

All such stereotypes may indeed be valid and necessary; but if so they are necessary evils; and we cannot be made to believe that these stereotypes are fundamental goods; how much less that they are the highest ideals.

We cannot be convinced and motivated when people say that some version of categorical and stereotyped reality is what we ought to be aiming for: the best that we can hope for. 

If Christians cannot offer something more and better than the prospect of eternal perfect membership of some stereotyped category of type of person and God-approved behaviour - then Heaven will continue to fail to inspire. 

In other words; the Christian "picture" of Heaven - first for ourselves, imaginatively; and then as described to others - absolutely needs to be one that eschews stereotyping, and is instead rooted-in the individuality and uniqueness of all persons. 

"I must create a system", said William Blake... But systems are never Good - and yet...

"I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's." 

So said William Blake - and he did; he created an idiosyncratic and incomprehensible system of assumptions, archetypes, and analogies; as expounded in the very long and obscure "prophetic" books.  

William Blake - 1757-1827 - lived at the very beginning of the first Romantic era; so he was among the first to experience and express the inner need to escape from the toils of the already-existing systems of knowledge. 

And surely he was right? Surely there is no tyranny more complete than that of a system of thinking, a religion, an ideology? 

But it is apparent that creating one's own system is not an answer - not even to oneself. 

The creating of a new system is, indeed, a creative activity; but once the system has-been made... Well, then it really is just another system.

What happened with Blake has happened innumerable times since. Nowadays, almost everybody experiences the oppression of the system; yet among those who desire and are determined to escape it, and make their won system - the process ends in... just-another system. 

It happens even to creative geniuses such as Joseph Smith, HP Blavatsky, Rudolf Steiner... They start out with exciting and apparently liberating spiritual experiences and insights; but end-up with ludicrously-complicated and vast systems. Systems that their followers are supposed to learn and obey; in a way that never applied to the originators of those systems, while they were originating them. 

In sum; those who themselves successfully follow Blake's advice and create a system to avoid enslavement by another-man's system; have merely created another system. And the new system them process to enslave first of all its originator; so we see the creative genius struggling to impose his system on himself! And then... anyone else who chooses to follow the founder. 

So that the creative genius becomes merely a leader -  a bureaucrat of the new system; and his followers merely functionaries of the new system; and/or corrupt and/ or careerist manipulators, who try to use the system for their own this-worldly benefit.   

The same trajectory applies to movements of renewal and awakening within the stale and empty forms of established religions. 

At first the founder of the movement is creative, and the process of making a system is exciting, enlivening... 

But to the extent that this is successful, the system crystallizes; and presses upon any individual; crushing, and incrementally killing, the soul. 

It seems that we follow the same loop over and again. We recurrently hope, and may believe, that Goodness can be captured in a system: Goodness can be made-into a system.

And either that the latest system has finally succeeded in capturing Goodness; or else that some old system has never yet been properly tried, but would capture Goodness is properly implemented. 

People are temporarily energized and motivated; by trying to develop and impose their system - believing that This Time they have got-it-right...

That this time, this system really will made this world a better place, if only people would do it. 

But it never happens; and it never can happen - because systems are the problem. 

And yet (as Blake saw, so long ago), we must have a system; we can't avoid them. There is no alternative in this life and world as it actually is - which is why creative pioneers always end-up with just another system. 

The situation is that what we most-want and most-need - is not possible in this mortal life and on earth. 

Is life, therefore, forever and inevitably a tragic paradox? 

Or; is what we want and need possible to all of us who understand the problem - but someplace else: maybe after death, and in Heaven?

This seems to be a problem well-worth solving; seeking the answer to which is an activity well-worth our best and most serious effort. 

From Birdemic to "AI": Strategic sequencing in the grand strategy for global totalitarianism

There is a grand strategy for global totalitarianism than can be inferred or "reverse engineered" from linking-up the primary Litmus test issues. Also; the totalitarian objectives have been described variously and explicitly - for example The Great Reset, and Agenda 2030, writings on the need for mass depopulation, and "15 minute cities".

The origins go back many decades; but we can see the way that things work by looking at the past few years - beginning with the Birdemic lockdown.  

This can serve as an example of the strategic sequencing we see all over the place. 

1. c. March 2020. The Birdemic was the rationale for a global lockdown and "social distancing. 

2. When people were confined to their houses, and workplaces were shut during the enforced lockdowns -- employers were compelled to summarize their functioning in terms of online work programs; and employees were compelled to reduce their skills to protocols. 

3. c. November 2022. The introduction of novel kinds of "AI" began the process of replacing as much as possible of the human element in the economy. So; the work programs and protocols prepared during the enforced workplace closures were then handed-over to computers, fulfilling the plan to replace humans. 

In retrospect it seems that one of the reasons why the totalitarian overlords decided to lockdown the world (on the excuse of the Birdemic); was to accelerate their plans to replace people with machines. 

And this was successful: to the extent that many of those who saw-through and opposed the Birdemic lockdowns etc., now embrace and promote "AI"!  

That is exactly why They go to the considerable trouble of strategic sequencing. If the Tera-Billion Dollar top-down project of "AI" had been introduced before 2020; it would have been seen more clearly for what it is. 

But coming after the changes from international lockdown, the (in fact) coercively-enforced/ massively-subsidized totalitarian global "AI" strategy has been regarded as if it were a "natural and inevitable development"; and thereby won many influential hearts and minds...

Thus the globalists achieved the consent of influential people who - at the same time as supporting the single most significant and pervasive intended-instrument of micro-surveillance and centralized control - simultaneously self-identify themselves as radical opponents of the aims of "Clown World"!  

+++

And what next? 

Well, these measures seem to be preparatory to the attempt massive shrinkage of the workforce; with total exclusion of a large majority of people from economic activity and political power. 

At some point; They will decide that the masses are now demonstrably "useless eaters" and "toxic-carbon-emitters"; and the situation will be deemed ripe for mass depopulation - for the sake of sustainability, to save The Planet. 

And no doubt They have prepared a façade of excuses to conceal their purposive intent to kill; just as the strategic intent of mass harm by "The Peck" was hidden behind a faked pretence of promoting health and saving lives.  

Why is eternal incarnation (i.e. resurrection) the highest goal of creation? Because love requires separation of individuals

It seems that the highest goal of divine creation according to Christianity is resurrection - which is eternal incarnation; in other words, the aimed-at completeness ("perfection") is as Jesus was after his resurrection. Which was a state of embodiment, and not the state of a discarnate spirit. 

Why would this be?...

After all; most religions posit either serial mortal incarnations (incarnations with death and a spirit state in-between); or else that the highest goal is for embodied beings such as ourselves to become (or return to) a state of pure unembodied spirit. 

Why does Christianity insist upon resurrection of the body? 

My idea is that the Christian vision is rooted in love; and love separates and distinguishes - even as it also binds. 

Incarnation can then be seen as part-of the development of love. 

Incarnation is (by this account) necessary to the highest love; because to be a pure spirit is to exist in what Laeth has called a "ghost soup" - a state of assimilation or union, but not love. 

Not love because lacking the separation and individuation required for love. 

But in this mortal life; entropic change accumulates to sabotage love; and eventually kills love with death and loss of the body to revert to pure spirit. 

So resurrection to an eternal embodied life is required in order that the highest love can become everlasting. 

This, I think, is why Jesus fulfilled the work of divine creation by enabling Men to choose eternal and resurrected life; instead of the previous alternatives of serial embodied reincarnations, or else eternal existence as a spirit. 

Nothing new, or everything new? How to do theory (or rather, how *I* do theory)

When I began doing theoretical evolutionary biology as my main thing (May 1994); I realized that there were two apparently opposed ways of looking at any problem. 

One was that everything had already been thought and said, and the best way of solving a problem was wide and deep engagement with the already-published literature. So; the way to tackle a problem was to read everything about it, speak to anyone who might know anything relevant - then extract from this "the answer". 

This could be called the scholarly approach. 

The other was that anything I personally might have to say about the problem was new; because my personal background, experience and abilities were unique. If this is right; the way to tackle a problem is to think hard and long about it, and work it out from myself. 

This could be called the philosophical approach. 

(Somebody once said that Heidegger and Wittgenstein represented these extremes within the academic discipline of philosophy: Heidegger had read "everything", Wittgenstein had read "nothing".) 

Of course, these two ways are not separate; but opposite ends of a scale. Nothing worthwhile could emerge from a pure version of either extreme. 

A scholar who did not think was just a stamp collector, a compiler and filer (or an "AI"!). A thinker who did not know the relevant stuff was never going to solve any particular problem. 

But it was obvious that - if I wanted to get anywhere real, then I was motivated and suited to the philosophical approach. That is: mostly-thinking, rather than mostly-studying.  

By this time I was in my middle thirties and had already done a great deal of studying across a wide range of medical, psychological and biological areas - so I knew plenty of stuff; and this would be relevant stuff... so long as I was working on the right kind of problems. 

Anyway, this is what I did. 

Plus an idea I got from Francis Crick, which was that almost everything published on a topic is wrong: the "trick" is to work only using that which is right. 

So; I did my theorizing on the basis - from the basis - of relatively few highly selected facts, theories and assumptions that I judged to be true and of good provenance; produced by honest, relevantly informed and competent persons. 

And ignoring nearly everything else, because I regarded it as wrong wrong for any reason - incompetent, based on false assumptions, dishonest, of dubious provenance etc.  (i.e. nearly everything.)  

When I became a Christian, after a couple of years of increasing torment in which I tried to be obedient to the church-consensus - when there was no consensus, or else an obviously-wrong consensus - I progressively re-adopted the same attitude and approach that I had used in theoretical science. 

Which - no doubt - explains a lot...

Miles Mathis on art forgeries and fakes

After having been well taught artistic discernment (not ability!) by my father - who had been an art teacher and was a decent landscape watercolourist; I have recently learned a great deal from reading Miles W Mathis on the subject of forgeries and fakes in Fine Art, such the B. Awful Not-Leonardo  depicted above. 

Or the much more famous and quite pleasant looking, but modern and mediocre, Not-Vermeer below:

It is well worth reading these articles, and following their references - and looking more widely at MWM's reflections on the almost-unbelievably corrupt and incompetent world of Fine Art auctioneers, academics, critics, and galleries. 

The idiocy and ugliness of Art over the past several generations is so extreme and unrepentant; that it is explicable only on the basis that the activity is not about art any more. 

It is Not Even Trying to do art; nor to teach, display or reward art. 

But instead it's about such anti-artistic activities as managed investment, subsidy-grubbing, money-laundering, political activism, and the exchange of bribes.  

I don't think there is any great art being done nowadays; just as there is no great classical music being composed or poetry being written. 

This is not a golden age for human creativity - nor even a silver one. The major creative geniuses are a thing of the past.  

But there are good paintings and portraits done by serious artists - I have bought some over the years, and been gifted others.

Such violation of quality by a perverse and inverted system of incentives; is yet another symptom of the advanced phase of our civilization's collapse. 

And the way in which this situation is officially rationalized and defended - even more so.   

Tolkien's world is Not a "modern myth"

I have reworked my post on the "fuzziness" of myth, from a couple of days ago - and with reference to JRR Tolkien's work - over at the Notion Club Papers blog. 

The argument is that Tolkien is "literature" rather than myth; tied to his actual writings in a way that myth is (almost by definition) not. 

I also mention that the idea Tolkien is a myth is used as a "justification" for new "versions" of Tolkien, mostly in other media such as movies and TV, that distort, subvert, and invert the spirit and meanings of the original. 

We can see how far this process can go with such characters as Sherlock Holmes; where, nowadays, few read the superb original stories, and most people "know" Holmes only through the lens of recent - and didactically leftist - "re-interpretations". 

Of course; such deliberate desecration and destruction of Tolkien's real greatness cannot be prevented or stopped - those behind the process are too wealthy and powerful for that; but we can recognize and inwardly reject what is going-on. 

  

Midsummer season between the cross-quarter days

Buttercups at Fountains Abbey in Yorkshire. I saw this glorious field a while ago, while my family had a picnic on its edge. We were all fascinated and enchanted by watching a little girl of about three years old in a pretty summer dress, who "waded" all around and across the field through the flowers. Engaged by some very serious business, it seemed.   

The neo-pagans seem to be right about the primary seasonal significance of the "cross-quarter days" - those that come half-way between the Solstices and the Equinoxes - at least in England. 

These days are located around the first days of February, May, August and November; and sometimes correspond to the Christian feasts; so there is Candlemass (Imbolc); May Day (Beltane); Lammas; and Halloween/ All Hallows (All Saints) Day.

We are currently into the Midsummer season that comes between May Day and Lammas; and the change this month has been decisive, because the tress have - suddenly, it seems! - come into full leaf; and already it feels more like summer than spring. 

But May can be the most delightful of months, as everything is still fresh as spring, but with summer's abundance. 

May's special flower, the buttercup, is just beginning to wax dominant in the fields; to climax in a couple of weeks. And buttercups are perhaps, along with snowdrops, my favourite of our wild flowers.  

In particular the daylight never really ceases up-here at 55 degrees North; and the stargazing hobby must go into abeyance; as only the brightest planets and stars are visible (when there are no clouds!) against the always-twilight, never-black, sky. 

And these only from after about 10:30 pm, or even later in a couple of weeks  - at present the likes of Venus (just about, before it sets), Jupiter, Regulus, Arcturus, Vega, and Deneb. 

Unlike the Equinoxes, where the change in day length is at its most rapid; Midsummer Day - when it comes - is just a calendar date, because there is no perceptible difference in sunrise and sunset for some days either side of it. 

Here in Newcastle upon Tyne, Midsummer is dominated by an enormous travelling (gypsy) fun fair The Hoppings; which sets-up on the Town Moor for more than a week, and makes a great deal of (horrible) noise! 

So Midsummer is far from a spiritual environment, except when we get out into the countryside. 

Movie review - Good Fortune (2025)

Good Fortune (2025) works pretty well as a mainstream Hollywood comedy; it is a fairly typical "3 Star" movie (i.e. 3/5 Stars; i.e. worth watching, but not re-watching). 

What makes Good Fortune rather different is that it is very earnest in tone, and tackles the deep subject of "meaning in life"; and, as such I found its assumptions and aspirations interesting and illustrative, and I continued thinking about it for a while after watching. 

I was attracted to the movie because it features an angel as a main character (and I find it interesting to see how this device is used); but the conceptualization of angel is - as usual - a being that "helps people" in very practical ways (almost trivial ways, in the case of our protagonist) in a universe assumed to be wholly materialistic in its nature. 

But the angel comes-up-against a person - endearingly played by the film's auteur Aziz Ansari - whose constantly-working life is on a down-trend of materially deprivation and insecurity, such that it seems to him not worth living. 

The other main character is an ultra-wealthy technology-investor-type of the post 1990s style; whose life is depicted as very pleasant and easy - and a lot happier. 

Magical-life-swaps ensue; and these are used to examine the question of what Makes Life Worth Living, in order to save the "soul" of the despairing protagonist, and undo a plot conundrum. 

These "things" that MLWL, are all depicted as material; except for romantic (and maybe filial) relationships; and, to an extent, casual friendships. For instance, much is made of the Mexican food Tacos, as a symbol of the good life; and a cheap kind of good life... that could/should be accessible to all. 

Because the life worth living is materially-conceptualized, the "answer" to the problem of meaninglessness and despair is a material one; and that which is arrived-at is (implicitly)... mid-twentieth-century, Old Left-style socialism. 

So; Trades Unions are very positively depicted as a way "forward", and redistribution of wealth from the few ultra-rich to the hundred-millions of grindingly poor; is explicitly stated to be the solution to poverty. 

Economic socialism is portrayed as if it were a "radical" notion, but in reality the ideal utopia is almost exactly a reactionary yearning for the 1950s in The West. Something that already has-been; and something which was vehemently rejected at the time, by the exact same class of people who are making this movie!

In other words, Good Fortune implicitly rejects the post 1960s "Civil Rights" New Left focus on race, feminism, and the sexual revolution; and argues for a restoration of the Old Left focus on socialist economics.  

Except, of course, it doesn't! Because the movie has the usual (mandatory) quota-casting and soft-sell idealization of "vibrancy" and the rest of it. 

So what is actually being advocated is to re-impose Old Left economics on top of the actually-existing New Left society... 

Therefore (and for obvious reasons); Good Fortune says nothing-at-all about the decades of colossal immigration; which was exactly the primary cause of the (rightly-) vilified mass life of a "gig-economy" of low-paid, insecure jobs getting worse at one end...

And the tiny minority of ever-fewer, ever-richer and ever more-powerful class of people at the top...

(Who were, of course, the class of people producing, scripting, directing, and acting the movie.)  

It is an historical fact that it was the Old Left who favoured a Trades-Union-dominated, high-minimum wage economy, Characterized by strong top-down regulation of work conditions, enforced exclusion of competition, labour protection, and secure contracts. And these were the group most vehemently against mass immigration and "globalization".

(For instance, as I well remember, it was the Left of the Labour Party who most strongly opposed the UK's entry into the "European Union" in the referendum of 1975.) 

And this was for very obvious reasons (i.e. "obvious" to common sense, if not to the current ruling intellectual class of Hollywood opinion-formers!). 

But my main point is that this morally-earnest movie can come-up with no higher ideal for human existence than reversion to the actually-achieved socialist Old Left, mid-20th century. With its notion of a "decent minimum" level of material provision and security for the masses; in the context of a structurally-secular vision of reality.

Yet even this mundane, low-animal-level, "barnyard ethics" social-utopia of "comfort and convenience for all"; is rendered an impossible "fairytale" - by the insistence on the continuing destructive reality of open-ended massive immigration - with its inevitable consequences!

 

It is the old story. Those who ask for, work for, live for, aspire to have "nothing more" than a comfortable life of minimal decency; will thereby become so alienated, fearful, demotivated, and despairing that they will have even so meagre an existence taken from them. 

Materialism is incoherent - and leads to incoherent understanding and therefore the inability to recognize/ conceptualize/ defend simple-self-interest in the medium/ long-term. 

This; because human beings Just Are by nature religious and spiritual. It is built-in - whether we like it, or like it not. 

Excise religion etc; and we become fundamentally helpless; self-hating drivelling idiot-lunatics. 

In sum; we are creatures who can only function in a (broadly) sensible and realistic way, when we know that this mortal life is not everything...

Subtract all this context; and what remains is not just happy (or miserable) animals; but something less-than an animal.