There are a lot of people who are concerned about the evil of the Western elites, its nature and purpose. Since this evil is covert and heavily defended, there are massive divergences of opinion about its nature and purpose - so we have multiple theories of motivations: Caligulas, capitalists, illuminati, aliens, lizard people...
There is a lot of crazy talk coming from people of different levels of craziness - but then it turns out that there has indeed been some crazily massive and systematic evil going on in Britain: by any historical standards.
The revelations over the past few years of the wholesale, decades-long activities of Jimmy Savile are beyond the imagination of most people, and he was one of the most well-connected people in Britain: an intimate, advisor and facilitator of senior royalty, senior politicians, senior BBC officials, lawd and health service bureaucrats... the elite of the elite. After this came the revelations of multiple examples of organized paedophilia being concealed/ tolerated/ protected by these same authorities - and again at a scale apparently unique in history.
These situations were known to many thousands of the most powerful people for a long time - and the necessary inference is that what was going-on was, overall, what they wanted to be going-on.
So we have an evil elite, and they are evil in ways and to a degree which is crazy - so what are they trying to achieve?
It is here that the theorists ideas seem grossly inadequate. If the evil elite are as powerful as they seem to be, then why the secrecy - and why is it so unclear about what they are aiming-at?
The answer is that the source and ultimate organization of evil is neither human nor alien but demonic. And the demonic perspective is not strategic - it does not name at any particular end state - its modus operandi is destruction: destruction of The Good.
The demonic tactically undermines, subverts, attacks and ultimately inverts all that is Good, wherever that may be found. There is maybe a vague notion of creating a state of disorder that they intend to exploit - but not much detail beyond that. They simply succeed in one destruction, then move onto the next.
It is, in a sense, no more than a series of 'petty triumphs'; of prideful impositions of domination and manipulation; of delighting in the grotesque smashing of innocence and beauty; of getting-away-with outrageous lies and cruelties - indeed, knowing their own covert evil and not merely getting-away-with-it but being publicly and multiply honoured as exemplars of good; of infiltrating, hollowing-out and filling with corruption the finest and noblest institutions...
And all for no better or deeper or more coherent reason that the gleeful mockery of it, the sense of their own superiority -- the conviction that all this (their own successful destruction and deceit) is conclusive proof of the stupidity and hypocritical-wickedness of the masses (and the weak minority of the genuinely religious), and thereby justifies the activity.
In the end, everybody knows (more or less) what is going-on, but everybody pretends it isn't: and this situation just gets more and more extreme, thorough, and crazy. And this is exactly what the demons want.
There is no Master Plan, there is nothing more-than more-of-the-same: more extreme in degree, more insane in content, more widespread... And (best of all, from the demonic perspective) all the time, all this grotesque and viscerally disgusting stuff is going behind a facade of pomp, ceremony and prestige.
The demons are already regarded as angels; they intend to be worshipped as gods.
And then, when good is defeated in the piblic and visible reealm, and the evil god will rule in the role of Goodness; a new phase will begin (or rather will become dominant - since it has always been there): the struggle for domination between the triumphant demons, their destruction of one another.
But it never stops (until everything stops). So long as there is any residual good, there is work for evil.
Note: I am talking above of varieties of demonic illusion, influence, control, and at the extreme possession -- demons cannot incarnate, cannot have bodies (according to Mormon theology). The above ideas are my most recent reflections along a line begun by reading Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, by Fr. Seraphim Rose. I think there was a core of truth in what Seraphim Rose argued - although I believe he was wrong to state that all New Age/ Occult/ Spiritual/ Paganistic/ Eastern Religion (etc) phenomena are demonic; by contrast, I think there is much good in some of them.
There is the idea that the demons, having cut themselves off from God and lost spiritual life thereby, need to ‘feed’ in some way and this they can only do by absorbing energy from corrupted human beings. The energy must be corrupted, i.e. lowered in its spiritual quality, because if it is not then they cannot access it, such is their own corrupt state. This explains why they seek to foster, anger, hatred and vice in general. Blood letting and sexual activity devoid of love are probably also fruitful fields for them. A horrible thought (so sorry for bringing it up!), but it does help to explain a lot, especially the motive for their actions in this world, though that does not rule out the perverse delights they gain from spoiling innocence and goodness you mention in the post. Doesn’t Screwtape eat his useless nephew? I think this is referring to the same idea.
@William - It depends on one's understanding of demons - I take mine from Mormon theology where they are unincarnated spirits who never can incarnate - so I presume they do not need any material intakes - whether of energy or food.
The energy would be psychic or emotional energy which they need to maintain their existence. Or that's the idea anyway.
"I think there was a core of truth in what Seraphim Rose argued - although I believe he was wrong to state that all New Age/ Occult/ Spiritual/ Paganistic/ Eastern Religion (etc) phenomena are demonic; by contrast, I think there is much good in some of them."
One of the strengths is the female principle. Of Christian denominations, Mormonism has it, so does Gnosticism, and, to a fairly feeble extent, so does Roman Catholicism.
Are there any others?
Without the female principle, a male only religion is distorted, and to some extent I think it becomes untrue.
The most powerful religion to compete with Christianity has no place for the female principle. All the traditionally male qualities are given free rein, without any checks and balances from the traditional female qualities. Without these checks and balances, an unpleasant 'laddish' quality is seen in the theology, which translates into similar everyday life. Nuff said.
(Dr Charlton - if you want to post this, but not the final paragraph, please delete it, and post without it).
@Seeker - You are right. Men and women are complementary - radically and irreplaceably different - ultimately, if either is missing the situation is incomplete.
(What you wrote is fine.)
The older I get, the more ridiculously simple the enemy's plan seems to be. He simply seeks to turn people away from having children. If he can delay family formation for any length of time, he increases the chance of people being normalized to deviancy. He can sell cheap thrills to the heathen, and the importance of a degree and a fulfilling career to impressionable young christian women.
Egalitarianism plays a role too, where we are meant to forget all our ancestors held of value with regard to picking a good mate with a lineage of some sort. How many who are born under these conditions are less intelligent than their father's generation?
Definitely agree with this. It is the spirit of the age, the satanic (Kaliist) influence which poisons men's souls and turns them, en masse, to unthinkable evil in the Modern World. It is why our overcoming this influence is so momentous.
"There is no Master Plan, there is nothing more-than more-of-the-same: more extreme in degree, more insane in content, more widespread... And (best of all, from the demonic perspective) all the time, all this grotesque and viscerally disgusting stuff is going behind a facade of pomp, ceremony and prestige."
There is no better example of this than the "trans-gender" phenomenon that is being shoved on us with the full faith and credit of every significant institution in our society. Here we have truly reached the 2 + 2 = 5 stage. It's as if those who control the system have at last raised the Jolly Roger. Their intentions are clearly evil.
It reminds me of the description (from Solzhenitsyn?) of newspapers under totalitarianism. The point was not really to misinform. They were too obviously wrong for that. The point was to demoralize the people by rubbing their noses in the fact that the rulers could say and do whatever the hell they pleased. And everyone had to parrot and applaud it.
Mark Citadel - 'Kaliist' Do you mean like Kali? If so, I am assuming you mean Kali as representing the dark side of the female principle from a Christian viewpoint. However, she has been variously worshipped in India, sometimes representing positive and sometimes negative qualities - often both. This Wikipedia entry is quite a good summary.
The dual nature (good and bad qualities) of deities in many pagan religions seems to me to reflect human nature well, but leaves it at that. There is little of the transcendent to their deities.
I see Christianity (and Judaism) as religions who separate good and evil in their deities - God (good) - Satan (evil - although he is better described as he is - a fallen angel).
In this sense, the human being is not a small copy of God, because God has no evil in him - the human being does. Rather, Christianity separates the good out, and sets it up as something for humans to aim for.
Because of the good/bad qualities present in their deities, paganism does not do this so effectively. It makes them less true.
As Jimmy Savile was not well-know in the United States, I did not hear of him until the allegations began. From my cursory web-search it appears observers and commentators are fairly evenly divided over whether he is guilty. One skeptic, citing the sheer number of allegations, wondered whether Savile would have had enough time left over to manage a career at all.
This reminds me somewhat of the McMartin preschool case here. In 1983 an accusation by one mother, later found to be mentally ill and an alcoholic, snowballed into a flood of increasingly bizarre charges which the mass media accepted uncritically. By 1990 the case had become the most expensive in American history and no convictions were made. It developed that children could be highly suggestible under questioning and would invent fantastic stories. An adult perjurer, cellmate of one of the accused, didn't help either. Twenty years later one of the grown child witnesses recanted his testimony.
But whether proved true or not, the scandals serve evil by inducing mass demoralization, drumming the messages: Things Are Indeed Falling Apart; The Center is Not Holding; the good you believed in is false, if not subject to inversion, because---the only public moral compass is the secular, ever-fickle political correctness.
America now has its own Savile-type case with Bill Cosby, accused of serial rape. Unlike Savile, he is alive and can defend himself and if found guilty will not escape earthly justice.
@360 - It is interesting that you suppose there is any real doubt about what Savile did - that in itself is a reflection of the power of the mass media. The mass media made and sustained Savile, and now the mass media can sufficiently muddy the waters that people are not able to understand what has happened and its implications. Extraordinary.
It depends who you trust and why. I have some independent sources concerning Savile's behaviour - and many other people do too. The point was he was obviously horrible and evil, that was almost everybody's reaction to him: this man is a disgusting creeep. In evaluating this I was aware that the story was one the rulers of the media did not want to come out - and it could have come out many years ago but was instead squashed, although the low level reporters saw that there was massive potential for selling newspapers (etc). the point being that the Savile story is against the interests of the mass media - and required very careful 'spinning' and manageing.
He went everywhere, met a ot of people, and was blatant in his behaviour - so a lot of people had pieces of the jigsaw. I don't think I have heard anyone seriously defend him or say he was not guilty - not even those who probably used his services as a procurer and who might therefore feel vulnerable.
The fact that 'doubt' can be seeded about this is just a fact of human psychology. If you look too closely at something in a bit by bit fashion, all the evidence always falls apart and you are left feeling that nothing is known about anything.
But as I stated at the beginning and end of my book Addicted to Distraction - it is clear that people have not taken on board the implications of Savile - and I this is no accident. A related example is the Roman Catholic scandal - the meass media has been able to focus the entire attention on the evil of the cover up - without allowing people to notice the clear patten of the priest abusers - who were Liberals and sexual revolutionaries and who overhwhelmingly abused boys, not girls.
The subsequent police investigations of other media figures have assiduously avoided (it seems) following-up the obvious and extremely sinister Savile connections among the intellectual ruling elite - and instead focused on more mainstream careless or manipulative promiscuity. The same thing happened after Rochdale - the obvious is ignored and the public attention led elsewhere.
And because the public are helpless media addicts - they always follow where the big dealer leads them.
Thank you for this post.
There is plenty of good around. Good forces and good people will, almost by definition, get organized. Do not expect sadists or people with random, violent intentions to be able to organize anything powerful. Also, do not expect the internet to be a particularly potent force: in practice, up until now, it should be noted that it has separated us more than it has united us.
If you are a good person, make small but obviously valuable contributions yourself, and you can trust that other good people, including strangers, will recognise you and be thankful for your efforts. You will make new friends, and you might even spark a movement. Horrible people will always try to drag you down - but when your numbers increase, it is easier to brush off their insults. Please bear in mind that horrible people are omnipresent on the internet - and they cannot really contribute with anything.
I am anonymous, but I hope that these words can be an encouragement nonetheless.
@Anonymous - I agree with what you say in a perspective extending into life beyond death and over the timescale of eternity; but this may not be apparent or perceptible *at all* during the span of earthly mortal life. That is the nub of the problem.
Post a Comment