As evil becomes more dominant in our world, it ceases to be subtle and strategic. In the end, evil is about motivation - so it is never happy when it has to dress-up and disguise its true motivations in a costume of good. The flimsier the excuse for evil the better - so long as people still do it.
As things come to a point, the mass of people are more corrupt, and their basic metaphysical assumptions about reality become themselves evil - so that making evil choices becomes more and more natural and spontaneous.
In such a situation; evil can afford to be relatively open about its nature - which is negative and incoherent in strategic pursuit of the destruction of Good - it attacks Good in whatever way is immediately effective. Thus - evil gathers-pace...
For example, Christian people can be mocked for their Goodness - for being dull, predictable and miserable - and also mocked for Not being Good but being in-reality depraved hypocrites - and also for being dumb-happy-clappy idiots who don't even have the wit to want evil - and also for being fiendishly-clever sinister-conspirators - for being consumed by hate, resentment, bitterness - for being grovelling cowards - and at the same time insane fanatics. For being boring conformists and intolerable anti-Enlightenment subversives.
This is the way evil works. Its coherence can be seen in its opposition. As for what evil actually wants as a state of affairs... well that cannot be answered; not least because each evil group and person wants the world organised around their own desires. So, when not allied in opposition, evil is a war of all against all; evil is anticohesion, intrinsically fissile (which is a feature, not a bug, for the Father of Lies).
But things coming to a point means not just that evil is more powerful, more short-termist, more clearly negative -but also that evil is more obvious.
The ultimate goal of evil is that people will choose evil because it is evil; in other words, choose evil our of a resentment against the Good, from a fear of the Good. Evil has used a debased version of Love and a battering-ram in the Sexual Revolution (Love as meaning mostly sensual gratification but still aspiring to long-termism).
But as things come to a point, even the fig-leaf of fake-Love will be discarded; and the choices confronting people will be purely a matter or their own personal gratification, here-and-now, and damn the 'consequences'.
In sum, when things have come to a point - life-choices will be substantially (this can never be absolute, due to our mixed-nature and mixed-motives) simple, dichotomous and direct. The choices will be between God, Love, Beauty, Truth, Virtue, Harmony... and the negation of these.
Once we have people choosing against-Good, against God, consciously and with their eyes wide-open; then that will also be the situation when people will choose eternal damnation in preference to the gift of salvation and eternal life as Sons and Daughters of God - they will reject Heaven and choose to reign in their own personal Hell.
This is the end game; yet we can see that this must be carefully prepared if the situation is not to 'backfire' from the perspective of evil...
The clearer that choices become, the more likely that the mass of distracted, cloudy-minded, muddled, partly conscious and not-yet-fully-corrupted people will perceive the situation and choose Good.
So - a world of things coming to a point is also a world in which it is easier to discern Good. Much easier...
The iron fist has emerged from its velvet glove; the wolf has shrugged of his sheep's clothing. Strategic deception becomes a thing of the past.
For Men of Good intent - life becomes clear and simple - right choices are easy to recognise.
After that - it is up-to-us, each as individuals.
I've been reading your blog for awhile but have never posted until now. This post today struck me as quite true, and brought to my mind the 1985 Terry Gilliam movie "Brazil" which I haven't seen in years but suddenly recalled. If you have not seen it, I recommend it as it describes the world we're living in: a consumer-driven technocratic totalitarian dystopia.
The film's original ending is very Orwellian: the viewer sees that the protagonist is being tortured, whereas the Hollywood version shows a happy ending. The Hollywood ending seems appropriate for the current zeitgeist which seeks to deny reality and truth by disguising the evil around us via "happy" distractions.
Post a Comment