Wednesday, 21 March 2018

What is evil about the 'Adversaries'?

Edited from Chapter 13, the final one, of Unancestral Voice by Owen Barfield (1965).

By the Adversaries, Barfield means Lucifer and Ahriman, who are conceptualised as as actual but distinct aspects of 'Satan' - they are the adversaries of Christ's plan for the development of Men to the fully-divine form of consciousness. This idea comes from Rudolf Steiner, but is too complex to explain here. 

In what follows, Barfield makes a subtle distinction concerning evil that I consider to be not just misleading, but false - however (in the parts I have emphasised in bold text) he also makes a deep, vital, important and neglected point. Square brackets indicate editorial additions.

"[The Adversaries seek, not transformation but either continuity or substitution. 

"We have spoken little as yet of good and evil. If you are wise you will not think of the adversaries as evil. 

"Not they, but what they do - if man fails to prevent it - is evil.  

"They are not evil, because it is only in the activity of preventing them that Man achieves freedom: the freedom without his transformation [i.e. resurrection to eternal life] would not be self-transformation."

Now, I regard the best definition of evil to be that which opposes the divine destiny for Man; and in that respect, the adversaries certainly are evil; since opposition to God and to Jesus Christ is precisely what they do...

I think what Barfield means here is that the adversaries just are the way they are; and God has made this world such that Satan's activities are a part of it: in other words, opposition is allowed.

That is just a fact of mortal incarnate life. God has his reasons; which we personally may or may not understand - and which nobody understands in detail.

However, Barfield wants to put the focus on a place we seldom allow; which is that the major evil in this world comes from Man's failure to oppose, to prevent, that which the Adversaries want to do.

In a sense demonic evil is just a fact of life, about which we personally can do nothing. But demonic evil nearly-always works by Men's implementation. And another fact is that Men have freedom (agency) either to implement or to oppose evil.

Assuming that we are here to experience and learn from life - this is one vital thing we are here to learn: we are here to learn to 'prevent' evil; that is not to implement it, to work against it.

We should ideally never allow ourselves to think along the lines of 'the devil made me do it'. And when we do think like this, it must be repented.

What Barfield is saying here is that we need to learn to take responsibility for the evil that is done - and to take responsibility for 'preventing' evil as best we may; because that is to be free; and to be free, to embrace our being as a moral agent, is one of the essential things that God wants from us.

Should history be understood as a meaningful process of development?

Edited from Unancestral Voice by Owen Barfield (1965).

"I still wonder", said Chevalier, "if it is really as important as you suggest for people to find a meaning in history?"

"I will tell you one reason why it is important", came the swift answer. "As long as a man sees history as a meaningless jumble of events, he will see his own life - which is a part of history - and the lives of those around him in the same light... Just one-damn-thing -after another."

To find meaning in our own lives, or the lives of our friends, family, or those we admire - entails that history has a meaning; which entails that history has a direction, a destiny, an intended plan that is good.

It is also necessary that our own lives (and everybody else's life) be joined together; and joined with the destiny of history.

For there to be meaning in one thing requires a great deal more - in fact meaning in one thing requires meaning in every-thing.

And - taking a further step, which can't be explained briefly here, but may be obvious... Meaning in everything also requires that everything be alive and (to some degree, in some way) conscious...

Conversely... to deny meaning, shape, purpose to history (including that history which is the origin and evolution of the planet and life) - is to deny meaning in Everything.

Tuesday, 20 March 2018

We need Romanticism, and Romanticism needs Christianity and Time

I explain why at Albion Awakening.

On being unable to explain What Exactly Jesus Did

I know that Jesus was essential. I know that when he was born into this world, somehow everything in the universe changed.

I also know that this was not primarily a matter of sin - it really wasn't: that is a narrow and partial misunderstanding of 'saviour'.

Christ was a transformation of possibility - so great that I can't summarise it.

I can't do much more than perceive an outline in a blurry fashion... Or rather, I perceive it all but blurred and stretching into a distance, such that I know there are more vital details beyond my clear vision, but can't distinguish them.

Christ did so much. And that continues. It is by Christ that we continue to experience meaning, purpose, miracles - that we rest upon love - that we know that creation is good, and that we are part of it and can participate in it.

All this happened because of Jesus and could not otherwise have happened.

The reason (or reasons) why Jesus is essential are very difficult to comprehend and express - and yet that knowledge is so strong and sure... it is only the failure to explain it that threatens the knowledge itself.

You ask why Jesus is absolutely and uniquely essential - I fail to provide a satisfactory answer (I am not happy with the answer, you are not happy with the answer) - My failure is seen as falsifying the assertion...

If Jesus was subtracted from history, so that he never was, and never was going-to-be... If he had never been part of the plan... If life and the universe had been made only by God the creator and nothing else... then life would have been futile.

Life would have gone nowhere, achieved nothing: it would not have been worthwhile.

Life would, indeed, have been A Bad Idea.

It is Christ which/ who made and makes it All worthwhile.

Somehow the scope and scale of the reality of What Jesus Did has been missed, has been metaphysically denied, has been wrongly-explained. We've explained it to ourselves (for 2000 years) in various partial and distorted ways... and then we have been trapped-by our own limited explanations...

We cannot communicate it, not even to ourselves - yet we insist on the primacy of communication, and insist on living-by that which can be communicated... The tail is wagging the dog. 

There was creation - ongoing; and there was Jesus Christ - ongoing. The first made everything possible; the second made it worthwhile.

But ask me to say why and how in a few comprehensible words - or say it in many incomprehensible words - and I cannot say anything that does not grossly misrepresent the fact and its meaning.

We cannot even explain the reality of one single person to another single person. Is it surprising we cannot provide a general explanation of Jesus Christ suitable for humanity?

But we can get-to-know a person. 

Monday, 19 March 2018

How can the people of Albion be supine in the face of Telford (etc)

How can the people of Albion be supine in the face of the Telford (etc) mass, organised, long-term, officially-known-but-allowed; rape and violent abuse of uncounted thousands of children and the vulnerable?

The short answer, and only a short anwer is needed, is at Albion Awakening

The all encompassing smile of our divine creator - analysing the last words of William Arkle

 A late painting by William Arkle including his favourite subject matter of the divine smiling face

Throughout his life (1925-2000) the spiritual philosopher and artist William Arkle developed and lived by a type of esoteric Christianity which has become one of the great influences on my life. His last published words are therefore of particular interest.

But not only the words. What was special about Arkle is that he lived by his beliefs. Colin Wilson described him as one of the half dozen most remarkable men he had met; precisely because of the harmony between his ideals and his lived consciousness. I have confirmed this by discussions with several people who knew him, including his son Nick.

In some ways Arkle's beliefs were stable from the 1950s through to his death in 2000; and this stability can be seen both in the writings from his first pamphlet (The Hand of God, in 1960) via his two books (A Geography of Consciousness, 1974 and The Great Gift, 1977) to the last writings published on the internet; and by the themes, and recurrent symbolism, of his mature paintings (despite many varieties of style).

In the paintings; as well as sea shores, mountains, skies, rivers and the like; there are specific distinctive subjects - such as teapots and cups, or small boats. But most characteristic is the large smiling divine face - hovering above the picture, implicitly unseen by most people - sometimes with nurturing arms and hands, but most often variations on the theme of of that enigmatically-smiling face.

I regard William Arkle as a genuinely advanced spiritual soul; and therefore it was a fact that he was trying to communicate his vision across a great gulf to reach the rest of us - aspiring perhaps, but ourselves not very far along that path. 

This, I think, is the core reason why his paintings and words both tend to strike people (at least initially) as simplistic and naive: too much 'sweetness and light' and too little of that corruption and darkness which modern materialist Man seems to want in his art and literature.

Arkle was perfectly aware of this, but would not compromise on what he saw as the truth about reality. And through his life into old age, his 'vision' became more and more positive, optimistic and serene.

Anyway, in Arkle's 'last words' - published as the Foreword to a large web site made for him by Michael Perry (no longer available); he wrote a characteristic short essay that - as so often - implies a great deal more than seems.

I analyse the whole thing below. My comments are in italics:

I very nearly called this web site 'The Play of William Arkle', and then I felt that it would sound rather too casual for most people and even an insult to the endeavour that is brought to the resolving of the mysteries of life.

The reason that the word 'play' suggested itself is that the journey of understanding seems to lead from the level of human survival as a personality in this world, through to a spiritual view that takes survival of our spiritual self for granted; and then on again into the appreciation of the all-encompassing smile of our Divine Creator.

Arkle describes a three-step progression: 

1. Human survival as a personality in this incarnate, material world.
2.  A 'spiritual' view that takes for granted that the 'soul' survives death, and makes this a solid basis, a metaphysical framework, for living. 
3. An interwoven understanding of the 'all encompassing smile' of the divine creator; 'our' creator because we are true children of the divine creator. 

In other words; after we cease to push-away knowledge of our own soul, and the pervasive presence of our creator, we can begin to understand the implications and begin to live by them.

This Divine Smile says a very simple thing, which is that the everlasting nature of its Spirit can have only two options: either it remains in its Absolute condition of Blissful non-action; or it can engage in action through the creation of play-grounds. This means creating theatres of time, space and lots of things - from a condition of no action or time or space or things.

The divine smile - in its divinity, and its love for us as men and as individuals - gives us two positive options; plus a negative alternative which Arkle only obliquely implies. What is important is that these two options were the same as confronted the creator. The first in a path of pure 'static' contemplation in a state of bliss. (That is, the state of Nirvana.) The second is the one which God actually took; which is to engage in loving, creative action: creation of The World, of reality - with its time, space, matter and differentiation into many entities including persons. 

Our Creator felt that the first choice of 'no action' could becoming boring because there was no adventure, surprise or growth involved. The livingness of The Spirit felt itself to be in need of such adventure as an expression of joyful love and fun. So the second choice came about purely for the exercise of joy and love and fun.

This explains why God made the choice of action and creation. Arkle intuits that it was the preference for change, including unpredictability. This is a statement regarding the deep and intrinsic nature of God as a person. The fact is stated in a typically down-to-earth way ('boring', adventure', 'fun' etc. and 'play' coming up next) that is shocking, or banal, according to taste; and which I regard as expressive of the difficulty of communicating across a spiritual gulf - because there really is no way we can fully understand what is being said unless and until we our-selves attain such an intuitive and direct knowledge of the nature of God, as a real and living person.  

The only word I could find to cover the activity of joy and love and fun was the word play, but unless it is approached in the right way the word does not carry the correct significance. And thus the whole of this web site is a journey into the understanding of The Creator's view of the word play.

You will find that my own earlier understandings moved gradually into this way of talking about our reality. It seemed to become more and more light-hearted while being able to sympathise with all the conditions of growth which can feel to be the conditions of fear and anxiety. Thus the big game of life at play has conditions within it which can descend to the very opposites of its initial intention.

God has taken the second option of action and creation; but we - as agent persons - are free to disagree with God's choice. There are two possible ways of disagreeing - the first is to reject personhood and prefer the bliss of Nirvana - to return to the immersive static-state of absorption in which everything began. 

But it is the second freedom to which Arkle refers when he mentions 'the opposites of the initial intention'. We are also free to disagree wit the whole scheme of creation and of love between persons. We are thus free to be anti-creation, anti-love: instead of creating in harmony with divine creation we can destroy-creation, and instead of living by love for the divine plan and other persons we can live from-and-for our-selves in fear and resentment of other persons - the state called 'pride'...

When we understand that God's disliked loneliness and boredom and sought 'fun' and 'friends' with whom to share creativity; we may regard this either as generous sharing; or we may regard it as selfish and exploitative of God. The latter inference is what leads to the many of the aspects of the world in opposition to the intention of God.       

These opposite conditions are the result of our Creator deciding to give us the Gift of being able to become real players in our own right at this adventure which is being undertaken. This is why the picture book was called The Great Gift and why the writings in it referred to God as being our friend in this one life endeavour. Later on this was changed to the expression God, The Player Friend.

We are 'real players' in the 'adventure' of mortal incarnate living. Within creation, there are those who are free to regard loving creation as wrong, and to work against it. It is part of the plan that those who decide to favour option one (Nirvana) or to oppose option two (to act against love and creation) are allowed to do this, and to 'put their case' to others. For God's hoped-for friends to be real they must positively understand and agree to the divine plan; including that they need to understand and reject the alternatives. 

Such a situation is allowed-to work-itself-out in the world for the simple reason that it is the only way that the ultimate aim can be achieved. Nobody is compelled. Indeed, the nature of love and creation is such that nobody can be compelled.  

Arkle's concept of 'play' is the experience from-which we may learn; but what we learn is up-to each individual. All options are 'on the table'. The possibilities are known, and competing - even fighting. 

We must and will, all of us, take sides - because there is no neutral ground. We may change our minds during mortal incarnate life, and perhaps after - but at any given moment we are on one side, and not on the other two sides. This is the nature and purpose of the play of our lives.

As for me, I have kept the name William Arkle. I like the name because it implies that my Will is doing its best to be a small expression of the Ark of Life, The Heart of the Creator Friend.

However my close associates now find me calling myself Billy The Kid.

Thus Arkle closes his valedictory with a modest and whimsical set of puns...

The decline of institutions - the rise of The Bureaucracy

This is an era in which the major institutions are declining - to be replaced by The (single, linked) Bureaucracy.

This has been a major fact of my adult life - the gradual recognition that all of the institutions with which I was directly involved: schools, universities, the medical profession, the health services, biomedical science and science in general... have all Gone!

Sometimes the shell remains, but what is within the shell has been hollowed out and replaced with The Bureaucracy; what the institution used-to-do has been redirected and repurposed into the uniform objectives of The Bureaucracy.

And what does The Bureaucracy want? Well, at a proximate level it wants total-control; it wants to know what everybody is doing (ideally, what they are thinking) at every moment of every day, such that this can be regulated and directed. The desire for totalitarianism clearly suffices for short-termism - but raises the question of the ultimate goal.

Towards what is The Bureaucracy aiming?

This may be clarified by considering what superficially-seems to be The Bureaucracy's only rival: the Mass Media. In fact, they are merely rivalrous divisions within the same organisation.

The Mass Media attracts 24/ 7 attention and mental participation, it is very-highly addictive such that its compulsion is in the form of desire - and therefore the MM has the same objective of totalitarian thought-control as The Bureaucracy. And the Media, in its core activity and overall tendency, always pushes (either directly, or implicitly) for more surveillance and more regulation - for more Bureaucracy.

In sum, the Mass Media gives the impetus and justification to the Bureaucracy, and 'corrects' it when it strays from The Program; and each component of The Bureaucracy responds in part directly to the Mass Media, and in part to the other components of The Bureaucracy.

For The Bureaucracy 'reality' is what the Mass Media is saying, and what other parts of the Bureaucracy is communicating. That's it. That is the whole of reality: there is nothing more. 

As for the Masses - they are paid by The Bureaucracy (one way or another, usually directly - if not indirectly); and spend their money, time and effort on The Mass Media. These are the whole of reality: there is nothing more.

(Whatever else seems to exist is purely personal, subjective, evanescent, contingent - presumably some delusion, the result of ignornance or childishness, irrational; mere wishful thinking. Objective Reality IS the Bureaucracy and the Mass Media.)

But what is The Bureaucracy (considered as a cohesive Thing) aiming-at: why does it want totalitarian control?

That is the bad news - because it turns-out that The Bureaucracy and the Mass Media are both, at the highest levels, pursuing a demonic agenda; and therefore what it wants is destruction of The Good (truth, beauty, virtue, coherence) and to persuade all humans to reject (explicitly, deliberately) salvation into everlasting life in Heaven.

At the top, at the highest level, ultimately setting-the agenda are literal demonic powers. Not many of them - they work indirectly via humans using bribery, intimidation and lying propaganda - but they are the primary movers and shakers both.  

In sum, the modern world has become a vast machine of spiritual damnation; a single mechanism with an ever-finer mesh to capture ever-more people in an ever-tighter constraint - aiming to poison that which is good; to promote, reward, enforce that which is dishonest, ugly, wicked and insane.

SO - as individuals, we look at the world, and we look for groups, organisations, clubs, colleges, guilds, movements, parties and all manner of collectivities - to provide us with knowledge, encouragement, and to amplify our influence...

And we find that there are none (or hardly any, small, weak, poor, despised; and only minimally effectual. And that, for various reasons, we personally cannot participate in them).

We find ourselves confronted by this vast machine of damnation - and we are on-our-own.

On our own because of the wholesale corruption; the possibility of living-well by participation-in, obedience-to some Good external authority and groups has been deleted.

Every-body must - and this is not avoidable - therefore always exercise discernment; must evaluate, judge, discriminate; and must find their own motivations, courage, and direction. There is no other Good option on offer.

Like it or not, want it or not; this is un-evade-able: it is the inescapable situation in-which we find-ourselves.   

This is precisely the core situation of modernity; it is the experience we are here (in mortal incarnate life) to experience, it is the lesson we personally are here to learn; it is why we were born now and here, rather than some other time or place: it is the challenge that we, personally, must confront and overcome.

And, for a Christian with faith in a loving God who is our Father and creator of this world, and whose Son made possible our resurrection to divinity - and whose guidance and wisdom is universally and personally accessible to all men as The Holy Ghost - who is our living, individual direction-finder and inspiration...

For such a Christian this colossal monolith of inter-connected evil is a challenge that each of us - individually and 'alone' - can overcome.

Sunday, 18 March 2018

My lifelong interest in consciousness

I have been interested in consciousness, and unusual conscious states, for my whole adult life and continuing - but in various ways and with different focuses.

c1974: I discovered the work of Robert Graves; first the Claudius novels, then the essays and criticism. I became fascinated by his remarks concerning the poetic trance, and the possibilities of non-logical leaps of inference and types of knowledge. Bernard Shaw's writings on Creative Evolution (Man and Superman, Back to Methuselah) pointed at higher consciousness as the (impersonal) aim of Life - this amplified by a mystical nature writer called John Stewart Collis. HD Thoreau's Walden and Journals described moments of connection with nature, which I sometimes experienced.

1978: I discovered Colin Wilson's work, with its primary focus on attaining higher forms of consciousness - since then I carefully read through most of his books, many several times. About this same time I encountered CG Jung, and the idea of archetypes that lent depth, universality and significance to life and art. A book of essays by composer Michael Tippett (Moving into Aquarius) talked of the importance of this kind of thing in artistic creation.

1994: I began an active scientific study of consciousness from the perspective of the theory of evolution by natural selection. I began to publish on the subject. To Thoreau I added an engagement with RW Emerson and other 'related' authors like Walt Whitman, William James, Robert Frost.

1998: Shamanism was of increasing interest - I read anthropological texts, and also - from about 2001 - Neo-Jungian writers such as Joseph Campbell and James Hillman.

2010: Having become a Christian, I investigated Eastern Orthodoxy (and the analogous 'Celtic'/ Anglo Saxon British tradition) - i.e. the practices of constantly-praying/ meditating ascetic monks and hermits, wonder-working Saints etc.

c2013: Having committed to Mormon theology and metaphysics; this was the beginning of my current phase of great interest in William Arkle, Owen Barfield and Rudolf Steiner, supplemented by William Blake and ST Coleridge.

So, for me, consciousness has been (in different, sometimes contrasting, ways) the single major intellectual and personal interest over a span of more than four decades - and continuing.

Living against our personal destiny is a neglected source of existential suffering in the world

Looking back on my life, I can see that a major cause of misery and suffering was when I lived against my personal destiny. That is, when I had made wrong life choices and persisted in them - I suffered. This suffering was of an existential nature - deep and private, not superficial and public. 

What seemed to happen then was a waning of drive and motivation, a growing discontent and low-grade misery. A feeling of meaninglessness and of pointlessness. And alienation - being cut-off from people, the world, life. 

My surface life might be comfortable, might contain excitement, fun, be well-rewarded. Status and self-esteem were not a problem. But underneath...

In other words; when my life was on the wrong track, when I had taken a wrong turn and was moving further and further away from the right path - vitality drained away and an uneasy angst accumulated - regardless of how superficially pleasant and pleasurable that life might be.

And of course this is how it would naturally be, if a loving God was guiding us, his children. He would not want us to be diverted from what we ought to do by wrong decisions, and would make sure that we knew when - deep down - our lives had gone wrong and were getting wronger.

Whether we take any notice, is up to us; whether we put matters right is up to us - but we cannot say we were not aware of the problem, we cannot say that we were misled. If people, like myself, choose to blind themselves to the reality of divine destiny, then that is also open to us - but it cannot be done without consequences in terms of existential suffering.

Existential suffering of precisely the kind (and increasing severity) which I see all around me in the modern world.

People are being told, they are being shown, they are feeling that they have made wrong assumptions, wrong decisions, and are persisting in them - all of this by their own personal choices.

Corrective counter-knowledge is being applied to their souls; every hour of every day; steadily, and with increasing force - this existential suffering has that meaning.

People cannot be made to take notice of, nor to understand, such divine communications - but they are certainly being given every encouragement to do so.

Saturday, 17 March 2018

Snow, snoil, snil, snail, hail

I found this from five years ago - with zero recollection of having written it; when I was googling this subject - because we are today having exactly the same weather again. 

In what seems to be the coldest March for many decades, my locality has experienced a couple of weeks of daily 'snow': but a strange kind of snow which is somewhat like hail, or sometimes hail that is somewhat like snow - either way it never lies for long, and accumulates like little drifts of granules rather than in layers.

My 10 yr old daughter has come-up with a useful set of terms to describe this unusual icy precipitation which has some of the properties of snow and some of hail.


Snoil - (pronounced snoyl) mostly snow but particulate, a bit like hail

Snil - exactly half way between snow and hail

Snail - mostly hail, but with a bit of snowlike softness


As you can see, the proportion of letters from each word, snow and hail, reflect the proportion of snow-like or hail-like properties - e.g. snoil has three letters from snow (sno) and two from hail (il) - while snail is the opposite, having two letters from snow (sn) and three letters from hail (ail).

This new nomenclature is proving itself to be usefully descriptive, and (more importantly) generative of the kind of micro-discussion of weather which we British seem to require as part of our daily diet - for example, emotional debate (confident assertions and incredulous counter-assertions) about whether the stuff on top of the car is best described as snoil or snil...

1740 - The dawn of Romanticism; the year that human consciousness changed

Colin Wilson was the first to recognise that human consciousness changed in 1740; and what marked this historic moment was the publication in London of Pamela: or Virtue Rewarded, by Samuel Richardson - which was the first novel.

The novel produced an instant sensation and within months had spawned numerous imitations. And the novel was the first evidence of the power of Imagination. Romanticism was born.

From that moment, human imagination exploded in the Western nations: the British Isles, Germany, France - spreading to all the developed countries and increasing until it was the dominant social theme by around 1800 - and the world was never the same again.

But if 1740 really was The Moment - then the direction of causality remains to be established.

Colin Wilson argued that The Novel caused the change in consciousness; but I would argue that the change in consciousness caused The Novel - and that Pamela was merely the first evidence that Man (specifically Western Man) had already begun to undergo a change in consciousness.

Here we come to the ambiguity in the term 'evolution'. Wilson saw the evolution of human consciousness; but he saw this as consciousness adapting to changed circumstances - he saw consciousness as 'passively' following changes in the environment...

But I see a process of developmental unfolding, in accordance with divine destiny. Thus I see human consciousness as developing a greatly-enhanced power of Imagination as a process of a long term plan for humanity. The novel was an early product of this change.

Consciousness is itself the driving force; and it was the change in consciousness which drove the changes in the environment - such as the Romantic Movement and the Industrial Revolution.

Most historians of ideas, on the contrary, regard Romanticism as a reaction-to modernity - especially a reaction-to the Industrial Revolution. (e.g. That Romanticism was a daydream of escape into magic and nature from the grimy and alienating 'realities' of industrialisation.) But this can't be right if we consider Pamela as the beginning of it all, since in 1740 the Industrial Revolution was as yet so small in scale as to be almost imperceptible. The greatest commentator of the age, Samuel Johnson, saw continuity, not revolution.

Instead, I would say that both The Novel and the Industrial Revolution were different products of the same driving, qualitative change in human consciousness; a change that affected England before it affected anywhere else - but which before long had affected everywhere else in Western and Central Europe and the diaspora of these peoples.

This general insight - of changing consciousness driving culture - was articulated by Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield; although neither emphasised much the point that this was a developmental divine destiny; and that its ultimate aim was the aim of God in creation: to enable Man to rise to full divinity.

Enhanced Imagination was something that was imposed-upon Western Man - it was not his choice, he was passively-swept-along by this change in consciousness.

But 250 years later I think we can perceive that Imagination was only meant to be the first step - and the divine plan was that Imagination would lead on to Man's explicit choice to embrace an Intuitive consciousness that was also conscious and free. That is, Man needed voluntarily to embrace what I have termed Primary Thinking.

So, the intention was that Imagination would show us the way - but Imagination is not-necessarily-real. Imagination was meant to lead-onto Intuitive Primary Thinking. While Imagination is creative in the realm of public communications, Intuition is creative in terms of universal reality - Intuition is, in fact, human creativity in the context of on-going divine creation. Intuition is Man's participation in God's creativity.

Yet since 1740 this evolution, this developmental unfolding of consciousness, has stalled; and we now live in a world where Imagination is encapsulated, hermetically sealed-off from Real Life which is The System, The Bureaucracy, an invasive totalitarian web of surveillance and control... Intuition (or claims of Intuition) is regarded as merely wishful thinking, evidence of childishness, or an evil attempt to manipulate others for personal advantage...

This happened because, unlike previous unfoldings of human conscious development, this last one (into the divine type of consciousness - divine in quality albeit not - initially - in quantity or scope) must be consciously chosen.

(We must consciously and explicitly choose to become gods - we cannot be made gods unconsciously and without our consent and cooperation.)

We must become explicitly aware of the next-step, then need to choose it. And this entails becoming explicitly aware of God's Plan - of our divine destiny - and choosing to join this; to be, live and work in harmony with God's Plan.

So far - very few people seem to have done this - of those we know, perhaps Goethe, William Blake, ST Coleridge, Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield are among the well-known examples of people who have made this choice; who have made this choice and qualitative step...

But culturally - the divine destiny of consciousness has been roundly and comprehensively rejected by modern Western cultures; as foolish, childish, meaningless nonsense - itself evil or tending-to evil.

Modern Culture is therefore divided between two wrong answers: between those who reject the assumption of God, and those who reject the assumption of a developmental unfolding of human consciousness.

Yet my belief is that both need to be accepted - which entails recognising them explicitly, and choosing them freely. Only then can Man take-up and resume his development towards divine consciousness.

Friday, 16 March 2018

"A world freighted with meaning and value"

Over at Albion Awakening, John Fitzgerald discusses the special qualities of The Mark of the Horse Lord, by Rosemary Sutcliff...

Sutcliff's descriptions of people, places, and the natural world are atmospheric and richly-textured. Her characters are rounded and believable. The story seems to spring from them fully formed - like Athene from the head of Zeus - as if the tale already exists in some archetypal world of Platonic Forms and Sutcliff has merely picked up its wavelength and written it down in one sitting. Any author who creates this impression in the reader's mind is clearly, in my view, a great artist. The reality of even gaining access to that primordial realm, then crafting and shaping a story out of what one encounters there, is always (in my experience anyway) a colossally tough affair...

The Mark of the Horse Lord is full of big ideas as well - loyalty, honour, magic, faith, fraternity, trust, the bond between men and women, and the use and abuse of power. It's a tough, realistic read, despite the glittering prose, but the adult themes are explored in a manner that in no way undermines the innocence of Sutcliff's young readers. On the contrary, it's an education in what makes people tick - what they'll fight and die for, and how far an individual is prepared to go to become something greater than he currently is...

Though her books have been enjoyed for decades by both sexes, I would say there is something particularly valuable here for young men, particularly in an age like the present where so much confusion and disorientation reigns concerning traditional male values and the role of men in society. The Mark of the Horse Lord is the story of a warrior - a man who has to fight every inch of the way - in himself, in his own community, and in the wider world of tribal and imperial conflict. Phaedrus finds his journey from gladiator to king tough going to say the least, but he sticks to his guns, trusts his intuition, does what he feels in his gut to be right, and grows in the end into something almost Arthurian, far more royal and archetypal than the impersonator and figurehead he was originally supposed to be.

The best thing of all about this book is that it posits a world freighted with meaning and value. It stands, as such, as a terrific antidote to hopelessness and despair. The ending may not be conventionally happy, but I found it deeply fulfilling in all the ways that matter. There is a pattern and harmony behind the plot's cut and thrust which Phaedrus begins to sense as the novel approaches its conclusion. But it only reveals itself and he only enters into it when he is ready, and that is what occurs at the very end of the book.

Read the whole thing...

Thursday, 15 March 2018

The death of Stephen Hawking, nothing-butness and The Bureaucracy

From Albion Awakening...

With the death of Stephen Hawking, famous more for being crippled and anti-religion than for the scope of his scientific achievements, and the non-personing of Jim Watson in 2007; most people could not name a single living scientist - nor could a single living scientist's name be recognised by most people.

The reason is obvious enough - real science has disappeared from the official and professional institutions and been replaced by, absorbed by, The Bureaucracy. The biggest and most heavily-funded 'scientific' projects are actually engineering (the human genome project, hadron collider, renewed interest in space travel...) and/ or a pack of lies propagated for political reasons (anthropogenic global warming, the best-selling 'new' medical drugs...).

The 'scientists' are just careerist bureaucrats, doing what they are told by their 'line managers', who are themselves keyed-into the rest of The Bureaucracy - just like everyone else.

The sixties counter-culture has been completely absorbed by the mass media amplified by personal computers and ubiquitous 'smart'-phones - and political 'dissent' and 'radicalism' is mainstream, taught in schools and by state propaganda; subsidised and promoted by The Bureaucracy.

Now science is bureaucracy; consequently The Bureaucracy is science. We believe and obey because Truth is now consensus, and consensus is manufactured by managed-committees, by procedures and by votes - and the bureaucratic consensus is validated by internal bureaucratic mechanisms that allocate funding, publication, promotions, publicity, awards and prizes. 

...  Read the whole thing at Albion Awakening

Wednesday, 14 March 2018

What is it to reject the sexual revolution?

At the basic Christian level it is to regard sex as legitimate only within the context of marriage between a man and a women.

Other types of sex being sinful in the specific sense of requiring repentance.

But that is a negative, exclusionary definition; and I would (from my perspective) go beyond it to state the principles positively.

That is: the highest ideal of human life is marriage and family. The highest ideal of marriage is monogamous. And the Highest ideal of monogamy is an eternal commitment - going beyond death into resurrected life.

Note: "ideal". Since there is no such thing as equality or neutrality - all phenomena must be ranked according to the ideal - and the ideal references this ranking.

The basis of these ideals entails than men and women are qualitatively-different in some ultimate spiritual way and in some divinely-ordained fashion - and not merely as social roles, nor merely as biological contingency. 

Thus marriage is a higher ideal than celibacy, monogamy than polygamy - including serial polygamy (multiple marriages for any reason); marriage with children than without; permanent marriage intending an eternal relation than until death.

Now, this is an imperfect world inhabited by imperfect people - and we must, indeed, assume that this is by divine intent and design; since mortal life is for experiencing and learning. So ideals are very often impossible in practice - but that does not stop them being the ideal.

The difference is that when we fall short of ideals we need to repent - and by repent I mean acknowledge the reality of, and divine-intention behind, the ideal.

So I am not talking about what people achieve in life, in adhereing to thse ideals - I am talking about what they regard as ideal, and what they regard as requiring repentance. It is not in terms of behaviour that they are judged - but in terms of their ideals - their motivations. 

What is the point of all this? the point is that the sexual revolution is the prime litmus test of our time and place - and the alignment of the modern spiritual warfare is therefore most simply and validly defined in terms of attitude to The Sexual Revolution: that is, insofar as a person's attitude challenges the above ideals.

All those who favour the sexual revolution, in all or any of the ways in contradiction to the ideals - are On The Other Side, overall and in net-effect. Insofar as they try to justify or promote ideals in line with the sexual revolution - they are in a state of unrepented sin, hence deliberately choosing to reject salvation.

That means most-people - That means nearly-everybody.

But such is the nature of this era.

Most people have always been religious - for good reason (remarks by Carter Craft)

There have been some excellent comments at the Junior Ganymede blog by Carter Craft (who has also commented quite often here) .

CC makes some points that are obviously true when they've been stated, yet not obvious until after they have-been stated.

Here I lightly-edit two of his comments together:

Most people are not scientists and don’t do any science, only benefiting from science indirectly. Science is largely irrelevant to everyday life. 

Religion on the other hand deals with life directly, and provides answers to the problems people face every day. Yet most modern Western people are vigorously opposed not just to the answers religion provides but to acknowledging life’s questions at all. 

People actually live their lives primarily in a religious, non-physical world of moral decisions and human relationships, yet they refuse to accept this obvious fact and only consider religious ideas in the most provisional, uncommitted way possible. 

Philosophy is similar to religion in that philosophy engages with the questions of life directly; but philosophy is also too much like science - in that most people aren’t philosophers and don’t do philosophy. Philosophy is for specialists. 

Philosophy presents a trap; as those people who are philosophers and do produce satisfying answers to life’s problems try to shine a light for others so they can reach the same conclusions about life… but it never works. 

Partly this is because philosophy specializes; so it only provides very specific and very partial answers for certain areas of life (unlike religion, which is mostly comprehensive). But mainly it’s because ordinary people don’t do philosophy. 

There’s a reason most people on Earth for most of history have been religious.

NOTE: I was a late convert to Christianity, and before this I tried to live by science and philosophy; which is perhaps why this remark hit home.

The problems are that neither S nor P are adequate - because neither can justify itself - neither science nor philosophy can say why they-themselves are valid, nor why they should be made the centre of life. There is, therefore, a dishonesty woven-into the very idea of putting either of these first.

Also, I found that there are very, very few real scientists - or philosopher - nowadays; and indeed almost-all of the high status, powerful, well-known scientists and philosophers are actually corrupt careerists - in effect anti-scientists and anti-philosophers have taken-over and now 'run the show'. 

Religion can be, often is, dishonest insofar as it denies its own basis in direct intuition; but it is not a necessary nor instrinsic attribute of religion to deny its own roots. Christianity, in particular, has its strong tradition (the true tradition) in the act of conversion, a voluntary affiliation, being born-again - as origination from an opt-in.

The mainstream Christian denominations in The West have also been taken-over, subverted, and inverted by their leadership - however, the simple essence of Christianity (what it ought to be) is, consequently, perhaps clearer than ever before in the past 2000 years.

We all of us deal with the everyday problems of life - like it or no. And anyone who chooses may reject the culturally-mainstream 'provisional, uncommited' attitude to this.

All we need to do - but need means must, to get the ball-rolling'; is to take such matters seriously from a religious perspective. That's the decisive move, and the means of escape.

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

My review of a Thomist account of Tolkien's metaphysics (book by Jonathan S McIntosh)...

...Can be found at the Notion Club Paper's blog.


In The Flame Imperishable, Jonathan McIntosh argues that JRR Tolkien's work was written from a background in Thomistic philosophy - which Tolkien absorbed during his childhood, especially; and furthermore that Tolkien's major work in the Lord of the Rings and the Silmarillion was written such as to be compatible-with the basic principles of Thomism.

This, McIntosh proves!...

"We are being programmed to think that what goes against nature is natural... It is our souls they are after."

How have we allowed ourselves to be driven down this path, persuaded to abandon real goodness and truth in the name of a demonstrably false goodness and truth? 

I say demonstrably because practically every innovation we have allowed over the last 50 years, from on demand abortion to mass immigration to same sex marriage to the current push for transgender acceptance, goes against basic intuition. 

Quite obviously in none of these cases should people be condemned or treated unfairly. However that is very different to normalising them all. 

But we are being programmed to think that what goes against nature is natural, and that must affect our connection to real truth. 

I mean it must affect us as in separate us from it, and that is the demons' intention. 

It is our souls they are after. And they do not want us to be dragged kicking and screaming into darkness. They want us to choose it as light.

From William Wildblood at Meeting the Masters

Monday, 12 March 2018

The only effective Nationalism is Romantic (material benefits are not enough)

The point is made over at Albion Awakening...

Paradox equals Polarity - because reality is personal not principles

 Painting by William Arkle

We get ourselves tangled in knots about dilemmas of all sorts... we get to believe that Reality is 'paradoxical'; that is, we get to believe that life does not make sense (or that we are incapable of understanding the sense of it).

But I have never seen a paradox that wasn't the consequence of false - or at least unjustified - assumptions.

Especially the assumption that Reality ought to be capture-able in principle, laws, rules that (ought to) apply to all situations (and that the alternative would be chaos, or self-gratification).

No amount of counter-experience is capable of dislodging this assumption; which gives away that it is a very fundamental, primary and thus metaphysical assumption... we are assuming that Reality Just-Is organised by principles; and that persons must fit-into the principles.

But what if Reality is organised by Persons, instead of principles - what if the bottom line form of organisation is life and consciousness and the relationships between living-conscious individual entities?

This shouldn't be difficult to grasp - because it is, after all, pretty much what we all began by thinking, as young children. Suppose, then, that we were correct then and are wrong now? That Reality is about Persons and not Principles?

Is that so hard to imagine?  It shouldn't be - unless you are blocking this understanding... but the fact is that you (like me) probably are blocking exactly this... Are resisting it, pushing it away because it seems childish, naive, simplistic, wishful... (like William Arkle's painting above seems to be).

Yet, as Christians, we have the incarnation, teaching and the example of Jesus that - in many, many ways - implies we should be doing exactly this. The fact that Jesus was incarnate God, that he taught with parables and animistic symbolism, that he had a family and gathered persons, that he loved and cared about people...

Focusing on the Fourth (and most authoritative) Gospel (the one written by The Disciple who Jesus loved); the whole thing, pretty much, is Personal - there is nothing much in the way of abstract Principles. The more important the teaching, the more Jesus seems to animate it or personalise it - make explanation a matter of relationships.

Our big problem is our alienation from our True Selves - that-which-is-divine in each of us... and indeed our actual hostility and opposition to our True Selves...

One who is alienated from the divine within exists is a state of profound self-distrust which extends to a fear of others who do trust their True Selves - the typical response is to imagine and seek a System of Principles to regulate everybody in all important matters - to regard this as ultimate morality. The Law becomes greater than any Person - only abstraction is really-real; and even God (the presumed author of that presumed Law) therefore becomes absorbed into abstraction...

Like most bad things (not all - but most) we bring disaster upon ourselves by our wilful, unrepentant, arrogant foolishness.

The True Answer is clear, simple, easily understandable - but, for our corrupt selves - that is exactly the problem with the True Answer!

Sunday, 11 March 2018

Cleansing the doors of perception By Thinking - another take on Colin Wilson's 'intentionality'

Painting by William Arkle

Colin Wilson wrote extensively - from The Outsider-Religion and the Rebel (1956-7) about the need for a change in 'perception' - such that the disaffected and alienated modern consciousness could learn a more visionary, wide-ranging and meaning-full mode of perceiving reality.

One explanation he came to favour was related to the insight he derived from Husserl that perception was intentional; that in fact we 'grasp' reality actively... or at least we should do not. Perception should not be passive - and we should not merely accept the way that we perceive from 'society'.

But how to do this? Wilson wrote a lot about this, but somehow none of his suggestions really worked for me: certainly they did not work well-enough to induce any significant or lasting transformation of my consciousness.

A big part of this failure was my rejection of God in general, and Christianity in particular. But a further aspect was that I could not really understand how I might change, for the better, the way I perceived - trying didn't seem to help.

I now see that the best way to approach (which I think implicitly Colin Wilson did himself - to some extent - but did not explicitly understand it in the way I am outlining it here. The insight derived from Rudolf Steiner's early philosophical work culminating in Philosophy of Freedom (1894). Steiner developed a metaphysical description of knowledge that described it in terms of Thinking which is as a consequence of a Percept (sensory perception) and a Concept (idea) - it is the joining of a Percept with a Concept that enables us to know.

Extending Steiner; it is clear that valid knowledge depends on the Percept being joined-with a True concept; and access to True concepts is something that all men have when thinking with their True Self. The True Self provides valid concepts because it is divine - that within-us which is divine.

My point here is that we cleanse The Doors Of Perception (the phrase is from William Blake) Not by doing anything with our senses (as implied by Aldous Huxley in his book of that name, concerning his use of mescaline). Nor by simply allowing our natural spontaneous consciousness to emerge - by losing control (e.g. by drugs, trances, in sleep, in Zen, in psychosis... various of the sixties counter-culture ideas) because that is hardly conscious at all.

Not by changing perception or suppressing consciousness; but by developing thinking in the direction of further consciousness and purpose; which means thinking-from our divine Self.

As both Steiner and his 'disciple' Owen Barfield saw; this requires understanding how Jesus Christ made this kind of thinking possible: made it, indeed, Man's destiny, Man's proper path in being offered the opportunity to become more divine; to become God-like: a godling or child of God.

All that is necessary - but we need to be clear that the doors of perception can be cleansed, as Wilson stated more than sixty years ago - but cleansed indirectly, by a transformation and strengthening of thinking.

New Arkle artwork online

William Arkle's son Nick has posted some new photos of his artwork online at the Facebook page.

Arkle painted in a variety of style - here is a selection from the new material using his 'mystically-charged-realistic' style:

And some in the 'pastel-impressionist' style

Saturday, 10 March 2018

What is the purpose of old age?

According to modern Western culture the answer is: To Stay Young; but given that is impossible, to pretend to stay young (by simulating a youthful appearance and behaviour).

(The only praise ever given to an older person nowadays is that they don't look or behave as if they are old - they seem almost asif they are young... They could pass as younger - in the dark, with the light behind them...)

There is, in fact, no alternative to this indirect condemnation of ageing - because from a secular materialist perspective ageing is decline, and nothing-but decline - and that's just a plain immovable fact about-which nothing whatsoever can be done.

For mainstream discourse old age is degenerative.

The real purpose of old age is spiritual - objectively spiritual - hence necessarily invisible to secularism.

In reality, old age - properly considered - is developmental (not degenerative) it is an unfolding of purpose. From one positive purpose to another...

The development from mature adulthood to old age properly includes the following shifts of focus:

From material to spiritual
From current to eternal
From elsewhere to here

From evaluating to knowing
From complexity to simplicity

From social to universal
From motivation to being
From creativity to comprehension

From speaking to praying
From listening to meditating
...Thus from commun-ication to commun-ion 

From teaching to answering
And from answering what is asked - to answering what is needed.

Friday, 9 March 2018

Jesus made God explicit

Jesus made God explicit - and he clarified in his teachings that (from that time) things needed to be made explicit.

Jesus was himself God explicit.

So, from then, and only from then, could God freely be chosen.

(So long as God was inexplicit, God could not really be chosen - freedom, human agency, depends on explicitness.)

Thursday, 8 March 2018

A Direct Christian understanding of sexual identity and sexuality

Since the sexual revolution is now the true socio-political divide (The Left being in favour, and those in favour being The Left) it seems clear that an understanding of sexual identity and sexuality is a core part of any viable religious understanding.

The only way of opposing the sexual revolution that most people acknowledge or understanding is as a part of church-teaching; and as obedience to church teachings. Yet, such knowledge is indirect.

What is needed, I believe, is direct, personal, experiential knowledge of sexual identity and sexuality. in other words, people need to know about sex in what might be termed a 'mystical', esoteric, or (I would prefer to say) intuitive way.

The problem is that most traditional mystical 'systems' regard celibacy as the ideal - this applies to the Eastern and Western Catholic Christian traditions, and to Hindu and Buddhist traditions - the mystical path is for 'monks'.

I can't go into the arguments about this here - but this is not the correct answer. Intuition does Not tell us that not-sex is higher than sex...

Celibacy is Not the highest ideal. Intuition tells us that celibacy is only partially human.

The error is seen in that the celibacy ideal seems to encourage loss of sexual identity, loss of spontaneity and creativity, loss of a coherent relationship between men and women and children - destruction of the family. It leads to a maiming rather than a completion. The ideal of celibacy thus, by another path, actually abets the sexual revolution.

What is instead needed is for people to address the nature of sexual identity and sexuality in a direct and intuitive way - to understand that sex goes very deep in our natures. Sex is not something to be transcended, but something to become transcendent.

It is possible to reach an intuitive understanding of sex that tells us, personally, why and how the sexual revolution is wrong, why it is anti-human, why it is a social and personal disaster. And this kind of understanding is necessary - nothing else will truly suffice.

We need to know for ourselves, and we can know for ourselves - that sexual identity and sexuality are objective metaphysical qualities. They are not something dogmatic which we merely obey, they are not something that is 'for the good of society'. They are not merely expedient towards something else.

The result is close-to (but not identical-with) many of the traditional dogmas, and against most of (but not all of) the sexual revolutionary doctrines.

But we cannot just be told these things, and should not believed them just because we are told them; there is no short-cut: to be adult and spiritually developed persons we need to know-for-ourselves and freely choose to live-by this understanding.

'The truth about sex' is an absolutely solid-and-mystical reality, that can be known by anyone who makes the effort with the right attitude.

Reference: Direct Christianity

Purposive evil is complex and strategic... (And this is good news!)

Good is simple and immediate - in the sense that good ends are a consequence of good means; and goodness here and now is the route to good futures.

By contrast, we see more clearly Now, then ever before, that Purposive Evil is complex and strategic... Why? Because evil ends must incorporate good means.

(Purposive Evil refers mainly to Satan and the demons, and their human servants and personifications - and to a lesser extent to those in charge of the long term plan for the subversion, destruction, and ultimately inversion of good.) 

If something approaching pure and immediate evil can be imagined - it would be utterly short-termist and self-gratifying; thus all evil in the world would be at war with each other and there could be No long-term increase of evil. Evil would, no doubt, to be found all over the place - including every human heart... But each little spark of evil would consume itself, and compete with each other spark. Evil would be a constant background but would not increase.

For evil to increase (which is the plan of Satan) then it must be woven with good over the short term to ensure the expansion of evil over the long term.

But this is a complex business - since it is desired (by purposive evil) that the proportion of evil should increase over the long term.

If we think of the admixture of good as the price paid for the long-term strategic triumphal expansion of evil - then part of the plan is that this admixture will increase in the percentage of evil as time goes-on.

So that in the early days of Leftism, it was mixed with considerable good (compassion for the poor, despised and enslaved) - so there were good socialists, even real and great Christian socialists... But after several generations the dominant Leftism has diminished and diminished the proportion of goodness until it is fuelled mainly by resentment, envy, despair... There is still goodness permeating and woven in - but as a much smaller proportion than five generations ago.

Abstraction is an evil - in an ultimate sense. (This writing, here and now, is an abstraction - and one can see the problem.) Because abstraction is a complex strategic tool - abstraction is dishonest about the ultimate nature of reality - it 'models' reality - for some long-term purpose... this abstraction (like evil) sacrifices short term goodness in pursuit of something long-term that is referred to as a good; yet that is not the way of goodness...

By contrast good is personal. Hence Jesus.

Anyway... my point here is that evil must be complex and strategic if it is to increase; and that this is a great weakness of evil.

We look around at the complex strategies of evil in the world today, and we are bewildered - and may feel intimidated by its sheer complexity and interlocking nature. What can we - such small and simple creatures - do against such an edifice?

Well, the real implication is the opposite. Evil has built this edifice slowly over generations because that is what is necessary for the expansion of evil in the world.

In sum - it is very difficult to be strategically evil. Simple good will destroy it; even simple evil will destroy it! The business of corrupting humanity to invert good and evil - such that we will reject salvation and embrace our own damnation... well it is is extremely difficult to manage, and innumerable things to to go-as-planned for it to succeed.

Thus evil is the part of global government, of international trade, of a single all-pervading and interlinked bureaucracy, of a populace locked-onto mass media 24/7... It is all terribly complicated, inter-dependent, terribly brittle.

Each individual person who is motivated by good can, potentially, inflict very considerable damage to strategic evil - simply by being good here and now; just doing the right thing - a tactic that is simple and obvious, and requires no Master Plan. 

This is one message of The Lord of the Rings... Evil is a vast and complex network, the product of many decades of planning, organising, building... Good is 'merely' a couple of hobbits and their friends; doing good things in specific here-and-now situations (assisted by divine providence); and (yet) triggering avalanches of consequences destructive to the vast-and-imposing, but actually-fragile, edifice of evil.

Wednesday, 7 March 2018

Longfellow - a pure poet

A Psalm of Life 

What The Heart Of The Young Man Said To The Psalmist.

Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream!
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.

Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.

Art is long, and Time is fleeting,
And our hearts, though stout and brave,
Still, like muffled drums, are beating
Funeral marches to the grave.

In the world’s broad field of battle,
In the bivouac of Life,
Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
Be a hero in the strife!

Trust no Future, howe’er pleasant!
 Let the dead Past bury its dead!
Act,— act in the living Present!
 Heart within, and God o’erhead!

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time;

 Footprints, that perhaps another,
 Sailing o’er life’s solemn main,
A forlorn and shipwrecked brother,
Seeing, shall take heart again.

Let us, then, be up and doing,
With a heart for any fate;
Still achieving, still pursuing,
Learn to labor and to wait.

Longfellow might well have been the first poet to touch my heart - since I was mysteriously affected by Hiawatha aged only about nine, and actually read the whole thing (as far as I remember); which left me a permanent romantic daydream for the northern Indians of the forests and lakes. Hiawatha is, indeed, an aspect of my personal 'golden thread' - which I have mentioned before.


As a fond mother, when the day is o'er,
Leads by the hand her little child to bed,
Half willing, half reluctant to be led,
And leave his broken playthings on the floor,
Still gazing at them through the open door,
Nor wholly reassured and comforted
By promises of others in their stead,
Which, though more splendid, may not please him more;
So Nature deals with us, and takes away
Our playthings one by one, and by the hand
Leads us to rest so gently, that we go
Scarce knowing if we wish to go or stay,
Being too full of sleep to understand
How far the unknown transcends the what we know.

Longfellow is one of the most prolific of those 'pure' poets, whose fluid lyricism and magical-easy turn-of-phrase puts the efforts of so many more-complex verse writers to shame.

When that purity, that essence of poetry, is present - I ask for nothing more, but am content.

It is the rarest, and most precious of gifts a writer can offer.

The day is done

The day is done, and the darkness
Falls from the wings of Night,
As a feather is wafted downward
From an eagle in his flight.

I see the lights of the village
Gleam through the rain and the mist,
And a feeling of sadness comes o'er me
That my soul cannot resist:

A feeling of sadness and longing,
That is not akin to pain,
And resembles sorrow only
As the mist resembles the rain.

Come, read to me some poem,
 Some simple and heartfelt lay,
That shall soothe this restless feeling,
 And banish the thoughts of day.

Not from the grand old masters,
Not from the bards sublime,
Whose distant footsteps echo
Through the corridors of Time.

For, like strains of martial music,
Their mighty thoughts suggest
Life's endless toil and endeavor;
And to-night I long for rest.

Read from some humbler poet,
Whose songs gushed from his heart,
As showers from the clouds of summer,
Or tears from the eyelids start;

Who, through long days of labor,
And nights devoid of ease,
Still heard in his soul the music
 Of wonderful melodies.

Such songs have power to quiet
 The restless pulse of care,
And come like the benediction
That follows after prayer.

Then read from the treasured volume
 The poem of thy choice,
And lend to the rhyme of the poet
The beauty of thy voice.

And the night shall be filled with music,
And the cares, that infest the day,
Shall fold their tents, like the Arabs,
And as silently steal away.

Politically-correct censorship is a trivial issue when people have nothing substantive to communicate

Politically-correct censorship continues to grow - although it is far from new.

Wholesale censorship of public discourse to advance the Left agenda began in a big way in the 1960s in fields such as intelligence and immigration - and this has since extended into the private and personal domains, and shifted from negative-taboos to mandatory propaganda.

(Anyone who is not explicitly, actively, publicly, for the Left agenda is treated as being actively-against it. Now, not to love Leftism, and to communicate that love repeatedly and without limit - is to "hate" it. hence the invention and enforcement of 'hate crimes' and the significance of endemic accusations of hate.) 

Honesty is now impossible in many areas of public discourse. Left-censorship has done its work - and some.

But - Left censorship is pushing an open door - because hardly anybody even wants to be honest. And sees no need to be honest; since communication is not about reality but about... well, mostly it's about feelings. 

More significantly, in a post-God, post-Christian, anti-Christian world - there is no compelling reason for honesty; since at best 'truth' is merely expedient - a means towards the end of greater pleasure and less suffering.

Anyway... It is not censorship that is bad - but the fact that censorship is being used for evil ends.

When it comes to the current increase in Leftist censorship, it is the Leftism that is evil, not the censorship.

Until the fact of Leftist evil is recognised as a fact; PC censorship will continue to grow, as it has done for two generations.

But how can Leftism Now be recognised as evil when - for modern mainstream people - there is no such thing as evil?

For modern people, evil has no reality because Good has no reality - both are equally a matter of opinion - that is, of ephemeral feelings; and feelings are something that can - nowadays - be shaped and reversed with trivial ease.

As often, as always, present evil trends will continue until modern people awaken to God; because without God there is no compelling reason to oppose evil trends - especially when evil is packaged as cool, amusing, entertaining, convenient; and as ultimately heralding a virtual world better much than the real thing (nicer, with more pleasure, less pain).

That is what the (objectively-evil) Global Establishment  are 'promising' - and for the typical two-dimensional modern materialist, censorship is merely one part of the Virtual Paradise Package Deal, on which they pin their hopes.

And all that we personally have to do - is to trust the devil to deliver on his promises.

Tuesday, 6 March 2018

What the snow shows - *rapid* technological decline

Last week, Britain was paralysed by a moderate snowfall. The snow was much, much less-severe than in 2009-10 and 2010-11 - when it was considerably thicker and lay for 3 months instead of a few days.

What does this show? Probably, that Britain's technological capability has declined significantly, even in the past seven years - this is rapid decline indeed!

I have written about this before, more than once - with the basic observation that The West has declined in overall technological capability over the past 40 years, since the moon landings.

Of course there have been considerable specific technological advances - notably in areas related to computation; but this is looking more and more like being due to a greater concentration on that area (because of its key importance in the plan for totalitarian monitoring and control) with decline in breakthroughs across most areas of science (and the near-total disappearance of geniuses).

Why is technological capability declining - and so fast? Well, it's not mystery at all. In fact there are so many reasons it is difficult to choose the most important. But in the words of my book on the corruption of science we are Not Even Trying to sustain, let alone improve, our technological capabilities to deal with real world problems.

Our social institutions and systems are all primarily - and still increasingly - orientated towards Non-functional goals - primarily towards Leftist Politically Correct socio-political goals. In other words, We can't do anything functional as well as before, because we are trying to do something else.

Just look at the self-descriptions of any and every major institution - whether it is political, legal, educational, research, teaching, industrial... look at the mainstream churches, the police, the military... look at the focus of the mass and social media.

They are all run by and for bureaucrats and in response to bureacratic imperatives. By now this has been built-into organisational laws, structures, regulations, practices - it is deeply internatlised, it is institutional. 

Organisations don't respond to the natural world - such as snow; they are not orientated-towards dealing-with real life.

Instead - perceived problems are managed-away: they are dealt-with by changing procedures, by public relations, be campaigns of awareness and attitudes. By changing what is measured - by selectivity, bias, dishonest statistics... by saying one thing and meaning another, by deliberate misleading; and increasingly by just plain lying.

When the bureaucrats are happy - Job Done. 

Nobody is primarily concerning with performing a function - therefore functions - like dealing with snowfalls - are badly-performed.

We are not trying to find people who are best at their jobs - but instead people of the approved sex/ race/ religion-non-religion/ sexual orientation.

We are destroying ourselves, for sure. We are not equipped to deal with Reality - and Reality will bite, one way or another, sooner or later...

But is this a bad thing? Well, in terms of functionality yes; in terms of peace, prosperity, comfort and convenience - a life without pain and suffering... All this are are doomed. The Western Nationals are all on a knife edge of collapse in face of anything out-of-the-ordinary...

But - again - is that a bad thing? What would be the actual alternative - where are trends taking us? Techno-totalitarianism is where we are going - fast. And the worst of it is that that is precisely where the great mass of people want to go.

People so much want the lifestyle of becoming human-things plugged-into the internet of non-human-things; that they are prepared to ignore the certainty that this is not actuyally happening for their benefit. Once human minds and bodies are fully-networked - the resulting System will NOT (to put it mildly) be implemented for their personal pleasure and profit, for their spiritual health and salvation...

So, given that the mass of people are battering down the doors of the Evil Illuminati to demand their own psychic enslavement, and the enslavement of everyone else - then the fact that The System looks like collapsing before this can be achieved is, surely, A Good Thing?

After all, if Britain cannot any longer cope with a bit of snow - then what chance the internet of things? What are the the prospects for the strategy of techno-totalitarianism? Not good, I would say.

My suspicion is that this is why there is such accelerating haste towards the secular Leftist agenda; because the hidden hand behind the Global Establishment are realising that their own across-the-board triumphs in sabotaging the social institutions of The West may end-up sabotaging their End-Game Strategy, before it can irreversibly be implemented.

Evil does have the intrinsic weakness of devolving to short-termist selfishness, and lacking any solid basis for cooperation. It was the inevitability of the orcs and the Uruk Hai - squabbling over spoils, killing each other, torturing for fun - that again and again defeated the plans of Sauron and Saruman.

But this does not get us off the hook, because if Plan A to take-over the human mind fails; then Plan B will kick-in - and this is blackmail.

Plan B is: Surrender and be damned slaves forever - or else - we will take away your smart phones...

In other words, SABDSF or else we will bring the whole System tumbling down - with massive human fear, suffering and death (which low level demons love, anyway).

And the Global Establishment could easily do this - it would be the work of minutes, and the effects would be irreversible in days...

Does anyone doubt the outcome of such a credible threat?

Reading the Bible/ Gospels/ Fourth Gospel

Since I became a Christian and engaged with the Bible as such, I have not been satisfied with the usual ways of reading and understanding the Bible - and have felt compelled to devise a way that seems better. I'll tell you what it is, below - but the process is ongoing, has barely begun, is far from complete, and is not something I am 'hurrying'...

What I reject include the following: 1. Regarding the Bible as a single unified book which is all equally true and without 'error' - when error is defined as the falsehood of explicit statements; 2. Regarding the truth of the Bible as something that resides at a sentence by sentence ('verse') level (and certainly not a work-by-word truth); 3. Regarding the truth of all sentences/ verses as requiring knowledge of the whole Bible; 4. That all the New Testament is equally valid; 5. That all the Gospels are equally valid and tell a single absolutely coherent story (coherent at either/ both the level of the whole or part-by-part).

So much for some of the negatives - what then?

Well, I reach the above decisions on the basis of what could be termed intuition or discernment - as all such decisions must be and are inevitably made -- the difference being whether that knowledge of intuition is explicit, or denied; and with the conviction that explicit intuition is more reliably and powerfully discerning than is unconscious or denied intuition.

On this basis I regard the Fourth Gospel ('John's' Gospel - but when taken in isolation the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple) as the heart of the Bible on the basis that it uniquely claims to be the work of one of Christ's disciples, whom Jesus particularly loved; and I believe these claims. Then - on reading it  (in the divinely-inspired 'King James' translation); I find a work of the highest level of beauty, profundity and coherence - a work which when considered as literature surpasses any other in the language in terms of beauty, profundity and coherence.

(Besides which Hamlet is a ragbag, Paradise Lost a sprawling mess and Wordsworth's Prelude a hit and miss mish-mash.)

So, I start with the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple, and with the conviction that this should be placed first in the Bible, first among the Gospels and should be at the heart of Christian understanding and life (all the rest being regarded in the light of this coherent work of genius and inspiration).

And I try to know the light of this Gospel; so that I may know the other Gospels, the New Testament and Bible, and the Churches and traditions, and possible Christian futures - all in its light.

I have made a start - but so far the process of understanding the Gospel of the Beloved Disciple is taking a long time - many, many months (going into years) of intermittent intense reading, and intermediate prolonged brooding.

Nothing is more important than this for me - but I am not in a hurry. Indeed, I don't see that such a thing could or should be hurried.


Monday, 5 March 2018

But who was Les?

I have watched nearly-all of the movie Les Miserables, and have yet to recognise the eponymous hero, or discover why he was so sad - admittedly, I may have missed the reference; but this strikes me as a serious structural defect. 

It reminds me of the days of Monty Python's Flying Circus where - at least for those of us who missed the early episodes - it was never made clear which of the gang was Monty (my guess is the tall one who did the funny walks); and we were not given even a glimpse of the Big Top...

While on the subject of errors and misrepresentations - it seems to have been all-but universal to misspell the name of that greatest of all pop-groups, The Beetles: such that all the many insect references in their work are missed or downplayed...

Sunday, 4 March 2018

Jesus, Marriage and Family - an interpretation of the second part of the Fourth Gospel

There may be more of the subject of marriage and the family that is intentionally-implied by the Fourth Gospel than is obvious to most readers.

What the Gospel seems to be telling me, and I am not arguing this but stating it; concerns Jesus’s increasing involvement with the family from Bethany with Lazarus and Mary as siblings.

My understanding that: 1. the raised-Lazarus is the author of the Fourth Gospel – renamed the Beloved Disciple; 2. that the episode of Mary of Bethany anointing the feet of Jesus with spikenard was a mystical marriage ceremony; and that 3. Mary Magdalene is the same person as Mary of Bethany – renamed after her marriage to Jesus.

While there seems no way I could prove these Three Assumptions, and what I believe follows-from them; for me they cohere wonderfully with the subsequent events of the Fourth Gospel. Indeed, they raise it even higher to a supreme importance in all Scripture.

The following are not intended as argument or 'proof', but as illustrations of how the three assumptions cohere with the events of the Fourth Gospel; when I read it in what I regard as my best frame of mind.

1. Jesus is emphatically described as loving both Lazarus and the Beloved Disciple; but we do not hear of Lazarus’s fate, by that name.

2. The Beloved Disciple does not abandon Jesus after the arrest as do the other disciple (Jesus being now Lazarus’s brother-by-marriage).

3. The Beloved Disciple and Magdalene are present at the foot of the cross, where Jesus requests that his mother be cared for by the Beloved Disciples family (of whom Jesus is now a part).

4. Mary Magdalene first finds the empty tomb, and she is the first person to speak with the risen Christ. She immediately touches him.

5. The last episodes of the Fourth Gospel include the implication that the Beloved Disciple will live until the Second Coming – which is possible since he has been raised from the dead – I believe he was probably literally resurrected. (This chimes with the Pharisee's desire to kill Lazarus, but apparently not being able to.)

If my Three Assumptions are accepted, then Chapters 11-21 of the Fourth Gospel take-on a marvellous extra dimension of which the above are only a part.

I suppose that these facts were not mentioned explicitly because they were known to the intended readers, at the time of writing - and (more important) that the Forth Gospel throughout (and necessarily) is written in a style in which the most important things are implied rather than stated.

To unlock the Fourth Gospel entails the reader attaining an empathic identification with the intent of the Gospel... but then this applies to all Scriptures, if they are to be understood as divinely-inspired.

That is; God must help us to understand Scripture - each, individually, here-and-now. Nothing else will suffice; and one person's understanding cannot replace nor stand-in-for another person's.

But what became of Mary Magdalene? If she is as important as I have said, then why is her fate not mentioned? The answer is that her fate must be mentioned; but that the 'message' is not being recognised. My best idea concerning an implicit reference to Mary's fate is the exchange of words with Mary at the tomb. This may imply that she would join the risen Jesus after he had ascended. “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” means, therefore: stop touching me just-now – we will be able to touch one another when I am ascended (after all, it wasn't forbidden to touch Jesus - Doubting-Thomas was invited-to. My inference is that Mary touched Jesus in some fashion as a wife would touch him - but this was not correct or appropriate until after the ascension: until after their ascension.). Then Jesus describes his ascension “unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and to your God.” Such a very specific form of address (the reiterated symmetry of my-your) is appropriate to the wife of Jesus; in the sense that God has become (by mystical marriage) Mary's Father ‘in Law’, and 'her' God – in the same kind of direct and personal way as for Jesus. So, we are being-told (by her brother) that Mary Magdalene ascended to God to be with her divine husband - and Lazarus perhaps did not know exactly when or how this happened, but certainly that it did happen.