Wednesday, 4 December 2019

Is a baby that dies in the womb a wasted life?

Continuing on questions that Christians might consider asking themselves; what about babies that die in the womb, are born dead or die shortly after birth?

It seems likely that most of the humans who have ever existed fall into this category - but whatever the exact proportions, this group accounts for a huge number of people (billions), especially before the modern era.

So these are people who have incarnated, but never had a chance to lead an independent existence from the mother - with hardly a chance to have experience, and no possibility of making any choices.

Were all these lives then futile? If so, it seems strange that matters should be arranged thus.

Given that God is our loving Father; I think the true explanation would need to be one in which there was a purpose to all these intra-uterine deaths, a reason for such people to have lived - some benefit these billions of souls had from their short experiences.

I found an explanation that 'works for me' in Mormon theology - which has it that these people have benefited from incarnation, from 'getting a body' - and it is this mortal body, no matter how short it lives for - which enables us then to be able to become resurrected.

In other words, we need to live and die as mortal incarnates, in order that we may become immortal incarnates - it is a necessary step on the way. So, even the briefest of lives spent entirely in the womb is of tremendous potential benefit to that person.

That is my explanation based on my assumptions - the question is whether other Christian traditions have similarly coherent accounts for this phenomenon? Or is the question simply regarded as trivial?

Can a slave be a Christian?

For me this is a key question that all Christians ought to consider.

The answer, of course, is Yes (obviously): a slave can be Christian...

But we need to consider what this implies with respect to our own understanding of what 'being a Christian' means.

A slave (at least in extreme forms of slavery) can be forced to say or do any kind of evil - on pain of death (or torture). The only means of refusal is to accept death (or torture).

Therefore, a Christian can say or do any kind of evil - up to the point at which death (or torture) would be accepted.

A slave can be prevented from reading scriptures or attending church or receiving sacraments - and yet that slave can be a Christian.

So, given that the slave can be prevented from doing almost anything, and can be compelled to do almost anything; how can a slave be a Christian?

The question forces us to consider Christianity in its essence. By the Fourth Gospel account of being a Christian, we get that the essence is to love Jesus (have faith in him, trust him), hence follow Jesus through death to resurrected life everlasting.

That's it! And that is how and why a slave can be a Christian.

(Note: In practice, a slave can be compelled to do almost any evil, but cannot be prevented from recognising and repenting evil. A slave can be prevented from doing almost anything, but cannot be prevented from praying - nor from knowing and loving Jesus by his own direct personal experience of the Holy Ghost.) 

(Further Note: This argument is already (and may become extremely) relevant to Western Christians, more-or-less, sooner-or-later.)

Rejecting Romanticism - is to open-ourselves to evil

Tough words, eh? But I am becoming more convinced that Romanticism is the necessary (and necessary means necessary) response to the evil of our time - because if we reject it then we will de facto embrace the Ahrimanic evil that is dominant in our time.

Romanticism is based on the (ultimate, not sole) authority of direct knowing, of intuition - of personal experience.

In an age when totalitarian bureaucracy is the primary agent of the demonic side in spiritual warfare - when the top-down multi-national agencies of the Global Establishment are the main source of evil; personal experience is the only possible root and basis for a Christianity that can resist subversion, convergence, assimilation...

It used to be 'tough' for Christians to insist upon 'objective' laws, rule and regulations and collective institutions (churches) as the bulwark against evil; but now these have become the very conduits through-which evil has flowed into Christian life!

Paradoxically, it is the 'dreamy romantic mystical' solo-Christian (of whom William Blake might be taken as an early type) who is proving to be the strongest.

When the reality becomes 'me against the world', it is best to recognise the fact. Thus our weakness becomes our strength.    

Fear of becoming the victim of a politically correct witch hunt

'Bonald' has posted an excellent reflection on the problem of, and the fear of, becoming a victim of some kind of politically correct witch hunt, of being 'doxxed' as he terms it. This refers to the leftist method of posting somebody's personal information online along with dishonest accusations of some kind of thoughtcrime like racism, with the 'deniable' intent of provoking violence against the victim.

(Rather arrogantly, I published a massive comment there about my own experiences of this kind of thing, back in the 2000s. Sorry about that Bonald!)

My book Thought Prison (2011) was a consequence of these experiences - both in terms of being a reflection on the experience and its implications; and also because - having been sacked from one of my jobs - I now had time and energy to do daily blogging, which led to this book.

I'll just add a couple of opinions about 'what to do' if this happens to you - and how to behave in light of such things; adding to what I wrote at Throne and Altar

What to do when it happens? 

I would, in general, focus on learning from the experience. Because of my scholarly interests (evolutionary psychology and intelligence research) I have known (personally or as colleagues) many people who have suffered PC witch hunts - and the saddest thing about it is how few have learned from the experience. Most were atheist leftists before they became SJW victims; most remained atheist leftists after the experience.

(If you are the kind of person, in the kind of situation, that you want to 'fight back' - then Vox Day's books - SJWs Always Lie/ Double-down - would be helpful about what to do, and especially what Not to do - i.e. not to apologise, explain, argue etc. My books on Political Correctness and the media might help too.)

What to do if it has not happened (yet)?

'They' want us to live in fear, because chronic fear supports the demonic agenda of evil. Therefore we should strive not to fear - which means, at least - as a first step, that we should repent our fear.

The bad news is that nobody is immune from being the victim of a PC witch hunt; the good news is that nobody is immune from being the victim of a PC witch hunt...

This arbitraryness means that you 'might as well' do the right thing (the Christian thing) in your life - as indicated by faith, hope and charity; and not worry about trying to stay out of trouble. (What a relief! Such is the evil of our times that Being Good is no 'worse' than doing evil!)

Trouble can come to anyone, and many of the most famous victims of witch hunts have been lifelong 'card carrying' SJW-types. Past credentials mean absolutely nothing when the scapegoating frenzy seizes the Leftist mob.

Indeed, The Left loves nothing more than to beat-up and kill their former heroes. In destroying - sooner or later - his closest friends and most loyal servants, Stalin was the rule for leftists, not the exception.   

God is our Heavenly Father wants the children of his family to learn from their experiences of mortal life; but he does not want us to live in a situation of chronic angst, suspicion, resentment and despair. Indeed, he calls these sins.

In a world of injustice and arbitrary persecution - or, even more, in a world of inverted justice and persecution of the Good - it is most vital for Christians to cultivate as care-free and hope-full attitude as may be possible: in consequence of this mortal life being a finite and transient phase of experiencing and learning between the two eternities of pre-mortal spirit life and post-mortal resurrected life.

This mortal life is very important, but it is not everything; and ultimately (for Christians) it is secondary to what comes afterwards - when we live in God's family as participants in the continued work of creation. Such convictions can help more than any others if, or when, you become a victim of totalitarian persecution. 

Tuesday, 3 December 2019

Secret Christians - The future of Christian churches in a totalitarian bureaucratic world

We can already see what must be set aside by any church, if it is to remain truly Christian rather than simply being assimilated to The Borg of mainstream, global, bureaucratic, totalitarian (and increasingly transhumanist) demonic Leftism.

Recent and increasing deplatformings and withdrawals of service, and the implementation of employment laws, codes of practice and service etc; means that all the formal organisational aspects of churches will become impossible - unless the church yields to the imperatives of leftist bureaucracy.

For example, no organisation that receives any funding or charitable status will be able to be anti-abortion; no organisation will be able to employ and pay people (e.g. as priests) without conforming to regulations about sexual and racial quotas and inclusions; training of priests will be subject to the constraints of all secular educational institutions; church offices will need to comply with the leftist agenda about hostile or exclusionary workplaces; within-church interactions must comply with the prevalent anti-Christian/ anti-white apparatus of 'hate' crimes; no organisation with accounts will be able to avoid 'quality assurance' practices that embody leftist assumptions; no buildings or rooms can be owned, used or hired if they do not conform to the codes of practice and mission statements of those who control them (including fire regulations, health and safety etc); no large or regular assembly of people will be allowed when these are regarded as contributing to the possibility of civil disorder (including by those - such as 'antifa' - threatening to invade or harass them); no groups will be allowed that can be represented as a conspiracy towards racial supremacy, patriarchy, hatred of QWERTY people or immigrants, or people of other-religions or no-religion - or to the overthrow of the present order (e.g. by working towards Zion or the Second Coming); and the Bible is already regarded as a text of hatred - and dissemination, speaking or teaching from the Bible is already restricted in public places and teaching situations - so presumably the possession of unbowdlerised-left-noncompliant scriptures will soon be forbidden...

In sum, real Christian churches as formal institutions will become impossible.

If a church remains a normal institution that employs people or uses money, gets any grants or tax exemptions, uses buildings to gather large groups, uses written or internet or social media, uses financial tools and accounting - then it will (sooner rather than later) be compelled into the demonic agenda. It will be converged: absorbed by The Borg*.

And all this will be enforced by the vastly increased mechanisms of omni-surveillance and micro-control; so that even a few people meeting may be known, and quite possibly filmed or recorded.

So Christians will need to become secret, and so will churches.

All relations among Christians, within or between churches, will need to become personal, verbal, and probably encoded (with changing codes); assemblies will be small or deniable (eg. within families - if families are permitted).

The only 'thing' that can hold-together churches under such circumstances is... Love. There will be no help from law, habit or social pressure. Churches will have to be based-upon, grow-from, pure Love - or there will be nothing.

And this, presumably, is our test - in these Latter Days, these End Times... Things are coming to a point at which the primary issue of this mortal life becomes crystal clear; and the choice for or against God becomes stark and unavoidable.

*This is why the process of evil works from the top downwards; why modern institutions (including churches) nowadays always rot starting with the head - that is, with those interacting most with the surrounding bureaucracies. This is the nature of the type of evil dominant in this era: the Ahrimanic. This is the regular pattern of corruption of which people in churches need to be aware. 

Note: In reality - this is one possible extreme which may or may not be reached - but so long as the current World Order continues, there will be incremental and irreversible movement towards this situation. 
It is well to be prepared.

What does it mean to become conscious? - Romantic Christianity notes on 'moments of clarity'

An aspect of Romantic Christianity that is given special emphasis by Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield is the need to become conscious of that which was previously unconscious.

(Or, this is not so much a need, but our divine destiny (at least, in The West) - it is what we are incarnated to do during our mortal lives in this era; and something which if rejected will seriously imperil our salvation, and our culture. As indeed it has.)

By my understanding, with the modern development of consciousness there is an element of returning to the spontaneous 'animism' of young childhood, a recognition that the world is 'made of' Beings - alive and conscious, with motivations - in relationships with each other; but this time the animism is one with awareness of all elements of our world view (not merely a perspective passively resulting from instincts and socialisation).

The importance of consciousness is that it enables agency, or freedom (as in the title of Steiner's 1994 Philosophy of Freedom) - because only when we are conscious of some thing, are we free to to embrace or reject that thing. Without consciousness we are 'slaves', automatic products of our environment and instincts.

That development of consciousness which is desired is a necessary step towards a full quality of divinity that may participate in creation; without consciousness we are a part-of creation, with consciousness we are participants in creation; potentially able to join with God in this work.

Thus in this current phase of culture we have separated from God; our task (if we wish for Life Eternal in Heaven) is to rejoin with God, but this time with consciousness and by personal choice - and this entails awareness of that which was previously unconscious.

But what does this becoming conscious actually mean - and what does it Not mean?

First, we need to take into account that this is mortal life, and our world is one or impermanence - of decay, disease and death. So nothing in this world is permanent for us (as mortal Beings). That recognition immediately clarifies that the attaining of consciousness aimed-at is something that may not be remembered, may not have permanent effect, may not be acted-upon...

(...At least so far as our knowledge in this world is concerned. We have faith that such temporary attainments in this world do indeed have permanent reality in the post-mortal context of resurrected life  eternal in Heaven - but not in this world.)

So in seeking consciousness, what we are seeking us something much like 'a moment of clarity'.

This is the intuitive sense of direct knowing - and typically of becoming, for a moment, clear about something we already 'knew' but unconsciously... We knew, but until this moment did not know that we knew...

The key point is that these (and there may be many, should be many such) moments of clarity, awareness and direct knowing are IT. These moments are precisely what we seek in the evolution of consciousness - and indeed, such moments are all that we can seek.

They are our maximum attainment because the moment may be forgotten, it may be distorted by memory, may be misinterpreted retrospectively... it is only in the moment, at the moment, that it is what it should-be.

We need to understand this; because otherwise (given our habits, and Men's habits for the past couple of millennia at least) we will try to seek consciousness in the form of articulated concepts, of models - that is, we will attempt to capture the direct knowing in words or symbols and to make it part of a system.

And this is an error; because these are secondary phenomena. Direct intuitive knowing cannot be reduced to a few words or a few symbols or a simple model - of course not! Nothing can be - not even such everyday matters as the appearance of a daisy, the performance of a song, the smell of a pine forest can be described accurately and completely!

Ineffability - inexpressibility, incommunicability... this is the mystical insight, but not at all specific to mystical experiences; it is just an obvious fact.

Our experience is not pre-divided into chunks that can be separated completely - no, all is interrelated to the extent of creation. And there is no end to the inner detail of anything. We are confronted by open-ended limitlessness of complexity both as we look without and also within.

So, all that we symbolise in actual words, or communicate in language or image - all such is necessarily simplified, distorted, incomplete, secondary. The direct and immediately apprehended knowing is the only primary experience; and our awareness likewise cannot be captured nor can it be communicated except as a model - which is certainly wrong!

Therefore we should avoid going down that path which was pursued by Rudolf Steiner; in which he attempted to describe, summarise and communicate his transitory experiences of direct knowing in a truly vast, intricate and interlinked system - of a form suitable for presenting in lectures and diagrams, and publishing in scores of books, and teaching to tens of thousands of 'followers' at that time and for another century, so far.

Steiner's compounded error led to the illusion that it was necessary - or at least desirable - for us to learn, understand, memorise, further communicate this systemic model of reality, as if it was a description of real-reality. Which it not only cannot be - but the gap between such a model (any such model) and directly apprehended reality is unknowable.

The vastness and complexity of Steiner's communicated model therefore misled bot Steiner and his followers into assuming that it really captured reality, better than a simple model would or could. Yet the gap between a simple model and reality and a complex model and reality are equally limitless! Complexity does not allow us to approach closer to the truth - the truth remains as far away as ever; but the potential for delusion does increase with a model's complexity and difficulty of mastery.

(We can explicitly know that a model is simplified and distorted - but not how much it is wrong, nor in what ways it is wrong. And this fact is not affected by the 'size' of the model. Typically, a more complex model is more precise. We will tend towards ever more more-precise error - precision is a false promise of accuracy. Hence the greater potential for misleading.)

This all helps explain the sorry history of Steiner's Anthroposophical Society - which has now become just-another converged secular leftist organisation that embraces the Global Totalitarian agenda; albeit one that, currently, expresses a lot of eccentric pseudo-factual beliefs.

What of coherence? Well, coherence is also a thing that needs to be directly known. The coherence, or incoherence, of our knowing is something that we already know but unconsciously - our task is to bring this knowing to awareness.

For example, we may intuit that our knowledge is incoherent still, and needs more work, more clarification - or we may realise that it is indeed coherent, and we have grasped reality - for a moment.

But we cannot take things further than that moment of clarity, nor should we seek to do so - because any such attempt will fail, and in attempting to describe direct knowing in communicable language, we may become (as Steiner apparently did) dominated-by that false model - and assertive of its rightness, true-ness; we may assert that our ridiculously simplified System is actually itself reality and truth and that to 'know' this System is necessary, or even that to understand the System and be able to expound that System is equivalent to, or better than, the momentary clarify of direct knowledge.

Such an error is likely (and very tempting) because the System made-from direct knowing is durable and discussable, it can be a part of 'objective' public discourse; while by contrast the actuality of direct knowing is evanescent and private.

Making a fake model (untrue, but presented as if true) is therefore a possible route to status and power. For instance one might found a society, a religion or a business, which purports to be based-on direct knowing - but which is inevitably only a distorted, summarised and systemised account of the experience.

Setting aside such temptations and recognising that that which we seek will be temporary and will not be articulable; we find that becoming conscious, direct knowing, Final Participation is a much more attainable life strategy than might have been supposed.

This is great news!

Our task is (merely!) to seek such momentary clarity of insights, clarity of coherence's; and to be satisfied with that quality of experience - but (the difficult thing...) to continue to keep seeking for such moments for as long as we are alive.

Because, for as long as we are alive, we have important work to do; and that is why we remain alive.

Note: All this has been clarified for me by reading Philip K Dick's Exegesis (2011), which strikes me as exactly the book I most needed at exactly this point of my life. 

Monday, 2 December 2019

Where does evil in this world come from? (given that God is wholly good)

1. I define evil as opposing God, creation and The Good - 'the good' existing only within God's creation; and God's creation being a consequence of Love (initially, the love between our Heavenly Parents, which was the motivation for creation). God created The Good - so, to oppose God and creation is to be evil. And evil is the rejection of Love.

2. All Beings, including all Men, have existed from eternity - initially as primordial Beings, later these primordial Beings were procreated as sons and daughters of God, in the form of spirits (without bodies).

3. Evil in the universe comes from Men, and was always present from eternity. It could be thought of as a disposition, a character trait: the trait of Pride, which is broadly in favour of the self and its satisfactions at the expense of others; and specifically therefore against being a part of the familial ideal of God's creation harmonised by love.

4. When we became children of God we lived initially as spirits in Heaven, with very little agency - we were immersed in God's Goodness and the life of Heaven - therefore (somewhat like young children) we had very little capacity for expressing the evil that was within us.

Probably all pre-mortal spirits (excepting Jesus) will 'contain' evil, but they will not always express evil - because all are immersed-in Goodness and without a boundary between God and himself or herself.

(Analogous to a young child immersed in the loving kindness of a perfect family - in such conditions, few young children will express evil.)

However, some pre-mortal spirits had so much evil in them - from eternity - that (even with the limited agency possible in pre-mortal spiritual life) they opposed God, creation and The Good. They chose to express this opposition in Heaven;  and so were cast-out of Heaven. These were Satan and the many other demons, now eternally active (because eternal Beings) outside of Heaven; and including this world.

5. In order to develop towards being fully divine Children of God, we had to become more and more fully agents; and part of this development is incarnation into this world.

By incarnation (getting 'solid' bodies) we became separated from God (incarnation can be seen as an increased boundary between our-self and God); and for the first time then able to express our distinctive selves, including the propensity for evil.

Thus Men (each of us) brought primordial evil into this world, and by being-incarnated enhanced our agency; and this increased agency 'unmasked' this always-present evil, and enabled it to be expressed.

6. We (here and now, in this world) each find ourselves living adult lives in a situation of evil from demons, from other men, and in our-selves; in which situation we must choose either for or against God/ Love, creation and The Good.

Those who, after this life, choose For God and wish to participate in the work of creation will (thanks to Jesus Christ) be resurrected into Heaven; as wholly-Good agents, like God.

Those who choose God and The Good but do not wish to participate in creation will be allowed non-participatory, non-agent union with deity impersonally known (approximating to the pre-mortal spirit condition); and dwell in a 'timeless', static state of abstract bliss or Nirvana - within the scope of Heaven.

Those who reject and oppose God, who are active against creation, have chosen to reject Love (this called the sin of Pride)... will thereby choose to enter one of the many cut-off personal Hells, which each will 'rule as his own supreme deity. 

7. Thus evil is only present in this world because Men bring it here; as well as because of demonic presence and activity. Evil is in all Men from eternity (but to greater or lesser degrees, and of different types and emphases); and this evil is expressed because of our agency.

Also, this agency also allows us to choose to express evil or not. Thus all expressed evil is a choice and a collusion, and the rejection of evil is a refusal of assent to collude. In sum - evil versus good is about inner choice, that is, about collusion versus repentance.

Good and evil are therefore essentially a matter of taking-sides, choosing either for or against God, his creative work and plans; and for or against the basis of creation in Love.

Note; the above is, in essence, my interpretation and extrapolation (and to an extent correction) of Mormon metaphysical theology

Sunday, 1 December 2019

No institutional escape from Wokeness. With organisation versus The System - Resistance is Futile!

Above: The Borg - from Star Trek

Above: Early adopters of the next-generation of 'smart' technology

The Borg are the deadliest threat to the universe in Star Trek — The Next Generation. Part man, part machine, with each member participating in the group consciousness; the Borg act with a single ant-like will, and when one is defeated another steps forward to take its place.

In fact, the Borg are totalitarian bureaucrats; especially those with transhumanist aspirations for omni-surveillance and micro-control. And both Borg and Bureaucrat share the same mantra (in various versions): statement — resistance is futile.

At the level of institutions, this is correct - resistance is indeed futile.

Why? Because, all human institutions, corporations, organisations, functional or formal systems... are indeed mini abstract 'systems' that are linked to 'The System' (The Borg) by laws, rules, regulations, practices, use of money, taxes, banking and accounting, use of mass media, use of electricity and other utilities... linked, therefore, to that totalitarian bureaucracy which spans the world and has penetrated deep into all of our lives.

If, for example, a church (any church) tries to resist the Borg, and to remain unassimilated, it is identified as a threat and destroyed via one or more of the systemic links with the uni-System; via media firestorm or endemic vilification; political condemnation; punitive tax auditing or accounts auditing; prosecutions by employment law, hate crime law, be found to violate 'terms of service' from media and utilities and providers of internal services ...

That is, the church will - one way or another - have costs inflicted incrementally, open-endedly, and without limit; until it is destroyed as A-system distinct-from The System. Once identified, its separate organisation will be destroyed or else assimilated: that is the choice for modern institutions.

In political terms the choice is convergence, which is absorption; or death as an institution that is effective in The World.

As long as The System - the single atheist, leftist, totalitarian bureaucracy - continues there is no escape for systems.  

In a world of Woke institutions, only the 'Woke' will continue to survive...

But the Woke institutions 'survive' only by assimilation into the leftist, converged, Woke World that is The Single System: that totalitarian, increasingly transhumanist, bureaucracy which is controlled by the demonic Establishment.

So there will be (there already is.. all-but) nothing-but the individual and the non-institutional personal and loving relationships around that individual (principally the family); and on the other hand: The System.

All the institutions, churches, professions, corporations and all of 'civil society' that once bridged the gap between individual and totality, will have been destroyed or absorbed.

Man as a divine child of God, will be confronted by demonic collective that is The Borg: the Ahrimanic Satan, the coordinated world of purposive evil. Any person who affiliates to any ostensible institution will, in fact - as bottom-line, be affiliated to The Borg.

And these are the End Times, when the Christian Churches are being (or have already been) assimilated to the System of Evil because they are systems; and only individual persons that are motivated by love of God and fellow Men will be outwith the world of system/s.

And by love I mean real love, not operational, measurable, public-discourse altruism; because all the abstract altruists - those who aspire to loss of ego, consciousness and an end to thinking; those who regard the group as higher than persons - will have long-since surrendered their 'selves' to the merged uni-mind of the Borg.

Note: This is a deeper understanding of the current observation 'Go woke, go broke' - that when an organisation converges onto mainstream politically-correct Leftism - it will 'go broke'.  This is true, but irrelevant to the management, who will simply move on to another institution, with enhanced credentials from their Go Woke activism. If a broke organisation is useful to The System, it will simply be absorbed bureaucratically; and (while The System lasts) sustained with monopolistic privileges, subsidies, destruction of rivals (by taxation, law-fare or whatever). For example, mass higher education is long-since Woke and Broke; but sustained (and expanded) by subsidies of multiple kinds: tuition grants and debt-trapping loans, 'research' grants, grants funding manadatory bureaucratic compliance, requirements for paper credentials enforced by the state, multi-pronged attacks on non-Woke alternative providers (e.g. for-profit colleges) etc. Go Broke and Go Woke are therefore, in practice, synergistic - so long as that Wokeness is subservient to The System.   

Friday, 29 November 2019

The Millennium - was it a real thing? Was it a threshold?

 Tony Blair's 'flagship' Millennium Dome - expensive, ugly, boring, unpopular and late - perfect symbol of the new era

At the time of circa 2000, I would have said no, nothing much has changed; but I have since changed my mind.

Nothing happened at the exact time of the millennium (AD 2000 or 2001), and I am not a numerologist - so I see no special significance in the number of 2000 years...

But, as many people perceived in the previous century; that approximate time was indeed a qualitative transition, the millennium was indeed a threshold that we in The West were crossing.

The millennium was the threshold at which there was a generalised inversion of values. And this was apparent in the areas of life with which I was most involved over the years preceding and following the millennium.

For example, truth disappeared as an ideal. People were Not Even Trying to seeks the truth or to speak the truth, but instead truth became a rhetorical manipulation.

Truth was was replaced first by 'hype and spin' (to use the buzz words of that era) and then increasingly by virtuality - the 'real'-reality constructed by the mass media which was being amplified and extended vastly by the nascent social media.

Functionality was replaced by management, that is bureaucracy; i.e. totalitarianism - which is the attempt at complete surveillance and control at the micro level of individual ideas and behaviours in pursuit of universal damnation. 

So, in the areas of my own public activity - medicine, scientific research, and teaching - there was at about this time a tipping point.

These all became - in parallel, but in the same way - dishonest, dysfunctional, and evil-motivated.

For the first time, increasingly and irrevocably, bureaucratic mechanisms (committees, protocols, management...) took over both power and responsibility is the actual clinical practice of medicine (face to between doctor and patient); the specific themes, methods and reporting of scientific research; and the details of in-the-classroom teaching.

All of these are now thoroughly brought into the single-bureaucracy, which has been extended nationally and indeed multi-nationally; to become minutely controlled by a linked managerial system...

A system motivated by an ideology of value-inversion - in pursuit of corruption, lies, disgust, self-hatred, slow-suicide, nihilism and despair... but all regarded as positives.

And this became first dominant and official, then ubiquitous and mandatory, with an inflexion point somewhere-around the millennium.

Thursday, 28 November 2019

What kind of 'spiritual experience' should we be aiming for? More on 'direct knowing'

While there are people who continue to have 'traditional' forms of sensory spiritual experience - seeing visions, hearing voices, experiencing answered prayers and personal miracles, synchronicities and pre-cognition (information about the future), or phenomena like channelling or conversing-with spiritual entities - I would regard these as being impossible for many/ most people nowadays (except, perhaps, in conditions of intoxication or mental illness -which cast the validity of experience into doubt)  and as being preliminary and early aspects of a 'modern-era' spiritual life.

The main value of such experiences, I think, is to convince some people of the reality of a spiritual dimension to life. This was, indeed, the case for me - with a few instances of rapid/ miraculous answering of prayers, that were very important at the very beginning of my Christian life. The experiences were a confirmation of the reality of God.

But all of these are sensory-mediated, hence indirect, means of communication between God and Men. We see something, hear a voice saying words... and then comes an evaluation of the experience... Do we remember properly, accurately; was it an hallucination, or a coincidence?

And if we decide it was real and have an accurate record of the experience - then what does it mean for us? What was God trying to communicate, and what - exactly - did he want us to do about it?

So; once we are convinced of the reality of God - what then? After we know that God is real; that is the true beginning of spiritual life. Should we then expect or want the traditional kind of spiritual experiences to continue; are they, indeed, the best way that we can communicate with God?

This is when I return to the matter of what can be called the intuition of the real self or direct knowing. Direct knowing is - I believe - the form of spiritual experience that is available to many/ most people in the modern era. And furthermore it is, in principle, superior to the traditional forms - because it requires no extra layers of understanding and translation.

Perhaps if I draw a contrast, this will be clearer. Suppose someone has the experience of hearing God's voice, speaking words aloud in the mind. He needs to hear and understand the words, he needs to remember them (perhaps by writing them); and then he needs to ponder their meaning and implications.

But if that person was to receive knowledge directly into his understanding; he will already know what that knowledge means for him, and what he should do about it - because it all comes as a package: one moment not-there, the next moment it is there.

And direct knowledge is intended for direct action - it is typically bimodal, yes-no, two-track: either we stay with what we are doing, or else we set off onto a different path which is being given.

Now, there may be problems about remembering the experience, and so forth - but if we have acted-upon direct knowing, then that doesn't matter. And there is a much bigger problem about telling other people what has happened: that requires capturing the experience in language, tailoring it for the intended audience, and that audience will then need to receive, understand and interpret that information. The situation is the same as for traditional spiritual experience.

But direct knowing is the form of spiritual experience that goes with Romantic Christianity; and the essence of Romantic Christianity is that it is based upon direct and personal experience. Since direct experience is foundational, it means that it is indispensable. So that fact that direct knowledge cannot reliably and validly be transmitted in-directly is not surprising! It is why we need (and must have) direct experience in the first place. 

Another aspect is that direct knowing is - as a generalisation, in this mortal life - simple.

And in turn this means that we can receive direct knowledge only when we have formed our question exactly and with the proper motivation; when our mind it receptive to that form of knowledge. there are an endless ('infinite') number of false questions and wrong motivations for knowledge - and only the right questions and the right motivations will lead to direct knowing.

But once the right question and attitude are 'in place' - then direct knowing arises immediately and without any effort.

However, the knowing does not force itself upon us, overwhelm us, or compel us to do something. It is knowledge of what is right and there is a further decision about whether to embrace or reject what is right; or to argue that it is Not right. This is agency, this is free will - and is a separate 'process' from that of direct knowing. 

Agency comes in in this bimodal fashion: direct knowing tells us what is true and right; agency is concerned with whether we accept or reject this knowledge. it is not a choice between alternatives; it is a choice of 'destiny', or not-destiny.

So, direct knowing itself entails no effort, no struggle; but putting oneself into the necessary 'frame of mind' to receive it is a wholly voluntary and conscious process. Indeed, direct knowing - and to know that this is direct knowing - is possible only to those with agency, with free will.

Direct knowing doesn't 'just happen' to an unconscious person, who is thinking about other things (distracted); it doesn't happen to someone whose fundamental beliefs exclude the possibility of direct knowing... e.g. they don't believe in God, or their idea of deity is impersonal - or they don't believe that knowledge can be directly known. In such situations, there will be no direct knowing - that person is self-excluded.

To put matters the other way about - direct knowledge follows naturally upon the knowledge and love of God and the desire to follow Jesus through death to resurrected Life Eternal in Heaven. And then direct knowledge will provide the specific guidance we need in life.


John Butler - Christian 'Zen' (not Zen Christianity)

I have been watching the videos and reading books by a modern English mystic called John Butler - the above is a typical example. Most striking is that Butler seems a lovely old chap, with one of the most hypnotically soothing voices I have ever heard (at the Bob Ross level!). He is also a very serious spiritual seeker; having diligently practiced meditation for fifty plus years.

Butler has travelled all over the place, been an organic gardener, done a degree in Russian in middle age and lived in Russia for a total of more than five years; nowadays he meditates twice a day, for two or three hours per session, in the CofE church in Bakewell, Derbyshire.

He reveres the Russian Orthodox tradition of ascetic monasticism and hermit life, a life of prayer and meditation. Furthermore, Butler was steeped in the Bible as a young person; quotes frequently and fluently from scripture to support his explanations; and the YouTube videos are mostly recorded in an Anglican church. Superficially, it might be assumed that John Butler is a Christian...

But is John Butler a Christian? No he isn't; and this is just a plain fact, not intended as any kind of criticism, since Butler is quite clear about his beliefs.

By his own account Christianity is - for him - merely the spiritual language he was raised-in and knows best. Christian language is - in this sense - wholly arbitrary; and he has said that it could have been any other religion without affecting the essence of his religious practise.

In other words, John Butler is an advocate of the 'perennial philosophy' - which is the Western understanding of the universal one-ness of God and Man that is found primarily in Hinduism and Buddhism and their variants and descendants.

(I say the PP is a Western version, an abstraction of Eastern religion - because it is detached from the specific ethnic communities and ways of life that characterise these religions in their Eastern actuality. In the East, these religions have numerous practices and rituals, and are also linked with 'pessimistic' and indeed threatening beliefs about reincarnation that Westerners seldom or never adopt.)

Most importantly, John Butler's spirituality is distinct from Christianity in that he explicitly seeks the total loss of ego, a state of non-thinking, a complete and permanent union with the divine. His over-riding motivations are the desire for peace, and to be free of all possibility of suffering: he wants to live free of the body as a spirit (not to be resurrected) and to live outside of time, where nothing changes - and change would not be desired because existence is a state of bliss.

As far as I can tell, JB is absolutely sincere in this wish - and indeed he assumes that everybody else also wants what he wants.

From my perspective, John Butler represents a genuine and perhaps universal human motivation; but probably one which is much rarer than he supposes. Such views have mostly been expressed by those like JB who are from intelligent and sensitive members of the upper classes - they have never been the basis for mass religions; and mass-consumption Eastern religions are a very different matter altogether.

Even the mystical tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy (which is the closest that Christianity comes to Butler's perspective) is qualitatively different from John Butler's spirituality; in that Orthodoxy does not seek loss of ego, cessation of thinking or union with God - but rather a perfect communion - and as resurrected incarnates, not as bodiless spirit.

Readers will know that I do not have any hostility to those with John Butler's views, and can indeed feel their appeal. They are the response of those who regard mortal life as ultimately negative; who regard incarnation and bodies as a limitation and who prefer spirit; who regret the development of Man's agency with its 'self' distinct from God and its subjective life of conscious thinking.

Butler's spirituality has the nature of  wanting to 'hand back his entrance ticket' to mortal life; to return to our earliest state of Being, before we were incarnated, when we were simply immersed in the Goodness of God, dwelling as spirits in Heaven. And I am confident that the subjective state of Being sought by people such as JB will be allowed and made possible by God - they will, indeed, live in the kind of unconscious union with the impersonal aspects of the divine - just as they hope for.

I do, however, wish to emphasise that they are not Christian, and the motivation is incompatible with the Life Eternal that Jesus came to make possible for us. And Perennial Philosophy becomes actively harmful if and when it is put forward as being the 'true' Christianity, or the deepest form of Christianity.

Also, it makes no sense at all to link PP with any kind of this-world morality: this is just incoherent! John Butler does not seem to realise that his convictions relating to the importance of environmentalism are sense-less in terms of his own philosophy. For example, in one video he (albeit half-heartedly) gives 'advice' on the subject of 'climate change', and he often opines regarding the desirability of unspoilt nature or organic food production...

And this nonsensical incoherence seems very hard, almost impossible, for Westerners to avoid - so that all the Western advocates of Perennial Philosophy that I have encountered are intractable hypocrites about politics; some of them very much so!

My feeling is that someone who sincerely regards unconscious union with impersonal deity as their deepest post-mortal desire, and who wish to approximate this during mortal life, should just get on with it! Perhaps it is legitimate to help other people to attain it by advising on meditative techniques (as does John Butler).

But such folk really ought to shut-up on every other subject! - especially politics and social organisation - since their views must inevitably by their own account be wrong and irrelevant; merely part of the maya (illusion) of this mortal, incarnate life...

Wednesday, 27 November 2019

How far can evil go in attacking God's creation?

The fact of Jesus Christ seems to imply a 'two phase' view of God's creation.

The first phase was the Heaven of our God (Father and Mother) among their spirit children. As unincarnated spirits, the children of God lacked the agency to become autonomous creators; they could not, therefore, participate in the ongoing work of creating.

Some of the children of God turned against the plan of loving creation, becoming the demons and being cast out. But these demons commenced their work against creation - subversion, destruction, inversion - which continues.

(Others of God's children opted-out of the whole thing - returning to non-consciousness.)

Phase two was to enable some of God's children (those who chose the path) to participate in creation, as fully as their capacities would allow. This was made possible by creating earth and mortal life - during which some who loved God and their fellow Men were able to make partial and temporary contributions to creation. But to enable this in fullness and completeness was the work of Jesus Christ.

After Jesus, mortal Men could make a commitment of love and follow Jesus through the portal death, resurrect into Heaven; and there live eternally and able to participate in creation.

By this means, God was able (open-endedly) to expand and enrich the loving and familial work of creation; and 'insulate' the process of on-going Heavenly creation from the corruption of demonic activity.

Thus the Heaven of Life Everlasting is unlimited is size and scope; and safe from evil. 

Apocalypse Now!?

I get the feeling that the Apocalypse, which began some fifty years ago, is reaching a crescendo Now. There is a tremendous urgency towards the goal of a global totalitarian takeover by the 'Ahrimanic' powers of evil: that is to say, the type of evil which is cold, calculating, systematic, anti-spiritual, anti-human, bureaucratic and transhumanist.

As has been usual in recent decades, the Ahrimanic evil is fuelled by old-fashion 'Luciferic' evil: by stoking-up the traditional 'instinctive' sins such as pride, resentment, fear, greed, hatred, anger, lust, sadism - that is by stirring up all kinds of conflict, setting groups against one another (especially by universal, coercive mass immigration; but also by resurgent socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism and the sexual revolution's LGBTQPP... endless supply of causes and victim groups). The Mass Media have a key role here.

But what is aimed-at - what is supposed to be the 'answer' to these created problems, is a total system of surveillance and control; funded by a massive shift to replace the current technological infrastructure with a new generation of self-styled 'smart', 'green' and 'sustainable' technologies - AI, 5G and so forth...

The interesting aspect is the sheer urgency. There is a very obvious attempt to create a worldwide sense of emergency, of imminent cataclysm, of terrible things that are Just About To Happen... unless, we hand over complete power to the Establishment (preferably the-day-after-tomorrow, or quicker).

And this handover - this Power Grab by the Global Establishment - is being aimed-at Very Soon; on a timescale of months, not years.

That is the message of the Climate Emergency/ Extinction Rebellion Establishment-created movement. This is the message of the impatient attempts of the Establishment to manufacture a soft coup to get rid of President Trump without waiting for next year's election.

I don't know why this should be, but I am more convinced with each passing month; what is being attempted - now and on a daily basis - is the biggest shift in power in the history of the world; the attempt of a tiny global 'elite' (possessed-by and serving demonic powers) to impose a complete system of behavioural and thought control.

And it is now; this is the Apocalypse; this is what it looks-like from the inside!

If the urgency of the Establishment has a reason, then that will soon become apparent; one way or another (depending upon the individual choices of millions of people) we shall -within the year - see huge changes in everybodys' lives.

It is difficult to believe, I hardly believe it myself; but - as I say - there must surely be a reason for the extreme urgency of this power grab. I don't know what that reason is; but it must be expected to take effect on a timescale of months*.

I can't say I am exactly looking-forward to discovering the answer; because I don't suppose the surprise will be a pleasant one. However, I haven't long to wait.

*Note added: My guess is that it would be a Thing that could be caused by the Establishment, but plausibly blamed on Climate Change - and that there would need to be an awareness campaign before it happened, so that the public could be made to believe the link. What springs to mind as the kind of thing would be to cause a devastating tsunami by breaking a huge chunk off a glacier with a covert explosion, blamed on the spring melt. Something of that sort...

Tuesday, 26 November 2019

Australian Aborigine life 100-plus years ago

In commenting at another blog recently, I dug-out and re-read a couple of interesting posts from 2011 about Australian Aborigine life at the time of the first detailed records.

I had a long-standing interest in hunter-gatherers, and thought I knew the anthropology pretty well; but this information surprised me.

I expected the Aborigines to be similar to the Southern African hunter gatherers such as the Kung San or the Hadza. But I should have been prepared for Aborigines to be unique, since it is believed that they were genetically separated from other humans some 50,000 years ago - or about 2,000 generations. This would make them likely to be more different from other humans than any other group.

One difference is that the Aborigines have a 'totemic' religion - relatively fixed in beliefs (within constraints of oral transmission), with something like priests and handed down as accurately as possible between generations.

Whereas most similar 'immediate return', low technology hunter-gatherers, rather than a fluid, (part-time) shaman-led animistic spirituality.

Another difference was that Aborigines had larger 'bands' than the usual immediate-return hunter-gatherers - my theory was that this was because their totemic religion sustained a higher level of cooperation beyond the extended family. Interesting; because most totemic religions are found in more complex (socially-stratified and specialised), sedentary, early agriculture societies - or those with rich food resources available without being nomadic - such as the totem-pole-making Pacific Northwest American Indians - who had resources of shell-fish to gather.

Anyway, the - rather unpleasant - surprises I had about Aborigine life are detailed and referenced below.

Treatment of girls and women:

Infanticide and euthanasia:

The nature of resurrection as the transformation of a Being

(Note: It may be helpful to read this earlier post before the one below.) 

My metaphysical understanding is that the fundamental nature of reality consists of (eternal) Beings in relationships - these Beings transform through time; and such transformation is of the nature of Beings.

But the transformations are of different kinds. One transformation was from spiritual pre-mortal beings to incarnate as mortals - as we are now. We can ask what 'ingredients' go-into any such transformation - and I think the answer is that there is a variable mix of internal and external influences. We are transformed both from-within and from-without.

(Transformation from-within is possible, because Beings exist only in-time, hence there is no cross-sectional Being; hence a Being never ceases to be even when transformed in totality in terms of structure and function. Despite transformation, agency is never 'broken', but persists continuously throughout. Hence it is not a contradiction that a Being can participate in its own transformation - although transformation always requires some external transforming agent. In sum; both are needed.)

So, when we transformed from spirits to incarnated mortals, the main agency was God (our Heavenly Parents), but not solely God. We are divine Beings, potentially of the same kind as God; so we cannot be (and should not be) transformed against are will or passively. Therefore, our consent to incarnation was necessary.

However, this consent could not be full, because we could not know fully what it was like to be incarnated as mortals. Full consent would have required experience - but we could not experience mortal incarnation without actually undergoing the transformation.

So, we consented, but it should not be surprising that there seem to be many people who do not like the experience of mortal life, when they actually need to live-through it.

However, there are further transformations necessary before we can move further toward becoming fully-divine. One is death. We must, I think, consent to our own death - or else we will move off the path to full divinity.

In the Fourth Gospel, this is emphasised by Jesus; that death of the mortal body ought not to be feared but rather welcomed as a portal to something far greater; resurrected eternal life.

Now, when it comes to resurrected life, I think we are talking about a full state of divinity; albeit initially at a much lower level than God - yet a level from which we dwell in Heaven and participate in the ongoing work of creation.

We need, therefore, full consent to this transformation from the soul that remains after death of the body to resurrection. And 'resurrection' is not merely a coming alive again in a new body; resurrection is necessarily into-Heaven.

I am stating that we cannot be resurrected unless that is a resurrection into divine participation in Heaven - it is an irreversible, permanent commitment - and this commitment is one of Love. It is love which makes possible this resurrection-into-Heaven.

(...Because it is Love that harmonises all the divine creativities of individual resurrected Men - including Jesus - with that of our Heavenly Parents; to make from many 'players' the unending and unfolding symphony of creation.)

Therefore, the 'final' transformation that is resurrection can be regarded as necessarily having 'input' from our-selves as well as God; we are required not just to consent, but actively, consciously and positively to embrace resurrection-into-Heaven in Love.

This is done (and must be done) by following Jesus (the Good Shepherd) through death into Life Eternal. We follow Jesus because (and only if) we Love him, and because we wish to go where he will lead us.

Otherwise resurrection cannot and will not happen.

Note: I regard the above as wholly compatible with the overall teaching and spirit of the Fourth Gospel, and its multiple 'symbolic' descriptions of that Life Eternal/ Everlasting that is resurrection-into-Heaven.

The author (Lazarus) was a resurrected, hence divine, Man: another reason why the Fourth Gospel ought to be regarded as the primary and most authoritative source

A point about the Fourth Gospel which I have not sufficiently emphasised in my writings on the subject; is that the author - Lazarus - was, at the time of writing, a resurrected Man. That is, he was a fully divine person - albeit one who had not (at the time of writing) ascended to Heaven.

(This was, presumably, explicitly known to the intended contemporary audience of the Gospel - and we can infer it from the text itself.)

Of course the Fourth Gospel has not come down to us absolutely unscathed - there seem (from internal evidence backed by intuition) to be both additions and excisions, albeit not many - yet, it remains (I think) the only book we have that was written by an actual god; as well as being the only eye-witness account of Jesus's life and teachings, by his best and beloved friend, brother in law, and guardian of Jesus's mother.

All of which surely raises the status of the Fourth Gospel far above any other written source - yes?

Why is mortal life necessary? (Why aren't we incarnated direct into Heaven?)

(This is a big question - a natural question; and one for which I haven't been able to find a ready-made answer that addressed and answered it, square-on, to my satisfaction.)

Why mortality? Because it is necessary. An immortal resurrected Man cannot be achieved without a 'transitional stage' of living a mortal life in a mortal body.

This implies that reality is constrained; and represents a major limitation in the power of God the creator.

God cannot create a Man in an everlasting resurrected body without first going-through the phase of mortal life.

Mortality is therefore a consequence of God's creative constraints - in a sense, a measure of God's weakness in comparison with that 'omnipotence' which has traditionally, but wrongly, been imputed to God. Therefore, the many imperfections and incompleteness of mortal life (disease, ageing, death...) are intrinsic to the fact that mortality is a consequence of limitation.

If God really had been omnipotent, and assuming for a moment that such an abstract imputation makes sense (which I don't accept) there would have been no need for mortal life (and BTW no need for Jesus). This is a flaw in all theological schemes entailing divine omnipotence - whether monotheistic or polytheistic: mortal life is a superfluity; at best a waste of time and at worst suggestive of a deity that is indifferent to suffering.

This explains why - for so many billions of people in history, so far as we can infer - mortality has been such a brief affair; hardly more than the mere brief establishing of life, of incarnation, of embodiment. Probably most Men have died soon after fertilisation, or as embryo, foetus, newborns, in infancy...

But not all; and most Men nowadays survive for much longer than mere incarnation. Why? Because God has made a virtue of necessity; where that is helpful to us; each as an individual.

God made this life, this world, as a bespoke place of learning for the longaevus such as you and me (meaning the long-lived: that is, those who live beyond mere incarnation, especially after birth); individually-tailored to fit the needs of many millions of individual Men.

So - Mortality could-have-been a very brief phase; and for many it has been: that is, they simply incarnate and die, with the possibility of resurrection. Such is the fate of all Men.

But the extended and complex world, the varied lives of individual Men - all this is for a different purpose than the making-possible of resurrection. It is, indeed, for many individual purposes - reflecting the unique nature of circumstances of each human.

And this second purpose is to learn from our mortal experiences (including the experiences of mortality - disease, ageing, death...); to learn lessons that will be helpful to our experience in the eternity of resurrected life everlasting...

Also, mortal experiences that may help make possible the choice of life everlasting, which is called salvation, among those who otherwise would have rejected it

Sunday, 24 November 2019

Britain and the European Union - from William Wildblood

William Wildblood gives his take on the problem of the European Union:

The EU wants to be an empire, a European empire on a par with Russia or China or the USA. However, it has no roots in anything traditionally European which means Christian. It is more like an attempt to recreate the Napoleonic empire that actually was a disruption of the true European ideal in that it was based on a materialistic conception of human beings. The EU observes the same principle, the principle that the true end of man lies in this world and that his individuality must be subsumed in an overall collectivism, one based on inclusivity rather than quality. Individuality is theoretically encouraged but only within the limiting framework of an agreed set of restrictions.

I am against the EU because it means more government, more control, more bureaucracy, more domination by unaccountable elites, more centralisation, more secrecy. It means less freedom, less individuality, less honesty, less humanity. It means succumbing to the technocrats and proud rationalists who inhabit a world of ideology and abstract theory that has very little connection to the flesh and blood reality of human needs and desires, indeed human nature itself, let alone spiritual truths. The European Union is and always has been an organisation that is intended to override national sovereignty and eventually sink all the countries which form it into a supranational body run by an elite who see themselves as accountable to no one except themselves. This is the ideology of the cold intellectual who denies all natural human instincts in the name of his frigid theories.

I agree - but (as usual) would be more hard-line and simply say that the EU is (obviously...) an evil organisation: it aims at evil, that is it aims at the subversion, destruction and inversion of values: the EU is against God, Good and creation.

I do not regard this as something that requires proof - only personal observation, experience and the ability to use common sense and basic reason.

For someone adult, who has lived for a few years under the EU (or in my case more than 40 years); to ask for further 'evidence' (whatever that might mean) simply shows that you are already corrupted, already on the wrong side.

(And of course, nearly-everybody is on the wrong side; for Satan and against God: that is normal.)

(Not least - the EU is a master bureaucracy, and bureaucracy is intrinsically evil - surely we should be able to discern this by now?)

If you are on the wrong side, that is your problem, to be addressed by finding God and recovering coherence in your thinking; acknowledging reality; learning to understand and know from your own resources rather than secondhand and by idle deference to obviously corrupted pseudo-authorities.

That Britain should leave the EU is a no-brainer; which means that if you can't see the need, you have - in effect, functionally, and by your own choices - 'no brain'.

And, I repeat; that is ultimately your problem, no-one else's...

Love among the Inklings of Oxford

To what extent were the Inklings a group bound together by Love?

The answer is; to a much greater extent than is usual for such intellectual groups composed of colleagues with common interests (e.g. Christianity, literature, the imagination, myth); and with common purposes (writing, socio-political renewal, Christian revival). Indeed, I would say that the fact that the Inklings was a loving group was what raised it above other superficially similar intellectual groupings. 

Read the whole thing at my Notion Club Papers blog...

Saturday, 23 November 2019

The metaphysical evil of modern environmentalism

Modern environmentalism is anti-human, its underlying assumption is that if it wasn't for the activities of man - then there would be no environmental problem.

This applies pretty much across the board, and goes back even to the early (1970s) environmentalism (or 'ecology' as it was called then) - when the emphasis was medievalism/ de-industrialisation, anti-consumption, self-sufficiency, voluntary simplicity. In general, Man was intrinsically a problem and therefore ought to tread-lightly (as possible, with as few feet as possible) on the earth.

More recently, with the Global-Warming-climate-change-emergency-revolution mob; this has become a kind of self-hatred combined with that generalised loathing of people that surfaces among even the most mainstream of environmentalists - such as Sir David Attenborough.

I mean that barely suppressed desire to clean the planet of all people - starting-with, but ultimately not-confined-to, climate-change deniers... 

This assumption of Men versus The Environment is even accepted by the opponents of mainstream Green activists - but they simply take the opposite stance that Man is more important than the environment. 

But the lesson of the philosophical understandings of Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield is that Man co-creates the environment. The environment has no independent existence separate from Men's conceptualising of it. As Steiner summarised in Philosophy of Freedom, we know nothing of percepts without concepts, there is no objectivity without common concepts.

As Barfield said, in the Saving the Appearances (1957) - that which is unrepresented in unknown. The most we could know or say without Man is that there is something-else, but what that something might be?... Well, it would not be 'the environment' as we know it.

Without Man thinking, there would be no environment. If Men were destroyed, the environment would also be destroyed.

Therefore, mainstream environmentalism is incoherent - and always has been. Its motivational chronic anti-Man animus is revealed for the evil it is.

Home Sweet Home, sung by Joan Sutherland

Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home
A charm from the skies seems to hallow us there
Which seek through the world, is ne’er met with elsewhere

Home, sweet home, there’s no place like home
Home, sweet home, there’s no place like home

An exile from home, splendor dazzles in vain
Oh give me my lowly-thatched cottage again
The birds singing gaily that wait at my call
Give me them and that peace of mind, dearer than all

Home, sweet home, there’s no place like home
Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home

Well, this is absolutely gorgeous singing, which never fails to move me to tears of gratitude and love.

A simple Victorian ballad, accompanied only by a harp. And although it is in English - you really need to know (or read) the lyrics; because Sutherland is the nearest to pure-voice that I have ever heard.

In other words; she was the supreme exponent of the Bel Canto style, by which the aim of the singer is to produce a continuous flow of the most beautiful tone - which means that there is near-zero diction, and the meaning is carried almost entirely by the lyricism of the musical phrasing.

Of course, Sutherland was also among the greatest of technical singers in terns of intonation, control, colouratura (rapid decorations such as runs and leaps) and size of voice - but (aside from a few gentle flourishes) all that is set aside here.

Joan Sutherland also sang a verse as the final song of her Farewell concert in Sydney, Australia - accompanied with the utmost tenderness and sensitivity by her husband, the conductor Richard Bonynge - which was indeed her home. I saw this live on TV at the time, and said my own farewell to unsurpassed greatness.

Romantic versus Traditional Christianity

For Romantic Christianity, direct personal experience and knowledge are primary (not everything, but primary); for Traditional Christianity 'the church' (of the adherent) is primary (not everything, but primary).

When it comes to the crisis of our times; the spiritual contest between mainstream totalitarian--bureaucratic Leftist atheism, and and real Christianity (a battle that is rapidly becoming open warfare); the Romantic Christian will recognise and act according to his personal revelation and direct insight; while the Traditionalist will (and must) wait for his church to take the lead and organise the response.

But all the Christian churches are substantially (sometimes fully) corrupted by the political, this-worldly perspective of Leftist atheism - so the churches are all too complicit in the evil, too slow to recognise the situation, too muddled in their understanding and responses, too pragmatic and expedient in their responses...

Corruption of the churches is not merely a matter of them being bribed and coerced to go-along-with the mainstream public discourse; but is actual value inversion: the inversion of Good and evil, Virtue and sin, beauty and ugliness, honesty and systematic lies, the unity of creation and the destruction of cohesion...

In sum, all of the major denominations and churches are fail-ing or have-failed in this spiritual war.

Meanwhile, the insightful traditionalist waits and waits... for a lead from his church...

Maybe there will be a response? Perhaps there will not... But that response is very likely to be too little, and almost certain to be too late.

And in this context too-little and too-late means actively leading the flock astray - being On The Wrong Side - absorbing the value inversion, and siding with the dark forces of Satan.

Romantic Christianity may sound feeble and ineffectual - being based-upon the lone individual and perhaps the immediate family; but with things as they actually are, Romantic Christians will soon be the only Christians - and not many of us: i.e. very much the situation predicted by the End Times prophecies.

Friday, 22 November 2019

Which groups should Not be allowed to vote?

I heard that a recent opinion poll reported that about half of young people believe that 'old people' (such as myself) should not be allowed to vote in elections. That sounds like a great idea; indeed, probably it would be best if only children and youths were able to vote.

But I would like to add some more groups to the prohibited list.

First Christians: Christians, such as myself, should not be allowed to vote; for obvious reasons. Only those of other religions or no-religion should be able to vote. But not all of them.

Those who are in full-time employment probably ought to be disenfranchised. Such people tend to be greedy when it comes to taxes and the like - interfering with programmes of an egalitarian nature. It would be much better if those who needed taxes were the only voters (not just the majority, as now) on how much tax should be raised, and how tax money should be spent.

Let's restrict voting to those in full-time education, the minimally-economically-active, those on benefits, the unemployed, oh yes - and criminals...

Maybe only those who have been convicted should be voting, and those with jail time should have two votes apiece. It deserves serious consideration...

Similarly, those who are married and with families don't 'deserve' a vote; and the bigger their families the less they deserve it. These people are nearly as bad as Christians. Voters should be single, unattached, mobile, fun-loving and freewheeling folk; the kind of people who participate in demonstrations would be ideal...

Clearly the English ought not to be permitted to vote. It is the English who mostly supported Brexit; and they need to be punished. Voters should come from only the Welsh (except, maybe not, because they supported Brexit too...), Scots and Irish...

On second thoughts; only those who were born elsewhere than the British Isles should be allowed to vote in UK elections; since they are least likely to be Nationalists/ Fascists - Indeed, maybe (to be on the safe side) it would be best to abolish white people's voting privileges and be done with it.

Actually, let's abolish votes for men - since men are to blame for everything. That would be hard luck on those women who have 'transitioned', but maybe there could be exceptions?

You may think I am joking: far from it.

If you understand the reason for 'democracy' and the nature and function of voting; then you will realise that it might do immense good if the great majority of people (the larger the majority the better) were prevented from voting; for the same reason that it would be a good thing if hardly anybody voted in the forthcoming UK election.

It would, at least, be a step in the right direction; because restricting the franchise is a move towards abolishing the franchise - which would make it clear that In Real Life we are living (here, now) in an evil totalitarian bureaucracy. And until we recognise the fact, nothing can happen to reverse it.

Consequently, IRL voting will not be restricted, far from it; but, on the contrary, continue to be extended and extended (and, of course, corrupted, subverted and fixed).

Thursday, 21 November 2019

The Luciferic Ahrimanic double-whammy that has (partly or wholly) destroyed all institutions (including churches)

One of Rudolf Steiner's most valuable insights was that evil has an older Luciferic and a more modern Ahrimanic form.

Luciferic evil is instinctive, short termist, selfish and psychopathic - for example the lust which desires other people merely for sexual exploitation, or the sadism that desires torture, or the power that desires to humiliate and crush. This is the evil of Caligula or Nero, of Ghengis Khan, of the post-war African dictators such as Charles Taylor.

The Ahrimanic evil is more modern; it is the despair-inducing, soul-destroying, utterly-demotivating Iron Cage of totalitarian bureaucracy - where all is a single system and all Men are merely cogs to serve it. This is the evil of late Soviet communism, of The Borg, of the overpromoted-middle-manager, Head Girl Type (e.g. the-3-Ms - Merkel, May, Macron) that increasingly runs large organisations, corporations and Western nations.

These evils synergise - especially when Luciferic liberation - such as the middle sixties style sexual revolution feeds the vast arrays of spies, informers, officials, inquisitors and controllers that is the realm of modern sexuality - enforcing their inverted value system with bribes, threats and coercion.

The modern era emerged from what Steiner termed the era of the 'Intellectual Soul' - and example of which is the medieval world of Western Europe, with its institutions of religion, law, education and the like. These institutions were simple bureaucracies but with a 'light touch, and considerable space for individualism, eccentricity and indeed selfish psychopathy...

But when Christianity receded then was excluded, these institutions became compromises which pleased neither the Luciferic libertarians, nor the totalitarian Ahrimanic powers. 

Think of the education system of the the first half of the twentieth century. It was regulated and hierarchical, it had rules and certificates and exclusion - but the period of education was relatively short, and there was space for considerable personal judgement and large variation in philosophy and practice between institutions.

Schools and colleges were regarded as suffocatingly oppressive and controlling by the little Lucifers of the sixties counter-culture. This began the destruction.

And then the Ahrimanic systemisers found more and more evidence of their bureaucratic incompleteness. Human judgement meant the possibility of individual corruption, variations meant that some institutions must be deficient or wrong. The pressure was irresistible to bring all institutions under a single 'true' ideology and to close off all loopholes, fill all the gaps in the systems...

Same applies to churches. They became a compromise that satisfied nobody. On the one hand they were institutions of patriarchal dictatorship; on the other hand they were economically and economically 'unaccountable' - what was going on in them? Nobody knew. Who controlled what they did, lost of mostly unidentified people, What were the details of their operations? Unrecorded...

The response was a massive programme of incremental monitoring and control of every aspect of decision-making - and the integration of this with the national (eventually multi-national) System.

There is no functional coherence to this pincer movement of institutional destruction - the only coherence is destruction. There is not coherence or direction to the end result of this crude mixture of psychopathic irresponsibility and totalitarian control - except the evil ethic of value-inversion.

But the end result is that nobody supports the actual compromise of any existing institution - always they want more Luciferic license, and/or more Ahrimanic 'accountability'.

Hence, all institutions, of every kind, have-been or are-being destroyed... With no end in sight, and no end possible even in principle - since in our secular, hedonic-despairing, God-eliminated society there is no higher value that might be able to transcend the destructive paradox.

Wednesday, 20 November 2019

Clarity of insight - something attainable (albeit not hold-able)

If this mortal life is fit for purpose; it must be about experiencing and learning rather than attaining and holding.

So we can achieve clarity of insight, but can't live in a state of clarity and insight - not least because there is disease and death.

Part of this is that mortal memory is distorted and prone to loss - so that learning cannot be rooted in our memories. After all, our memories are dependent on our brains, and brains degenerate and die.

So what is the meaning of learning if it is not a matter of memories? The implication is that our learning - even in this mortal life - happens in some place of permanence, of eternity.

This must be the case, even if (even though) we do not usually know where this place may be located, nor how the process works.

It is a matter of faith, trust - therefore hope. 

(Probably we learn 'in' our real, divine selves - which are non-physical and potentially immortal. But another aspect of mortality is that we are - at best - only very imperfectly and infrequently aware of our real selves. )

The Non-Brexit Election: closing of the 2016-19 window

UK politics has been paralysed for three and a half years, because the population wants to Leave the European Union, while the Establishment wants the nation to Remain subordinated.

Because of the Brexit 'confusion' (manufactured and sustained by the EU-loving Global Establishment and its client class) a UK General Election has been called, ostensibly to settle the question of Brexit (again) - but the election has been structured such that it does not allow a Brexit option.

Instead, the majority-Brexit supporting voters can for one of several parties, Labour, Conservative, Social Democrats or the Scottish, Ulster and Welsh parties - all of which oppose Brexit.

Several outcomes are possible, but this election cannot result in Brexit: Brexit is off the agenda.

Far from being the touted single issue election to sort-out a problem; the parties and mass media are running a 'normal service has been resumed' election; in which Labour and Conservative pretend to slug it out with voter-pandering lies; and there is a frantic media effort to make this pantomime fight interesting and distracting.

But this time, anyone with eyes and a brain knows for sure that this is a uni-party election.

Where it matters - which is the global totalitarian agenda; all voteable parties are in favour, the entire Establishment is in favour. The population are just supposed to turn-out and vote for one or other cipher linked to a bureaucratic sub-department of what has been revealed as a single Establishment organisation.

I said anyone 'with eyes and a brain' - this will also be the election in which we discover what proportion of the British population do have eyes and a brain - that is, who can observe and reason.

I suspect that it will prove to be a small proportion. I suspect that this election will reveal that the mass of UK people who support Brexit are a bunch of dumb saps who are not actually ever going to do anything about anything - except roll-out and vote for one bunch of lying, demon-serving traitors; or the other.

After which the Establishment can get on with their totalitarian project without further worry.

Thus will close the window of opportunity, the possibility of a spiritual awakening, that was unexpectedly (to me) opened back in 2016 by the Brexit vote. With the British population confirmed as docile drones, the new Satanic age of systematic value inversion can begin: an age implemented by rapidly accelerating total-surveillance and micro-control of all the Little People, like you and me.

Or will it? Will this election bring some unforeseen surprise that keeps matters open, and keeps hope alive? I can think of one or two possibilities. For example, if nobody actually turns-up to vote, leaving just the fake-postal voters - that could be interesting.

Either way, I feel that by Christmas, one way or another, we will know a lot more about our future; there will be a national mood evident and solid. As I see it from here; that mood will probably be one of Impending Doom; but it is still possible that it may instead be Cautiously Hopeful. Until then I feel as if on a knife edge.

Tuesday, 19 November 2019

What happens to a human Being at incarnation and death? And resurrection. (Identity through time is by provenance.)

A Being exists through time, and undergoes transformations.

When a Man incarnates, the pre-existing spiritual Being transforms by a process including the organisation of 'solid matter', to incarnate as a zygote.

At death, the human Being leaves-behind solid matter and transforms to spirit.

With transformation of a being, the identity is maintained by provenance - i.e. by continued linear existence.

There is no retention of previous forms of organisation - so this is not a spirit getting matter added to it, or subtracted from it...

The reality is a continuously-existing-Being, transforming from a first spiritual entity into a solid entity (incarnation), then to a second and distinct spiritual entity.

It is the same Being throughout; because it has existed continuously, in unbroken continuity, through time. 

Continuing from the schema above, the concept of transformation can also help us to understand what happens at resurrection.

Resurrection is a transformation of the spirit, when that spirit has been-through the prior transformation of mortal incarnation and death.

The human Being that is resurrected has, therefore, a lineage of transformations that include pre-mortal spirit, mortal incarnation, then post-mortal spirit.

The assumption is that only such a Being, with such a lineage, is able to be resurrected into an eternal divine incarnation.

(This is why Jesus needed to be born and to die, before he was resurrected.)

These descriptions can be regarded as a deeper explanation of my argument against computer AI.

God's problem and task in a pluralistic universe

I assume that the university is Pluralistic; that the starting point is many Beings. Therefore God's 'problem' is Cohesion - how to coordinate all these disparate Beings. Difference is taken-for-granted as primary; cohesion is the task of God.

Most 'classical' philosophers and theologians have an opposite assumption - that the universe is unitary (this idea is therefore termed Monism), that everything starts with one entity - that is God. Therefore, God's problem is Differentiation - diving up that unity to produce the (apparent) plurality we observe and experience. Unity is taken-for-granted as primary; differentiation is the task of God.

This differentiation is called creation. 

In the Christian tradition; Classical metaphysics has trouble explaining human free will, because men are merely subdivisions of primal unity. It also suffers the problem that evil is as much a part of God as is anything else - so God is the God of evil as well as of good.

A Monist God is, of course, the Only Thing, so is completely powerful. But a major problem with Monism is the pointlessness of God subdividing to make many things, when really there is only one thing. Indeed, there is no point to doing anything - since it is all one anyway, and all difference is merely contrived, gratuitous...

His problem is that everything starts as one thing; his task is to make the one into the many. 

The creation of a pluralist God depends on his nature - he makes a coherence that reflects his nature. This is called creation.

And a pluralist God is Not completely powerful. He may be defined as the most powerful entity; but this is a quantitative superiority, not infinite. Indeed coherence is quantitative, not absolute.

A pluralist God works-with pre-existent Beings (and perhaps other stuff, chaos) in making a coherent universe.

His problem is that things start out chaotic; his task is to make things coherent.

Note: To posit a Christian pluralist God entails making assumptions concerning his nature, motivations etc. And this, of course, has been a part of the religion: God is said to be primarily motivated by Love, and to be wholly Good. How could we know this? Well, it must be 'revelation', that is, we must come to a direct knowledge of the nature of God; which means we must believe such a knowledge is possible (including that God can be known), and that we can actually personally attain such knowledge. We must recognise when we have attained such knowledge, must take it seriously, and live by it.