Thursday, 13 May 2021

Chaos, Creation, Entropy, Evil

Things began with chaos, among-which were Beings. Beings are self-sustaining - from Beings come the energies that shape chaos into creation. 

As soon as creation had begun, there was entropy - which is the tendency for the created to revert back to chaos. 

In this current stage of creation (which we also inhabit) creation must always be-overcoming entropy; by the self-sustaining energies of Beings. 

The reversion of creation to entropy releases 'energy'.


Therefore evil Beings, those who hate God and creation, encourage the reversion of creation to chaos. They do this partly in order to destroy creation, and partly to use the released 'energy' for their own purposes. 

Luciferic-evil Beings reduce creation intending to feed-upon the released energies. 

Luciferic evil is thus parasitic in nature - a Luciferically evil Being will feed-upon the energies of creation, as he destroys it.

 

Ahrimanic-evil Beings destroy creation by opposing chaos with 'order'. 

Creation becomes confined within The Global Bureaucracy, The System, The Matrix: the Black Iron Prison (BIP). 

Dynamic self-sustaining creation is held in stasis - thus the energies of creative life are squeezed out from the imprisoned Beings. 

After taking a tithe for vampiric (Luciferic) self-reward; these energies are used to maintain, extend and reinforce the prison: to extend the BIP globally, to include all Men; and to eliminate all perception and awareness of any-thing at all beyond the prison.

(Actually not all Men; because Ahrimanic evil entails a sharp distinction between prison inmates and warders; between the Beings who are-processed and the Beings who-do-the-processing - between Us and Them.) 

The death-factory is constructed and fueled by the energies released from its destruction of life. Ahrimanic evil is thus an entropy-factory, a processing plant; it takes living creation and reduces it to dead matter: creation to chaos. 

Ultimately, Ahrimanic evil turns creation against itself; uses life to crush life. 


Sorathic Beings are saboteurs - they were supposed to be warders sustaining the BIP, but they have begun smashing the buildings, wrecking the machines, and torturing the inmates. 

Sorathaic Beings are defectors from the Ahrimanic plan - because they have come to regard the Ahriminic factory as too slow, too dull, too unrewarding, too conjectural in effect. They want to destroy creation Now, directly, indiscriminately. 

Sorathic Beings perceive the contradiction of creating a Black Iron Prison as a means to destroy creation - when the base motivation of evil is to destroy all of creation (including BIPs). Pure evil cannot postpone universal destruction when it can be started already. 

Thus, Sorathic Beings will burn the death factory, along with its inmates and the warders; will return every-thing to chaos without attempting to harness or use the energies for any purpose. 


The motivation is not pleasure (like the Luciferics), nor mass effectiveness (like the Ahrimanic) - but a spite-driven, burning-zeal for pure destruction of all - here and now. 

Sorathic evil is born of a distrust of complex, long-term plans and schemes, a revulsion against the hypocrisy and pretense of the Ahrimanic strategy; which poses as 'good' and continues to create, albeit justified in order to destroy.

Sorathic evil emerges and waxes when the Ahrimanic scheme is nearing completion - when it comes to be believed that There is Only the BIP - there is only a whole world of evil, inescapable, with no alternative. 

Then evil has only evil as a target - so the greater evil turns-against and consumes the lesser.

 

How much do the Gospels really emphasize the sufferings of Jesus?

It is my impression that there is a very long tradition of exaggerating without restraint the sufferings of Jesus, compared with how they are described in the Gospels - especially the Fourth Gospel (being our only eyewitness source). 


Suffering is not one-sidedly a matter of the cruelties inflicted-upon Jesus - but also of Jesus's response to the cruelties. And overall, my overwhelming impression through The Passion is of Jesus being stoic - that he suffered from the tortures, but not to the extremity I have so often heard described and seen depicted. 

Furthermore, Jesus predicted and willingly accepted his suffering - which is usually regarded as a diminishing factor. (e.g. A woman in childbirth suffers much less than she would if the same (extreme) pains were due to a fatal disease - because she wants the child). 

The reason for the long tradition of piling-on-and-on about the sufferings of Jesus, is related to theology, rather than scripture - to the idea that Jesus's primary work was to 'suffer for our sins' - by an account which regards 'sin' as primarily immorality. 


Thus, because of this theology but only because of this theology -  Jesus must (despite the Gospels) be regarded as having, in some sense, suffered to an indescribably vast degree in order to compensate-for and neutralize the vast (and still growing) scale of human immorality.  


Yet this is a narrow and essentially false understanding of what Jesus did - if we are to believe the Fourth Gospel. Jesus needed to die and be resurrected, in order that Men might choose to follow him. But there was no need for Jesus to suffer to an unprecedented extent when he died - and indeed this did not seem to have been the case.


If we are able to perceive that 'sin' meant (mostly) death; and that Jesus 'saving us from our sins' meant (mostly) becoming able to offer us eternal resurrected life - then we can see that the precise manner of Jesus's death was not of primary importance to the success of his mission. 

If Men like Caiaphas had been more virtuous and courageous, and made better choices, and Jesus had not been crucified but died in some other and less painful way - this would Not have sabotaged God's plan. 

The point of the plan was that Jesus should die in order that he could be resurrected, ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Ghost - but the exact manner of Jesus's death was not crucial.   


Wednesday, 12 May 2021

The superpower of Christians

In these End Times, it is as if Christians have superpowers!

What do I mean? Well, firstly I don't mean anything like the power to perform miraculous wonders in the material world. And I restrict the superpowers to those periods (even moments) when the committed Christian is actually in-tune-with God, aligned-with God's creative will and purposes. 


Superpower is (pretty much) what I mean by heart-thinking, intuition, direct knowing, or Final Participation

We are super-powered at such times because we are living in the larger and spiritual world, rather than the finite material world which is (increasingly) under demonic-evil control). 

We have thus (for a while) escaped this temporary world of entropy, and (in our thinking) are living in the larger world of eternity and Heaven (with this-world in that context).  


We also have the superpower of divine creation; because at such times our thinking is intrinsically divinely creative. 

In other words; when we are thinking from our real self and this real self is fully- (albeit temporarily-) aligned-with God's create-ing - then we are bringing something original to creation: we are bringing something generated from our uniqueness. 

We are, in fact, being 'geniuses' working with God in the permanence of Heavenly creation.


In this world; such a state is temporary and may be very brief indeed; yet by recognizing and acknowledging when it happens, we may strengthen our faith in God and hope of Heaven in a way that is 'super' - i.e. above - the powers and limitations of this-world.


What if Shakespeare was your Dad? Getting to know God - easy or impossible?

There are only two coherent ways of regarding God. 

Either as someone who is easy to know; exactly as easy to know as knowing your parents. 

(Which - of course - not everybody can do, although it is common enough; and so easy that even a child can do it - and indeed young children are nowadays often better at it than adult children.) 

Or else God - being the creator - is so qualitatively different from us, that God is impossible to know. 

So - God is either easy or impossible to know.


The other option, which I would reject, is that God is 'possible but difficult' to know. This is the idea that most people cannot know God; but some few can get to know God by (for example) prolonged study, meditation, practice or initiation/ ordination. Such a view has been common in the history of religion, including the history of Christianity - yet I think that it is and was an essentially false understanding, for a Christian. 


Getting to know God, in the way that we know our family, is a very different matter from understanding God, or from predicting God. 

A young child may know his mother, and has faith in her love - even though the child's intellectual capacity means that the child cannot understand her. 

Indeed the gap in ability between (say) a young daughter and (say) William Shakespeare, who happens to be her father, is truly immense; in that Shakespeare was a creative genius of such stature that he towered above all others in his field - then and now. 


This makes an instructive thought experiment for Christians. Many Christians are 'stunned', 'overwhelmed' - even mentally-paralyzed - by the qualitative gap in ability between the creator of this reality, and themselves - and they assume that this means we cannot know God.  

It does mean that we cannot get near to understanding God in the specifics of his creating; just as Shakespeare's daughter did not understand how her father could write what he did. Indeed, nobody has ever understood how Shakespeare wrote what he did: the gap is just too large. 

Yet the little girl can know that her father loves her, and can live in that confidence. 

She can also, no matter how young, understand her father's motivations as they relate to her; she can understand what (in broad terms, and also in some specifics) he hopes from her in terms of her behaviour and life trajectory. 


This applies to a Christian's ideal relationship with God; because all Christians understand God as their loving father. This means that, although we can understand God's creative work much less than we can understand Shakespeare; we can nonetheless know God in the same kind of personal way that we know our parents.

We can - and should - be in awe of what God has done and can do; yet it would not be a good thing if a daughter was to have a relationship with her father that was primarily one of awe - the relationship ought instead to be loving and personal, affectionate and close. 

Ideally, there should and would be respect on both sides - the respect of one unique person for another when they are bound by love and confident of love. 

But in a family, awe and respect does not get in the way of affection, of closeness - because underneath all there is a confidence that derives from mutual knowledge of love.

That confidence is also called Faith.   


Thus a Christian should aim for the kind of confident, affectionate relationship with God that we innately know to be the ideal for a loving family. And this Faith can then be the basis of understanding what God wants for us and the world. In much the same way that Shakespeare's young daughter might have understood what her father wanted in terms of family relationships and plans - despite that she had no understanding of how her father had composed his sonnets, nor how he planned to write Hamlet. 


Note: the above is indebted to the insights of William Arkle - especially his Letter from a Father

Tuesday, 11 May 2021

How clever are the Global Establishment? Clever enough...

How clever are the Global Establishment? It is an important question. 

One answer is 'They are cleverer than the masses - and that is all which is necessary'.

The masses did not need to be cleverer than Them in the past, because the masses were led by common sense and their personal experiences; and their evaluations were rooted in religion. So long as religion was central to their world view, there was a limit to how far the masses could be fooled. 

Now the masses have been trained to ignore the divine and spiritual; to regard public discourse (especially in the mass media) as the only really-real reality; and to disregard their own experience and common sense.   


Another answer: 'They are cleverer than the intellectual classes - whom they are leading by the nose to their own annihilation'. 

It has always been easier to mislead the intellectual classes, since abstraction is prone to mislead when applied to Life; and abstraction can lead someone much further from the natural and spontaneous than instinct. 

But now that the intellectual class are mostly anti-Christian and almost-wholly materialist in terms of what they take-seriously - then the intellectual class will 'believe' (i.e. go-along-with, base their career and self-respect upon) pretty much anything - especially when is the opposite of obvious common sense reality

Furthermore, as of 2021 the intellectuals cannot think. To live by abstraction and be unable to think means that They control the intellectuals like puppets. 


But the best answer is 'They are clever enough for what they want to accomplish: which is destruction'.


The Global Establishment strategy is that of Satan: the damnation of as many Men as possible; which is a destructive agenda aimed-at God, divine creation and all that is Good (truth, beauty and virtue). 

And destruction is much easier than creation. It takes a genius to devise a complex functional machine, but any fool can throw sand in its works, or smash it with a mallet. 

It takes God to create - but any demon or human fool, madman or servant of evil can wreck creation and any one of a million ways. 


To successfully implement a strategy to guide Men towards choosing salvation is difficult and the options are restricted; by contrast, to encourage the corruption of Men is trivially easy and requires few resources and little planning. 

Thus scores of mutually-reinforcing, Goodness-degrading policies can be pursued simultaneously, on multiple fronts - and are.

The take home message is that They are quite clever but in an un-creative way, and they are prone to wreck their own plans by treachery and spite. 

But; in a world that has self-subtracted god and the spiritual, and has thereby excluded all possibility of rooted consecutive reasoning; Their malice is eternal and sleepless. 

And what They are attempting is something to which any-being - no matter how dumb or lazy - can contribute towards... 

So Their numbers are legion, and growing.

 

Numenor teaches a Christian attitude to death

I am fascinated by the descriptions of Tolkien's Numenoran Men; and how one of their gifts was to know when it was that they should die. This evoked one of the most beautiful passages Tolkien ever wrote:

Then going to the House of the Kings in the Silent Street, Aragorn laid him down on the long bed that had been prepared for him. There he said farewell to Eldarion, and gave into his hands the winged crown of Gondor and the sceptre of Arnor, and then all left him save Arwen, and she stood alone by his bed. 

And for all her wisdom and lineage she could not forbear to plead with him to stay yet for a while. She was not yet weary of her days, and thus she tasted the bitterness of the mortality that she had taken upon her. "Lady Undómiel," said Aragorn, "the hour is indeed hard, yet it was made even in that day when we met under the white birches in the garden of Elrond where none now walk. And on the hill of Cerin Amroth when we forsook both the Shadow and the Twilight this doom we accepted. Take counsel with yourself, beloved, and ask whether you would indeed have me wait until I wither and rail from my high seat unmanned and witless. Nay, lady, I am the last of the Númenoreans and the latest King of the Elder Days; and to me has been given not only a span thrice that of Men of Middle-earth, but also the grace to go at my will, and give back the gift. Now, therefore, I will sleep. 

"I speak no comfort to you, for there is no comfort for such pain within the circles of the world. The uttermost choice is before you: to repent and go to the Havens and bear away into the West the memory of our days together that shall there be evergreen but never more than memory; or else to abide the Doom of Men." 

"Nay, dear lord," she said, "that choice is long over. There is now no ship that would bear the hence, and I must indeed abide the Doom of Men, whether I will or I nill: the loss and the silence. But I say to you, King of the Númenoreans, not till now have I understood the tale of your people and their fall. As wicked fools I scorned them, but I pity them at last. For if this is indeed, as the Eldar say, the gift of the One to Men, it is bitter to receive." 

"So it seems," he said. "But let us not be overthrown at the final test, who of old renounced the Shadow and the Ring. In sorrow we must go, but not in despair. Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!"


The Numenoreans had been gifted (by the Valar, the gods) with a lifespan several-fold greater than ordinary Men; and they were also immune to both illness and the degenerations of ageing. So they would (unless killed) remains healthy and vigorous until they became aware that their proper lifespan was ended; and at this recognition they - willingly, by choice - ought-to embrace death, as did Aragorn. 

If they rejected death, the Numenoerans could indeed live about a decade longer; but at the cost of rapid decline in physical health and the onset of what we would term dementia. But more significantly, by clinging to life, they had succumbed to spiritual corruption. And this corruption itself shortened their life span.  

It was when the Numenoreans, especially their Kings and Queens, began clinging to life; that the corruption of the race began to get a grip and to accelerate. Because this clinging represented their rejection of the divine will that Men (but not elves) should naturally die and their souls would then leave the circles of the world. 


I feel that there is a deep lesson in Numenor about life and death. Our life is of value, as a time of experience and learning, and for so long as this life continues it is ordained by God. Death is inevitable for men - however, the inevitability can be accepted or rebelled-against; can be embraced at the proper time, or delayed for a while. 

There will come a time when we know that Christians ought to surrender life willingly - and more with faith and hope onto the next stage. 

But - for this choice to be a real choice, it is possible to refuse to die now and move-on - and it is possible that death can be delayed. There is no guarantee of successful delaying of death, for those who choose that path - but the spiritual crux is whether we accept timely death, or whether we strive to delay it. 


We can either acknowledge that this mortal life has now fulfilled its divine purpose and that it is now best to undergo the transformations of death and resurrection... 

Or, we can refuse death, and remain alive for some while longer - but at the cost of physical and mental degeneration and spiritual corruption. 

In other words, we can - at death - align our-selves with God's purposes; or we can turn-away-from God's purposes and hold to our own.

 

When I talk of willing embrace of death at the right time, I mean more than a stoic acceptance of the inevitability of death; and more than the acceptance of death as the least-worst of alternatives - for someone worn-down by pain and weariness. In other words, the willing embrace of death means more than death as analgesia, sleep and rest. 

Death should go beyond mere passive acceptance to a voluntary and positive choice. When a Christian follows Jesus through death to resurrected life eternal; this is an active and conscious matter - which entails repentance (recognizing and discarding the sins that are incompatible with Heaven).   

The willing embrace of death was modelled by Jesus in the Gospel accounts; but it follows naturally from a desire for salvation - which can only come via death.  


It may be of vital importance to know the point at which the price of life becomes too great. 

A Man may find himself confronted with the possibility of 'clinging to life' at the cost of doing, saying or thinking some-thing that he knows to be a deep and damning sin. At such a point; a Christian needs to be able to recognize that this is the time to die. 

Such a situation may become more frequent in the world as it has become. In this totalitarian world of surveillance and control, ruled by powers of evil; more and more Men are in a position analogous to the slave of a wicked master. 


Ultimately a slave may be compelled to do his master's will, or else die: there may be no other alternatives.

Therefore, we need to be prepared to die, prepared willingly to accept death; when what we are being asked to do is would destroy our own capacity for repentance. 

Each Man will know when this point is reached (God will make sure of this) - although he may, of course, choose to pretend that he does not know. 

Obedience and death-delayed; or refusal and death-now... 


The devil delights in presenting such a choice when he feels confident of the outcome; and he must surely be confident that most modern Men would do or destroy literally anything when they believe it may delay their own death - as the 2020 birdemic made crystal clear. 

If that choice comes to us, and when the price of obedience is damnation; a Christian needs to acknowledge the fact, and the irreversibility of the decision. To refuse martyrdom may be to embrace damnation.

It is as well to be prepared. The cost of wrong choices we can see depicted in the History of Numenor.   


Monday, 10 May 2021

Is it un-Christianly immoral to assume that The Authorities are actively-evil?

Quite a lot of self-identified Christians seem to believe that their faith requires them to live by the assumption that The Authorities (however defined) must have good intentions - perhaps because they are supposedly (in some way) 'ordained by God' to hold their positions of authority. 

And some Christians also believe that it is immoral for anyone to assume that those in-charge-of large institutions (whether international agencies like the UN, national or local governments, churches, medical and scientific institutions and the like... are evil by motivation; are engaged in active, strategic evil. 

It was, until 2020, sometimes allowable to assume that the leaders of large corporations were indeed immoral. But this is now apparently forbidden - since Big Pharma and the Silicon Valley Tech Corps are the biggest of big corporations, and it is no longer permissible to regard them as evil - on pain of severe sanctions. 


Such are the tests of these End Times. 

To remain Christian we are called-upon to make a distinction between this-world and the-next; between the reality that while resurrected Heavenly Life is in full accord with God's purposes; in this earthly mortal life evil may triumph at any and every level - including that of the Authorities of this-world. 

This ought to be very obvious, but is not; because of the breadth and depth of corruption; which is unprecedented in world history - so comparisons between Now and The Past can be grossly misleading.  

All past societies were predominantly religious (in one form or another) until about a century ago (the Russian Revolution) - and until about fifty years ago the Godless societies were in a minority. 

Nobody else has ever lived in so thoroughly Godless a world; nobody in the past experienced a whole world in which religion has been so pervasively subordinated to worldly concerns as we find ourselves in since early 2020. 

A nothing-but-materialist world to such an extent that the religious and spiritual dimension of life has precisely zero effect on actual policies and strategies: all world religions have been subordinated to this-worldy agendas in a very extreme and obvious way...


Yet this has hardly been noticed. 

Suddenly it has been declared (for instance) that watching stuff on a TV monitor is spiritually the same as participating in religious rituals. 

Holy places, shrines, churches, temples can be closed... and nothing significant is lost. 

Missionary work and evangelism (which many sacrificed-for greatly and even gave their lives to do in the past) are simply set-aside. 

Pilgrimages that were essential and transformative in 2019, became inessential and worthless in 2020. 

A pastor visiting his flock can be replaced by masked people communicating by phone. 

The priestly laying-on of hands for blessing and healing, the human-divine touch, is (it turns-out) merely an optional-extra with no objective value. 


Thus (pretty much) all the leaders of all the religions (including Christian churches) have gone-along with this overturning of however-many centuries of core religious belief. 

Such scale of apostasy cannot be undone. One cannot suspend wholesale all the most sacred activities - around which religions were built - and the 'restart' them as if nothing has happened. 

And this plain fact is obvious to the devil, even if apparently invisible to the religious leaders.  


Here-and-now we live in a post-religious world

The pretense of all denominations has been revealed, has been enacted - with the enthusiastic assent of religious leadership.


After 2020; we cannot assume that The Authorities are working on the side of God; when they have so comprehensively allied with the agenda of Satan, and have not repented.  

If we, as Christian individuals, really believe that our religion is true - then we must be ready to go it alone, in an ultimate sense - which entails judging and rejecting the spiritual authority of The Authorities. 


Sensible Dissent is always ignored in these End Times - and should be detected and rejected

What passes for 'dissent' in the modern leftist-bureaucratic mass media/ government/ corporate world is what might be called 'sensible' dissent. This is allowed - up to a point - even in the mass media. 

Sensible Dissenters are the people who allow the validity of the goals - but question the current impatient and irrational means to achieve them: the doctrinaire antiracists who resist MLB; the climate environmentalists who prefer nuclear to wind power; the pro-sexual-revolutionaries who are concerned by 'excesses' such as the micro-aggression movement relating to 'pronouns' and child mutilations from the trans-agenda; those who regard the birdemic as a real plague but want more rigorous testing and phased-introduction of the pecks...


Sensible dissent is where the critic concedes all the Big Lies, but advocates a slow, care-full, cautious approach to policy - something much like what Karl Popper advocated in the form of 'incremental' reform, or 'piecemeal social engineering'. 

This is the modern descendent of the Fabian Socialist approach of non-revolutionary gradualism; by which the end-point is pretty much identical with communism - but is reached by different means. Thus it is not coincidental that the most powerful Popperian in the modern world is the man born as György Schwartz. 

The entire modern world, with its totalitarian global government imposed in early 2020 by an unnoticed "grey-coup", represents the triumph of Fabian Socialism - so it is clear why the allowed dissent is merely the 'sensible', rationalist, more-gradualist side of this tradition. 


Sensible Dissent includes the people who really believe-in the Great Reset; and are (rightly!) fearful of unleashing and unrestrainedly-fueling panic and resentment because it will destroy The System. 

They are 'moderate' but ideological Leftists who want a wholly-materialistic System of omni-surveillance and total-control; and who therefore fear the irrationalism, hatred, spiteful destructiveness and capacity for violence of the angry, impatient extreme Left - whose 'ideals' are wholly negative. 


In this era - Sensible Dissent has near-zero traction - it can be expressed, it can even be 'approved' by those who regard themselves as moderate, decent, sensible; but as of 2020; Sensible Dissent is never attended to, it never makes any difference: Sensible Dissent is always ignored.

This because the SD's share the strategic ideals of the crazy-destructive-left and only differ in terms of the best tactics; Sensible Dissent comes-across as dull, boring, feeble, weakly-motivated Old Men or Women - obsolete, corrupted, part-of-the-problem. 

This is a major reason why the rising generation of most-idealistic Leftists always want every year to be Year Zero - they want to delete The Past and all who defend any aspect of The Past. 

This eliminates effective opposition from the patient-gradualists, and accelerates the dominance of the most impatient and hard-line among the leftist-anti-divine-creation-ists. 

All the Leftist energy and drive nowadays is on the side of the stupid, insane, and frankly-evil individuals and organizations (i.e. Chaotic Evil) - those who demand extreme, uncompromising, reckless Action. Now. Those who regard opponents as enemies and that enemies be eliminated.

Demand therefore that opponents be cancelled, suppressed, outlawed; demand riots, destruction, arson, jailings, killings.

...Demand whatever eliminates fastest.  


Sensible Dissent needs to be detected and rejected by Christians (for example, using the 2020 Litmus Tests as a screen). 

The moderate, rationalist enemy is still The Enemy: they are still following the anti-God, demonic agenda - albeit of the Lawful Evil (Ahrimanic) type. 

They are still aiming at the same end (damnation) albeit by gradualist means.


In these extreme, irrational, insane, Sorathic End Times - when the most extremely-evil enemy are ever-increasingly in the ascendant - Christians need always to pursue The Good; and must not be diverted into pursuing the lesser-evil. Because the lesser evil is just a more gradual, incremental, rational, sensible form of damnation.


How sin causes damnation

The usual understanding of Christians is that sin is moral transgression against God's law; and that this leads to the just punishment of being excluded-from Heaven and sent instead to Hell. 

But a close reading of the Fourth Gospel paints a very different picture of what Jesus taught about sin. 

In the Fourth Gospel - sin means death, primarily. 


Death here means to die physically, biologically, death of the body - and thereby to lose our-selves - without a living body we would cease to be our-selves. 

This seems to have referred to the condition of sheol - in which, after death of the body, each Man's soul was reduced to the state of a demented ghost who did not know his own identity.  


Jesus came to take away the sin of the world, for those who would follow him; and this meant that after biological death, instead of every-Man going to sheol, those who followed Jesus would be resurrected to eternal life.  

Thus Jesus came to change Man's previous universal destiny of death/ sheol - and this applied to those who chose to follow Jesus to resurrected life eternal. 


So, after Jesus made 'salvation'/ resurrection a possibility for all Men; then the meaning of sin began to include not only death; but any-thing that would prevent a Man from choosing to follow Jesus

That is how moral transgressions' work' in causing damnation. They are those moral choices that need to be recognized as preventing us from following Jesus to life everlasting in Heaven. They are moral choices that are incompatible with Heaven. 


Repentance is the recognition that these moral choices are incompatible with Heaven - and our willingness to discard these moral choices when we are resurrected. 

This is necessary, because for resurrection to eternal life to be possible, we must each voluntarily choose to discard that in our nature which is incompatible with Heavenly life among resurrected men. 

The reason is that Heaven is a state of full alignment with God's creative purposes; and Heaven is the situation in which Men work-with-God on divine creation. (This is becoming fully sons and daughters of God). 


Sins are what prevent us from having full alignment with God's creative purposes; and thereby intrinsically prevent us from being resurrected into Heaven. 

We need to be able to recognize sins as sins, and to repudiate them: to be prepared to discard them forever when we are resurrected. 

We must be able to discard these aspects of our-selves at resurrection - or else we physically-cannot be resurrected - and this choice of discarding  sin at resurrection is repentance in action


Sunday, 9 May 2021

"Freedom" and "Protest" here-and-now = criminalization of Christianity

From my book Addicted to Distraction (2014) - In the global totalitarian world from 2020; what applies to the Mass Media applies equally to government, corporations, and all bureaucratic institutions (including the main Christian Churches); and all large-scale public campaigns and demonstrations (including those that self-present as oppositional and dissenting): 


The modern Mass Media only unleashes hype for bad things – for things destructive of traditional values (of truth, beauty or – especially – virtue). 

From the Mass Media perspective, therefore, that which is traditionally Good is re-presented as bad; and vice versa. 

People and events presented by the media as Good are always in reality bad; and people or events presented by the media as bad are usually (but not always) Good* – and when bad people or events are not presented as Good, then they are condemned as bad for the wrong reasons. 

Also, if genuinely Good things happen to be presented as Good by the Mass Media; then it will invariably be the case that they also are said to be Good for the wrong reasons. 

Thus, the major output of the modern international Mass Media consists of only four categories: 
1. Good presented as bad 
2. Bad presented as Good (That is to say simple inversion) 
3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason 
4. Bad presented as bad for a bad reason (That is to say explanatory inversion) 

These four categories, which can be summarized as either simple or explanatory inversion, account for all sustained and high impact modern major Mass Media stories without any exceptions.


The one I wish to draw attention to is: 3. Good presented as Good for a bad reason 

This I would apply to any movement advocating Freedom, Free Speech and Free Expression; and to any and all groupings with a negative agenda of 'anti', 'protest' and 'resistance'. 


The simple reason is that there is no neutrality in the modern world; so there is no freedom - and in The West there is only the choice to follow, or to oppose, Jesus Christ. 

Any-thing which says it just opposes 'evil'; which presents itself as a neutral Good - any-thing which presents itself as merely-permissive (asking for generic freedom, human rights, for universal allowing) - any-thing which is supposedly just common sense, or pragmatism, or 'decent'...

Any and all such will in practice, for sure, (whether immediately or soon) be differentially interpreted and differentially enforced against Christians; and Christians-only.   


So, unless a group or movement or any-thing is explicitly really-Christian and also explicitly repents and rejects all Leftist projects - including all the litmus tests of birdemic/peck, antiracism, climate-environmentalism, social/femin-ism and the sexual revolution...

Unless this, we can be sure that the institution, group, movement, demonstration, protest is actually serving the Enemy agenda, the demonic agenda - and is actually opposed to God, the creation and The Good. 


(It was not always thus, but as of 2021 it is thus.) 

*Note added: I have changed my view on this since 2014; because I now believe there are no Good people in public life (indeed there seem to be extremely few people allied with God and creation at all anywhere; nearly-everybody is on the other side whether explicitly or passively. The totality of public life is secular, leftist and demonically-motivated - variations are just a matter of degree). In other words, things have either become a lot worse in the past 7 years, and/or the evilness of public people has become more obvious. Yet 'public people' are often attacked in the media and elsewhere. Good/ God-aligned people may well be attacked - but statistically nearly-all of the people attacked are themselves evil - merely a different type of evil than the attackers. This reality needs to be understood as just one aspect of the evil plan; with concepts such as 'office politics' inside the one ruling party-bureaucracy, controlled-opposition, distraction, PSYOPS etc. Things nowadays are Very Simple.  

Saturday, 8 May 2021

Even in the quietest moments: Thinking about your thinking

Owen Barfield often used the phrase "Thinking about thinking" in a technical sense - but here I am talking in more general terms about a way of pursuing one's own personal destiny in this mortal life. 

The idea is that the purpose of this mortal life - in the sense of explaining why it is we remain alive, sometimes for many decades (rather than dying and - if a follower of Christ - going to Heaven) is to learn; and what we are learning is tailored to what we each as unique individuals, most need to learn (from a eternal Heavenly perspective).

We are able to do this because God - as creator - ensures that sooner-or-later we will have the relevant and necessary kind of experiences from-which we can learn. God cannot 'make us learn' - we need to do that for ourselves, we need to make the right choices, to discern Goodness and recognize sin, and repent etc. - but God can 'feed' us with the experiences from-which relevant learning is best done.

These experiences may come in our external lives - in physical or social events; via people, illness, challenges, creative work or whatever. But experiences can come in other ways - such as dreaming. Thus we can, one way or another, experience anything that we need to experience. 

Another way is in thinking - we may find ourselves thinking some-thing or another, in a powerful, recurrent, obsessive or whatever fashion - this thinking may be virtuous, sinful or not obviously either of these. 

But whatever it is that we are thinking about a lot, whatever we find ourselves brooding upon, ought to be taken seriously and in a conscious fashion. Because this is experience, and we are meant to learn from it. 

Probably it is something we need to decide-about. Something that may point-ahead virtuously, or something we need to clarify and reject. Or, the thinking may be general, vague - yet contain some particular thing that needs to be recognized and discerned. 

My point is that we can always, whatever the situation - and however apparently dull and uneventful - be learning from our thinking; and this may be of extreme importance to our mortal earthly life. 

 

Friday, 7 May 2021

A demotivated world... The birdemic proved that leftist secular materialism offers no positive goal for human life

Secular materialism - which has for this half century become the mainstream form of socio-political Leftism - used to 'offer' the promise of making this mortal life more meaningful; by putting it first and with nothing else to dilute it. 

People who 'lived-for' some other goal, some 'secular goal', then were able to put these goals first - whereas previously they had been subordinated to religion. 


Some of these goals were relatively noble and high: Art for Art's sake was a battle cry of the 1890s, among artists (literary, musical, visual etc) who proclaimed that they were pouring their primary life-energies into art. 

They shrugged off the constraints of religion. Some of these vocational, religious-art-ists were geniuses who achieved at a very high level, albeit at the cost of making modern art a more elite and obscure phase. 

The same was seen in science; where scientists discarded the Christianity (or Judaism) in which they had been brought-up; and placed Scientific Truth as the highest goal in life; not to be compromised by religion - and some of these men were among the great geniuses of science. 

Much more common (especially from the 1960s) were those who discarded religion-based moral systems - to enable themselves (and, they claimed, mankind) to pursue happiness and pleasure without external interference or inner guilt. 

This worked for a while, but was never successful over the long term - leading to habituation, misery, addiction, illness and (often) early death.

Political leftists claimed that Christianity stood in the path of full socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism (or whatever) - and claimed to put one (or, incoherently, all of these) of these as their prime value - replacing Christianity.  

The general idea of setting-aside religion to focus fully on Real Life (on 'making this world a better place') remained a common justification in The West for discarding, even suppressing, Christianity.


All this was revealed as false by the events of 2020 onward.

Then essentially 'everybody in the world' - including the apostles of Art, Science, Hedonism and Leftism - discarded their (supposedly) highest Life values on the basis of the faked birdemic. They instantly and eagerly believed that to 'save' the world from the birdemic entailed degrading or destroying every this-wordly life priority and value; if 'necessary' forever

Those who argued that This Life was everything - hence primary - simply gave-up This Life - apparently in order to... 

Well, what exactly? 

Give up Life to... 'save life'; degrade and destroy all that (supposedly) made life-worth-living in order to... 'extend life'... 

But then: What are these saved and extended lives supposed to be For? 


Once every-thing of value in this mortal life has been suspended without limit - then (for the mainstream atheist-Leftist) there is no reason to save or extend life


So... This is where generations of focusing on This Life Only have led us. 

To a world where, whatever your supposed reason/s for living; when it came to the crunch none of them mattered - and you simply stood-by, lifted not a finger; and placidly watched them all deleted (potentially) in perpetuity. 

Such is the consequence of that chronic, pervasive demotivation which was the unavoidable result of deleting God, disbelieving creation, denying the spiritual, and discarding the real values that these underpinned. 


Living in hope and expectation of Heaven after death; has become Only way to live well (in this life)

When Christians urge themselves, and each other, to live in Hope - hope in expectation of the resurrected Heavenly life beyond death - this is usually mis-understood to mean ignoring this mortal earthly life (both its positive possibilities, and its suffering and despair) in favour of thinking about our future after death. 


This sounds-like childish wishful thinking to unbelievers - living for Heaven sounds like a recipe to waste our mortal lives... But if it meant living for Heaven instead-of for now; this would also be unacceptable philosophically; because it makes no sense for a loving creator God to ask his children to live mortal lives that are futile.

It sounds-like - in trying to be unworldly - Christians are denigrating this world; and pinning everything (including this mortal life itself) on hopes on being lavishly compensated for this worldly-denial by some better future state of being... 

It sounds-like Christians are making a mortal-eternal 'trade-off'; as if Christians are being asked to give-up moderate and temporary satisfactions in this world; for the promise of later and eternal reward in the next world. 

But, however it sound to superficial analysis; properly understood almost the opposite is the case


It is the fact of resurrected life in Heaven that makes possible a meaningful and purposeful life on earth. 

Mortal Life and Heaven are synergistic, not in opposition; but Heaven must come-first, because Heaven provides the frame for mortal life. The frame (of life before birth and after death) that gives meaning and purpose to what is within. 

Heaven provides the eternal frame that makes-sense of your mortal life and my mortal life... But only if we personally have made the choice of Heaven. 


If, on the other hand - like almost-everybody all the time (and self-identified Christians when their faith wavers or subsides, and they fail to repent) we choose only this-world - then we destroy any possibility of a life of meaning and purpose.

Because if life is temporary and leads always to annihilation, and if Men are not children of God the creator (and each with an unique destiny in Heaven) - then there is nothing worth doing in this mortal life because it is not going anywhere, and all possible human (and other) relationships are merely transient psychological blips. 


Only by choosing to live this earthly mortal life in context of Heaven - can we have value and appreciate both earth and Heaven. 

Only by faith in eternity can the little things of our life be known as significant. 


When this life is known as a time of learning, individually-tailored by God for our own spiritual learning - only then we can we take this life seriously as valid and necessary despite everything in this being temporary. 

And despite this life at times being a place of suffering. This mortal life is not meant to be bliss but a time of preparation: preparation for Heaven. What we learn truly, here-and-now, we can benefit-from forever. 

Just as the only route to resurrection goes via our death; so the only way we can learn that which we need for resurrection and for our best Heavenly existence goes via this mortal life. 


So long as you are alive, you have some-thing (or many things) you need to learn; or else God would not be sustaining you. 

That is the meaning and purpose of your life - in other words the meaning and purpose of your life is contained in the experiences of your actual life; including your mental life, your thinking life - and your dream life as well.

Your job is to learn from these experiences - and (as of 2021) that learning needs to be active, conscious and by choice.  


Heaven does not replace earth, does not drain meaning and purpose from this mortal life; but instead your actual and experienced life gets meaning and purpose from Heaven - and only from Heaven. 


Thursday, 6 May 2021

Virtual-Closure, the birdemic, and its peck

The ideal was, presumably, that the virtual world created and propagated by the Global Establishment should be completely disarticulated from reality. 

This could be termed Virtual Closure; because it amounts to the ideologies of the official-media-corporate world becoming self-sealing, circular, self-generating. 

The virtuality no longer needs reality, is no longer affected by reality; there is no way-in for reality; reality cannot refute it. 

Perhaps the ideology of birdemic and its peck are best illustrative of Virtual Closure; since none of the major elements depends on reality in the slightest degree. Nothing about the situation could be affected by any 'revelation' of truth concerning how things really are; because none of it depends on truth - none of it has ever depended on truth. 


To start-with the most fundamental fact - it would not matter if the birdemic virus did not actually exist as a distinct biological entity- but was merely a new label for a collection of pre-existing respiratory illnesses. That may or may not be true - but even if it was certainly-true - it would make no difference. 

It would make no difference if the birdemic was real and had been genetically manufactured as an attempted (and, apparently, botched) biowep - and it would not make any difference whether the biowep escaped by accident or was deliberately released. 

Nothing would be affected if it was true that the official death numbers were strongly, or even grossly, inflated by the inclusion of other causes of death - nor would things be affected if (as official sources claims) the 'real' numbers were underestimates. The rates might be ten times greater or ten times less than stated - and who would care enough to alter our situation?  

The situation would not change if it was acknowledged that the birdemic 'test' is unfit for purpose and not-valid; nor if it was admitted that there are large numbers of false positives - even if it was confirmed that FPs are 100% in some situations...


What about lockdownsocialdistincingmasking policies? What if it turned-out that these were deliberate made-up lies? What if it turned out that everything is ineffective? No change. What if it turned-out that all the above are harmful (physically, psychologically)... very harmful for very large numbers - and what if this was demonstrated 'for sure'? Still no change

And the peck? Policies and attitudes would not change if/ when it turned out that the peck was an inert placebo, feebly effective with worse side effects - or even if it did no good but considerable harm. Even if it was documented to be the greatest health-destroyer in the history of the world; the basic state of things would be unaffected

Nobody cares if the whole birdemic stuff was stage managed by global leaders; nobody cares if these leaders grabbed historically-unprecedented power via the birdemic; nobody cares if they consequently became much richer than anybody ever from the power grab; nobody even cares if the world-rulers are Satan-worshippers who abuse their power to engage in the vilest sins, preying upon the masses, tormenting millions and billions for their own gratification... 


In other words; anything or everything might be real and true; and it be 'proved' with whatever 'evidence' anybody might ask-for - anything might be actual but still the virtual would survive and continue to dominate. 

Perhaps if all-the-above were simultaneously revealed?... 

But no, because 'proof and evidence' for any one thing depends on the validity of other-things; and the other things are (in this instance) all free-floating fabrications.  

So we are stuck with it - stuck with The System; it is un-reform-able, un-improve-able overall. A self-healing, self-propagating web of untruth...


What we can, should and must do (for the sake of our immortal souls) is to recognize and acknowledge reality - because reality is God's creation but Virtual Closure is an instrument of the devil.


Wednesday, 5 May 2021

"If nobody I 'know' is worried - then it's not a major problem - right?" Absence of the Real Self

Continuing on the theme from earlier about behaviour in the modern world (following the spontaneous, evolved, pattern of archetypical female threat assessment) - it is absolutely stunning what is Not regarded as a significant problem. 

If the mass media and officialdom don't mention a subject - or state that it is not a problem, but 'in fact' a benefit - then... well people don't react. 

Because people don't react, then it just isn't a problem. Indeed, it is not really happening At All. 

What you can observe for yourself, what those competent people that you know and trust report to you; what you can work-out by simply logic and common sense reasoning... Such 'evidence' might as well not exist, for all the impact it has on human behaviour.


This has become truly staggering in its scale since early 2020. People's actual daily lives - stretching over a period of more than a year - might as well never have happened, for all the effect it has had on anybody's basic understanding of real and significant problems. 


What is the roots of this extreme failure of inference? 

My impression is that we are seeing the consequences of the sequestration of each person's Real Self

Our individual capacity to reason is derived from the Real Self, which is the part of each man that is divine. When Men are truly thinking for themselves; they are thinking from this Real Self. 

The Real Self looks out upon the world, and - using conceptual and interpretative abilities that are divine and valid - the Real Self makes sense of the world. 


There is a diagram in William Arkle's A Geography of Consciousness that shows how this sequestration of the Real Self can be envisaged. We begin life, all of us, with the Real Self communicating with our surface 'personality self'. 

The personality self develops more and more interconnections due to socialization and external interactions - until the surface personality self gets only a very small proportion of its perspective from the Real Self: a small proportion and easily ignored...

But this process may continue until the Real Self becomes sealed-off by the surface personality; not only ignorable, but undetectable. At this stage the person becomes cut-off from the divine; and floats adrift in the labile ocean of 'communications' between the surface personality and its adaptations to the communications it receives from the outside world. 

At this point the person has no centre, no core, no cohesion: he becomes simply a floating collection of processes and actions. 


That is where we are, here-and-now; for most people, nearly all the time. 

For such people (nearly everybody, it seems) perhaps the Real Self emerges during sleep, or when intoxicated, or during pathological brain states... but then there is typically a different kind of derangement from the abnormality and incoherence of cerebral processing. There may be a core coherence in such states - but the interpretation of external communication is deformed, and its expression is disarticulated from society...  

So, Men deny the reality of the Real Self; because - subjectively - it has ceased to exist. Of course, this denial of the Real Self is supported by public discourse (including biological science, which assumes the absence of the divine - therefore cannot ever detect or measure it). 

The Real Self continues to exist - but is so cut off and excluded from thinking and behaving that it might as well not exist. 


Yet the Real Self is indeed detectable and measurable - objectively, scientifically, publically - by the negative consequences of its absence

Detectable and measurable by the gross biological and psychological maladaptiveness of mass, mainstream, approved, official and broadcast human behaviour.   

The negative consequences of the absence of Real Self from the minds of Men are all around us. 

 

How serious is this threat? Well, if people are freaking-out it must be Really serious - right? (How the System is manipulating women.)

I suppose this can be chalked-down to another phenomenon of feminization. 

There is a strongly differential tendency for women to evaluate the seriousness of a threat by monitoring people's emotional reactions to it. 

This is probably an aspect of women's greater alliance-building, peer group orientation (whereas men must compete as well as cooperate - so peer groups tend to be task-orientated and hierarchical).  


I can see why this way of evaluating seriousness might be evolutionarily adaptive for women in hunter-gatherer tribal conditions; where many women would find themselves as wives living in a relatively strange tribe among her husband's relatives - and would need to 'learn the ropes' quickly, and make alliances with a new group of women. 

Thus, if somebody is offended by what you have said - it is wise to assume that you have said something offensive. When people are avoiding something or somebody - it would be wise to do likewise - to adopt the same attitudes. 

"There is no smoke without fire" is a proverb that was probably invented by a woman; and certainly has been embraced by womankind. 


Yet - of course - under modern conditions where the most powerful female 'peer group' is a virtual construct of the mass media that acts as a maladaptive, hyper-amplified super-stimulus*; and where 'offence' is mass constructed on an assembly line; The System can generate blinding smoke without even a spark of fire. 

So; The System can generate real objective threats (terrorist atrocities, forest fires, outbreaks of arson and violence) in order to justify to men taking some kind of action which The System wants to take.

The threat is real, but it was deliberately contrived. 

The fact that the threat was deliberately contrived by the authorities can (more-or-less plausibly) be denied, or simply muddled - especially when there are a few steps in the causal chain leading to implementation. 

Then men can be made to believe that the threat comes from some external or internal enemy (against whom they have resentment), or is a kind of 'natural' disaster; and men can be made to focus on short-term, 'practical' measure to address the immediate threat. 


And for the women? The System can even-more-easily generate hysterical, terrified responses - reporting, quoting, and (spontaneously or simulated) depicting women (or children) sobbing and weeping, exhibiting apparent fear and trembling and other similar responses. 

These depictions and 'verbatim' reports operate strongly to activate women's empathy - even with strangers - when these are subjectively-experienced as within the woman's (virtual) peer group.

So; when events are cancelled, products withdrawn, activities forbidden - this response means the supposedly-causal threat is perceived as dangerous: hence it is 'is' dangerous. If a person or group is shunned, avoided, or excluded by the (virtual) peer group with which a woman empathically-identifies - then likewise. In effect: "They must be dangerous, or people would not react like that!"  

Such responses 'prove' to women - at a subjective, subliminal, physiological level (that requires no further 'evidence' and indeed which cannot really be refuted by objective evidence) that the threat is real, serious and must be acted-upon immediately. 

This, even when in reality there is no objective threat, or a microscopic and merely theoretical objective threat.


David Icke usefully described the sequence of "Problem - Reaction - Solution" - and this can be observed as a standard trope of modern governance. I am suggesting that there is, within this, a sexual differentiation such that men typically focus on the Problem, and women on the Reaction.

And that for women the Reaction is of such overwhelming importance that there need be no underlying Problem. 

Even it is proved objectively that there is no underlying Problem at all - this may make no difference for women; because they are focused on the Reaction. 


It can be seen that in this respect as in many others, women are more easily and effectively manipulated than men, in the context of the modern, media-dominated society. 

And this is one major reason why the Global Establishment favours women in 'middle-management' type positions - which nowadays includes even national and corporate leadership.

(i.e. All those whose job, especially from 2020, is to represent and implement the policies of the covert world government.) 


*Super-normal stimulus

Tuesday, 4 May 2021

What is the secret power of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings?

There is, there must be, more to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (LotR) than meets the eye - or has been explained by even the very best literary critics; some-thing that goes beyond what a simple work of fiction can achieve. 

This is evident in the initial impact of LotR when I read it aged 14; and was confirmed by the unique intensity and duration of my lifelong engagement with the book. 

I remain fascinated and gripped by LotR; even after uncounted re-readings, background scholarship on the early drafting, adaptations, artwork and a great deal of 'secondary literature' of comment, criticism and analysis. And mainly such a lot of thinking and imagining!

For me, there is nothing else even remotely like this in my life. I am by nature a re-reader, and a background reader; so I have re-read many books many times, and read many biographies of many authors and so on. I have also had recurrent thoughts and imaginings from other books. Yet none of them come anywhere near to the effect of Lord of the Rings. 

Whatever the reason for this may be, I think it hit home immediately; on the first reading. So that probably holds the clue. 

My memory is that I believed LotR was true, and more-true than the normal work around me. This was evident to some of my friends, including the one who introduced me to the book who I heard say this with a mixture of frustration and mockery. To him I was taking it all much too seriously.  

Most people would agree - but from where I am, more than forty years later, I was dead right. Tolkien is realer than ordinary real life - and this has become more true with every passing year as 'real life' became more fake, 'virtual', evil and is now almost-wholly dishonest and deluded. 

But I still find it hard to say just why this is the case, or why this fact was so evident to me so quickly.  


How environmentalism became such a powerful instrument of evil (William Wildblood)

William Wildblood has produced a terse but incisive analysis of how we got into the current position whereby self-proclaimed 'environmentalism' has made itself into a primary tool of the evil global agenda

What is the environment? Surely only someone with no real feeling for God's green Earth could call it that. It is a word for technocrats and materialists. I don't believe in the environment, I believe in the creation and this is the difference. The environment has no Creator. It is a soulless place despite efforts to pretend it is sacred in an atheistic kind of way in which Nature exists above humanity. But God made Nature to serve humanity. We are her gardeners not her subordinates because although we are part of Nature we are also above her. That doesn't mean we should exploit or mistreat her which we certainly have. But the solution is not to make ourselves inferior to nature. It is to treat her properly and with respect. However, she is still there for us not vice versa.

Read the whole thing...


Note added: I should perhaps clarify that I don't myself see nature exactly as having been created to serve humanity; because I regard nature as consisting ultimately of living, conscious, purposive eternal Beings - that, at some level, are making the same kind of choices as we are whether to join-with or oppose the divine creative agenda. On the other hand, nature works as if in service to Man; because God is create-ing at all times with the purpose of providing experiences to individual Men that will be of value for learning during each person's mortal life in preparation for Heaven. However much evil is chosen by men or other Beings, and however much entropic degeneration is operating on earth; God, by active creation, is continually turning evil to serve that goal of post-mortal Good.  

Did the objective, external world change for the better around the Millennium (but we just didn't see it)?

Aha! - that is a trick question. The trick is that c2000 we were supposed-to recognize that the world was Not objective and external - and that instead we, each and personally, participated in creating the reality of the world. 

We were supposed to recognize that this participation in creating the 'objective, external world' needed to become active

And that this active-participation needed consciously to be chosen.  

And for our creative contribution to be Good, entailed that we also chose to be aligned with God's creative destiny. 

The problem was and is that a failure to choose this active embrace of God and creation led to an evil default - which we see all around us today. Instead of actively/ consciously-choosing Good -- Mankind has passively and unconsciously (and in-denial) chosen evil. 


This choice and its consequences was, indeed, prophesied in some detail before it came upon us - it was in the nature of Man's destiny that this choice must and should arise; because the millennium approximately marks the transition from Man's spiritual adolescence to adult maturity - and spiritual maturity can only be chosen, not compelled. 

Instead Man chose spiritually Not to become adult; and instead to arrest development at the adolescent spiritual stage - with predictably adverse consequences. 


Yet, so much of the spiritual expectation of the millennial era was focused around one or other possibility that Man would-be-transformed; that this transformation would come from outside, would happen-to Man... that the world would change for the better. 

People were talking about a vibrational or frequency change, an Age of Aquarius or some other astrological phase change, about moving into a new and more spiritual world and so forth. 

There was a limited recognition that people would need to cope with this beneficial change for it to have maximum value - that we should go-along-with it; should not fight against it; that people would need to recognize and accept the transformation around them. 


There was indeed a change around the millennium - in Men's minds, and also (necessarily) in the world that is not Men's minds (the environment, the outer world) - and this was an 'objective' change - and it was also apparently universal: nobody in the world seems to have been exempted. 

But what does not seem to have been considered as that the good-ness of the change would depend not just on recognition, but also on the activity of men's thinking - on a positive embrace of the divine destiny behind the changes. 

In other words; the millennial change was about the objectivity of a freedom and necessity to choose. The better world was available to those who chose to participate in the world - primarily by the thinking of their real self, by direct knowing of an intuitive kind. But it could not passively be absorbed, and would not be attained without actively wanting it.  


Positive change entailed (among other things) recognizing that this universe is God's creation, that the created world consists of living Beings that are purposive and conscious and in-relationships, and that this world is a place of learning for those who intend to resurrect into Heaven.  

But for those who chose Not to recognize and actively participate-in the millennial change, but instead remained willingly locked-into the prior assumptions that the world is only material, there is no God, the universe is full of not-alive/ dead objects interacting impersonally, and death is annihilation of the self... 

...Well, for such people there was Nothing Objectively Good about the millennium


So, despite that the millennium did see a significant change in the human mind, in human consciousness - and that therefore 'the world' was also changed (because the world does not exist independently of consciousness) - this change was Not Good.

Although the millennial change might-have-been a great spiritual Good - in the event it was evil in effect. 

Because by failing to work with the millennial possibility of Good, was also to choose evil; and willingly to accept the value-inversions of an increasingly anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-life and demonically controlled world System. 

In sum; there was no objective change for the better in the external world around 2000; instead the external world got worse - objectively worse - in response to the Man's wrong choice, and the subsequent worsening decline and corruption of Man. 


And that is why the world really is worse - to the spiritual eye - and keeps getting worse. And why this worseness includes the world that is not Man - 'the environment' as it is post-millennially conceptualized. 

Man's evil choices have affected the reality of creation, which is itself being-corrupted.

The damage cannot be undone, but the trajectory of spiritual corruption can be escaped at any time by Christian repentance and active embrace of God, the Good, and by choosing actively to participate in the living creation. 


Monday, 3 May 2021

Why did God make Men so selfish? (An explanation from William Arkle.)

It is a legitimate question, I think, to ask why God made Men with such a strong predisposition to selfishness? 

The usual Christian response - to point at The Fall of Adam and Eve, and the propagation of Original Sin - does not suffice, by my understanding. Since this merely kicks the can back to the question of why God made A&E the way He did; and made the world such that they fell; and that this sin was then transmitted to all Mankind.

I came across a neat explanation in a recorded talk given by William Arkle in (I think) the early 1990s (which is not publicly available). 


The basic framework is that God embarked upon creation with the intent of enabling Men to become full Sons and Daughters: that is, grown-up divine friends who would become participators in the work of creation; or co-creators working within-God's primary creation.

For this to be worth doing, each Man needs to bring something unique to himself to the work of creation - something that God does not have and could not contribute. 

This is what happens by our mortal life followed by death and our resurrected life in Heaven - should we choose to accept this gift from Jesus Christ (willingly embracing the necessary conditions)   


Therefore (by Arkle's account, modified somewhat by me): 

God chose to create Men with a strong sense of self - even to the point of being naturally selfish (such as most young children ) - and in a world (i.e. this mortal life) that would often sustain that strong sense of self

God's hope was that some men at least (all ideally, but in practice only some) would arrive at a point of totally isolation of the self, total self-ish-ness of perspective; without any compelled belief in God and with no perceived obligation to the divine plan... 

Then - wholly voluntarily and from positive and loving motives - would make the choice to join-with God in his work of divine creation. 

So, innate selfishness was a necessary baseline for Men; but God's hope was that those Men capable of love would come to realize the futility of this selfishness; and would willingly accept Jesus's gift of resurrection into an eternal, wholly-loving and creative life in which our self is voluntarily fully-aligned-with God's creative motivations. 


This strategy can be more clearly understood by considering the alternative that God made Men wholly unselfish, without even a distinct self, and already-immersed in God's creative motivations. 

I think it can be seen that such a creature would be useless as a divine companion in the work of creation. 

This alternative is indeed, pretty much, the world view of Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism - which regard the self as an intrinsic evil (or illusion) and strive to extirpate the self; and to join human-beingness wholly with the divine purpose.

For a Christian, by Arkle's account; this mortal world is a vital place of learning - without which we cannot become the both self-centred and loving-creative companions that God desires. 

In complete contrast; we can see that 'Eastern religion' (pretty much) regards this world as an illusion that must be overcome for us to lose the false sense of self, and re-assimilate with the divine purposes.  


Anyway - the main point I intend to convey here; is that this is an explanation of why Men are made the way they (nearly-always) are, and this mortal earthly life the way it is; and to show how this makes sense and is indeed necessary -- given the assumptions I hold regarding what God is intending by creation, and what Jesus made possible by Heaven. 


Can genius comes from random variation? Can creation come from entropy?

When I was working on understanding the creativity of genius; I came up against the fact that biological and psychological science could not explain real originality, except by positing that it came from 'randomness'. 

The basic model was that an original genius got his strange ideas from a two-stage process of randomly-generating variations upon existing knowledge; and (with high intelligence and knowledge) selecting better new ideas from the spectrum of random-novelty. 

The genius was supposed to be better at generating random novelty (by his high-psychoticism personality) and also better at selecting 'good ideas' from this random spectrum (by his high-intelligence and -motivation).  


This has at least two major problems as an explanation. 

The first problem is that it reduces all genius to the level of the fashion designer who 'creates' new fashions from selecting, exaggerating and recombining old fashions. It reduces originality to mere 'novelty'. 

Thus, it simply kicks the can/ problem-of-explaining-creativity further down the road - to whoever/ whatever came up with the original ideas, that are later being recombined and selected. 

This opens-up an infinite regress.


The second problem is deeper; in that this explanation has smuggled in an unacknowledged metaphysical assumption that 'entropy' and 'randomness' are real and primary in the world - whereas creation and originality are merely derived from these essentially degenerative processes. 

We are assuming a reality in which there is de-geration, but no actual generation! Again we have not explained why there is anything in the first place that can be de-generated, or why there are things with structure that can then undergo entropy... 

We have posited a world in which we focus on that which dissolves creation - but with no explanation of created phenomena arise. 

We have posited a secondary world, a world of secondary processes - and the primary world is always elsewhere and unexplained.   


This metaphysical error is general, near-universal and taken for granted - so much so that it took me a great deal of hard-thinking to find it!

Of course it is easy to know why this strange (and incoherent) assumption happened - i.e. because the underlying intention was that God (the primary creator) Must-Be excluded from any and all explanations. 

And once God is included in the explanation, as primary creator - then it becomes easy to understand that the source or real and original creativity lies in the divine - and in Man's share of that divine nature. 


Why is the public attitude to the birdemic (fake) response so incomprehensible?

The most remarkable thing about the birdemic and its fake 'response' is the absolutely extraordinary public attitude to what has happened. 

There is a truly staggering degree of bland acceptance of gross destruction of society (including at its most basic interpersonal level) which is massively disproportionate to any/all of the posited stimuli. 

What is going on?  


My understanding is that we are seeing the effects of the millennial change in human consciousness that was prophesied by various spiritual thinkers - perhaps most lucidly by Rudolf Steiner

What this means is that Men have changed (all Men) - so that they no longer react in the same way they did. Men are no longer motivated in the way that they were - even as recently as half a century ago. 

And this change of consciousness is innate, comes from within (from each person's choice among divine alternatives and the subsequent consequences. The change was not itself primarily caused by society. 


By 2000 (approximately) modern Man had reached a point in his atheism, his alienation from the world and himself, that a threshold must and would be crossed

This threshold led either:

To an insane-evil type of value-inversion (including moral, aesthetic and truth inversions - and the willing-embrace of disunity of ideas and persons) - with consequent chosen self-annihilation. 

Or, to the divinely-destined (God-intended) change in Man's consciousness that began with Romanticism and pointed at a new kind of Christianity (which I have termed Romantic Christianity).


We are now seeing the fact and consequence of this divergence. 

Those who do not embrace Romantic Christianity in some form or another are taking the 'other' (anti-divine) fork in the path of destiny that leads to moral inversion. And - for the first time in history, and globally - awe have an actually-demonic, actually-inverted, ideology by which evil is believed and felt to be Good. 


So, everybody's consciousness has changed (i.e. everybody in the world - or pretty much). 

Everybody is qualitatively-different now from what they were 50, 40, even 30 years ago; and (post-millennial) younger people are different from how young people have ever been before. 

And these qualitative changes must-and-have gone in only one from two, divergent, directions. 


This astonishing world we live in is therefore only astonishing to those (apparently few) who have - to some extent, however slight - begun down the path towards Romantic Christianity, towards 'final participation'.

And that is exactly what makes the 2021 world so incomprehensible. 


Sunday, 2 May 2021

Understanding the peck-plan - and how Sorathic spite is subverting the Ahrimanic totalitarian agenda

The plan is, apparently, to have the entire world population pecked as a supposed way of addressing the 'problem' of the birdemic. 

(Or, at least, the global masses are to be pecked - since we have no way of knowing whether the rulers are included.) 

The peck-agenda is multi-faceted; and seems to bring together several of the main mechanisms of the Establishment agenda for omni-surveillance and micro-control - and thus looks-like a further step in making The System more comprehensive and intrusive. 


Thus far, the peck-plan is evil in an understandably Ahrimanic way. It is 'business-as-usual' for totalitarian bureaucrats with their God/spirit/soul-excluding agenda of mere-materialism. 

Yet against this interpretation is the striking fact that the peck itself is a 'black box' of various poorly-tested traditional pecks; plus massive and experimental treatments with (versions of) something new, genetically-invasive, all-but un-tested, and therefore extremely hazardous... Thus the peck-plan includes something that is Not a peck, by long-established definitions; but instead a conjectural attempt at genetic modification.

(Gene therapy has never safely and successfully been done in humans. Although in the early 1990s it was touted as the Next Big Thing In Medicine, it has been tried and failed many-fold times over the past three decades.) 


This 'universal' genetic-modification peck-strategy is reckless and hazardous at a scale never before seen in the history of the world. 

Therefore, it may, quite plausibly, over the longer term (multiple iterations of this type of 'peck' are planned) - and likely by several lethal mechanisms - lead to some kind of (deniable) giga-death scenario.

But how this type of giga-death would pan-out (who would be affected, and in what way; and the consequences) is not knowable; not even approximately knowable --- Not only because death at this scale has never been seen, but also because so little is known about this type of treatment and the problems it will cause. 


My point here is that if the peck-plan was straightforwardly Ahrimanic in its intent - that is, about surveillance and control; then the peck itself would have been made as harmless and low-risk as possible. 

Indeed, a placebo peck would probably be the best strategy - since a placebo would allow the apparatus of surveillance and control to be implemented without adding unpredictable risks. 

But there is No Way that a genetic 'peck' with unknown and potentially massive hazards would have been allowed by genuinely-Ahrimanic leaders - let alone encouraged and enforced on a mass scale. 


This is one of the reasons I have come to believe that the Ahrimanic powers have already lost control of the revolution they initiated with the global coup of early 2020; and that there has already been a takeover by the Sorathic spirit. 

Takeover by the Sorathic spirit his happens spontaneously, because evil is corrupting - evil feeds upon itself, gets worse over time (as often seen in the greatest sinners of history; who usually started out not-so-bad). 

Thus when Ahrimanic evil successfully established a system of world governance in 2020 - it thereby opened the possibility of a more direct and short-termist form of 'negative evil'. 

This evil operates on individual, not at a System-level. The bureaucrats of Ahrimanic evil are typically seething with personal resentments (based on sex, sexuality, class, race, etc.). These personal agendas conflict with the effective operations of The System; and personal motivations need to be suppressed and over-ridden for The System to operate.  

Yet, because the System has such one-sided world dominance; evil-motivated individuals (whether demons, world rulers, national politicians, managers and officials, or low level operatives) are continually tempted towards abandoning the long-term objectives of strengthening and extending The System; and instead engaging in sheerly spiteful immediate acts of vengeance and destruction, directed against those they hate and resent.  

This short-term, selfish subversion is the temptation everywhere in The System; and it becomes easier to indulge and harder to control the larger and more dominant the System becomes. 


Also, Sorathic spite is so extreme a motivation; that those in its grip will even sacrifice their own well-being, and even their own lives, in order to torment and harm those individual, institutions or groups that they most resent. 

This means that normal methods of controlling individuals (through incentives and punishments) become ineffective when someone is consumed by destructive spite. 

And it is Sorathic spite that I perceive behind the genetic-peck. The Ahrimanic plan of the currently-named Great Reset is already collapsing under the subversive effects of Sorathic spite. This, indeed, may be the reason why it was decided at last explicitly to inform the general public about the details of the Great Reset.

This Establishment Plan has been known in outline and implicitly by those with insight for many decades, going back into the early 20th century when it was described by several authors including outsiders like Rudolf Steiner, Hilaire Belloc and CS Lewis; and insiders such as HG Wells, Aldous Huxley and George Orwell. 


But now, just as it has achieved its greatest success; the Ahrimanic Plan is under threat from within, by the subversions of many and dispersed Establishment functionaries and demonic overlords... 

So the Ahrimanic elites are (desperately!) trying to recruit support from the masses - at present by dishonestly pretending that the internal Sorathic threats are actually external threats from wholly imaginary power-groups of Christians, white sooper reamitists and the like. 

Obviously, this is counter-productive to the Ahrimanic agenda because it will encourage the Sorathic tendencies in the managerial and functionary class by rationalizing acts of vengeance and spite against the hated victim class of white, native, straight, men. 

And once the Sorathic stage of evil has been reached - there is no going back, because those in the grip do not want to go back. That's why these are the End Times. 


Saturday, 1 May 2021

Two hundred thousand people!!! - Dr Evil strikes again!



Yesterday I read that Dr Evil claims there have been "at least" 200,000 birdemic deaths in India!!! 

In an 'inexplicable' recurrence of the absolutely terrible, oh-so-devastating, unprecedented plague that is filling the world headlines. 

Yes, people 200K... really and truly!

Naturally there are horrific pictures of the official response to what must surely be the near-annihilation of (probably) the largest nation in the world; selected by the truth-seeking global mass media from a few localities in that vast subcontinent.  

It's just as well that nobody in the world knows that there are more than 1.3 BILLION people in India, and that billions have a lot more zeros than thousands

Living in a world with no future

Typically, the future only has an impact on the present when the future seems predictable - or, at least, when future change is going in what seems to be a predictable direction.

But how do we live in world where we do not know the future except that it will be very different from the present?  


Clearly, a Christian needs to confront the future with trust in God... Trusting, that is, for the possibility of his own ultimate spiritual well-being - and Not (this is a common mistake) trusting God to ensure the continuation or thriving of abstract grouping of (mostly) anti-Christian people, such as The World, nations, churches or whatever...


But we live in this material mortal world, and are meant to live here; and you and I are meant to be alive here-and-now; so we cannot/ should-not (even in theory, and it isn't possible in practice) be striving to live 100% in the spirit and ignoring This World. 

In sum - although we should strive not to 'live in the future'; nonetheless we simply must strategize; that is we must plan, and some of these plans must be long-termist

OK; but how On Earth can we approach living in this world - given that it is globally ruled by demonic powers; and that its future (if there is a future - which is never certain) is going to be different and worse, yet not predictably so? 


My basic perspective is that trusting in God implies that - in an ultimate sense - life comes to us

So that we need-not, and I think probably should-not, be looking ahead in the kind of way encouraged by mainstream secular society; which is to develop some kind of day-dream or blueprint about the kind of life we want, and then work-towards it. 

It seems to me that trusting in God implies that; because God is creator and each of us a beloved child of God, God will therefore ensure that what we most need to do and ought to try will come to us. That is, our (divine) destiny may present itself in our lives as some kind of choice or decision. Or, perhaps more likely - will appear to our consciousness as recurrent and pressing thoughts

Now, it should be obvious that many or most recurrent and pressing thoughts will be arising due to the propaganda system of the evil mainstream... Yet, we all have (if we choose to recognize and use it) an innate and ultimately divine capacity for discernment that can tell us when recurring thoughts are 'higher promptings' - even when we do not understand them. 


Indeed, I think it usual that we will not understand the promptings of divine providence - we are more likely simply to identify promptings with confidence than we are to understand them. And even less are we able to know where these thoughts will lead if we follow them, as we should. 


Thus, a divinely guided life will be an adventure. We will be invited to choose courses of action that we know to be Good, and to be prompted by God; but we do not understand exactly why, nor do we know where they will lead.  

Obviously; as we embark on such strategies, we will not switch-off our powers of discernment; therefore we will continually be checking that we haven't merely fooled ourselves, or fallen for some kind of evil snare. 

Repentance is always available and has infinite power. 

But the main requirement is this need for a shape to life; and that we cannot (literally cannot - i.e. nobody does) dispense with plans and strategies, with some shaping future-orientation. The above may be considered as one potentially motivating - and even exciting - way of doing it. 


Friday, 30 April 2021

Creativity and Christianity - in Traditional compared with Romantic Christianity

The can be a conflict between creativity and Christianity - in the sense that being a Christian can be experienced as a constraint and inhibition on creative work. 

This has been experienced especially since the Romantic Era (from the late 1700s) - and some of those geniuses (and others) who were most deeply committed to their creative work (whether in arts or sciences) made 'a religion' from their creative work - took it with the utmost seriousness and made great sacrifices. 

In the 20th century, indeed, it became usual for the greatest creative geniuses to be raised as Christians (or sometimes as Jews) and then to reject Christianity in favour of a kind of 'Genius as Hero' ideology. 

Creativity and Christianity began to be seen as antagonists - since if a genius put his work first it seemed to mean putting Christianity second, which is not to be a Christian at all... 


Yet it was Christianity that sustained the greatest works of genius. And being raised in a religion seems all-but vital to serious creative work; so that when society became thoroughly atheist - creative genius all-but disappeared and is by now undiscerned, disvalued and even suppressed. 

This because without a basis in 'the transcendental'; creativity becomes subordinated to expediency - careerism, money or status seeking etc. 

It seems that unless a genius 'understands' his work to be contributing to divine creation (and this 'understanding is usually implicit) - then he will not give that work the effort and priority which the highest achievement requires. 


So the relationship between Christianity and creativity has become complex. This is because very few people have been raised as serious Christians over the past few generations; spontaneous, un-conscious Christianity is a thing of the past. 

As of 2021 serious Christians are, in effect, adult converts - because in a secular society even serious cradle Christians will need to make at least one (often more) renewed conscious commitments to their faith.  

To be a creative person and to convert to Christianity as an adult can be a significant challenge to creativity. Because when an adult converts he is (nearly always) converting to a particular church or denomination; with a complex framework of rules and expectations. 

Converts are held to a higher standard than cradle church members - and are usually required to make vows and promises of a rigorous and binding nature. 


So the creative Man who becomes a Christian typically finds himself having made a serious commitment to work from-within a detailed and rigorous framework of constraints and expectations. 

This framework of Christian (denominational) practice, doctrine, theology and authority may well interfere with his established creative practices. He may feel his thinking repeatedly bumping-against boundaries - to cross which would seem to take him beyond orthodoxy and obedience. 

He may well feel himself creatively confined - and, at the extreme, may feel safe only when repeating that which has been said before; ringing changes rather than being truly original... 

Consequently, his work may lose its spontaneity, distinctiveness, energy and flow -  it may become second rate, derivative, un-creative.   


I interpret this from the perspective of the changing nature of human consciousness; and that Romanticism ought to usher-in a new way of being Christian that is ultimately based on shared motivation and alignment of creative work, rather than an explicit and external framework of rules. 

The creative Christian (ideally) ought to be working-from, rather than working-towards; working-from the basis of sharing the Christian priority of love. Creating is something that should come from a base of commitment; rather than something that operates inside a framework. 

The hope of Heaven is based upon a commitment to live eternally by love, in Heaven; and to embrace the transformation that is resurrection which makes this possible for Men.

So the Romantic understanding of Heaven is a place where love overflows into creating - a place where our 'work' is co-creating with God; as was the case with primary divine creation when it was the love of God was the cause of Creation in the first place.

 

In other words; Romantic Christianity aims to make genuine, innate and endogenous personal creativity one important way of being a good Christian, a taste of Heaven itself - rather than an incipient source of conflict. 

And this 'works' by aiming at a harmony derived from a basis in love rather than from a set of rule. 

As so often, the loving family provides the best analogy (which is, indeed, more than analogy!); because the family is supposed to attain harmony not primarily by adherence to a framework of practices and rules; but instead from the mutual love of its members. 

Family members are aligned by having the same aims (so they are pointing in the same direction) and then by mutual concern for the other members: a fluid kind of adjustment which is experienced as the voluntary desire to remain in harmony and to help other members in their own loving and creative endeavors.


If creativity is understood in this fashion; then it is indeed optimal from the creative perspective. Instead of Christianity being felt as constraint, it instead provides meaning. 

After all, real creativity is not solipsistic, it is done for the creator alone. Creativity must ultimately be be for others; it needs an 'audience' who will understand, appreciate and use the creative work. 

Romantic Christianity looks towards a world in which everyone is a creator and also audience; and where creator and audience are united by the divine purpose and harmonized in their work by their commitment to love.