One of the most profound distinctions (so-called 'polarities') forced upon us by these times, is the stark choice between each person making his own inner-discernments about the truth of reality; or else a willing and willed embrace of what we know to be a world of lies and manipulations, emanating from the institutions of The Global Establishment.
There is really very little, and diminishing, middle ground between my-self and the World Government. There used to be many more-or-less independent and autonomous institutions - such as churches, professions, trades unions, city and regional government, and many and various media... all kinds of 'sources of evaluation' from groups who were substantially separate from each other, and from the increasingly-unified and mandatory narrative of today.
But all of these middle institutions ('civil society') - which used to stand between the individual and the 'official world' - have either been destroyed or assimilated by the single, global, bureaucratic-media complex.
The one-permitted system of evaluation today is leftist, atheist-materialist in its assumptions - and more-and-more obviously evil overall and by intent. Hence the compulsory 'truth' is based-on lies; and dishonest and manipulative in all its significant operations.
So - here we are. Each of us confronted by the stark choice of believing in our own, personal, individual and perhaps unique evaluations; or else yielding (by choice) to a world of lies and evil.
It used to be assumed that anyone who was in a minority of one concerning what he believed was 'by definition' insane. Now - when the whole world has gone mad and will die to retain its delusions - the only sane people are in a minority of one.
Everyone has this choice to make, and everyone in practice has-made their choice. Do you stand alone as a unit of discernment?
Or do you voluntarily (because it is always a choice) surrender to and believe - that is live-by the discernments of - the world: when this ruled is ruled by Satan; and all who conform to worldly-evaluations are in service of evil?
To refuse individual discernment in 2021 is to make the choice of damnation.
To be in the situation of 'me against the world' is certainly Not 'to be a Christian'; but it has become the necessary prerequisite.
I must be very "modern" because to me it has always been implicitly obvious that everybody believing a thing to be true doesn't make it true, especially when it is believed to be true solely on hearsay from the media and other big institutions (the bdemic is only the most brazen case of a pattern which has on a much smaller scale been going on ever since the media was created)
But my attempts at trying to persuade people close to me not to get the peck, and indeed, to in general stop being useful to the Bdemic agenda, has shown me to what extent consensus which flows from whatever wordly-power-source they pledge allegiance to is the bottom-line criteria for most people. I have literally been challenged along the lines of "if what you're saying is true, then how come I'm not hearing it from anybody else?" or "but you're the only one saying it... why should I believe you when you're the only one saying it?" (Broadly, I was making the case that the birdemic crisis is *not* about a virus, and etc.).
Any attempts to show and explain based on a picture which "fits the dots" much, much better than the media-narrative (a feat which is quite easy because the media-narrative fits almost no dots at all) is almost always met with this bottom-line filter by those who haven't decided that they're not ready to be treated like guppies (who are in a minority).
The above is common for those of the boomer generation (aunts, uncles, parents, in-laws, etc). The younger generation do not frame their acquiesence to the lies in such fashion - I suppose their own indoctrination makes it hard to admit that their acquiescence is driven by mass-consensus, since their pride still demands they feel they're not on the side of the establishment they purport to fight. They prefer to use nonsensical slurs - such as "that's denialism", or "bourgois lack of concern for the working poor" (extraordinary, but I've been accused of this on the basis that the Bdemic kills the poor because they are forced to work out of need, so those of us who aren't poor owe it to them to "check our privilige" and stay home...).
The conclusion is that fealty to worldly-authority (that is, authority which is recognized as such because "others", who are likewise authorites based on the same principles, say they are... the famous "inter-linked bureaucracy) kills, both spiritually and physically. However, lack of fealty to these authorities doesn't guarantee you'll avoid problems, but at least, you'll save your soul.
But in truth, its possible this has always been true, with few exceptions, so having the absurdity of those with this so-called autohrity shown so nakedly is in fact a blessing we have received.
@Gary - Your account shows well the effect of the past year on our understanding of the real situation in the world. It is much easier for us Now to see the extent to which this is the case.
"everybody believing a thing to be true doesn't make it true" - The strange things is that, at some level, everybody does Not *really* 'believe' the official account - yet simultaneously they do believe it. They know they are being lied to (everybody knows that everybody else is lying) - yet they choose to believe the lies because to do otherwise would be to isolate oneself, psychologically and indeed spiritually.
Having made the decision to 'believe' that which we know is built on lies, then it is easy to find reasons why we must and ought to believe the lies. Traditionalist Christians of all denominations are as likely to do this as anyone; since they can appeal to church authorities, bits of scripture, theological arguments etc - which point-out that individual judgment is heretical, subversive etc; and that real Christians must follow external guidance if they want to be saved.
"having the absurdity of those with this so-called authority shown so nakedly is in fact a blessing we have received."
Yes it is a blessing - considered in proper perspective; but it is unfamiliar and terrifying for most people to choose to be in a minority of one about anything. Yet that is what is demanded of us.
Indeed there may have been a day of as Galbraith described of "countervailing power" generated by independent institutions which could countervail through different perspectives or in the extreme deter totalitarianism. No more. There are no institutions wielding countervailing power. They are all arrayed against the individual--you are all alone in the ring. On the one hand terrifying on the other if you are a person with faith in G-d its kinda fun in an odd way.
It's more and more clear to me how traits I have that were very maladaptive earlier in life, and have cost me more than one career, are now adaptive, spiritually speaking. I have what might be termed a rebellious nature, or an inability to "go-along to get-along."
Now I'm thankful for that gift. Thankful to God.
You are right that people both believe and don't believe the narrative. My own brother recently tested negative when he thought he had the birdemic. Then, when he felt fine, he tested positive one day, then negative the next. He said, 'this is nonsense." Then he went back to his belief in the system and craves the peck.
I literally can't understand how people are able to internalize such conflicting data, and harmonize it.
The obviously true interpretation - that the virus, to the extent it exists, is hyped as part of a global, evil agenda - fits the data very well. It explains many otherwise bizarre phenomena. Yet to state it in concise words, as I do now quite often, causes people's eyes to literally get wide, and they cease speaking. I have a magical power.
@RJC - yes, indeed. And Galbraith was an extreme leftist for his time and place.
Such civil society/ countervailing power was very evident in the 1970s and 80s (I worked in medicine, academia and science - and all had considerable autonomy; as did the legal system.)
But by around 2000, a tipping point had been reached. Since then there has become - in practice - essentially no alternative centres of power - all has 'converged' into the global system, wrt to major factors; such that there is no significant institutional opposition to any of the policies that The System considers as major.
And what individuals think is irrelevant to The System, which regards individuals only in terms of System functioning, as (replaceable) unit steps in algorithmic processes.
Individual judgment now has no positive status and dissent can only be negative. Thus, if you dissent as an individual, you Must be ignorant, insane or evil, or more than one. There can be no Valid reason for dissent.
Bruce's last response to RJC made me think of something. Is it possible that the takeover of more and more of society's functioning by code - by computer algorithms - has contributed to the view of individuals as mere "unit steps in algorithmic processes"?
As a leftist (but somewhat honest) thinker whose name escapes me once wrote, "code has now become law." That is, when computer systems run things, such as the mortgage/finance system, the laws on the books no longer matter. What matters is how the computer code that runs the system is written.
I also have noticed, in my lifetime, a progressing idea of human consciousness (usually referred to wrongly as brain processes) as similar to computer processes.
Regarding the destruction of countervailing, independent powers that could insulate individuals from the central power, and act as sources of alternative views, Tocqueville wrote about the fact that democracies tended to destroy such countervailing powers in the early 1800's. That could be partly why the System pushes fake democracy with a vicious, militaristic fervor, and the only holdouts (if they are real) in the world are rather authoritarian, Third World nations that have not quite taken the ticket yet.
Wonderful post! Thank you!
A few thoughts:
It's amazing how many different motivations there are for people to believe the lies. Including:
* Desire to conform
* Virtue signalling
* Status signalling
* Commitment to previous error: "It is easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled."
* Foolish reverence for lying "experts" based on "credentials" and "authority"
* Prideful belief experts and media exist to inform people rather than persuade us
* Prideful belief that upper middle class professionals are *part* of the global elite rather than victims of it
* Cowardly decision to indulge the lies out of "etiquette" or "respect for other people's health fears"
* But most of all, as you point out, Bruce, people are choosing Evil
We must now think for ourselves, no matter how isolating it may be.
I'm reminded of this quote from John Derbyshire:
"The dissident temperament has been present in all times and places, though only ever among a small minority of citizens. Its characteristic, speaking broadly, is a cast of mind that, presented with a proposition about the world, has little interest in where that proposition originated, or how popular it is, or how many powerful and credentialed persons have assented to it, or what might be lost in the way of property, status, or even life, in denying it. To the dissident, the only thing worth pondering about the proposition is, is it true? If it is, then no king's command can falsify it; and if it is not, then not even the assent of a hundred million will make it true."
Anyway, thank you again for this wonderful post!
@J - " Is it possible that the takeover of more and more of society's functioning by code - by computer algorithms - has contributed to the view of individuals as mere "unit steps in algorithmic processes"?"
Yes - Search "Naydler" on this blog.
The trouble with Tocqueville's predicting this 200 years ago, is that civil society became extremely strong in the US for several generations afterwards - maybe stronger than in anyplace in the history of the world.
Great point about all the civil society countervailing powers/ centers of independent opinions. They have all withered away and we now have an atomized populace worshiping an evil centralized system.
There was a good book called "Bowling Alone" that described the breakdown of civil society in the United States.
Another excellent book is called On Power. It describes how an "insecure" central power feels compelled to destroy any subsidiary powers, which it sees as potential competitors.
This theory has great predictive value--it helps explain why federal governments want to weaken state governments, local police forces, and even local clubs. And why this tendency is much more pronounced under Democracy than under, say, the Divine Right of Kings.
But...to a large extent the analysis is worldy, materialistic, and atheistic. In truth, it's not just "the nature of power" that has caused the destruction of civil society / countervailing power. It's also people's willing acceptance and embrace of Evil.
@Charlie - Thanks.
The Derbyshire quote is accurate, but refers to a temperament, a psychological type - which is probably somewhat hereditary, but at any rate something 'given' rather than chosen.
e.g. I am of this type, and it has been a major factor in my life (both for good and also often for ill). But I did not choose it - I was simply made that way. And not many are.
We need to go beyond that and recognize that:
1. Anybody can (and should) choose to be a dissident in their spiritual life.
2. Among dissidents, only *some* will then make the crucial choice to become Christian (after all, Derbyshire himself is not a Christian).
@Charlie: "an "insecure" central power feels compelled to destroy any subsidiary powers, which it sees as potential competitors."
Well, I don't believe that is the deep explanation - I think the deep explanation concerns the nature of evil (the strategies of demonic beings). I have written about this under terms such as "Ahrimanic" and Sorathic" - but the point is that at the strategic level the destruction of civil society is not a reaction due to insecurity; but an active strategy being pursued first to create an evil total system; and then at a later stage the desire to destroy all that is of God's creation.
My now-estranged sister is a true believer in all the birdemic mummery, and is infuriated by the sight of rule-making bigshots like mayors, governors, and administrators brazenly flouting the rules everyone else has to follow. "One rule for them and one for the rest of us!" she fumes. But she never carries her thinking any further than outrage.
For example, if the guy who makes the rules knows that they're useless and doesn't follow them, then why should we? Oh, no no no, we can't go there. Instead, she takes refuge in your description above, that the scofflaw must be insane, evil or stupid. (Usually stupid; evil and insane are reserved for Christians and conservatives.) Which then raises the question, why should we follow the directions of a person who us so mentally and morally deficient? Why should any rule made by such a person be worthwhile? There's no answer to that, except that the rules are designed to "keep us safe" and must be followed.
@DM - That's a good analysis. It shows that there is no coherent way of believing in the official birdemic narrative, and that the problems are close to the surface (given serious, consecutive, coherent thought - which, IF we give Him a chance, God will help us with) - so that anyone is (in principle) capable of reaching the obvious and correct conclusion, and by various routes (as you describe).
Great points about the dissident temperament! It is "given" rather than chosen. And it's fairly rare. (I too am of this type.)
Many (but not all) with the dissident temperament have seen through the birdemic propaganda, but we aren't enough people and our contrarianism is often unpersuasive when pitted against all the psychological (and demonic) pressures on people to accept and embrace the birdemic propaganda.
So I agree with you that what is needed is individual discernment. AND Christian belief.
Hence Romantic Christianity.
You've pointed out, correctly, that true believing Christians seem almost uniquely able to see through the birdemic propaganda. We don't worship The System above all else, we believe in life after death, and we have a better-honed ability to detect Evil (while many atheists deny that Evil even exists).
But individual discernment is required, because "organized Christianity" is in the vast majority of cases now fully part of The System. In fact, many churches now plaster their new creed right on their (closed) doors: "We proudly fail all three Satanic litmus tests here."
I wonder, is there anything should do to help promote individual discernment and Romantic Christianity among those who are much more "social" and conformist in their intellectual and religious temperaments?
(You're already doing amazing things in this regard with your blog. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything you think people like me can do in our own lives to gently encourage people we know to think for themselves and bring Christ into their hearts.)
@Ch - "Many churches now plaster their new creed right on their (closed) doors: "We proudly fail all three Satanic litmus tests here.""
That's very good!
I'm afraid I am no good at advising anyone, except sometimes people I know very well - maybe...
Post a Comment