Wednesday, 8 February 2023

Candlemas season - harbinger of spring

It isn't spring yet; but this is a great time of year for observing the change of the seasons. 

Snowdrops are at their peak; these being the first of the new year's flowers:


And now we are seeing the first of the crocuses (or croci, as I prefer to call them) - which are the first ground flowers giving a splash of - rather lurid - colours:


Up in the trees - which remain completely bare of leaves - are the birch, hazel and alder catkins:

Then there are the songbirds, which have suddenly ramped-up their volume and frequency; generating an irresistible excitement. 

Yesterday, I heard one of the loudest blackbirds ever! - but it is mostly the small birds, with their high pitched twittering, that are evident.

In sum; although February is often the coldest, and sometimes a snowy, month here - we are in no doubt as to the change of season. After several weeks of what feels like biological inactivity from around the winter solstice; this season of Candlemas (or Imbolc) is one of stirring life; as well as growing light. 


Note: I did Not take the above photos - but the first two are from where I live in Newcastle upon Tyne. 

Into the New Age - a summary of what did happen, and what should have happened

There was a great deal of speculation in The West of the late Twentieth Century concerning a New Age of consciousness that was approaching around the millennium. 

In a sense other that its advocates intended; this was in the event correct - and now the New Age is here, and we are now living in it.


Men here-and-now believe what they want to believe, but it is probably clearer to think of this in terms of Men choose the reality they inhabit

And it is the nature of Men's choices that determines the reality they inhabit. 


The characteristic is that in this New Age, Men choose their own reality

Everybody is doing it - whether they know it or not; but with differences. The differences lies in whether the chosen reality is true or false; and whether the choosing is conscious or unconscious, active or passive, inner or outer, personal or groupish. 


Most people have unconsciously absorbed an externally-devised false reality - and do so, apparently, in order to have a feeling of being members of a group. 

This choice is of the totalitarian-made and officially endorsed and imposed virtuality

Some accept and embrace this false reality as real - these are the mainstream leftist-materialists. 


Others choose some other non-mainstream but external, groupish and partly-fake reality; which is converged-with (although not - yet - fully absorbed-into) mainstream secular leftism: these are those who get their world view secondhand from churches, or other social institutions. 


In a world where all groups are (more, or less) participants in the totalitarian fake-world; the only way of choosing to believe and inhabit the real-and-true world is by choosing actively, consciously, for oneself - and from oneself.

And surely this is what God wants from us

Surely this is precisely what Jesus asks from us in the Fourth Gospel


Tuesday, 7 February 2023

What is The worst thing in the world? The devil or the human ego?

I am surprised that so many self-identified Christians disbelieve in the devil; not only because there are so many biblical references, but also because a devil makes strong sense both metaphysically (in terms of an explanation for the world as a whole) and empirically (as an coherent way of explaining and predicting the specific occurrences of this world). 


I commented some time ago that a Christian who was as scholarly, influential and respected as Charles Williams; nonetheless didn't believe that the devil was real

I found this confirmed in my current re-read of his novel The Greater Trumps, where the character Sybil (who is clearly intended to be the depiction of a very-near Saint - although not convincingly to my mind) says this in her internal monologue:

She did not, in the ordinary sense, "pray for" Nancy; she did not presume to suggest to the Omniscience that it would be a thoroughly good thing if It did; she merely held her own thought of Nancy stable in the midst of Omniscience. She hoped Nancy wouldn't mind, if she knew it. If, she thought, as, the prayer over, she put on her other shoe - if she had believed in a Devil, it would have been awkward to know whether or not it would have been permissible to offer the Devil to Love in that way. Because the Devil might dislike it very much, and then... However, she didn't believe in the Devil...   

Elsewhere in the novel in several places, it is clear that Williams regards the most evil thing to be the Ego, the Self; because the characters who are depicted as doing Good are expunging their sense of self of agency, of separateness. 


This is a common trope, indeed, among many self-identified Christians through the past 2000 years - I mean that being a "Good Christian" entails a destruction of any recognition of oneself as a separate being from God - the goal is to merge with God, or at least allow God and Goodness to flow through oneself. The self is ideally to become transparent, immaterial - the self standing aside and - eventually - being discarded. 

In other words; I am suggesting that among those who regard themselves as Christian but who do not believe in the devil; it seems usual to believe that - in effect - The Ego is the devil. 

Sometimes this is even stated explicitly; but even when unstated it seems to be implicit in analysis and discussions of evil; because the attribution of evil tend to converge upon the separate and strong ego of a person - often the separated selfhood of the Christian himself is regarded as the primary evil in the world.  

This substitution of the devil by the ego in a context of the primary desire for oneness is, I think, one path by which someone who regards himself as Christian can come to deny the reality of the devil.


This fits with a metaphysical theology that all Good comes from God, and (therefore) for Men to become Good, requires that they cease to offer any obstacle to the shining forth of God's Goodness. 

When God is regarded as omniscient and omnipotent, it seems logical that Men can add - from themselves - nothing to Goodness; which is (by definition) already complete and perfect. 

Since Men can add nothing to Goodness but only obstruct Goodness by their innate evil; Men should, ideally, therefore become empty, become like conduits for the expression of divine Goodness.  

What I am getting-at here is that this is another version of my old bugbear "oneness spirituality" - the only officially- and totalitarian-approved modern spirituality - once again confusing people and masquerading as Christianity. 


I tend to think that oneness spirituality is a point of convergence both of Christians who really-believe in in a mono-omni-God with whom the Christian ought to assimilate; and those adherents of 'Eastern religions' (Hinduism, Buddhism) who believe in a more pantheistic and abstract non-personal deity - that is 'everything'. 

The conceptual gap is bridged by the soaring abstractions and infinitudes of 'Classical' Christian theology (i.e. using concepts from pre-Christian Greek and Roman philosophy - especially Platonism and Neo-Platonism). In other words; abstractions and infinites applied to God conceptually-merge the person of God into a de facto impersonal deity. 

I mean the "mainstream Christian" theology that has, as fundamental, assertions of the Oneness of The Trinity; God's supposed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.; and an infinite gulf posited between creator and created.   


What I am saying is that someone who takes seriously, and rigorously pursues the implications of, Classical Christian theology; will find that - one the one hand - he is converging towards a oneness spirituality (and the stance of 'perennial philosophy'); and on the other hand will disbelieve in the devil specifically and the operations of purposive spiritual evil more generally - and will regard Man's self/ego as the biggest spiritual problem in the world. 

Firstly, both of these are harmful in the context of the spiritual challenges for Christians in 2023. Because the Western Christian churches have been corrupted and enlisted on the side of evil; this implies that such a fact will be invisible to one who disbelieves that there is a 'side of evil'.

Furthermore, when the churches are corrupt, the individual Christian must operate from that which is Good in his own self/ ego - as the basis for discernment and seeking spiritual guidance. Unless there is the possibility of recognizing and committing to the Good within us, we cannot discern God's guidance from without-our-selves. 

If, instead, we are trying to dissolve our selves into the Omni-God, or into the divine-which-is-everything (it makes little practical difference which); then we are trying to destroy the only thing that might save us in an institutionally-evil world

 

Addendum: I make further speculations about what Charles Williams may have been up-to in this passage, in an Note to the mirror copy of this post, published at The Notion Club Papers blog. 

Monday, 6 February 2023

What does it mean to Cope?

Many words are spent and much ink is spilt on discussing how to cope with this or that event or stress in life. 

But what does coping really mean? 


People use coping to mean something like 'maintaining functionality'; implicitly functionality in the world as-is - continuing to work, keep house, or perhaps basic self-care. 

Some people regard 'keeping cheerful' as the hallmark of coping. At the limit, coping may mean simply 'staying alive' and 'not killing oneself'. 

Indeed, coping seems often to mean little more than mere-survival. 


(Coping, as commonly used, does not even amount to biological viability - since it does not require the desire, willingness or even capacity to reproduce and care for offspring. Quite the reverse, in recent years - when human reproduction is treated as more like a pathology or sin.)  


But this-world is ultimately spiritual; and coping therefore ought to consist in more than animal survival - especially when that is conceptualized as analogous to the survival of a farm or zoo animal. 

And that spiritual reality is Christian. So, what does 'coping' mean for a Christian? 

Coping with the vicissitudes of life ought to mean maintaining the commitment to salvation, despite whatever


In sum; coping with a situation or event should refer to a person's capacity to retain faith in God and hope of resurrection to Heaven. 

In extremis - this may mean losing a great deal else of this-world: functionality, livelihood, health... even life. 

A martyr copes by accepting death. 


All of which is a long way from the mainstream ways that people talk about coping...


Immiseration, disease, disability and death are only means to an end for the evil rulers of this world

The non-Christian dissenters reliably get their basic conspiracy theory wrong, by imputing the wrong motivation to the globalist totalitarian rulers. 

The secular thinkers believe that They want to immiserate the masses, cause vast swathes of diseases and disabilities, and reduce the world population down to less than 10% of its current levels. 

The secular conspiracy thinkers believe that the Establishment seek power and wealth, in order to live lives of perverted pleasure by exploiting everybody and everything else...

All of this is true - but these are not the ultimate goal of the ruling conspiracy; merely a means to the end of damnation


Think about it: if They primarily wanted to destroy living and life, then They would just have gone ahead and done it already. 

After all They command vast destructive power, in innumerable potential modalities - far too many to be stopped, and it is trivially easy to harm human beings en masse if that is your major goal. 

But; although there are plenty of mid-level operatives who desire nothing more than to wreak terror, torment, and termination upon their 'fellow' Men; this is not the overarching goal of those in ultimate command of the ruling Establishment. 

The ultimate rulers are either demons or those humans who are utterly in thrall to the demonic agenda; and the demonic agenda is the damnation of souls, and Not the destruction of bodies and minds. 


Of course, the demonic very much want destruction of all kinds; but only when it leads to Men choosing damnation; and in-a-nutshell this means persuading the masses to consent-to and desire their own immiseration, disease, disability and death. 

That's what the vast apparatus of the mass (and social) media are all about, the take-over of officialdom and bureaucracy, the corruption of education... All of this is to try and ensure that the masses agree-to, and indeed ask-for, their own destruction. 

That is the basis of the vast Litmus Test strategies - the sexual revolution, birdemic-peck, CO2 global warming, antiracism and the Fire Nation war... Leftism/ atheism/ materialism in its most general sense. 

All of these are ways of making Men invite evil into their hearts, to invert true values, to desire their own destruction. 

The ideal scenario of is of the mass of human beings willing their own misery (as with lockdowns, social distancing, masking, antiracism, feminism etc.); asking-for their own disease (as with the peck, climate policies); and seeking their own deaths (as with the self-inflicted economic annihilation of The West from the birdemic, climate change, affirmative action; and now its wished-for military annihilation by world war). 

A topical example is the large numbers of the Western intellectual classes who - in the name of preventing an imaginary CO2-caused Climate Emergency - desire Men to cease reproducing; to live static lives of maximum hunger, poverty and slavery; and then die ASAP in order to cease consuming, breathing and metabolizing. 


This is not how Men naturally see things, but how demons see things. 

The bottom-line for demons (which, after all, are evil spirits, and do not have bodies) is not power or wealth; but instead the spiteful lust and sadism of inducing human souls to choose lives of fear and resentment, to die in despair and with hatred of God; to reject Jesus's gifts of salvation, resurrection and Heaven; and to choose Hellish damnation as their eternal situation. 

That is (more-or-less) what the conspiracy aims-at primarily and ultimately: spiritual, not physical, mass suicide


Saturday, 4 February 2023

AI (Artificial Intelligence) is worse than what it will replace: but it will happen anyway (assuming we let it)

I am bemused by the deluge of credulous drivel being written about self-styled AI (Artificial Intelligence) across the blogosphere. 

But, unfortunately it confirms what I wrote five years ago, and which now seems worth revisiting. 

AI will be worse than whatever it replaces - but it will happen anyway; this because AI is an extension of bureaucracy, and bureaucracy was worse than what it replaced (Much worse); but bureaucracy happened anyway. 


For so long as this world is ruled via bureaucracy, for so long will AI be imposed not only despite its being worse, but also because of the way that it is worse.

Which is that AI is dehumanizing - entraining Men to 'process' like computers - thus destructive of thinking; is anti-spiritual, and a short-cut to self-damnation.

Put like that; it's obvious why AI is irresistible to the demonic global totalitarians rulers, their deluded minions, and the corrupted masses over whom they rule.


How to refute and filter-out the "outlandish and bizarre" content from Rudolf Steiner - using a method that Steiner himself fundamentally-approved and recommended

Of all the important thinkers of the twentieth century, Rudolf Steiner is perhaps the most difficult to come to grips with. For the unprepared reader, his work presents a series of daunting obstacles. 

To begin with, there is the style, which is formidably abstract, and as unappetizing as dry toast. But a determined reader could learn to put up with that.

The real problem lies with the content, which is often so outlandish and bizarre that the reader suspects either a hoax or a confidence trick. 

Books like Cosmic Memory, with its account of Atlantis and Lemuria, seem to belong on the same shelf as titles like Our Hollow Earth, or My trip to Venus in a Flying Saucer

The resulting sense of frustration is likely to cause even the most open-minded reader to give up in disgust.


The first paragraph of Rudolf Steiner, by Colin Wilson, 1985.

*

The Big Problem with Rudolf Steiner (as I have said many times) is that most of what he said and wrote was wrong; but some of what he wrote is sufficient to establish him as one of a handful of the most vital thinkers of the past couple of centuries. 

But because most of Steiner (a very high percentage!) is wrong; on the one hand, most people reject his work outright; while on the other hand, Steiner's disciples and followers (mostly in the Anthroposophical Society, which he founded) are mostly wrong in what they believe - to the point that they miss the significance and importance of what he was right about.  


What Steiner needs, therefore, is scholars who will take was is good and leave aside what is not; and the closest we have to this is Owen Barfield who, in addition, added much of value to what he took from Steiner. 

But even Barfield seems to have been unable to be clear about the nature of Steiner's work, and respected him to the point that he never (that I have seen) denied anything that Steiner ever said. What Barfield instead did was - in his writings - focus on the aspects of Steiner about which he was most sure; and said little or nothing about the colossal number of claims that Steiner made about... everything under the sun, and indeed from many ages before the sun. 

Barfield always recommended Steiner's earliest philosophical books; but did not make clear to the putative reader that most of Steiner's later books will strike most people as simply absurd, and obviously false. 


My understanding is that the major problem for those who regard Steiner as important, and who accept his core analysis and teachings; cannot find grounds from within this teachings for rejecting anything that Steiner ever said or wrote. 

Steiner purports do be doing a spiritual science; and repeatedly emphasizes that anyone can test his claims for themselves by spiritual investigation - yet, in practice, it seems that nobody ever feels able to do this, and must therefore treat all of Steiner's claims as if they constituted inerrant scripture.  

This seems to be because Steiner was able (at will) to produce in himself - while awake and alert and with full reasoning and memory capacities - a kind of consciousness that perceived the occult world - from which he reported back his observations and interpretations; and nobody else has since been able to do this. Certainly not in the vast volume that Steiner did in his lectures after about 1897, and accelerating until near his death in 1925. 


Because Steiner's followers cannot do what Steiner did to generate his claims, they feel unable to check his claims; and therefore simply take them on trust - regarding them as true because Steiner said them. Steiner discourse is therefore closely analogous to 'fundamentalist' Protestants in terms of Anthroposophists citing their scripture, and argument proceeds by proof-texting - by trading quotes and citations. 


For reasons that I set out in the post earlier today; I believe there is another and practical way of checking Steiner's claims; which can be done by anyone serious about understanding what is valid in Steiner, and using methods that Steiner recommended as the best and himself practiced

And that 'method' is simply by reading Steiner in the spirit of direct-knowing, of heart-thinking

Instead of trying to replicate Steiner's method of observing the hidden spirit world by inner perception; the reader tests Steiner's claims by intuitive means. 

Whenever a claim of Steiner's fails to be sustained by heart-thinking, whenever his premises or a line of argument is unsupported by the direct-knowing of our deepest thinking - then it is rejected as untrue. 


In other words; we accept from Steiner only that which is specifically sustained and confirmed by our own deepest-possible intuitive responses. 

This, I repeat, is exactly what Steiner recommended in those works of his that he regarded as his most important (specifically The Philosophy of Freedom, which he repeated many times was his fundamental publication). 

Therefore, we can - and in a viable and valid fashion - refute the mass of Steiner, and filter-out from the nonsense that which we most need and could benefit from. 


How can we know the hidden, super-sensible, spiritual world that is 'behind' the perceptible world? (concerning Rudolf Steiner)

I am re-reading Colin Wilson's excellent book about Rudolf Steiner: the man and his vision (1985) - which he opens by saying that Steiner's core assumption is twofold: that there is a super-sensible, spiritual world hidden 'behind' the everyday world of the senses - and from-which the perceived world is derived. And secondly; that thus world is knowable by those who choose to develop their latent abilities. 

So far, this is hardly distinctive; except that the way in which the hidden ('occult') world was discovered was not by trance, dream or other 'hallucinatory'-state but by an intensification of the alert, awake, clear thinking that Steiner regarded as characteristic of science.

Steiner therefore called his practice a Spiritual Science (and the specific type of spiritual science he recommended, he termed Anthroposophy).


But when we are told of a spiritual world behind the perceptual world; this naturally seems to evoke a picture in our minds of two perceptual worlds. 

In other words, we often imagine the surface everyday world of solid-things, then - separated from it by a barrier - another world of spirit-things. 

When we imagine ourselves knowing the spiritual world, therefore we imagine seeing/ hearing/ touching the spiritual world by something like of an extra set of new senses.  


At times, especially in his later career as a leader in the Theosophical Society then originator of Anthroposophy; Steiner writes exactly like that about his own experiences. 

He describes observing, in an inward fashion, the activities of spiritual beings such as the so-called-dead or angels, on planes of reality not perceptible to the senses. 

Steiner describes (what seems like) observing events of the life of Jesus, or the evolution - and re-incarnation - of the earth; and/or the history of reality in 'Akashic' records that sound like scrolls recording everything that ever happened, but which can be seen and read by inner sight.  

This seems exactly like traditional religious experiences of a 'hallucinatory type'; seeing visions, hearing voices, perceiving other times and places... But with the difference that Steiner had these experiences - not in the context of a trance or dream or religious ecstasy, but in everyday waking consciousness.    


But at other times, Steiner seems to be clear that the understanding of supersensible reality comes by direct understanding, into the realm of thinking; and therefore Not by means of observing inner perceptions with new inner senses. 

(This is the message of his early books Science and Knowledge, and The Philosophy of Freedom.) 

This is what I have variously termed primary thinkingheart-thinking, or direct-knowing; and is a type of intuition. 

It is envisaged as learning without the intermediary of first perceiving some kind of representation like a picture, and then needing to understand what one has perceived. But with direct-knowing, instead the understanding comes into our thinking without mediation - the subjective experience is that knowledge simply 'arises' in our thinking.  

Such a mode of direct and unmediated knowing, is a much rarer and historically more distinctive way of penetrating to the hidden world of the spirit. 


My conclusion is that Steiner did both: Sometimes he perceived the hidden world of spirit with inner vision: Other times he knew the hidden world directly, in thinking. 

But he failed always to be clear about which he had done, and about which was the better mode of knowing.  

Of these; direct-knowing is the more fundamental and potentially valid way of understanding the hidden spiritual world; because any form of inner vision must entail the further step of interpreting its meaning. 

Whereas (by my understanding - not Steiner's) the perceiving mode provides a very high volume of potentially very specific information - but its validity is much less than direct knowing. 

Because this kind of perceptual information can be 'manufactured' by learnable techniques of meditation, and produced almost at will by those with aptitude. Yet, at the level of specific detail, each such 'visionary' will produce his or her own unique and unreplicable description from observing the hidden world - as can be seen from comparing (say) Swedenborg, Blavatsky and Steiner; or the various New Age channelers of the late 20th century.

(Although Steiner seems to have copied then modified a great deal of Blavatsky's general descriptive scheme of metaphysics and history.)    


To avoid confusion; we would need to avoid talking about the super-sensible world in ways that conjure up an inner world of pictures, stories, observed beings. 

We would need to cease talking about experiences such as watching the work of angels, reading the Akashic records, hearing the words of spiritual guides and the like, feeling our hands driven to engage in automatic writing - and other similar things.  

In sum: There is a hidden spiritual world, and it can be known; but it is ultimately known-by-knowing, therefore not known by (yet another) layer of perceiving. 


Friday, 3 February 2023

Information from known liars - what to do with it?

Dishonesty is a sin. And perhaps the commonest, least acknowledged, least-repented, hence most damaging sin of the modern world. Habitual liars are unrepentant sinners.  

Information from known liars should be ignored, if possible. 

Such information should be regarded as false; but it is usually impossible (and not worth the effort when it is possible) to discover the truth behind the lies. 


But information from known liars cannot always be ignored. 

When the known liars have an agenda and enough power to advocate or enforce it, then they cannot be ignored; and because dishonesty is a sin, the agenda of known liars will be evil.* 

A decision must be made; and then whatever they are advocating or enforcing should be resisted

The point is (again) not to check the truth of information, because even when the presented information does happen to be factually correct; the interpretation of what it 'means', and the supposed-implications for action, will be dishonest - and in-line-with the liars manipulative agenda. 


This is, or used to be, simple common sense and normal human nature. After all, Mankind has always been troubled by liars and psychopathic manipulators at all levels of society. Men have developed ways of dealing with this, by instinct. 

But common sense and human nature have been subverted and confused over many decades; not least by the overwhelming prevalence of strangers, and very large and bureaucratic institutions such as governments, corporations and the mass media. 

At the end of which; the mass of people seem to have adopted a standard behaviour pattern of credulous obedience to all information from large bureaucracies - even when experience teaches (or, ought to teach) that these produce only dishonest and manipulative information.


Thus, in the modern world; information and guidance from the biggest known liars in the world is nonetheless assumed to be truthful and motivated by concern for our benefit; unless proven otherwise (and how could this ever be proven, when the biggest known liars control the availability of information, dictate permissible interpretations, and officially decide upon its 'authority').  

What could possibly go wrong? 


*Before I became a Christian, in early 2008; I experienced a politically-correct international media firestorm directed against me. 

What I noticed is that, although I had broken a leftist taboo and written of a 'hate fact' (i.e. that on average those of lower social class are significantly less intelligent than those of high social class); this was not enough for the media; who in addition lied that I had written other things I had not, even fabricating entire "quotes" that I had never said, nor anything like them; and were, as it happened, almost the opposite of what I had written. 

I did not understand the reason for this at the time; but now recognize that such gratuitous lying (i.e. lying without need) is absolutely typical of those who have committed to the side of evil in the spiritual war. 

This, I presume, is the sense in which Jesus said of the devil: "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it". Such lying is a hallmark of evil. 

Thursday, 2 February 2023

"More than Memory" - the felt-desire for Heaven, described in the Fourth Gospel

Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!

Words spoken at the death of Aragorn, in Lord of the Rings. 

My strong conviction is that I must have "more than memory for my life as-a-whole to be worthwhile, positive, a joy.

Before I became a Christian, the meaning of life depended - ultimately - upon memory; and memory is partial, lacks immersive reality, corruptible by time and disease, gets distorted with use and fades from disuse; and is sooner-or-later lost completely


Thus; if memory is the most we can hope-for; then life is ultimately meaning-less. 

And this is the case even for Tolkien's elves; whose memories are imagined as being as vivid and as immersive as real-life; and far more robust and accurate than a Man's could be. If memory provides the meaning of life; then life must become (as for the high elves) tragic and retrospective, a walking backwards into the future; contemplating visions of that which was good but is no more. 

For me: memory is not enough, and never could be enough. 


What my heart demands for satisfaction (that life may, even in principle, have personal purpose and meaning) is more than memory: and that is creation

Memory is a representation of reality, a copy of what has-happened; but what is needed is that whatever is valuable of reality never be lost from reality; that the past continue to be inhabitable - not just a picture that we contemplate. 

And this is exactly what Jesus seems to be promising in the Fourth Gospel; when he compares the evanescence of this mortal world, with what He has to offer us via death and resurrection.

 
Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you. 

We find here an opposition of the perishability of this world, including memory; and the heart's desire of that which is everlasting; but which is attainable only via the transformation of biological-death and resurrection:

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit


One who insists on clinging to the things of this mortal life - even the best things - can never have more than memory (at best). 

But one who is willing, in faith, to die and follow Jesus Christ; can receive the gift of dwelling in the eternal reality of that which is only contemplated by memory:

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

For we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world!


Wednesday, 1 February 2023

Rabbit or Man in-the-Moon - waxing or waning gibbous

Is there a Man in the Moon, or a Rabbit

It's partly a question of moon phase - and I have a theory as to how the two ideas arose.

The Rabbit is associated with Easter (Easter Bunny...), and is best seen when the moon is in the waxing gibbous phase - leading up to full moon; and this phase of moon is best seen in the evenings. 



My theory is that the people who were watching the moon wax towards full, in order to know when Easter was to arrive (with Easter day coming on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox... approximately). 

Easter spotters will have been observing the moon during the evenings of the waxing gibbous phase - when the Rabbit is the most obvious appearance; and the Man's face is not visible at all. 

By contrast, the waning gibbous moon is best visible early in the mornings.
 



Those who were outdoors and saw the moon at this time of day were probably on their way to start work, maybe a bit down-hearted; and in a mood to appreciate the cock-eyes, ironic grin of the old moon; affectionately regarded as an old Man...

That is all a bit tenuous, I agree - but the Easter rabbit idea works quite neatly. 


Note: The above photos do not illustrate the Rabbit or Man at all obviously, compared with what I see with the naked eye - indeed I cannot find any decent photos online. It is apparently one of those things you just need to See For Yourself. 

The appearances are most evident when the moon is nearest the horizon - the rabbit when nearest moon-rise and the man nearish moon-set. This is due to the (at my latitude) c1/3 clockwise rotation of the moon from rising to setting. 

Thus the rabbit begins with ears horizontal, but by moon-set the rabbit is on his side, with ears pointing down - and not obviously a rabbit. 

Similarly, for the Man's face to have eyes at the top is most evident getting towards moonset.


Every change for the worse

It was in the 1990s that I first noticed - working for the National Health Service, active as a scientist, and teaching in a University - that every single change that was actually implemented always made things worse. 


It took me a while to notice; because I was pretty heavily involved in policy discussions - through academic papers, journalism, and talking on radio and TV. 

And at that time, the discussions were still quite interesting and wide-ranging; and it was possible to be honest and to have clear debates about most things. 

But, after a while, I realized that these discussions made no difference at all. No matter if proper motivations, good sense and practicality had more evidence to support them, the better arguments and won the debates; nonetheless the policies that emanated from government and via central management of large organizations and got implemented, were always bad.  


It soon emerged that whatever the central administration of the NHS, science policy, or university did, whatever changes they actually made; was always for the worse. 

A particular proposed-badness might lead to opposition and be stopped - but there would soon be something-else bad that did happen. 

Deleterious changes soon began to accumulate - badness building-upon badness, badness permeating the institution, badness taking-over all functions. 

Always bad, never good; always change for the worse - never for better. 


This is so obvious nowadays, that it is hard to remember that it was not always the case; and that at first people simply would not believe it. Especially in the universities; there was a very strong desire to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to leaders and bosses, to assume that policies were well-meaning and might be good. 

(Doctors were more skeptical, in those days.) 

It was regarded as nasty and cynical for me to assume that whatever it was that They wanted to do, and whatever Their reasons and arguments in its favour; it was sure to be harmful in practice.

Conversely; if an idea was good, and would make things better; then you could be equally-sure that it would not happen.   


But nowadays there are not even good discussions, real debates or positive ideas - the whole discourse has been corrupted so that 'controversy' consists only of competing bad ideas. 

Or else any good-ish ideas permitted into the discourse are so insignificantly minor as to be guaranteed to be disregarded and ineffectual in face of the trends of the larger systems. 

When only bad ideas are permitted into discourse and when bad policies are the only ones that happen; one might suppose that the inference would be obvious - undeniable! - that The System was purposively bad, that the leadership class was motivated to do harm. 

I would have thought it obvious that any other cause than deliberate evil would sometimes lead to good outcomes. Surely; when the change is always in the same direction; the causes cannot be random; and an only-adverse trend cannot be due to accidental errors or incompetence. 

Randomness and incompetence would err in both directions: only a powerful, indeed dominating, controlling-purpose can ensure that, over time, change is always for the worse.  


Yet there are still plenty of people, and a clear majority of the intellectual middle classes, who would deny that every change is for the worse, and every high level policy is designed to harm. 

Even among those of a skeptical mindset, the idea that the leadership class are deliberately imposing harm is something that is resisted very strongly indeed, regardless of the evidence. 

What confuses such people is that, while change is always for the worse; that worseness can be of various and contradictory types. While bad change always benefits somebody, that somebody seems to vary - and changes benefits first group A, then group B, and then harms both groups A and B... 

A great deal of words are expended on trying to discover a single group of human beings who always benefits from all of the always-worse changes; but there is no clear and simple answer. Such a group can only be argued on the basis of highly-complex and hyper-flexible, un-disproveable, theories that do not advance understanding or prediction.


The clear and simple answer is that the single group that always benefit from all of the always-worse changes is not human but demonic; and therefore operating on the basis of a negative agenda directed against divine creation, and against the salvation of Men. 

This group manipulates and plays-off various groups of human beings; favouring sometimes one and sometimes another - with no consistency or coherence...

Because there is no need for consistency and coherence so long as creation is being destroyed and Men are being damned. 


So, my retrospective understanding of the 1990s was that this was when the demonic over-rulers began to dominate global, national and institutional change throughout most of the world. 

And this was why the only change permitted to happen was adverse. 

And it was the beginning of the present era when all large scale policies and discourse are always designed to harm that which is Good. 


Tuesday, 31 January 2023

An example of specific divine guidance in my life

I do not like blogging about my own spiritual experiences; partly from reticence and partly because spiritual guidance is designed for the benefit of the recipient not as general teaching. 

Furthermore, each experience of personal miracles, or of the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has been so different in its specifics; that the major lesson for me has been that there is no method for such matters. 

(Indeed, to teach or assume generic methods for the Christian life, or to convert personal mystical experiences into advice, seem likely to do more harm than good.) 

On the other hand; it may somewhat encouraging for other people to know that a long-term and deep personal question for which I sought a response for some years did, in the end, receive an answer - albeit slowly and by a very indirect and not-replicable route.


I am not going to discuss the answer I was given; but I will describe something of the strange and unexpected way that an answer was communicated to me - in such a way that the process got past my fundamental misunderstandings and false pre-conceptions, and convinced me intuitively of its validity. 


I have often observed that when a question does not get an answer from divine sources; this is almost always because the question is ill-formed, and contains fundamentally wrong assumptions. These are why God cannot answer us - despite His vast resources. 

Furthermore; we are (nearly always) looking for the wrong kind of answer - and often something which is self-gratifying, or perhaps fits with false ideas of our own nature and destiny. 

This may explain why I was not able to get an answer of value or validity to the question oft what I ought to be doing in my life. I had too many fantasies and day-dreams that blocked my understanding. 

So, God's problem, in trying to help me, was to work past a great mass of such preconceptions, false understandings, wrong notions of the kind of thing I sought; and the tendency to ignore the true answer if given me straightforwardly, because the simple truth 'wasn't what I wanted to hear'... 


The only positive thing I was able to do to assist the process was to maintain my intent to find an answer over a period of years. I didn't give up. 

Admittedly I wasted considerable time, money and effort on dozens of false leads; but I kept plugging away - and followed hunches. 

What proved essential in the end; I let myself pursue lines of enquiry that had some kind of here-and-now interest to me; even when these appeared 'rationally' to be dead-ends, or trivial. 


Thus I have recently been re-reading around the subject of Christian 'ceremonial magic' - in particular the books of Gareth Knight and Dion Fortune, who I regard as admirable people. But I had already read these authors in the past couple of years, and had become clear in my mind that such a ritual and symbol, organized, approach to Christian living was now obsolete: it simply does not work anymore. 

I have also been re-reading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, and focused on the episode when Childermass uses his 'Cards of Marseilles' (i.e. Tarot cards) to tell the fortune of Vinculus, and later to discern dishonesty and theft by Lascelles. 

Such reading led me to re-watch some DVDs of a nostalgic children's TV series from the early 1970s called Ace of Wands; which featured the hero 'Tarot' - a professional stage magician who also had some psychic powers such as telepathy, remote visualization and telekinesis. 

Having enjoyed this; I then got-out my Rider-Waite Tarot Card pack, which had featured in the TV programme; and looked-through some of its pictures.

Having replaced the cards, I absent-mindedly attempted to place it on a table; when the pack accidentally fell to the ground, and two cards jumped-out - and lay face down on the floor.  

It then came to my mind that these two cards would answer my question about what to do in my life.


I immediately thought that this was stupid, because (no matter how valid the process) I would always read-into the cards whatever answer I wanted: in other words, I would fool myself, and therefore the exercise would be useless. 

I don't believe in fortune telling; I don't believe that divination works (nowadays - although it did work in ancient times - up to the early years of the Roman Empire); and I certainly was not seeking 'guidance from the cards'.  

Nonetheless, I picked-up the cards one by one; and immediately recognized that the first card depicted myself and my condition: not as I fondly imagined myself, but as I actually was. 

This came as a shock, and I turned over the second card with some curiosity. 

The second card was one of the Greater Trumps, and I did not know its (supposed) meaning; so I looked it up in the leaflet provided - all the while thinking that it would be futile, because the descriptions are (like newspaper horoscopes) always so vague and ambiguous that they cannot possibly be sufficiently specific to serve as clear guidance for life...  

I read the sentence describing what the card meant, then - after a couple of seconds of dawning recognition - I realized that this was exactly the answer I needed and it was true

The generic phrases each and all had specific relevance to my condition.


The answer was obvious, banal, simple - and it was clearly the truth; yet I had missed it and missed it, for a very long time. 

I had to be set-up for this knowledge, in the right frame of mind and expectation; and I had to be surprised by the answer. 


What I think can be learned from the above is that if we persist in seeking an answer to an important question; then God can and will find a way to get that answer to us; and will prepare us to receive that answer

And God can do this even when we are (as I was) asking almost exactly the opposite question to the one we needed to ask; and when the mind is clouded and confused by innumerable wrong notions and hopes. 


Therefore; don't give up, and be prepared to follow where inner promptings indicate - even when these are pointing in apparently trivial or useless directions. 

And I think it is worthwhile to recall that the answer will be personal, very exactly tailored to you as an individual and your circumstances.

Also; the method by which God works to deliver the answer will be... Whatever does the job - and that method, too, will be one-off, unique - hence completely unpredictable.  

Which is exactly what is necessary. 


The significance of "Never Apologize"; and the Martyr of Repentance

The totalitarian rulers of the Western world are extremely powerful - especially in destruction. 

As well as having control of armies, police, and weapons; they have immense resources of surveillance and propaganda/ 'education'. 

Such a combination of capability and cover; means that people, organizations and things can be eliminated with impunity - since even great evils can be ignored, explained-away, or memory-holed. 


And yet... There are many evil but expedient eliminations that They do Not do.

They do not simply kill-off all their opponents; despite the continual hysterical clamour that They should eliminate such things; coming from mid-level functionaries-of-evil such as managers, journalists, bureaucrats and others of the almost-wholly-corrupted intellectual middle class. 

Why don't They just eliminate their enemies? 


The answer is one that the functionaries-of-evil do not understand; which is that from the top-level of global (Western) leadership this is a spiritual war - ultimately. 

Therefore; what is sought is not the physical elimination of enemies of evil, but instead their spiritual corruption

It is often said that They do not kill someone because They do not want to create a martyr. And this is true; but literally not 'metaphorically' true as is usually meant. 

When modern people talk of not making a martyr, they mean that a martyr might become a figurehead which could inspire resistance from others. In other words; the level of explanation is this-worldly, and materialist, and to do with social interactions. 

But this fear of material-martyrs is probably untrue nowadays; since - apparently - the masses are so demotivated that no thing, no conceivable person or event, will inspire resistance against Them! 


No, the problem with The System killing someone Good; is that when a Man accepts death rather than abandon Good when he could have saved himself by succumbing to evil: a literal martyr, a 'spiritual martyr', is the result. 

In other words; such a Man 'certainly' attains salvation after biological death: A spiritual martyr chooses salvation and rejects damnation as certainly as we can know about such things, this side of death. 

Such an outcome constitutes a disaster for the powers of demonic evil. 

From Their perspective this is not just a soul lost to Them; but an enhancement of the power of Goodness; and this is a power that is available (by direct, intuitive apprehension; and through prayer) to inspire and sustain mortal Men on this earth in their own resistance to evil and commitment to Good. 

Therefore, when an enemy of The System is identified... When any person resists (in any way) plans of the totalitarian global leadership... The objective is that he should be corrupted, not killed


This is the deep reason why anyone who tells the truth in a situation when lies are mandatory, or who does the right thing when public compliance with the agenda of evil, is always pressurized to 'apologize'.

And, conversely, the reason why he should Never Apologize

Because when someone apologizes for saying the truth, or for doing the right thing, or for resisting public displays of support for that which is motivated by evil intent... then that person has been corrupted into taking the side of evil. 

When anyone lies publicly, in some way that is expedient for him rather than truthful - that person is corrupted. 

When a public figure caves-in to pressure (which may, of course, be immense) - but does not admit he has caved-in, and instead dishonestly rationalizes his behaviour as the right thing to do - he is corrupted. 

And, in more general terms; anyone who sins and does not repent it - especially if he denies the sin or defends his compliance rather than repenting - then that person has been corrupted.


It is the prevention of repentance that lies at the heart of all these corruptions

If a public figure caved-in to pressure and behaved without courage, if he also apologized for true things he said and went-along with public displays of support of the Litmus Test agenda items; and if he then lied to cover-up and rationalize all this...

But then repented all of this sequence of sins; for instance stating that this and this was wrong and evil, and that he should not have done them and in doing them had sinned...

Then - by the infinite saving power of repentance - even such a recidivist sinner would be forgiven and washed clean of the stains of sin There-And-Then. 

And if such a Man was then killed for having repented: he would become a real martyr, a spiritual martyr.


It seems important for Christians to be clearer about this. There may be heroic martyrs of great personal Goodness and courage; but these are not the only kind of martyr because repentance may also be the cause of martyrdom. 

Repentance requires courage, and may lead to martyrdom; and a martyrdom all the more admirable because it is less likely to be recognized publicly - and may be unknown. 

A Martyr of Repentance is - nowadays - probably choosing to do the right thing despite very little possibility of recognition or reward on earth; and without any realistic likelihood of inspiring others into resistance to evil. 


I suspect that such a martyr of repentance might - for exactly these reasons - be even more spiritually-powerful than a martyr who might reasonably expect to inspire veneration after his death. 

Such are the deep spiritual realities behind Vox Day's pragmatically-orientated slogan Never Apologize

To apologize for thinking, speaking or doing The-Right-Thing, for speaking truth, for offending against the agenda of evil... such is the opposite of repentance. 


We are all sinners; and sin over and again all through our lives - because sin is whatever is Not aligned-with God's creation. 

Most people in this world are weak in face of social pressure to sin, and are so afraid of the powers of evil that they will not repent - not even in their thoughts (so far as I can tell). 

It is this refusal to repent which keeps them in thrall to evil. 

Yet if there is one thing that Men may do, which the demonic rulers fear more than anything else in this mortal world; it is surely to accept martyrdom. 

"They" will go to vast lengths Not to make martyrs - and will patiently lay siege to virtue with intent to corrupt it to the extent of denying that Good is Good (and instead apologizing for it); to sin while denying the sin and calling it virtue; to induce men to do all this and then not to repent


We are all sinners; and yet every single one of us possesses the ability to deploy this deadliest anti-evil weapon of repentance; this most feared of outcomes by the demons. 

A martyr must be prepared to accept whatever happens, including death, rather than fail to do the right thing. 

But, the demons will not willingly create a martyr; will go to great lengths to avoid such an outcome. 


Thus faith is indeed a kind of armour - even in this-world; so long as that faith truly is directed at eternal salvation.

It is by our investment in achieving expedient outcomes in this mortal life and world, that the powers of evil corrupt and control us; and lead us to self-chosen damnation through refusal to repent.  

Yet, no matter how deep in corruption and no matter the societal pressure towards evil; if a Man can recognize, acknowledge, and repent his sins and accept whatever the consequences - then, at that moment (and for eternity, if martyrdom is his fate), he becomes a light to dazzle The Enemy and push-back the darkness in this world.


Monday, 30 January 2023

Spiritual corruption and the peck: Joining the side of evil is just the Beginning of the matter

I have seen some people reporting that the peck seemed to result in startling spiritual deterioration or corruption in some people. 

The further speculation was sometimes that this was due to some mysterious or hi-tech ingredient included in the peck.


I do not doubt that taking the peck was followed by marked spiritual deterioration and corruption in some people. 

But it is missing the point badly, and indeed falling-into exactly the gross materialism which is being imposed and encouraged by the global totalitarians, to attribute spiritual change to the physical actions of a physical agent that - by unknown mechanism - makes people unspiritual. 


Taking the peck willingly was a decision to join the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world

And in such a war, as we may see in he world today; the choice of sides has consequences. Joining the side of evil is just the beginning of the matter

One who has chosen to affiliate with evil will be led into more and greater evils - and this will continue without limit, for as so long as he desires to remain on that side. 


It follows naturally and inevitably that one who makes such an evil-affiliating decision as willingly to embrace the peck; will exhibit spiritual deterioration, which may be severe in some instances; and will tend to worsen with time*.


*Unless there is subsequent repentance; and, as Francis Berger writes: regret is not repentance

Sunday, 29 January 2023

The desire for open-ended reincarnation and the sufficiency of mortal life

I recently had a very interesting online conversation with someone who - from multiple personal spiritual experiences - believes in the reality of multiple human reincarnations. 

That is not an unusual thing; but this person is someone who I have know over a long period of years to be unusually thoughtful, sincere, and insightful. 

So I pressed him to consider an eternal timescale; and whether - from that perspective - repeating and repeating the experiences of a series and variety of mortal Men living this earthly life - was really sufficient. 

Whether, in particular he could imagine wanting anything better: something better than mortal Men, and living in a world better than this earth?

His answer was no, he did not want anything more - this world, this "plane of existence" was the best he could wish for; even ideally he could want nothing more or better. 


Regular readers will know that I have an extremely different set of beliefs and hopes; and that for me this mortal life and earth do not suffice, and cannot suffice. For me, to contemplate an unending series of mortal reincarnations in a world of always sinful Men and with the inevitability of decay and death; sounds like something more of a curse than a blessing. 

I have characterized this in terms of the fundamentally entropic nature of this mortal life and world; and my desire for a life of eternal creation; that this mortal life is a vital phase between pre-mortal spirit and eternal resurrection - vital, but a phase nonetheless: therefore not something it would be good to remain 'in' forever.   

This kind of consideration and thinking is something that I regard as very fundamental to the human condition; in particular with respect to the gift of Jesus Christ. 

Salvation is aimed at people such as myself; but there are people such as my old friend - I think these people are actually rather rare, yet they exist - who want something positive (i.e. they are not self-damned hell-seekers; they are accurate discerners and foes of evil) that is nonetheless very different from what Jesus offers. 


Another type of person who rejects both salvation and damnation is one who sincerely desires some kind of Nirvana state of blissful loss of awareness of the self, cessation of thinking, removal of the feeling of separation from the divine; and where the divine is understood in an abstract and depersonalized way. 

I have often stated my belief that a large majority of those who profess this kind of oneness aspiration are insincere (ultimately, dishonest with themselves) as evidenced by their attempts to persuade others and argue their position. And as evidence by their behaviour of convergence with the evil totalitarians. In other words these 'mainstream' oneness advocates claim to be other-worldly and indifferent to this mortal life; but evidence the opposite in what they do and teach. 

Yet I think it likely that there are genuine Nirvana-wishers (perhaps especially in Eastern societies) who reject the theosis - the desire for spiritual development towards full creative divinity - that is an essential part of Christianity; and the personal understanding of the world. 


If what we assume about the ancient and ancestral hunter-gatherers, and their cultural equivalents in more recent years - is correct; they had a belief in serial reincarnation without end in 'this world' - and were fully-satisfied by this. 

So it is perhaps not surprising if there are some people alive today who share this basic world view. 

On the other hand; the destiny of Western Man as-a-whole is, by my understanding, towards Christian salvation and Christian theosis; and I am confident that (especially since the millennium) an increasing proportion of those who reject salvation are actually embracing damnation. 

In other words; it seems clear to me that a large majority of those in The West who reject Christianity have actually taken the side of evil; and are either being dishonest with others when they claim they have not, and/or else dishonest with themselves - and have never thought sufficiently rigorously and truthfully to recognize the fact. 


Yet even if I am correct and there is - as a strong generalization - only the two choices of Christ or Satan; nonetheless, each person is in fact unique, and came into this mortal life and earthly world as unique. 

It would therefore be a mistake to suppose that all sincere and thoughtful people who reject evil will also want what Jesus Christ offers. It would be a mistake to assume that all individuals Must fit into one of only two categories.  

On the one hand; I know enough about my old friend to regard him as one of the exceptions. On the other hand - I do not believe there are many others like him! 

But then, I do not believe that many of the hundreds of millions of self-identified Christians in the world, are sincere in their professed belief. 

It seems to me that extremely few "Christians" have asked themselves the right questions concerning what they most desire through an eternal future; and have genuinely considered whether what they want is the same-thing as what Jesus Christ actually offers to those who follow Him. 


Saturday, 28 January 2023

What does it mean to Defeat evil? (Why evil is insatiable, and why success destroys itself.)

In this mortal world, 'evil' as a phenomenon, and evil-affiliated persons (human and angelic-demonic) cannot be finally-defeated - in the general sense that they are immortal beings that cannot be destroyed; and also that some of these evil immortal beings are committed (permanently) to evil.

But specifically, at the level of individual persons - evil is permanently defeated every time someone chooses to follow Jesus Christ through mortal death, to resurrection into eternal Heavenly life. 

And evil can be weakened, precisely because it inhabits these mortal realms that are dominated by 'entropy' - which means that evil being must 'consume' energies merely to remain as they are; and if starved of these energies they would weaken and weaken, down towards an irreducible state of mere passive existence. 


To rephrase the matter: An evil being (or evil considered en masse) must consume energies in order to maintain itself as it is - thus evil is by nature vampiric, or parasitic. 

The larger and stronger - more powerful - and evil being; the more it must consume; and all growth of power increases its 'appetite'. So long as evil is growing - its strength to feed itself with also increase. But without sufficient consumption; evil will weaken. As the strength of evil diminishes; so its ability to feed itself diminishes - leading to further shrinkage. 


In other words; evil works by positive feedback whereby change leads to further change of the same kind. growth leads to faster growth, weakening leads to faster shrinkage. 

Therefore; successful evil operates to pre-empt its own weakness - and will do so at any cost. An evil being cannot bear even short-term diminution of itself - because it will become self-perpetuating. Each evil being must avoid any diminution of its energy consumption, and will do anything to ensure this continued consumption here-and-now - even when short-term consumption will increase long-term shortage of energies. 

In sum: this is a metaphorical explanation of why Ahrimanic (bureaucratic, long-termist 'lawful') evil will always eventually devolve into Sorathic (spiteful, short-termist, 'chaotic') evil; insofar as it is successful into its goals.  


This is a picture of why evil is insatiable. 

Evil beings must (in some spiritual sense) each continue to consume the energies of damned souls - that is, souls who choose to reject salvation and embrace damnation. 

Evil waxes in strength and scope when (as now, and in recent generations) the supply of damned souls increases - but the greater the powers of evil, the more 'energies' that it needs to maintain itself; which is why there has been a kind of frenzy of evil building-up, on a perceptible timescale. 


(You might imagine the triumph of evil as akin to a 'bubble' phenomenon in economics, a Pyramid or a Ponzi scheme, or some other situation where continued success depends upon an ever increasing supply of victims. The more damned souls that are induced, the greater the energies to sustain growth in damned souls. The demand for damned souls is an exponential growth of demand for energies, but with a much slower growth (and eventually shrinking) in supply of victims - until the supply of victims is insufficient to keep the bubble growing - and the bubble bursts.) 


Thus evil has, overall, become rather like a malignant cancer whose growth consumes its host with increasing rapidity - and will reach a point when the host begins to die, the available energies are less and less adequate to maintain the size and strength of evil.

Then the evil beings (necessarily) begin to contest, and to consume each other - as if one part of a cancer was feeding upon another cancer. 

Of course this lethal trend cannot be described as any kind of 'victory for good'! 

But it does mean that individual souls of Men who look beyond survival in this mortal realm, become relatively stronger as the dominant evil of this world enters this frenzied terminal phase.  

And it means that saved souls do not only save them-selves, but also tend to diminish the strength and scope of evil generally. 


Friday, 27 January 2023

Why the dystopia-mania?

Netflix have introduced a new category into their streaming services which is Dystopian Futures

In other words; one of The System's core propaganda sources is encouraging its audience to consume movies and TV programs which focus on future hellish societies; just as (since the summer of 2020) they introduced the category "Black Stories" as an approved category. 

This invites consideration; because on the surface it would seem to be counter-productive for The System to warn the masses about the nasty things The System intends to do with the masses... Yet, here we have it. 


The answer is quite simple, as indeed are all such matters of large scale System policy - because, if strategies were not simple, then they would be rendered ineffectual by the complex and varied multi-society implementation process. Only simple policies can be relied upon to have their desired effect across many nations and across extended timescales.  

The reason why Netflix is pushing dystopian narratives is related to their overall service to the core demonic agenda, which is the damnation of Men.

Overall (and on average) modern dystopias - under modern conditions - promote the agenda of evil; which is the agenda of The System. 


The damnation is Men is not an easy thing to achieve, because Men must choose it: that is, each Man must (as an unique individual) choose to reject the offer or eternal resurrected life in Heaven that is made possible by Jesus Christ. 

That is: a Man must be induced not-to-want Heavenly resurrected and everlasting life; but instead to prefer death and hell. 

In other words; Men must be made to want evil (not Good); and to desire evil entails that Men understand evil and its implications; understand the planned evil sufficiently to consent to evil, sufficiently to say yes to evil


Furthermore, Men be be induced Not-to-repent; because it is never too late (in mortal life) for any Man to repent and instead follow Jesus Christ. 

Damnation is never secure so long as Men retain an accurate sense of what is Good, and what is sin

Only when the evilness of sin is denied and its opposite asserted, is damnation secure. 

This means that - at some level - there needs to be a value-inversion whereby real Good is understood to be evil; and actual evil is understood to be Good.   

This is the spiritual function of Dystopian Futures - and indeed the reason for the mania for dystopian depictions in the mass media and arts, especially since about the millennium: to induce Men to consent to the evil which is planned for them, and to choose it in preference to Heaven.


There are many (unlimited in number and variety, although with some common themes) ways in which modern (especially post-2000) dystopian fictions can promote exactly the dystopias they 'warn' against. 

Maybe simply through depicting dystopia as inevitable - hence inducing the 'resistance is futile' mindset; which is just one step away from embracing the evil plans while trying, personally, to make the best of it. 

Depictions of 'apocalyptic' collapse likewise often promote an attitude of ruthlessly selfish personal-survivalism - indifferent to any spiritual or divine goals (which are implicitly depicted as unreal delusions when times get hard). 

For example; physical survival is assumed (but without stating it) to be the ultimate Good; therefore a 'whatever it takes' ethic becomes ultimate. 

Or; evil is promoted by opposing the depicted dystopias with leftist/ atheist/ materialist/ hedonic System ideologies. This means that both support-of dystopia and 'opposition'-to dystopia both share the same ideology, and both sides in the conflict are merely different aspects of the same (evil) System. 

For instance; Nazi-like 'racist' fictional dystopias are opposed (in-world) by 'antiracist' freedom-fighters - when in real-life antiracism is a core tool of the totalitarian System. 

Or when 'environmentally destructive/ indifferent' tyrannical and cruel rulers, are opposed by some 'eco-warrior types' aiming to save-the-planet - when in real life the environmental movement is utterly in-thrall to (indeed a creature of) the globalist agenda. 

And there are (many) fictions about  Artificial Intelligences. If these are 'evil' (i.e. cruel, selfish etc) this implies that there are also potentially 'Good' AIs (kind, altruistic etc). Fictions of 'Good' AIs, and 'nice'/ or beautiful robots - may have these depicted as better than (most) Men. 

In the end, the message is that AI is a real thing, and AIs are persons and might replace (in essentials) Men - and often the AI future is said to be inevitable anyway (again "resistance is futile"). 

Yet another strand of the propaganda is that futures are some combination of random materialism, scientific determinism, and the Man-made; such that divine creation is excluded completely from the range of possibilities. 

In dystopia Men inhabit a meaningless and purposeless world - because only the divine creation of a Good God has purpose and meaning; consequently those who are depicted as opposing dystopia in these worlds, implicitly accept the same nihilistic assumptions concerning reality, that are inevitable when creation is excluded from possibility. 


In other words; the 'dystopian' worlds portrayed are ones in which all depicted options, on all 'sides' in the dramatic conflict, are all servants of the demonic agenda - in one or another of its aspects. 


Past Dystopias were indeed sometimes genuine warnings against that which they depicted; but the vast expansion and promotion of the dystopia agenda during the past few decades is undoubtedly driven by evil motivations, and is intended to work in support of the evil System-agenda: to pave its way, reduce resistance, increase acceptance...

In a nutshell; 'dystopian futures' are depicted with the overall intent of - by one means or another - generating consent for a totalitarian and materialist society; and, further, inducing mind-sets, attitudes and responses to the unfolding global dystopia that support its development.

Modern dystopias encourage a wide-range of Jesus-rejecting, anti-God, spirit-disbelieving, leftist ideologies that feed-back-into The System, and indirectly but materially and spiritually support it; because in dystopia, all possible futures derive from exactly the same basic and fundamental assumptions upon-which dystopia has been built.     


Thursday, 26 January 2023

Why do most people respond so willingly and cheerfully to "scare tactics, emotional blackmail, shifting goal posts and gaslightning"?

Commenter AnteB made a very incisive point in discussing William Wildblood's fascinating account of his conversation with a peck enthusiast. 

The most difficult thing for me is to understand how so few people, Christian or not, resisted a campaign that was so clearly manipulative and coercive. A whole battery of scare tactics, emotional blackmail, shifting goal posts and gaslightning were employed but few seemed to care or even register that something was out of place.

This expresses exactly my own incredulity and disgust at the behaviour of... well, nearly everybody in The West! 


Clearly this behaviour was not limited to the issue of the birdemic-peck; but reflects a fixed mental and psychological habit of The West

We have reached a point where the mass of people - including especially the intellectual middle classes (who are the most passively credulous of all population sectors) - will believe and act-upon any-thing that is monolithically presented by bureaucratic officialdom and the mass media.

Anything!


Anything about-which The System has consensus today - here-and-now - will be believed and acted upon; and the same will apply to the System-consensus tomorrow. 

The fact that the System-consensus is incoherent and extremely labile (sometimes literally reversing in a matter of days) - is irrelevant. 

That the System-consensus is evil and/or insane - as, currently, with engineering and escalating World War Three - is irrelevant. 


The cognitive time-horizon has been (all but) closed-up to the present-moment; because past and future are defined and redefined - without limit - by the present-consensus. 

It seems clear that 'morality', reason, and political expedience have simultaneously been reduced to 'today's consensus'.

And this further implies that the crucial constraint on human bahaviour - almost its sole determinant, is now System-consensus. 

Proof of this can be observed by the immense efforts at manufacturing such consensus - for example the blatantly monolithic propaganda (clearly emanating from a single central source); and the blatant suppression ('censorship') of more, and ever-more, even slightly dissenting perspectives and sources. 


So; on the one hand, They can make Us believe anything at all that they wish us to believe; on the other hand, They can only make Us believe what They agree to agree-upon

We can only be made to believe that which is susceptible to System-consensus. 

The System has closed-in upon itself; and its main activity is now to to ensure its own current-consensus. 


Within The System - all serious effort is directed at alignment with other aspects of The System (bureaucrats servicing bureaucrats - and other synergies between sub-systems; in a web of mutual-influence, mutual adjustment, mutual manipulations).  

While those-who-stand-outside The System, and who control The System; are mainly concerned to create serial current-consensuses that will advance their overall agenda

The point being that The System has Us under control; and System problems nowadays come only from power games ('office politics') within The System. 


To this picture need be added that there is (of course!) a reality outside-of, and all-but unrelated to - the System-defined current-consensus; and this reality is always constraining The System - but imperceptibly to The System.

(The System cannot understand reality - but only itself; therefore when reality affects The System, the effects will always be explained as having been caused by The System, from within The System - not by reality. This is one deep cause for the 'doubling-down' phenomenon which has been noted as characteristic of the System ideology: i.e. atheistic-materialistic-leftism.)

And furthermore that "those who control The System" are ultimately demonic, plus the servants of demons (humans who may, remember, be more evil-motivated than actual demons). 


Therefore the ultimate goal of this System-control and serial-consensus-formation; is the damnation of Men and the destruction of divine creation and all that is Good.  

This explains why The System is indifferent to its own coherence - whether linearly (through time) or cross-sectionally (here-and-now). Its deep nature is oppositional - so coherence is not required. 

Coherence is irrelevant - consensus is all - and consensus defines reality for those who accept The System's current-consensus - which clearly includes most of the masses, most of Us, in The West.


For so long as We overwhelmingly regard obedient conformity to System-consensus as our highest value; for so long will this continue. 

 

Wednesday, 25 January 2023

How Tolkien's Elves and Men overcome entropy, and live eternally, in very different ways

Over at the Notion Club Papers blog; I discuss how Tolkien draws a contrast between his Elves and Men in terms of how each race interacts with the problem of 'entropy' (change, disease, decay - and death) in the mortal lands of Middle Earth. 

Elves start-out with nearly of the advantages; but redeemed Men (after the time of Jesus Christ - which is considerably subsequent to the events of The Lord of the Rings) end-up with the best situation. 


Tuesday, 24 January 2023

Powerless in the physical war; but powerful in the spiritual war

Modern people have, in my experience, a sense of absolute helplessness when confronted with The World. They perceive the only options to be adaptation or be-detroyed. 

Or else a minority are psychotically-deluded about what difference they personally can make to The World by their own actions and interventions; or they exhibit wildly-improbable optimism concerning how they may personally resist and elude the evils of the world (e.g. 'prepper'- or 'off-grid'-types). 

Thus despair is the great, unspoken, conviction of this era; and most people devote their main life-energies into Not-Thinking about their condition or the future. 

What is the point? - they say? Or, I can't Do anything by-myself against Them, and Thinking will just make me miserable.

And this supposed Not-Thinking is precisely what the evil powers who rule this world Most desire for the masses. 


Because "Not-Thinking" is, in practice, - always thinking exactly what The System puts-into your head; fake-facts and lying-concepts; rooted in unconscious/ denied fundamental metaphysical assumptions (about a purposeless, meaningless, purely-material universe of randomness and mechanical determinism) that lead inevitably to a deep conviction of fear and hopelessness. 

Yet Thinking is the only way out from that materialist trap we inhabit. 

Right Thinking... a Thinking that is rooted in True metaphysical assumptions is our saviour in this life - and the life to come. 

The Truth is that God the Creator is Good and our loving parent; and such knowledge is ultimately hope-full and personally-motivating. 


In the past; it seems to have been possible, indeed normal, for at least some people passively and unconsciously to assimilate Truth and Reality - and therefore spontaneously to possess a Good Attitude to life. 

Many people, then, were naturally Good: naturally took the sde of Good in the spiritual war of this world...

But this no longer happens. Those who don't Think, believe that which is wrong

In a world dominated by The System, and where The System is dominated by evil Beings - some human, some demonic; passive, the unconscious, un-thinking is automatically corrupted, and leads onto the side of evil. 


Right Thinking does not need to be complicated - indeed, the best thinking is very simple; dichotomous - because it asks the right questions in the right way. 

But Thinking does need to be personal and responsible. Thinking is of value only when done in awareness that it is a serious business with serious consequences; and when we are conscious that in Thinking we are engaged in real life and not a game. 

(By Thinking properly; we participate in divine creation.)


If we Think wrongly (which includes trying Not to Think), the consequences may be terrible and eternal; if we think right - then the benefits likewise are potentially positive, transformative and everlasting. 

This is vital. People must Think, and must also Think in awareness that Thinking makes a cosmic difference (for better or worse). And then people will be motivated to seek truth, beauty and virtue - because even though this seems futile in physical-material terms; they will know (from experience) that it makes a positive difference in spiritual terms.  

Although both are important; what we Think is far more important than what we Do... 

Yet only when we are seriously Thinking from our hearts and with our souls. 


(As usual, all important lessons are two-fold; and all important and beneficial actions require two changes; because all persistent errors are backed-up by a second error.)


Monday, 23 January 2023

Tame radicals (more on "controlled opposition")

I am struck again and again by the fact that people who are famous, or notorious, for their extreme, wild, no-hold-barred radicalism; invariably take the Establishment line when it comes to the Litmus Test issues

This is the phenomenon sometimes called controlled opposition; although that term in misleading, since these radicals are not externally-'controlled' so much as self-controlled (both by personal disposition and by incentives). 


Yesterday I was reading about a typical phenomenon of this sort called 'chaos magic' - which was/is a self-styled radical, extreme, no-holds-barred (i.e. encouraging drugs and sex) group of magic practitioners; who were almost unknown to the mainstream public*, but who hold a kind of fascination and glamour for mainstream writers and commenters on the occult. 

(*The well-known comic book author Grant Morrison is perhaps the most famous chaos magician.)  

I discovered a blog maintained by one of the leaders and founders of these chaos magicians and - sure enough - this wild radical had made sure to include Establishment-approved, mass-media-harmonious, utterly-mainstream, virtue-signaling stuff about the current major Litmus Test: the Fire Nation war...


In other words; there is an implicit deal between the radicals and the Establishment

Radicals are allowed to be wild and extreme about anything... that does not matter for the Establishment. 

(Especially those things of which the Establishment covertly approves - e.g. any non-procreative sex/uality that tends to destroy real marriage and the family.)

And if radicals stick to this kind of radicalism, their transgressive (and often illegal) behaviours are tolerated; and individuals may also reap the rewards of that kind of fame called 'notoriety'. For instance, notoriety may lead to greater sexual opportunities. 


But radicals must support those strategic issues that really matter to the Establishment.

And radicals - just like everyone else - must track any changes in these core policies, and hold fast to the Establishment's current line; even though this will be incoherent, self-contradictory, and in opposition to the radicals own espoused principles. 

That is the implicit deal. 

The Establishment say, in effect: Do whatever you like and we will leave you alone; except for the Litmus Test issues - about which you must follow the guidance of mainstream media and totalitarian officialdom


Why do radicals go along with this? After all, if they really were radical and anti-Establishment - as they affect and often believe-themselves to be - they would rebel against the need to take the approved, conventional, mass mainstream views on exactly the most dominant and important issues of the time. 

They would surely insist on dissenting from exactly "whatever 'everybody' (all 'decent' people) is being compelled to believe (- or else!)". 

And when the current narrative is solidly, monolithically, espoused by all government ministers (even when led by a 'Conservative' government), when it is espoused by all senior spokesmen for industry and finance, by all major bureaucrats and officials (and even by school teachers!). When the narrative is espoused by the entirety of the mainstream mass media... And when this standard-approved-narrative is actively enforced by explicit censorship... 


Well, it would seem as obvious as anything ever could be, that any radical worth-his-salt would automatically oppose any such Conventional Collusion.  

But in practice; they do Not oppose, but instead support. And indeed there is seldom evidence even of any desire to dissent from the terms of what they must do in terms of 'the deal'. 

This is because radicalism is very seldom sincere or deeply motivated; but most often a pose (an excuse/ rationalization/ disguise) adopted as a means to some other end - often of a sexual nature


Therefore - to return to the 'chaos magic' people, or their spiritual mentor Aleister Crowley - we encounter the claim to be using sex and drugs as a means to the end of more powerful magic; whereas it seems clear (from revealed preferences) that the truth is the opposite: such magical rituals were/are a means to the end of sex and drugs. 

Such false consciousness permeates the entirety of radicalism - and indeed nearly-all of mainstream intellectual discourse; which is why the nature and focus of radicalism moves like a weather-vane in response to changes in Establishment strategy, when it comes to the core (Litmus Test) issues. 


We see this by the Establishment onslaught unleashed on once-approved radicals whenever they publicly dissent from any of the Litmus Test issues of the day. 

Such individuals may be 99% Establishment-approved in their views - but when one-percent contradicts a Litmus Test question (e.g. the transagenda, antiracism, CO2 global warming, Fire Nation war etc) , then the individual may have have his income and reputation rapidly destroyed. 

Such disgraced radicals are very seldom on the side of Good. Usually they are 99% evil-aligned; but they cannot be allowed to oppose Establishment core values and still retain their status and influence. 

They have made a deal with the devil; and have reneged on their side of the agreement. Obvously they must be socially-annihilated pour encourager les autres. 


Luckily for the Tame Radicals; they seldom care enough about their radicalism enough to get into hot water by transgressing on these restricted areas. They self-police quite spontaneously, often unconsciously; because in their hearts 'extreme' radicals serve the same master as does the Establishment.