Tuesday 18 June 2024

Should we seek for God among the "trash" of Western culture?

In his Exegesis; Philip K Dick often returns to the theme that God - and The Good - could be found among the "trash" of civilization - and only among the trash:

The right place to look for the Almighty is, e.g., in the trash in the alley. And for Satan in vast cathedrals etc. 

This fitted with PKD's sustained interest in historical Gnosticism; by which this world is made by The Devil, who is an evil demiurge; such that God (and Good) can only penetrate this world (and eventually redeem it - make it good) by stealth and in-disguise. 

Such Gnosticism (which he knew of partly via his friend the Bishop of California Jim Pike, who was involved in translating the Nag Hammadi library) appealed to PKD because he was very aware of the evils of this world, especially its suffering. 

PKD could not make intuitive sense of the traditional-orthodox-canonical Christian view that such a world as we inhabit was created and sustained by a wholly-good and omnipotent God. On the other hand; PKD was not satisfied by the explanations of Gnosticism either - and therefore the Exegesis displays many oscillations and explorations, and never settles on a final or wholly-satisfying explanation. 

Leaving aside what I regard as the mistaken metaphysical assumptions of ancient Gnosticism (and indeed traditional canonical Christianity) - there is certainly a strong case to be made that real Christianity is now to be found only among the detritus and at the edges of modern Western Culture; and not in the cathedrals, temples, churches, seminaries and theological colleges, or their like. Nor indeed in mainstream mass media; nor high status education and academia.  

As Western Culture has become totalitarian and corrupted - then every-thing that is mainstream, official, popular, powerful, wealthy and high status; has been brought within the evil-motivated totalitarian System, and under the ultimate control of literal demons. 

Here-and-now; any-thing that is not on-board-with, and supportive-of, the totality of systemic evil is forced to the margins; and demonized as "trash". 

Christians themselves are already - and increasingly - regarded-as, and treated-as, trash by the world of mainstream officialdom and mass media; and the more truly-Christian a person may be, the more he will be despised. 

So that the end-result is superficially very much as assumed by ancient Gnostics and their sympathizers such as PKD; despite that PKD was essentially a man-of-the-left, and there is a significant element of 60s counter-culture "nostalgie de la boue" -style posturing about the notion of seeking "God" in the trash!

Nonetheless, and despite all reservations and contextualization; it is probably true in essence. 

Although most of the trash of our civilization is indeed rubbish, and some of it is very evil; as of 2024, in The West, we won't find God anywhere else. 

Monday 17 June 2024

Our ruling class are incompetent, but that is not the big problem

The Western ruling class's preparations to create and escalate global war have been yet another Litmus Test of our time...

Revealing that the vast majority of even those commenters who regard themselves as solidly anti-Left "realists", cannot comprehend how bad things really are. 

There has been for many years, and it is still increasing, a repetitive trope about how dumb, stupid, and all-round incompetent are the Western leadership class. 

Anti-Woke analysts and commenters work themselves into a frenzy of exposition concerning declining IQ, declining competence, and idiotic doubling-down on mistakes. 

All this is perfectly true, in itself - but incompetence is not the underlying and causal problem! 

The big problem is evil, not incompetence. 

The problem is evil motivations.

The problem is what the ruling class want; not their inability to achieve it!

If the ruling class were more able and intelligent (and less corrupt) then they would be using their competence to do more evil. 

The reason this is a Litmus Test is that it reflects the inability of most people, of almost everybody - it seems, to acknowledge and recognize the reality of deliberate, purposive evil.

Most people don't even seem to notice that the "incompetence" always works in the same direction (i.e. towards evil) - whereas genuine incompetence would err on both sides of right action, and would sometimes seek good by accident! 

And if you can't see evil when it is staring you in the face and doing its best to destroy the world... well, then you are absolutely certain to get it badly wrong about the motivations of the Western ruling class.  


From "obedient love" to "chosen love" (pre-mortal to post-mortal life)

My understanding is that we originated in terms of divine creation as spirit-Beings, living in a situation of "obedient love" with respect to God. 

In that sense we began as "angels" - perfectly-Good servants and messengers of God, but without agency (i.e. "free will").

This was our spiritual childhood, because we loved by means of obedience. We found our-selves living "in" God's love, but un-consciously; therefore passively and spontaneously we accepted love as the basis for life (and creation). 

As consciousness developed (some Beings developed faster than others, and probably some did not develop to this point) we became agents capable of choice. Capable of choosing to accept or reject our then-current state. 

We became capable of choosing to reject the state of living "in" love. 

Then some pre-mortal spirits (i.e. the demons - and perhaps the Devil first of all) chose to reject and oppose God and divine creation. The rejecters remain as pre-mortal spirits, but have chosen disobedience to God and opposition to divine creation. 

Thus evil entered creation.   

Others chose the next step in development; which is to incarnate as a mortal Beings - after which temporary phase there is the opportunity actively to choose to live eternally "in" love; as resurrected incarnate Beings in the state of Heaven. 

Thus; we begin as spirits unconsciously living in a child-like state of obedient love; then (due to Jesus Christ's work) those of us who chose the temporary path of mortal incarnation will have the opportunity consciously to opt-into living eternally in a mature-adult state of chosen love.  

The pre-mortal state is one of living wholly in-love, but it is not Heaven; nor is it conscious, nor active. 

Heaven is a wholly-Good state inhabited by those who have-been mortal incarnates, and who then have consciously chosen to live eternally in-love.  


The point of this post is to emphasize that we have not known Heaven. Heaven lies in our future (if we make that choice) but not in our past. 

Motivation trumps power

In this UK and US election year, people are induced to focus on power, and what they think they might do with it if they got it - or what those we most dislike might do it us if the power went to them. 

But in a society in which evil motivations predominate - and where personal motivation is at an all-time historical nadir - such that people are easily induced to be motivated for or against almost anything, and then abandon or reverse this motivation on a sixpence... 

In such a society of endemic, pervasive, near-universal demotivation and false motivations - the distribution of power is of very subordinate relevance.   

Unless the problem of motivation is first solved - that is, unless people are motivated towards Good rather than evils, and their motivations are internal and personal rather than passively responsive to external manipulation - then distribution of power is almost irrelevant. 

In a situation where Good is absent altogether (or motivated so feebly as to be a misleading distraction); we can (and are encouraged to) analyse and quibble about the lesser of evils, which particular fake-puppet-personality we prefer from a cast of obedient-drones and controllable-psychopaths.

But all available options are wrongly-motivated; therefore all options are evil - and, in a complicated and chaotic world - a world consisting of distortion, hype and outright lies; which particular option is the least evil cannot be predicted.  

The imperative is to recognize just how very bad things are - ultimately in a spiritual sense - and that from this spiritual corruption comes the situation of endemic, pervasive, near-universal demotivation and false motivations. 

Hardly anyone I speak-with or read seems remotely to realize the depth and extent of our current civilizational malaise - and this indictment includes all the most famous and influential "dissenting" voices.

From where we actually are, the only positive way forward entails a transformation and reversal of many of those assumptions that we hold most dear, or regard as obvious and unchallengeable. 

That is just how it is. 

Whether it is at all likely to happen is another matter! But that's what must happen - else present trends will continue towards predictably destructive ends. 

Sunday 16 June 2024

"You've gotta believe-in" doesn't work anymore: now, you need to Know (-directly)

When so many people expend so much energy propagating that you've got to believe-in... something; then you eventually realize that nobody really believes in anything. 

For a long time, people could be induced to believe in things by social structuring; then for a while-more belief was created and sustained by inducing people to participate in rituals, study, self-disciplines; and then that phase passed. 

For a short period more; it was widely asserted that this inability to believe meant that anyone could believe anything - simply by choosing. 

Someone could - by wanting - learn to "believe-in yourself", or believe-in any kind of religion, spirituality, or political ideology...

Someone could (it was said) induce belief by replacing external social structures with a personally-chosen framework....

The implicit theory was something-like this: 

First; you chose what to believe...

Then you build your own belief-sustaining system...

Finally you stepped inside and... 

Believed - from then-onwards.  

Yet that interchangeability of belief also implied that if you could believe any-thing, then you ought to be believe... whatever was currently-approved/imposed by the rulers

Because if not, if there was no consensus of belief; then "chaos would ensue"; than which anything is better (so most people felt). 

Meanwhile - nobody really believed anything: because belief was (for pretty obvious reasons!) self-subverted by its own arbitrary-ness. 

If we can "believe anything" then, actually, we cannot believe anything.

And that is where things now stand. 

Believe-in doesn't work. 

Now, what we need is to-know

And that means we need to know without having first to believe-in. 

And that means we need to know directly, by a single inner act of knowing that does not depend on any intermediaries that must be believed-in...

That is we need to know without believing that words/ concepts/ symbols capture -real-reality, we need to know without having first to believe-in some particular person or institution (or church).  

Direct-knowing in this way can be called intuition - and it not only can but must become the ultimate basis for life, because it is the only potentially solid basis: the only basis that is not merely a floating island adrift in the sea of culture. 

Direct-knowing is when the island of our expressed belief is merely the tip of a root that extends to the bedrock of reality. 

And on that rock...

Saturday 15 June 2024

The Old Vicarage, Grantchester by Rupert Brooke

Say, is there Beauty yet to find? 
And Certainty? and Quiet kind? 
Deep meadows yet, for to forget 
The lies, and truths, and pain? . . . oh! yet 
Stands the Church clock at ten to three? 
And is there honey still for tea?

These final lines of Rupert Brooke's 1912 poem are perhaps the most famous, because so yearningly evocative, expressions of Edwardian nostalgia - which seem to foreshadow the terrible losses (and in Brooke's case, death on active service) suffered by the gilded youth of the English upper classes in the 1914-18 War. 

And of all such youth, Brooke was certainly the most gilded! - since he was so perfect an example of the then-ideal of male beauty as to have become the centre of a considerable and worshipping cult (and being English upper class, this was from both sexes). 

All of which does not much endear him to me! Brooke was, indeed, a Norman among Normans...

Yet; in his longish poem "Grantchester"; Brooke achieved a marvelously enjoyable and satisfying piece of verse. The whole poem is actually of considerable complexity; having the epigraph "Cafe des Westens, Berlin, May 1912" - so the set-up is of Brooke, sitting abroad in Germany, miserable, and remembering the happiest year of his life living in Grantchester - a village situated a few miles along the river from Cambridge University where he was an undergraduate.   

What is startling after this introductory section - which contains another section that has entered common parlance:

Oh! there the chestnuts, summer through, 
Beside the river make for you 
A tunnel of green gloom, and sleep 
Deeply above; and green and deep 
The stream mysterious glides beneath, 
Green as a dream and deep as death. 

Is that there arrives a section of superb comic verse: 

God! I will pack, and take a train, 
And get me to England once again! 
For England’s the one land, I know, 
Where men with Splendid Hearts may go; 
And Cambridgeshire, of all England, 
The shire for Men who Understand; 
And of THAT district I prefer 
The lovely hamlet Grantchester. 

Yet, despite his hyperbolically expressed love of Cambridgeshire (albeit knowingly-inaccurate! Because Grantchester is not a hamlet but a village; a parish, with a church!); Brooke then (with deliberate absurdity) lists many towns and villages near to Grantchester, and waspishly (and arbitrarily) satirizes them for their various supposed inferiorities. e.g:

And folks in Shelford and those parts 
Have twisted lips and twisted hearts, 
And Barton men make Cockney rhymes, 
And Coton’s full of nameless crimes, 
And things are done you’d not believe 
At Madingley on Christmas Eve.  

Light or Comic Verse must exhibit technical perfection - and this does; and more generally "Grantchester" is remarkable for the way in which its short line rhymed couplets remain continually interesting and surprising; despite that this is probably the dullest of all verse forms - witness most of the 18th century English poets - Pope, Dryden, Johnson... who I find all-but unreadable.    

Probably my favourite humorous section of the poem comes somewhat earlier; describing a ghostly fairy-tale scene, set in the immediate surroundings of the Grantchester Old Vicarage where Brooke dwelt during his glorious year: 

And in that garden, black and white, 
Creep whispers through the grass all night; 
And spectral dance, before the dawn, 
A hundred Vicars down the lawn; 
Curates, long dust, will come and go 
On lissom, clerical, printless toe; 
And oft between the boughs is seen 
The sly shade of a Rural Dean . . . 

I would indeed classify "Grantchester" as verse, rather than poetry (as I understand it) - it is an exemplar of the classical rather than romantic tradition. Its considerable delights are not at the very highest level. 

And, as for Brooke himself - he is best appreciated as the original basis of what soon became an archetypal ideal. 

By contrast; I find the historical-biographical "reality" of his life among the Cambridge Apostles, the "Bloomsbury Group" and Fabian Society to be repellant, sordid, corrupt.

Best ignored; or viewed through a rose-tinted retrospectoscope!

And, of course; properly understood and responded-to, the legend is what matters most. 


This post was triggered by a couple of visits to Grantchester over past months; eating lunch in the Orchard Tea Garden that contains a little Rupert Brooke museum. 

And then picking-up (from a sales display at St Andrew and St Mary's church, Grantchester) a very enjoyable photographic and explanatory edition of the poem (done by a couple of the local residents) which I recommend to anyone intrigued by my comments above:

Rupert Brooke's Grantchester, by Francis Burkitt and Christine Jennings (2010).  

Friday 14 June 2024

Materialism, Oneness, Christian: three incompatible world-views

 1. Mainstream Western Secular Materialism

This world is entropic - Life arises accidentally from unlife and soon reverts to it. All that is personal and distinct is temporary and tends towards disorder. Annihilation of every-"thing" is the ultimate destination.

2. Oneness

This world began and ends as One, anything else is illusion. The tendency is towards dissolution of all that is distinct; all beings, all persons, all "things", our-selves.

3. Christian 

The persons, beings, forms of this entropic and illusory world, are a learning-stage or phase, en route to the potential choice of eternal resurrection.

The distinctively Christian essence of resurrection is that our ultimate goal and destiny can be one in which some individual persons, beings, life, forms... order and structure; may choose to become everlasting.

These three world-views are incompatible. Only one can be real, and we can choose only one. 

I think it is best to consider which we would most desire for ourselves; and if the answer is Christian, then recognize that our destiny is one that we must (therefore shall) choose.

Tuesday 11 June 2024

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad" - True... but why?

I am thinking, here, about the Western leadership class. That they are mad is clear, that they are en route to utter destruction I believe. That is where the 'madness' comes in. 

That 'the gods' wish to extirpate the Western leadership class seems obvious, and the reasons why are also obvious; but for the requisite irreversible annihilation certainly to happen requires that the elites become insane - not merely in losing their spontaneous sense of self-preservation, but actively willing self-annihilation. 

Otherwise, sans lunacy, a sane elite would pull-back just enough to avert nemesis; and survive to wreak further havoc. 

Since the gods want to ensure this does not happen, they first ensure that the Western leadership are mad.

(Reposted, slightly edited, from 2010.)

Monday 10 June 2024

Why aren't people naturally and spontaneously wholly-Good?

It seems evident to me that nobody is naturally and spontaneously Good - that is, nobody lives wholly in harmony with God's creation and intentions. Indeed, we don't, any of us, get anywhere near this ideal! (i.e. We are all "sinners", as Jesus said.)

Why should this be? Why is it that - as created Beings dwelling in a wholly-Good-God's creation - we are not wholly-Good? 

My answer is that we ourselves are not wholly created Beings; but are instead eternal Beings who existed from before divine creation; and therefore we are now a mixture of God's creation and our primordial selves. 

Our primordial selves are what make us genuinely free Beings, and also what means that we are not wholly aligned with divine creation.

That we are "mixed" entails that some of what makes us is a "product" of divine creation, and some of what makes us is not.   

Thus we find-ourselves. We know from experience what it is to be in harmony with God's creative will; and we also know otherwise. 

At one level; this finite mortal life is therefore a time of choice; when that which is free in us needs to make a choice whether to affiliate with God's creation... Or not. 

We are what we are; and in terms of God's purpose for our mortal lives, this means that we not meant to be naturally and spontaneously wholly-Good - but to make this choice...

Do we want to commit fully and eternally to live in harmony with God's creation - in which case we choose to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven (that being the method by which such a goal is attained)? 

Or, do we want to disengage from creation; and return to something like the primordial state of isolation, non-communication with other Beings, a state of barely-conscious "beingness"?  

Or, do we choose to oppose God and divine creation... Perhaps because we resent having being co-opted into this scheme in the first place; or because we dislike our presumed role and situation in the scheme of creations, or because the price of choosing Heaven is too great (i.e. we do not want to live forever wholly by love) ... Or for any reason.

That is the choice of this mortal life; and there are no other options. 

Sunday 9 June 2024

Improving people by stealth? No longer possible... (Example of The Lord of the Rings)

A feature of Mankind in these times is that we cannot be made Good unless we are aware of it, and agree to it. 

'Twas not always thus; because in the past Man's consciousness was (to an extent, albeit declining through history) much more shared and pooled (and, to us, dream-like), consciousness was less alienated from The World, less aware, much less divided and personal. 

In that situation, a great deal of our Goodness was absorbed passively from our surrounding situation - much as happens with most children even nowadays.  

In that situation, it was possible to improve people "by stealth" by appealing (in effect) to their "subconscious" mind - by contacting and influencing not-conscious mental processes, that were not subject to voluntary control. 

It was then possible (to some extent) to Make Men Good

And this was, indeed, the basis of "Christendom" - of human societies organized on the basis of Christianity - such as those of the Eastern Roman Empire ("Byzantium") or the Roman Catholic nations of Medieval Europe. 

But now, and especially in the West, Men are alienated, cut-off from that spontaneous group-consciousness. 

So there is little or no power in the world now to make people into better people (I mean better in Christian terms - spiritually better, more Good). 

Instead, people must make themselves better, and must do so by conscious choice.

As an example of the ineffectiveness to do good to people; consider The Lord of the Rings by JRR Tolkien, which I regard as an exceptionally Good book (Good in terns of its values) - as well as being widely popular. 

Since there is a Good book read by many millions of people, one might suppose that this would mean that LotR is doing Good to some (or many) people. 

But that certainly does not seem to be the case! The evidence is that those who are most engaged with Tolkien's work; whether as readers, official fans, scholar or whatever it might be - are strikingly "normal" (for here-and-now) and mainstream in their expressed sociopolitical views. 

In other words, there is nothing to suggest that reading Lord of the Rings repeatedly, in depth and with avidity; has made any significant difference to their Goodness (by Christian standards). 

Indeed, it is clear that even immersion in Tolkien, is perfectly compatible with living as a cheerful and willing servant of the totalitarian agenda of evil!   

If it was possible to do Good by stealth - then that would be happening with Lord of the Rings! 

But it is not happening - there is no sign of it. Those who benefit from the Goodness of LotR, do so by being consciously open to that Goodness and actively embracing it. 

Otherwise Good is not done. 

This applies generally. Christians cannot change sociopolitical circumstances to Do Good to people. 

However the situation is not symmetrical; and people can be (and are, on a massive scale) be corrupted to greater evil, in a passive and un-conscious way; and there is a truly colossal apparatus of media and bureaucracy that is net-dedicated to exactly this agenda. 

Therefore, as so often (and to quote Lord of the Rings) we cannot use the One Ring to fight Sauron: that is, Christians cannot use the apparatus of propaganda and influencing to pursue a Christian agenda by passive and unconscious inculcation of Good values.

Here-and-now: Men can be "made evil" (only needing passive and unconscious consent); but Men can not be made good. 

And, insofar as this appears to work, and some "Good value" is successfully implanted by stealth; then it will in fact achieve the opposite of Good overall.

Because by encouraging people to be open to and live from external values (of any kind) - to embrace values that they have absorbed passively and unconsciously - creates a mind-set that will be overwhelmed by the far greater quantity and socially compelling influx of external values in support of the Agenda of Evil. 

NOTE ADDED: An extension of this argument is that systems of training or initiation - that used unconsciously to inculcate positive values into such groups as doctors, lawyers, priests and monks - now do no positive Good whatsoever... unless, met with a positive, active, conscious will and decision; on the part of the trainee/ initiate -- such that any specific programme of training/ initiation is rendered inessential or redundant. In other words; we can no longer train people to be better people (but only worse people)... Furthermore; this extends to societies - such that even if it could happen in the West (which it couldn't); a restored "Christendom" would no longer work. 

Friday 7 June 2024

"Why not sin?" Should rather be conceptualized as: "Why be Good?"

Why not sin? 

First - we need to get rid of the double-negative theology implicit in "why not sin" and reconceptualise the problem as the positively aspirational: "Why be Good?". 

After all; I understand sin to be any and all departures from the positive situation of living in full harmony with the wholly-loving aims and nature of God's ongoing creation. 

"A sin" is thus any thing - any impulse, thought, action - which does not harmonize with divine love. There are therefore innumerable "sins", and everybody "sins" nearly-all of the time. 

Since sin is best defined in terms of departure from Good; it is clearly much better (positively) to aim at being-Good - rather than (negatively) trying not-to-do not-Good! 

(To get some-place - i.e. heaven - it is insufficient to be told when we stray off the path; we most need to know where we are going, and how to get there!)

For me; the answer to "Why be Good?" is that I desire to live "wholly by Love" - to live in accordance with God's ongoing divine creation - which derives from God's love, and is motivated by love. 

Indeed; anyone who wants Heaven, surely wants to live by love? 

(Else why would he want Heaven forever?

Expressed otherwise: Why on earth would anyone who ultimately desired to live eternally in complete accordance with love; not want to do so here-and-now, and all of the time? 

Wanting to live by love is just characteristic of the kind-of-person who wants eternally to dwell in Heaven after death. 

Yet of course we are tempted - over and again, very frequently - to live other-than by full accordance with love: to live out-of-harmony with divine creation, because it is short-term gratifying for us to do so. 

And therefore we often fail to resist these temptations; and we sin for much of the time. 

So we do not, as a matter of fact, resist temptation - and we do instead often choose to live out-of-harmony with divine creation. 

Given that fact; it might be asked: why should we even try to resist temptation? 

Why - since we fail all the time, and will continue to fail - don't we just accept the reality of sin; and sin whenever it is gratifying or convenient?

But I have already answered that question. 

The answer to "Why be Good?" is: 

If I am someone who desires resurrected eternal life in Heaven; then no matter how often and badly I fail to live the Heavenly life during this earthly mortal life - I will never stop repenting my failures, and never cease from trying to live better; simply because a life in harmony with God's loving creation is the life I want, more than I want anything else. 

H/T To David Earle for a comment that helped trigger this post.  

Is this mortal life basically OK?

"Is this mortal life basically OK?"

I sometimes think that this question (or something like it) is the root of philosophy. 

"Is this mortal life basically OK?" seems to be something that - although in theory it need not be asked (and maybe there are animals, and perhaps some humans, that never ask it); in practice it seems to be something that demands and gets an answer (even if we aren't aware of this answer).  

Because, even to ask whether mortal life is OK, is already to have acknowledged that it is not OK - or, at least not sufficiently so.  

Although there seem always to have been plenty of those who argue that life is perfect just-as-it-is; these have always needed to add "if only people would realize it!" - which modification then (in practice) leads to all kinds of attempts at psychological-spiritual training, discipline, meditation etc. in order that people can be made to realize this-life (as-is) is OK, or even utterly wonderful. 

That need to be made to realize that life really-is OK, even the need to explain that it is OK (properly regarded); is in itself, evidence of something being wrong with this mortal life - and to invite the question of why it is wrong.  

In other words; while anybody can answer "Yes!" to the question; for this Yes! to be more than empty words, more than optimistic day-dreaming (or, indeed, cynical attempts at manipulation or careerism) - immediately entails an acknowledgement that the very fact the question has-been-asked, means that life as-is, is actually not OK. 

Therefore; if we are rigorous about it; we already know that this mortal life is basically not OK. 

And that something is therefore demanded of us - even if that something is "merely" an acknowledgement of the intractable insufficiency of life.  

Since life is not OK - what then? 

Probably the most prevalent and deeply believed answer in the world - at least in the Western world - is the Leftist Answer: the implicit answer that motivates attitudes and behaviours in vast numbers of people. 

To the question "Is this mortal life basically OK?"; the Leftist Answer is (approximately): "No, not at present - but it could be made so."

The Leftist answer implies that, unless life is accepted to be insufficient when it could be OK; the world needs to embark upon a purposive transformation of this mortal life

Leftism embarks upon this transformation of life; makes some change, makes indeed several changes; but it turns-out that life is still Not-OK. 

It turns-out that (apparently) if life is to be transformed such that becomes OK, this needs many changes - many radical (deep) changes. 

Thus the Leftist strategy turns-out to be open-endedly expansile.

Leftism entails, indeed demands, ever more and more changes - yet life still is not OK... 

The conclusion is that nothing less than a Total transformation of life is required - change must be universal - it must therefore be imposed and enforced. 

Hence Leftism is totalitarian - if the assumption is that this-world can be make OK by transforming it - and when it is assumed that there is nothing-but this-world; and when anything less that total transformation always fails... 

Then totalitarian power to impose total change, is not just an unfortunate necessity but a moral imperative. 

No matter how often and how badly the Leftist project to transform this world and make it OK has failed in the past; since it is (by assumption) Mankind's only hope, then There Is No Alternative but to aim at an ever more-totalitarian, more-universal, and more-coercively-mandatory transformation: a New World Order. 

The Christian answer is that this mortal life is indeed not OK when considered as a separate entity; and what makes mortal-life Not-OK are ineradicable by human action. Because these include evil, degenerative change ("entropy"), and death; all of which constitute part-of everybody, and of all beings. 

Evil, entropy and (especially) death are built-into this mortal world: therefore this world is Not-OK.   

But (fortunately) mortal life is not necessarily the whole story; and mortal life is OK when regarded as an "educational" phase that leads to Heaven. 

For Christians; mortal life in isolation is not OK; but with Heaven to follow it and lived with that expectation, mortal life is OK. 

Wednesday 5 June 2024

Spite is all around us; invisible, dominant: the fruit of resentment, fuelled by despair

Spite, spitefulness is a strong candidate for The Worst Sin (I've blogged on this often). 

Another word for (aspects of) spite is Schadenfreude - but this is more often treated as an amusing foible, trivialized; than recognized as among the worst of evils. 

Surely we can all, if honest, recognize in ourselves (and infer in others) this most evil of evils: a desire to harm others, to make others suffer: a motivation that will, at extremes, risk or sacrifice even oneself? 

Surely we have all felt an arising impulse that responds to awareness of happiness, beauty, moral decency, honesty in other people or the world around us... with an impulse of hatred, the urge to destroy it, to smash it. 

We observe perfection; and then a stab of desire to mar that perfection. The urge may even be yielded to, when "harmless" - as when we see a perfect reflection cast by a still pool of water... And then respond by smashing it to smithereens by hurling a rock into it! 

"Harmless" fun, maybe - a tiny lapse, in the scheme of things; no lasting harm done... Yet if we examine the motivations for such everyday (trivial) destructions, we may (if honest) find spite at the root of it.

Likewise for our actions against others. These may be rationalized as necessary, or because "he deserves it"; but at root, the motivation may be spiteful: "I want to see him suffer".  

Most people, most of the time, squash such vile feelings in themselves (and certainly try to forget them) - but surely we have all experienced them? 

And - if we have any insight or capacity to reflect - seen this in other people (including the best people, at times; including those we love the most), and perhaps been at the receiving end of it? 

People who cause trouble among groups of friends - break-up friendships, relationships, even marriages; who spread malicious rumours, mislead, misreport, life; who engage in "he said, she said" betrayals. 

And surely we have at least thought about doing such things ourselves?  

Spite is ignoble, it is despicable - but it is real.

It is found to some degree in almost everybody, and it is the master sin ruling some people (and many demons). It is seen all through human history, and all around us - yet, spite is hardly acknowledged. 

(Except, maybe, in stories about youngish children! Enid Blyton often included spiteful characters, named as such, in her stories - which is how I first put a name to it.)

It is regarded as more sophisticated and pseudo-intelligent to analyse spite in terms of other motivations - especially disguised forms of self-interest. So, the harming of B by A is likely to be described in terms of how harming B benefits A (perhaps indirectly, or over the long-term). 

But the point is not whether spite can be explained-away - Of Course it can! 

The point is to to Ask The Question. Is this spite?

We absolutely need to know whether whether spite is the real motivator behind behaviour; because if it is, then such behaviour cannot be appeased by fulfilling self-interest. 

And, like most sins, spite feeds on its own gratification. When infliction of harm brings gratification, then the infliction of more harm to more targets will probably follow.    

Spite cannot be bought-off. Spite will not be satisfied by less than suffering and destruction. 

Thus when spite is explained-away - this merely allows for the undetected and more effective deployment of more spite. 

And spite is a natural product of the besetting modern sin of resentment - with the dominant ideology of The West being the creation, encouragement, subsidy and protection of ever-more "resentment groups" defined in terms of class, sex, race, sexuality or... whatever*. 

And (in the West, the developed world) this is a world of despair (whether actual or incipient). Because nearly everybody lives-by the assumptions that reality has no purpose or meaning, and that human life is followed by annihilation. 

With such assumptions; existential despair is normal and rational; such that self-distraction from this (supposed-) reality has become perhaps the primary life goal.    

When we have so many people who fundamentally assume themselves to be victims, and who despair; the ground is prepared for the operations of spite - first directed against those who are most resented (i.e. the supposed "oppressors"); but soon (as the sin takes grip) directed against pretty much anyone who in any way irritates us. 

When the most spite-dominated people are also among the most powerful, wealthy, high status, and influential in the world - then we have.... Well, we have exactly what we see around us in the world of geopolitics, global strategy, and the international and national leadership class. 

A world in which anything that is (or seems to be) of-God, or Good; anything apparently manifesting the transcendental values of Truth, Beauty or Virtue. Anything wholesome, innocent, natural, spontaneous, care-free... Any such becomes a prime target for spitefully-motivated attack. 

Yet, up to now, spite is invisible. Trivialized. Explained-away. 

By refusing to recognize the operations of spite in ourselves - failing thereby to acknowledge and to repent its sinful nature; we thereby fail to recognize spite in others. 

So spite can be everywhere, dominant, and increasing - yet we choose to be self-blinkered against perceiving it. 

And until we are aware of spite; the operations of spite cannot be resisted - either in ourselves, or others. 

* Leftism now rules the West and much of the world; and Leftism is a negative, oppositional ideology built upon resentment, and depending upon continuing expansion of resentment. The so-called political "Right" (of all types) is merely a variant of Leftism**. This can be seen in its domination by resentments, but of a different inflexion; typically inversions of mainstream Leftism: e.g. resenting women instead of the Leftist resentment of men, resenting the Left-approved races etc. Of course, such motivating resentment is rationalized and explained-away on quasi-objective grounds - yet the actuality of resentment as prime motivator is sometimes revealed when spite-driven desires or fantasies are expressed; as well as by the relentlessly negative and oppositional focus of Rightist discourse (against, against, AGAINST!). 

**The only alternative to the Left is religion. All secularism, all atheism, all materialism is ultimately Leftist. 

H/T - This was stimulated by a comment from Avro G

Monday 3 June 2024

Is your understanding of Heaven minimalist or maximalist?

It is striking how often the expressed Christian understanding of Heaven is extremely "minimalist". In other words; the idea is that very little happens in Heaven. 

Furthermore, in such a Heaven we ourselves are simplified (by subtraction of all sin).

Heavenly life is thus described very simply; including discarding almost everything most people might most value in this mortal life; such as family and marriage; and our most cherished creative and other activities. 

Sometimes, indeed, Heavenly life is reduced to the single activity of communion with the divine. 

This sounds, on the face of it, pretty un-appealing - except as a relief and escape from suffering. 

The usual answer to such objections is that we shall ourselves by-then have-been transformed... 

Such that what seems now to be an aetiolated existence; will, when we are actually in that situation, be wholly satisfying; indeed joyful beyond our current possibility of understanding. 

It is probably clear from the above that I - by contrast - regard Heaven in a "maximalist" kind of way; as greatly enriched by more, and continuousness, of broadly the same kind of positive things that are best in this mortal life. 

Thus I regard Heaven as a place of more, and more loving, and everlasting relationships - including family, marriage, friendship; and ultimately loving relationships of other forms with other kinds of ("non-human") resurrected Beings such as animals, plants, and natural elemental Beings. 

And I regard Heaven as a place of "work" - the best kind of work; that work which derives from creative love. 

Which is to say creative work, fulfilling work; work that adds-to, enhances, enriches divine creation. 

But to return to the minimalist view of Heaven - assuming (as I do) that it is indeed mistaken, and apparently rather ineffective as a positive inducement; it is interesting to speculate why it arose? Why might people have decided that Heaven must be minimalist?

I think it is partly hinted above, by the idea that after sin has been stripped-away; not much would remain. 

Maybe also that it is easier to imagine perfection (which is how some people regard Heaven, although I think this is a mistaken emphasis - because implicitly static) if that perfection is simple?

I think there is also a residue of "historical Gnosticism"; by which I mean the pre-existing (among pagan Romans and Greeks) Neo-Platonism that captured mainstream and traditional Christianity (and not just the recognized Gnostic sects). 

This philosophical ideology (permanently) embedded within-itself what might be termed the religion of "Gospel Christianity" by its metaphysical insistence on philosophical concepts as a mandatory framework for Christianity. 

(Such as an infinite gulf between creator and created, strict monotheism (leading to the abstractions of Trinitarianism in order to encompass the divinity of Jesus); creation being from nothing (rather than an organizing of pre-existent chaotic "stuff"), and God and the divine world being "outside of Time". There are more.) 

Other aspects of this pre-Christian philosophy included a belief that the material was innately evil, and the the purely spiritual was therefore the proper aim; and this led to an ascetic ideal that strove to achieve the greatest possible independence from the material body during mortal life; essentially by subtractive disciplines. 

From this perspective, it is natural to regard Heaven minimalistically, and the denizens of Heaven likewise. 

And the assumption that the divine world - in order to be wholly good - must not change; probably led to the deletion of sequential Time from Heaven - such that there was neither need nor possibility of resurrected Men doing anything in Heaven. They would simple "be". 

(Even the doctrine of resurrection after death, which could hardly be ignored; was transformed into an abstracted, spiritualized, "resurrection body" - which body ended by being hardly regarded as material at all - but instead something more like light than everlasting flesh.) 

Of course the minimalist Heaven may include elements of reaction against pagan (and other) understandings of the post-mortal life as simply a continuation and enhancement of this mortal life - with more of our desires fulfilled, and less of the sufferings. 

These are seen as wish-fulfilment merely - and wish-fulfilment is not (by such an analysis) distinguished from selfish day-dreaming fantasies (e.g. imagining post-mortal luxuries of sex, feasting and/or fighting - according to taste). 

It was probably not until the advent of Mormonism from 1830 that an explicitly maximalist understanding of Heaven (more consistent with the Gospels, common-sensically understood - especially the Fourth gospel) was rediscovered and linked with a metaphysical theology. 

This included a focus on marriage and procreation, family life, and co-creative activities in loving cooperation with God the Father - and a "evolutionary" emphasis on divine creation as eternally "ongoing", continuous, eternally being added-to. 

Ultimately, as always, this question of minimalist versus maximalist understanding of Heaven, reduces to a question of personal discernment based on the deepest intuition that we can arrive-at. Having consciously clarified our awareness of the alternatives, we each need to decide which are true possibilities, and which we most desire for our-selves.


Note: This post was stimulated by a comment from NLR at the NCP Blog

Sunday 2 June 2024

Things are Much worse than military analysts assume; because the Western strategists want to Lose, not win (and maximize destruction while doing so)

While the cultivated ignorance and delusional nature of mainstream Western officials and media are predictable appalling; the supposedly alternative analyses of the West versus Fire Nation war is more deeply concerning to me. 

The military experts and analysts persist in regarding this as a modern version of the kind of wars throughout history; whereas this is a situation the world has never before experienced.

Because the leadership of the Western (i.e. globalist) world (and I mean the real leadership, those who set the Western strategy) are qualitatively different in their motivations from any group of leaders in world history

The military expert analysts assume that the West ultimately wants the West to win this war - which is Not True. 

Those who are strategically responsible for the FN war, its continuation and escalation towards totality; primarily want the West to lose

That is their core motivation. "They" mainly want the West to be destroyed * - and the FN war is one of several, simultaneously pursued, means to that end.

Destruction of the Fire Nation, Earth Nation and other places are also real motivators - but secondary, optional. 

(Other means to the end of Western destruction include other wars; but also the many long-term self-destructive strategies I call Litmus Tests: e.g. the birdemic-peck, the climate agenda, the sexual revolution, the "antiracism" agenda - and the whole raft of leftist political auto-lethalities.)


On the other side; the core and strategic motivation of the Fire Nation is easily understandable (for normal people!), conventional, and historically multi-precedented - the FN mainly wants Not to lose. Wants to preserve and strengthen its culture and people. 

So the FN War is grossly asymmetrical in terms of motivations; in a way never before seen - at least never on a sustained and global scale. 

Indeed, the FN conflict may not even qualify as a "war" in the conventional sense; because The goal of the Western leadership is an orgy of insane multi-national mutual- and self- destruction - which is not really "a war"...

But that is precisely what the Western leadership strategists are working towards...

And for as long as so many people are so utterly unaware of the fact; for so long as they continue to think of this as "just-another war", like so many wars before: for so long They will continue to progress incrementally towards their major goal of destructive chaos primarily affecting the West. 

Note added: An overall interpretative perspective on the nature of the FN war (and the world generally) does not derive from evidence, and cannot therefore be overturned by observations - it is a matter of assumptions not empirical data. (Because assumptions both select and interpret the data.) Nonetheless, the immediate action of the Western side in coercively-imposing self-destructive sanctions, and the way that the West has continued to increase these in the face of massive evidence of their self-destructive nature; plus the self-destructive act of the West destroying a major conduit for Western energy supply - could certainly be taken as consistent-with the assumption that the war is primarily aimed against the West.   

Why do (some) people Yearn for resurrected life in Heaven?

Some people - myself included (although apparently not many people, in the modern West) - yearn for resurrected Heavenly life. It's what we want more than anything: for us, without it, life is purpose-less and meaning-less and irrelevant. 

But why this yearning? Given that we have never experienced it - but have instead always dwelt in a reality that is dominated by entropy and death; and furthermore, a reality made much worse by the operations of evil within ourselves and the rest of the world. 

From where, then, comes that "vision" of Everlasting Goodness which draws (some of) us towards Heaven?

Maybe it comes from our personal experience - and this is something we all experience, although only some are aware of it - of the "spiritual war" between divine creation on the one hand; and the opposed tendencies of entropic chaos and purposive evil on the other hand

We all experience divine creation in ourselves (whether or not we are conscious of it), and it is all around us.

Yet we also experience that in This World divine creation is continually being dissolved and destroyed (both from within us and externally) - so our experiences of divine creation are temporary and partial. 

Yet it is these temporary and partial experiences of divine creation that (may) form the basis of our yearning for the eternal and unopposed divine creation of resurrected life in Heaven. 


Saturday 1 June 2024

Towards the End of the Morning, a novel by Michael Frayn, 1967

I re-read this old favourite comic novel over the past couple of days. I had lost my original copy from 1978, and so I needed to buy another. 

This is one of those things about the embarrassments and foibles among the upper middle classes (apparently all Cambridge University graduates) - in this case, mostly "Fleet Street" (i.e. London) journalists and their wives and girlfriends. 

This sounds utterly unpromising (and ultimately it is), but there are some very good life-observations of the kind that stay with you permanently; and some laugh-out-loud funny set pieces that are the equal of anything. 

The main character's experience doing a television talk-show is so funny that I can recall sitting somewhere like an airport lounge or a place waiting for a ferry, and laughing literally uncontrollably, so that dozens of other passengers were turning and staring at me as if I was insane or having a seizure - but I just couldn't stop myself. 

So, TTEOTM is worth reading. 

But I also found it a profoundly nihilistic book; at times (when it gets serious) the narrative actually expresses this explicitly - that Life is purposeless and meaningless; and overall and especially as Life unfolds: it is a pretty miserable and hope-less business.  

In this respect, the author Michael Frayn epitomizes (for evidence: read his Wiki entry) the trajectory of Western Culture since WWII. He was one of the first generation of upper middle class atheist-leftists who took over the Mass Media in those decades; and by the time this novel was published (1967) this takeover was all-but complete.  

Journalism had been a mostly lower/middle class job, done by grammar school boys who left at about 16 and served an apprenticeship; as depicted in Michael Green's (excellent) autobiographies The boy who shot down an airship, and Nobody hurt in small earthquake

But by the 1960s print media was dominated by upper class boys and girls arriving straight from university, especially Oxford and Cambridge. Newspapers (and broadcast media) shifted from being about news; to being "opinion" concerning all aspects of society, politics and culture (i.e. leftist propaganda).  

And the new generation of upper class, public school, and university media people; brought with them the New Leftism - focused on promoting the sexual revolution, antiracism, feminism - and the rest of it. 

Michael Frayn is a good example, because he was (unlike modern Leftists) genuinely very intelligent, very talented - and able to be very funny. 

He was successful as a journalist, novelist and playwright - and was generally supposed to be, not just clever, but a deep thinker; because he had studied philosophy, and even published an academic book on the subject!

Frayn is one of the reasons why the mainstream modern culture of hedonic nihilism happened - he was talented, trendy, admired; he made the new ideology seem cool, fun, exciting... 

And by contrast Frayn, subtly and by insinuation mainly, made all-that-stuff about God, creation, the world of spirit, existence beyond death etc. seem... childish, silly, obsolete, low status^


In retrospect; it is obvious that Frayn was not a creative thinker - but was instead a highly-able exponent of standard-mainstream ideology; a founder-member of the "chattering classes"; one who took all his primary assumptions from his niche social milieu, and was unable (or uninterested) to seek or understand beyond this. 

And this is manifested in Towards the End of the Morning because - well, it doesn't really end. There is no sense of satisfaction or closure, it just stops*. 

The simple reason for this, is that it is an honest account of how Frayn saw Life: for Frayn (and his numerous ilk) Life is something that goes on for a while; one tries to get as much amusement from living as possible; one works to attain an interesting, enjoyable and well-regarded existence... For a while. 

And, then... Life Just Stops.    

^. The given-rationale for getting rid of that religion stuff, was that it stood in the way of a life devoted to optimizing the emotions. This was especially necessary if life in reality was nothing-but these emotions (as "science" had apparently proved).  

*Note added: It is significant that a novel of broadly the same genre as TTEOTM from about a decade earlier was Kingsley Amis's Lucky Jim; has a traditional kind of ending - with the hero getting the girl and - in effect - striding off into the sunrise of a glorious future. Amis was born earlier enough to have been conscripted into the Second World War, and (although firmly of the materialist-atheist generation) was more of a transitional figure into modernism than Frayn.  

Friday 31 May 2024

It's now safe to torment Mankind: Spitefully-destructive strategies are only dominant when self-chosen damnation can be assumed

Why is it that it is only in the past few years, that spitefully destructive (Sorathic) evil has begun to gain the upper-hand among the demon-affiliated ruling classes? 

After all; They have always hated people (and particular types of people), and have always has the possibility of harming and killing them en masse. And destruction is easy, and there are so many possible ways of doing it that such a strategy is almost guaranteed to win. 

And demons (and those they possess, and those who serve them) absolutely love to inflict pain and destruction upon... anybody (including each other) - but especially those who are affiliated with God and The Good.  

What stopped Them in the past? 

What made Them, instead, mostly subscribe to the global totalitarian, bureaucratic-managerial strategy of omni-surveillance and complete-control? 

I think the answer has to do with the state of the spiritual war of this mortal world: the war between God and divine creation, and salvation - and those who oppose all of these.

While spiteful destruction has always been easy, historically it was spiritually counter-productive - because suffering and death usually led people towards God.

(This can be seen in the way that war often used to operate overall to strengthen the side of God and weaken Satan.) 

But nowadays, after atheism/ materialism/ leftism has been triumphant and in-control for several generations; after the deletion of the religious and spiritual has led to widespread value-inversion ...

This situation has reversed; such that suffering and death now lead away from God instead of towards - and into short-term hedonism and long-term despair (both of which are in opposition to the divine agenda). 

So, that's why we are only-now getting spiteful-destruction so good and so hard; so openly pursued, and explicitly planned; where economic and environmental destruction, war, sickness, sex and race-hatred, and civil chaos are such major and endemic agenda items... 

It is because the demonic powers are now (and for the first time in history) confident that the value-corruption of the world (and especially the West) has now progressed so far, and is so solidly-established... 

That the demonic desire for tormenting and murdering can at-last be indulged on a large scale - without the past fear that an acceleration of suffering and death would be likely lead to the "backlash" of turning Men towards God and salvation.    

Wednesday 29 May 2024

How should we choose our assumptions?

We can all see how obvious other-peoples' assumption are - and how these are completely resistant to emerging evidence. 

(Such is a property of all assumptions: they are prior-to and "above" all possible evidence; because assumptions select and interpret all evidence.) 

This is particularly evident when it comes to large scale and abstract matters. For instance, geopolitical assumptions are indestructible, even across generations - especially when the assumptions are negative: as when it comes to be assumed that a particular nation (or national leader) is hostile, a threat, evil. 

Similar assumptions govern attitudes between some races - and these need not be symmetrical (i.e. one race may regard another as intrinsically hostile, but that feeling may not be reciprocated). 

Of course there is also an element of the self-fulfilling prophecy at work; but even without anything of that kind, such assumptions cannot be overthrown by experience.  

Yet, although evidence-immune, assumptions may be abandoned and replaced. 

And assumptions must be adopted in the first place - even when they are unconsciously socially inculcated. 

So - given that factual information is irrelevant - is there any valid basis by which particular assumptions ought to be adopted or abandoned? 

My answer would be several layered. 

First and most important is awareness...

As of here-and-now; assumptions ought to be (or become) conscious, and we ought to be aware that they are prior to evidence (because assumptions structure our choice and understanding of evidence). 

So we should not assert that our assumptions are obvious or inevitable; and should not suppose that our assumptions derive from factual evidence. 

Such a recommendation of what not to do, is easier said than done! I break it habitually, several times a day - yet in doing so I am making an error - with many ill consequences. 

But I still have not said anything about choosing between assumptions? 

The answer, as with all ultimate matters, is always a matter of intuition - which we cannot go beneath; but which we can recognize and acknowledge as the reality behind our engagement with the world. 

I think it could be said that (assuming we desire to be coherent) our assumptions need to fit our deepest and most solid intuitions. So, for a Christian, all further assumptions need to fit with that ultimate intuition (including the ultimate intuitions of what "being a Christian" actually means). 

Once we have identified our our assumptions; we should then choose whether we really do wish to retain them as assumptions - or else replace them with others - as we are free to do! 

It is a matter of admitting this necessary freedom as our own active choice, and of taking responsibility for its exercise. 

Tuesday 28 May 2024

Become aware, by experience - rather than "making use" of hearsay

In this bureaucratic and totalitarian world; most of "knowledge" (including among Christians, including among the most "traditionalist" and orthodox Christians) is second-hand hearsay without experiential understanding; and this knowledge is only learned as a means to the end of "making use" of it. 

Information comes in a template of check-lists, bullet-headings, action points - generic responses to general problems - that reveals the essential motivation to be the manipulation of reality in conformity to will

On top of this; experience is rigged by ideology and propaganda; such that the implications even of the obvious may be inverted. 

Likewise; the outcomes of our actions and attempted manipulations are immunized against learning from them - so that whatever happens, ideology is confirmed.   

Consequently; mainstream modern people actually strive to live their lives like those who make friends in order to make-use of them. 

Our proper task is very different; and includes the need to become aware of much that is unconscious neglected, ignored, denied.

But being aware is not merely knowing about them - in the typically second-hand, externally-imposed modern fashion. 

The necessary awareness is an experience of existential consciousness. We know them by comprehending them in our thinking; as a single and whole action of apprehension: we know them, and know that we know them - all at once. 

That is experiential awareness; that is learning - and the purpose of such learning is not knowable until after it has happened.  

Monday 27 May 2024

Psychic attacks - and self-defence

"I am of the opinion that psychic attacks are far commoner than is generally realised, even by occultists themselves. Certainly the general public has no conception at all of the sort of things that are done by people who have a knowledge of the powers of the human mind and set to work to exploit them. 

"I am convinced that this factor played a large part in the witch-cult, and was the real cause of the universal horror and detestation of the witch. These powers have always been known to students of occultism, but nowadays they are known and used by people who would be exceedingly surprised to find who are their fellow-practitioners. 

"Mrs. Eddy, the founder of Christian Science, stumbled on to these methods empirically without ever acquiring any rational knowledge as to their modus operandi. She endeavoured to teach them in such a way that they could only be used for good and their power for evil should be concealed; but that she herself was well aware of their possibilities if abused is witnessed by the dread of what she called "Malicious Animal Magnetism," which shadowed her whole life. The methods of Christian Science, without its strict discipline and careful organisation, were developed and exploited by the innumerable schools and sects of the New Thought Movement. 

"In many of the developments the religious aspect was lost sight of, and they simply became a method of mental manipulation for purely personal ends, though not necessarily deliberately evil. Their exponents advertised that they would teach the art of salesmanship, of making oneself popular and dominant in society, of attracting the opposite sex, of drawing to oneself money and success

"The amazing number of these courses advertised shows their popularity; in a recent issue of an American magazine I counted advertisements for sixty-three different courses in various forms of mind-power. They would not be so popular if they achieved no results at all."

From Psychic Self-Defence, by Dion Fortune, 1930

I believe that psychic attacks, of the kind described by Dion Fortune a century ago (together with suggestions for defeating them) are nowadays much more common and much more effective. 

The reason is that materialism - the absolute exclusion of the "Psychic" or Spirit World from all mainstream public discourse, is much more complete than it was in Dion Fortune's day; and this renders people wide-open and helpless in the face of those who employ these spiritual methods of mental manipulation for selfish and evil ends. 

This explains why mainstream Christians are equally helpless against such manipulations - because the major churches have also excluded participation in the Spirit World as a valid goal - regarding this realm as necessarily evil, and therefore suppressing awareness of its reality and power. Christians mostly dwell in a world just as devoid of spiritual beings, as that of atheists.  

What this means is that normal, common-sensical, ordinary people - who pride themselves on being "down to earth" and realistic; are typically utterly convinced by whatever incoherent and evil-intending beliefs that are currently emanating from politicians, officialdom, corporations, the mass media and "celebrities". 

This is why so many people conform their lives and religions to such manipulations - why they have been so easily, repeatedly and fully hoodwinked into intense yet fluctuating and contradictory mass attitudes (including fear, resentment, self-hatred, promiscuous abstract altruism, and strategic self-destruction) - and why they ignore and deny what is being-done to them.   

The answer to endemic mental manipulations via the Spirit World, includes acknowledging the reality of Spirit World, and then becoming aware of it. 

And including the possibility of Psychic attack as among the valid possibilities that affect ourselves and the world. 


NOTE: Psychic attacks emanate from the Spirit World - which is occult/ hidden, and immaterial; but needs to be distinguished from the Spiritual War of this mortal life that relates to the Divine World. 

The Spiritual War is about eternal salvation and damnation, and evil need to be invited-in (to some extent). But Psychic attacks come from within this mortal world; and are largely to do with earthly manipulations and shorter-term motivations such as power, sex, greed, spitefulness etc. 

I am no kind of expert on Psychic defence; beyond recognizing that By Far the most important aspect is to recognize that one really-is being-attacked. 

The pathetic vulnerability of the mass of mainstream modern people stems principally from their refusal to acknowledge even the possibility of Psychic attack - and then an extreme absence of awareness of its likely sources, and probable intentions. 

Sunday 26 May 2024

It only takes One side to make a war

As the world continues to walk a knife edge on the verge of the already-happening WWIII becoming an all-out, all-in affair - it is very evident that there are serious problems of understanding what is happening. 

For a start; people insist on analysing all wars as essentially the same, and essentially symmetrical - which is rooted in the deceptive notion that it takes two sides to make a war.  This is deceptive because, while true, it neglects to mention the actual alternative to war in some situation - which is allowing oneself to be "genocided": to be destroyed either as a nation, culture plus/minus physically. 

Genocide only takes one side; and war may be the only realistic alternative (and, of course, it may not work - and the social or material genocide may happen anyway). 

A further problem is to understand who is causing all the wars, and attempting escalations and widening of wars (including the engineering of multiple civil wars) - and what they are aiming-at. 

Because Modern Man does not have a coherent concept of evil, warmongering is nearly always explained in terms of some group attempting this-worldly advantage: getting power, money, sexual goals, and things like that. 

This is always partially true, because leadership classes (and to a lesser extent the masses) are motivated towards war by such considerations.  

Therefore material advantage could be described as a proximate cause of war. 

But at present, here-and-now in the world, the ultimate cause of war - the initiating and multiplying and underlying cause behind the proximate causes, is not material advantage - but a spiteful desire for causing destruction, pain, fear, despair - such an ultimate motivation has very seldom been operative at a strategic level in the past. 

For as long as such persons have power to do what they want to do; then they will continue to start and escalate wars - without regard to winning these wars, and without regard to gaining materially from them. 

Indeed; for this kind of individual and group; war aims include the destruction of what is supposedly their own side.

In other words "mutually assured destruction" is not a deterrent, but a desirable outcome. To be clear - the "best" outcome is a war in which each side simultaneously destroys the other. 

Therefore, when "assistance" is provided to one or other side, the real aim is to continue and escalate the war (and its destructiveness and miseries) and not to win the war.  

And, unless this motivation is noticed and acknowledged, then such individuals will probably get their way - because, given sufficient time and resources and in an almost universally morally bankrupt world such as we inhabit wars and the continual escalation of wars can be made impossible to resist.

When "provocations" are sufficiently extreme and frequent; then wars and escalations will occur sooner or later - excepting only when a group do not oppose their own annihilation (as seems likely to be the situation in Western nations).   

This is where we have been for more than two years, and where we continue to be as provocations continue, become more frequent, and more extreme. 

Yet a very large proportion of the population of the world (and especially Western nations) are utterly oblivious to their situation. And not negatively oblivious - but armour-plated and pre-immunized against discovering and knowing. It's yet another of those subjects where no external help can be expected, and the only hope is of more individual persons seeking to take responsibility for their world-understanding. 

"Resenting-the-resenter" - a disguised manifestation of the master sin of modernity

I have often harped-on about the sin of "resentment" - because of two reasons: first, it is seldom regarded as a sin, often considered a virtue; and second that it is the master sin of leftism - which is the basis both of the "Ahrimanic" materialist-totalitarian impulse, and of its now succeeding "Sorathic" motivation of spiteful destructiveness and each-against-all chaos

Perhaps the major socio-political movement of the past couple of hundred years has been the creation of ever-more resentment groups: examples include the working class, particular nations, women, non-white races, non-Christian religions, and any sex and sexuality other than married families or celibacy. 

Such groups are formed by their resentment, and are joined-with other resentment groups by the mutuality of their sin. 

There is a resentment-group for everybody now - including the richest, most powerful, and famous people in the world. Indeed, one of the twists of resentment is that it often presents in terms of resentment "on behalf of others".

This has always been a feature of resentment-rooted politics. The ruling class always made-up a majority of influential and powerful communists. Feminist men likewise. And resentment "on behalf of" other races and religions is a veritable industry. 

Resentment-on-behalf-of also disguises personal resentments - which, although covert, may be the true and most powerful motivator. 


Perhaps the most insidious aspect of resentment is that it is seldom acknowledged - either to others, or even to oneself; and whatever is unacknowledged cannot be repented.

Much of this is to do with the fact that whoever or whatever is resented always - in a false but often compelling sense - "deserves it"; so the resentment can be disguised as "simply the facts". 

Furthermore, resentment appears under the guise of "resenting-the-resenter"...

Resenting-the-resenter means that I resent some person or group, on the basis that they resent me.

(And therefore are trying to harm me).

The fact that their resentment against me may well be true, is used to disguise the fact that I have myself developed a sinful and motivating resentment. 

(And whatever is unacknowledged cannot be repented.)

What needs to be borne in mind, is that resentment is a sin because of the harm it does to the resenter; therefore resentment is always wrong - and therefore wrong no matter how apparently "factually based" it really is. 

In other words, the facts are nothing at all to do with the sin - except in providing a fake excuse, a false and irrelevant "justification", for not repenting it. 

That is: a person or group may really and truly be dedicated to harming others - but it is still and always a sin to develop an attitude of resentment towards him or them. 

Because the sin harm us - whatever it may or may not do to others. 

Take a (semi-humorous) example from this blog. I often indulge in rants against The Normans

I genuinely believe that The Normans are a problem, that they are constitutionally lacking in empathy, and have caused and still cause a great deal of harm to many people in may places (not just in the UK and Ireland). 

I also believe that modern Normans are strongly motivated by resentment - especially against the native English people. 

Those may be regarded as The Facts (from my point of view), and they have various real world implications for choices and actions. But at times I confess that I have fallen into resentment against The Normans... 

Now; I need to be able to recognize when this has happened - I need to recognize when I am actually resenting The Normans. 

Because this always needs to be acknowledged and repented - because otherwise I am doubling-down on a sin.  


Nobody "deserves" to be resented - no matter what they have do or want to do - because resentment is not about Them but about Us. 

"Deserving" has precisely nothing to do with it. 

It is a favourite (and highly effective) ploy of Satan to win adherents in the spiritual war of this world; by the false conception of "justified resentment" against his agents. He encourages a resenter; and that resenter then creates further resentment. 

Thus Satan gains supporters on both sides - because both sides are in fact unrepenting sinners, and thus (in truth) are affiliated to Satan. 

My take-home message (to myself as well as others) is simply that: All resentment is un-justified.

Saturday 25 May 2024

Metaphysics Rules! Because we Are ruled by metaphysical assumptions, these will only change when Replaced

Modern Man's fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality (that is - his metaphysics) is By Far the most important reason for the continued and increasing rule and domination of evil in this world.

This is because Metaphysics Rules! (OK?)

Over the long term, and irresistibly, how we regard the fundamental nature of reality will dissolve anything that contradicts it. 

I see people all over the place, in daily life and writers, who are flailing-around and going around in futile circles; because they are trapped by metaphysical assumptions of which they are unaware, or deny to be assumptions (but instead regard as "facts"). 

Their intuitions, hopes, aspirations, insights, instincts, logic, may point away from the mainstream ideology; but these are all eroded and made-ultimately-irrelevant by the deeper conviction arising from ultimate assumptions: "But, it's not real!"

All the potentially good things in life (e.g. beauty, virtue and morals, truth, coherence, relationships) are continually undermined by corrosive convictions of that have become primary assumptions: 

There is No God; this universe is Not a Creation but made by "physics", "mathematics", "evolution"; there exists only The Material realm (nothing spiritual, no divine); every-thing that ever happened was either utterly random, or else determined by physical cases.   

And these, and other similar, assumptions structure reality; so that people cannot help but regard life as without purpose or meaning. 

Unless these metaphysical assumptions are changed - then nothing else matters in the long run; anything else - any other changes or aspirations - will be destroyed. 

But metaphysical assumptions cannot be removed; they must be replaced. 

This is because we do not and cannot consciously live without metaphysics. It is not possible; because all meaning, action, purpose... depends on assumptions. Without these is only chaos.  

And this means that people will-not, they cannot, give up their current metaphysics; until they are able to replace it with another metaphysics. 

Which is why our situation is so difficult! People hold themselves in a double-bind. They will not first give-up their current metaphysics because it explains everything already. They will not adopt another set of fundamental assumptions because - from their current POV - any other metaphysics is just arbitrary, false and... wrong!

To happen, metaphysical change needs to be simultaneous. As the one dissolves, the other takes its place.  

(This is a "conversion experience.")  

Everybody has already experienced this, because we are born and spend early childhood with very different assumptions; and during childhood and adolescence have absorbed mainstream modern materialist metaphysics from our social situation.     

But that was passive and unconscious; and thus seemed like "reality" - seemed like The Facts - seemed an inevitable consequence of growing more mature, informed, intelligent; and came from externally, from "authority" and from "experts", and was endorsed by all the institutions with power, wealth and high status. 

Whereas from here and from now; what needs to happen is conscious and active - thus inwardly initiated and sustained; and has aspects of becoming more childlike ("immature") and simple-minded ("dumb") and apparently arbitrary ("crazy"). 

Metaphysical replacement is also something done alone - there aren't people, or organizations (not even churches - except partially and therefore incoherently) that encourage it - because that is the nature of the modern world. Modernity is built on modern metaphysical assumptions. 

You see the depth of the problem? You see why so many people and organizations are embarked on a strategy of self-destruction and chaos? You see why this multi-generational trends has been to very resistant to change and reverse? 

They are simply manifesting their metaphysics

The good news is that the answer is in our own hands, each and all of us... 

And that is the bad news as well. 

Friday 24 May 2024

Why are Men and The World so badly designed for a successful mystical/ spiritual life?

Whenever I read any kind of plan, scheme, method, or even ideal about how to lead a qualitatively better spiritual or religious life - and this could range from reading the principles and practices of monasticism, works on how-to-do meditation, descriptions (as in The Way of a Pilgrim) of how prayer can transform life... Or even the structures of recommended mainstream church observances for laity - concerning attendances, meetings, and practices. 

When I consider such schemes, sooner or later I am thrown back by the tough question of why such elaborate, tough and prolonged procedures - with little or no guarantee of success - are (apparently) necessary for human beings to live The Good Life?

Surely (I think) the asserted need for such complicated and sustained procedures in order to live in accordance with God's will, is evidence that Men themselves, and The World in general, are very badly designed?   

Why should God the Creator have designed things so badly that difficult and long-term disciplines and training are, apparently, needed? 

And if an answer is put forward concerning Man's fallen state, the propensity to sin; or the interventions of demons - then that just kicks the can; because God created these beings and situations too.  

Another version of this question is to ask why God created a world in which it was so extremely difficult to do the right thing, so much easier to do the wrong? 

There are many aspects to this question, and I have written extensively about it elsewhere on this blog; but here I just want to focus on how strange it is that Christianity ever became identified so deeply with plans, schemes, methods and ideals of living a qualitatively better life

My understanding is that "Christianity" is (properly) about following Jesus Christ to resurrected eternal Heavenly life - it is essentially about our living after this mortal life and world.

It seems to me clear that this post-mortal goal of Christianity does not have any necessary, close, or specifically-mapped-out relationship to the quality of life in this temporary mortal life. 

Of course there is a profound relationship between this mortal life and the eternal life to come - in that both are lived by "us", both lived by "our-selves". 

But it seems almost obvious that when mortal life is temporary, and when we ourselves and the world in general are so... imperfect - that this mortal life must surely be mainly a preparation for resurrected life everlasting? 

When mortal life is understood as a preparatory experience, conducted by extremely varied mortal Men, in an extremely mixed and diversified world - then the idea seems very bizarre that there would be some special prescribed form of Christian Life, that would be expected positively and qualitatively to transform this inevitably insufficient and time-limited existence... 

Such considerations fill me with a deep puzzlement at the direction the main-stream of Christianity took after the death of Jesus.

Because (in apparently most times and places, and still) the emphasis of Christianity is nearly-always on attempting a qualitative improvement in this mortal life. 

And, by contrast with the detailed prescriptions and strong instructions of how to live here-and-now; the primary goal of resurrected eternal life is presented as a very uncertain proposition... Uncertain in terms of whether we can actually attain it, and uncertain in its actual nature if we do.   

To me; this is very strange, and my awareness of its strangeness continually increases. 

Thursday 23 May 2024

Won-over by Magpies in Newcastle upon Tyne

From The Detectorists. The performers (The Unthanks) are local to Newcastle.

Folk feelings about magpies (i.e. the Eurasian magpie, Pica pica) are strong in both directions. 

In folklore the birds have a generally negative reputation. They are mostly feared; especially when seen (apparently) alone - as with the magpie nursery rhyme "One for sorrow..." in its several variants. 

They may be addressed with the kind of propitiatory respect accorded to fairies. 

All this is on display in one of Terry Pratchett's best fantasy novels Carpe Jugulum; where the vampire villains are Count de Magpyr and his family, and flocks of magpies are eyes, spies and scavengers under vampire control. 

Magpies have a deserved reputation for theft of bright objects (e.g. Rossini's "Thieving Magpie" opera), and for carnivorous aggression - including against song-bird chicks.

Here in Newcastle, the local magpies are credited with having been first to discover how to peck through the foil tops from old style milk bottles, and drink from them; thereby infecting the local population with Campylobacter food poisoning. 

(I've suffered this illness, although neither from milk nor magpies, and it was undoubtedly one of the most painful and generally unpleasant weeks of my life! I shall spare you the - ahem - details.) 

And yet - I also felt a kind of pride that our local magpies were (allegedly) the ones to discover how to access this source of nutrition (shame about the human misery and occasional fatalities...). 

Such positivity towards magpies is - of course - reflected in the world famous black and white vertical stripes of Newcastle United football club: who are nicknames The Magpies. 

At times the city streets will be "ablaze" with people dressed as "magpies" with black and white striped flags, shirts, hats, scarves and... pretty much everything. 

Newcastle United/ B&W magpie symbolism quite often features on gravestones, too (some rather magnificent).

A Newcastle United fan-badge with magpies instead of sea-horses on the club crest:

Magpies are frequent visitors to our garden; and this led me to observe the birds for myself; and gradually to warm towards them. 

Magpies are quite noisy, so their presence is usually obvious. I noticed that they live and work in pairs, and research led me to discover that these are mating pairs, and the bird is monogamous - more close-knit and loyal than most (modern) human marriages! 

Mr and Mrs Magpie will operate together in a highly intelligent and coordinated way; and by doing so can repel far larger numbers of other birds; crows - for example when competing for nesting sites, or when crows try to drive magpies away from the vicinity of their nests (and chicks). I have watched a pair of magpies holding-off a great flock of big, mean crows - maybe twenty at a time? 

At one point we were feeding the squirrels in our garden, and began to leave out a few peanuts on the platform of the feeder. After just a couple of days I realized that the magpies had already noticed, and were watching and waiting so that the nuts would be taken before I had even walked back to the house. 

I began to play a kind of game, by making the nuts harder and harder to access - hiding them, or placing them behind the feeder. The magpies seemed to enjoy this; and would hunt-out the nuts, always finding and getting them - at extremes even hovering beside the feeder to use their beaks to pull-out a single nut tucked between the feeder and the tree. 

I asked my scientist colleague Michael Woodley about this; and he confirmed that magpies (and Corvids generally) were indeed one of the most intelligent of native British birds in terms of problem-solving (surpassed only by jackdaws). 

So, here we have a clue to the split opinions about magpies: they are more similar to humans than other birds. 

We admire and identify-with some of their traits, and are dismayed to see ourselves reflected in others. 

And magpies are one of not-many birds (the robin is another) with whom we can feel a personal connection, a flash of empathy between very unlike creatures. 

Handsome, as well!