Soviet and socialist origins of the British folk music revival

Ewan MacColl (pseudo-Scotsman Jimmy Miller from Lancashire) and Peggy Seeger (pseudo-ethnic WASP). Hard-working, knowledgeable, talented, tyrannical spooks 

I'm reading an oral history of Folk Clubs, called Singing from the Floor, by JP Bean (2014) which institutions were the main manifestation of the British Folk Revival from the middle 1950s until the late 1970s. 

I knew this movement pretty well and participated somewhat, towards the end of this era; and perhaps because I came late to it, I had not previously realized the extent to which the trend was dependent upon the Communist Party (in effect the government of the USSR), and socialist Trades Unions, for planning, funding, publicity and organization.  

This top-down and social engineering aspect of the British Folk Revival is perfectly clear cut, not hidden, and was always openly acknowledged (albeit the fact that the activities of UK communism were primarily as a tool of USSR foreign policy, was never generally recognized). 

Like so much of popular music and popular culture generally, it turns-out that the public face and administrators of Folk Music (aside from the always present actually "folk" musicians, such as farm workers and miners) were the intelligence branches of the Eastern Bloc, and their sympathizers and collaborators within the UK Establishment and Labour movements. 

(All of which is ironic considering, this was supposed to be a grass-roots, bottom-up movement, emanating from "the folk" and representing the ideas and ideals of the "secret people" of Britain - the often nameless working "masses". But I suppose this always has been standard operating procedure for the left, who are always appointing themselves spokesmen on behalf of somebody else.)

In the end, the movement outgrew its roots, and the aspects of folk music that I most liked were either disconnected-from or hostile-to the original Soviet-agent "controllers" such as Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, or AL Lloyd.   

But there is no doubt in my mind that a major aspect of the Folk movement was covert-agenda-driven, was upper and middle class in origin and actuality; and that this strategy was highly successful in its (presumed) political aims of permeating many performers and audience with a particular world view and assumptions. 

And what applied to Folk Music (top-down, organized and funded for strategic political purposes by leftist sources) was analogously true (although probably with less direct Soviet influence, and a more Western Intelligence impulse) for the much larger "pop culture" of Britain. 

Thus were built-into people - at an early and formative stage of life, and especially associated with enjoyment, happy memories and day dreams during the "coming of age" years of teenage and young adulthood - ideas and ideals that have been for many decades a cultural compulsion and obsession in The West. 

And which consequently still exert a near-monopoly in large sectors of the population in the UK.

Job done!

Systemic social problems - the implicit utopianism of the Left and the implicit selfishness of the Right

In any possible and realistically-imaginable society in this mortal life on earth, there will be situations and people who are having an absolutely and/or relatively miserable time of it. 

This may be due to the necessity for "dirty work" - or it may be due to all manner of negative aspects of any system. Because no matter how overall-optimal a system of society may be, it will be imperfect; it will include groups and/or individuals who are less favoured at least - and usually groups/ individuals who are systematically dis-favoured. 

By my understanding, Leftism began in the late 1700s with movements such as abolition and pacifism; and gathered strength through the 1800s with many varieties of socialism; before developing the current New Left-ism - sexual politics such as feminism, antiracism, environmentalism, transhumanism etc - to dominate from the later 1960s. 

Early Leftism was often explicitly utopian - positing an ideal society that was sometimes claiming to be a possible paradise; even if not quite "Heaven on earth". 

In recent decades Leftism has abandoned explicit utopianism, but retains a wholly-implicit, never stated, assumption of the perfectibility of human society; from which stance proceeds its critique of any degree of absolute or relative inequality, or suffering. 

In other words, Leftism is rooted in a denial of the systematic imperfection of all possible human societies; which is why Leftism is insatiable, and leads to the state of "permanent revolution" that has prevailed over the past six decades.

All problems that the Left focuses upon are always regarded as systemic and requiring systemic change; then, because all possible systems have problems - the Left  

To take racism in the USA as an example; at first the focus was upon laws and practices that excluded or disadvantaged, so that opposite "affirmative action" laws were introduced. The focus then shifted to unequal outcomes; so that quotas were introduced. Then the focus shifted to individuals' subjective feelings of oppression, disrespect, neglect etc ("micro-aggressions"). Then to a requirement for positive acts of group affirmation, admiration, celebration. 

And so forth. 

What all of these imply without ever stating; is than any degree of imperfection in a social system is intolerable and ought to lead to system change - with the unstated assumption that this will lead towards a perfect system where no such problems will occur. 

This strong assumption of perfectibility would probably be denied; yet there is always an assumption that things can and will be improved overall by each proposed or actual system change; and that there is no limit to such improvability. 

Such assumptions and denials inevitably lead to systematic dishonesty, which has been such a major feature of Western social development over the past several decades; until here-and-now those with power think and behave wholly manipulatively with respect to their implicit Left-agenda; and are "not even trying" to be honest about anything.   

I regard this implicit assumption of societal perfectibility as an almost inevitable consequence of the atheistic this-worldly materialism of Western Societies; in certain personality types. I am thinking of those people who regard suffering as the main human problem; or who judge a society on how it treats what they regard as its most "disadvantaged" members. These are the Leftists, and are in practice systematically dishonest. 

Other atheistic this-worldly materialists are less concerned about suffering; and more interested in optimizing peace, prosperity, comfort, convenience, and gratification. These are those who regard themselves as on "the Right". They accept the inevitability of imperfection and the necessity for compromise in systems - but disagree among themselves on what social system is optimal, and/or how to attain it. In practice, Rightists are systematically selfish - i.e. favouring a social system that they believe favours themselves (+/- favouring people like themselves). 

As I see it; the only alternative is to adopt a Christian not atheist, spiritual not materialist, and Heaven-focused not this-world-focused, perspective on all possible social systems. 

 

The current orgy of virtual Schadenfreude

The current online orgy of virtual Schadenfreude - triggered by media reports of the activities of the new US Presidential administration - is a dismaying spectacle in many ways, from my Christian perspective.

"Schadenfreude" describes the (spiteful) emotion of gratification at the (real or imagined) sufferings of others - typically of one's enemies. "Real or imagined" is relevant, since the current sufferings are substantially imagined, being learned-of via news-media reports and governmental/ bureaucratic announcements. 

That is why I inserted the word "virtual" - because the information on the sufferings is substantially indirect, secondhand, and obtained via mass/social media and from State sources. 

At least two things should be said about this online delight. 

The first is to clarify that reports of sufferings will almost certainly be misleading. 

The second, and more important, that the reported activities being celebrated are almost-wholly negative and destructive in nature - therefore not driven by any explicit and conscious, positive Christian motivation.

I have been deeply suspicious of claims of destruction of the managerial bureaucracy, since I had inside experience of such events about thirty years ago, within the UK National Health Service. 

The government of that era claimed to be determined to "cut red tape", including severely reducing the particular layer of bureaucracy within-which I was working. 

Official announcements from the specific layer of NHS bureaucracy also claimed (and complained) that it was being reduced severely. About 150 jobs were supposedly to be cut from a single office complex where I worked - and official returns to this effects were submitted. 

The news media duly reported the 150 jobs cut. 

Yet those on the inside knew that this was a kind of theatre for public consumption. 

In reality, hardly any jobs were cut - and these were almost exclusively among those who wanted to leave anyway and were grateful for severance pay. 

Nearly all of the 150 sacked/ let-go were redeployed within the larger organization; and/or rehired into almost the same jobs, shortly after the big announcement of cuts. 

The message is that, when you hear or read about job-cuts, layoffs, closures etc; all this kind of stuff may quite easily be faked - but faked in a way that is not detectable without detailed inside knowledge. 

The deeper problem with this current celebrations of destruction, is that of the underlying motivation. (Because the difference between virtue and sin, between good and evil, is essentially that of motivation - rather than specific action). 

A motivation for destruction as such, is anti-divine-creation, hence an evil motivation - and therefore leads to more and greater evil. 

And this applies pretty much for anything that might be destroyed - almost regardless of how useless or evil it is. 

An historical comparison could be the Dissolution of the Monasteries that happened in England under the rule of Henry the Eighth. 

The Roman Catholic Church itself, and its religious orders in particular - monasteries, friaries, priories, nunneries - owned a vast and still increasing proportion of the national wealth (from memory, something between a third and a half of the land). 

Church abuses were rife and widely experienced by the English population; there was a good deal of exploitation, luxury, self-indulgence, and political activity; and apparently much less (although certainly still a significant amount!) of asceticism, scholarship, piety, charity, and virtue. 

Therefore, there was no shortage of those among the English who celebrated (even when they did not personally benefit from) the truly colossal appropriation, violence and destruction that followed. 

My impression is that there was a good deal of tacit, if not active, public support for the Dissolution - as well as senior political, and a large segment of religious, leadership involvement. 

A great deal, therefore, of Schadenfreude was evident in the Dissolution. 

For instance; when the last major Abbey, in Glastonbury, was closed and demolished, and the greatest monastic library in England was destroyed; and its Abbot and two other senior clerics were publicly hung on top of Glastonbury Tor - it seems that the local population were pleased to observe their ex-landlords get "what was coming to them". 

Yet the Dissolution of the Monasteries was a national catastrophe, especially for the middle and poorer classes, from which it took England generations to recover - if indeed it ever did recover. More than a century of terribly destructive religious wars and exterminations were initiated. For many decades, there were almost no schools or hospitals, and no organized provision for relief of the poor.  

My simple point is that when goals are negative and destruction is the primary aim - and when this is unacknowledged, un-repented; spiritual disaster will surely ensue. Because this is, in effect, a celebration and endorsement of evil. 

No amount of negative action ever amounts to a positive strategy - and almost all current self-styled positive motivations are merely double-negative simulations. Or else, like Western "nationalism" as of 2025; almost wholly wishful, conjectural - hence in practice very secondary to other motives, and far too feeble to be effectual. 

With respect to the native populations of Western nations in 2025; any motivation that is truly good, positive, virtuous; absolutely needs to be consciously chosen and a grass-roots/ bottom-up phenomenon. 

Because, however differently things were in the past, good cannot now be done covertly nor in a top-down fashion. 

So that all fantasies of covert positive top-down agendas among the ruling elites are impossible, as well as unreal.   

  

In sum - the current orgy of online Schadenfreude may concern much that is merely virtual; and by its celebration of negative and destructive motivations, is very likely (from a Christian point of view) to prove multi-valently corrupting of those who engage in it. 

(As, indeed, seems to be the case.) 

What prevents "war in Heaven"? Or, the necessity for death and resurrection

The phrase war in Heaven is common enough, sometimes used to describe a rebellion of Lucifer and the demons against God, and a subsequent war among spiritual beings with Michael the Archangel leading the forces on God's side*. 

Yet, if we really think about it, "war in Heaven" is nonsense, an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 

Because - if there is war, then it isn't Heaven. And if there is a Heaven, then there cannot be war in it, nor even the possibility of war. 

*(If the war of God and angels versus demonic rebels did indeed happen in the time before Christ; and I believe something of that sort did happen, albeit it was and still is probably continuous, rather than a finite war - then it was not a war in Heaven. It was/is a war in the First Creation which was not and cannot be Heaven - not a war in Jesus Christ's Second Creation.)  

Heaven did not exist, and was not even claimed to exist, until Jesus Christ. It was Jesus that "made" Heaven, and made Heaven a possible destination for Men.  

But the "trouble" was and still is, that Jesus made Heaven on the other side of death; Jesus insisted that Men must die (as did he) and be "born-again" in order to dwell in Heaven. 

This has never been popular! 

People do not want to wait until after death. They want Heaven here and now! - or as soon as possible. They want to dwell in Heaven as they are, and not as they become after death. They want Heaven on Earth. 

Why then did Jesus insist that Men must die? Why not abolish death? 

Well, if we assume Jesus was both good and competent; then we must assume that death was necessary for Heaven: necessary for Heaven to exist; necessary for Men to live-forever and go to Heaven; necessary in order that Heaven actually be Heaven. 

And this can be understood by considering how war in Heaven is prevented. 

While some kind of powerful government could suppress dissent, detect and punish rebels etc - this would not be Heaven. (Being a thwarted, or brainwashed, rebel is not a Heavenly state!)

War in Heaven can only be ruled-out eternally if not a single one of the denizens of Heaven ever want war - and this situation must be eternal.  

In other words; the inhabitants of Heaven must - of their very nature, spontaneously, by their own fundamental desires and motivations - always and forever desire to live in love and harmony with God, and with each other. 

The "problem" was how to arrive at this situation; given that Men (and all other Beings) just-are free agents? 

The problem is: How can free agents become eternally good?

And my answer is that Men need to be able to make permanent their commitments, their choices, their deepest desires. 

Here on earth we cannot stick to our commitments, cannot stick to our choices. 

New Years resolutions get broken! The grandiose hopes of qualitative self-reform and betterment in a new Christian convert, never work-out. The "Old Adam" is ineradicable, as the Apostle Paul famously complained.  

We may passionately want to do this or that, or to be good, loving persons; but always we get distracted, or sick or older; our motives or mood change; circumstances change - and over-and-again we want something different, and end by doing something else altogether. 

Even/especially the greatest Saints are self-acknowledged to be great - almost continuous - sinners (by the truest standards of sin; sin as something-like deviation from the loving nature of divine creation).  

For there to be a Heaven, Men need to be able to choose God, Divine Creation, Love and all that is Good - and to choose this-only and this-forever. 

The way this happens is resurrection. 

We can therefore consider resurrection to be the way that we are enabled to make our commitments permanent. 

And resurrection first requires death. 

Thus resurrected Beings can live forever in Heaven without war, resurrection includes a permanent choice, an eternally-binding commitment, by which Men are (thanks to Jesus Christ) now able to make for ourselves.

It will surely be asked: "But why can't we have resurrection without death?"

The only real answer is: because that is the nature of things. If we want resurrection, we must die. 

It makes sense to me that resurrection can only be after death; because it entails a kind of permission to be re-made as eternal Beings; and although resurrection is a material process as well as spiritual, the process is essentially spiritual - because the material is a sub-set of the spiritual. 

(i.e. Originally there were only spiritual Beings  the material came later in creation. All materiality is also spiritual, but there can be and is spiritual being that is not material.)

I conceive of death as a kind of dissolution, or dissolving of my beingness from its current temporarily incarnated (embodied) level of creation, back towards a primal and immaterial (only-spiritual) simplicity that is a barely-conscious mere-existence. 

I envisage resurrection as redirecting the death-process by which only-and-all of that which is Good in me is taken, retained, rebuilt into the resurrected me.

The resurrected me is still me because it is a transformation of my eternal Being; but it is only remade of that which is Good, which is Heaven-compatible and Heaven-sustaining. 

The resurrected me will be eternal because this selective process retains only that which is harmonious and loving; and leaves-behind forever all that would have potential to generate dissent, rebellion or war against that-which-makes-Heaven-heavenly. 

In other words all of my mortal self that leads to death (all evil, and all "entropy") is left-behind in the process of resurrection, therefore after resurrection creation is unopposed and life is everlasting. 

How this selection process during resurrection actually happens, I guess to be the point at which the Christian imperative of "following Jesus Christ" comes-in. It may be as if we are continually-guided-through the process of resurrection (knowing what must be retained, what must be let-go and shed) by the very simple matter of Love. 

The discernment of what to keep, what to discard; comes from that love which motivates anyone who permanently desires Heaven, and the outer direction of that love to Jesus Christ and what he offers us. 

In different words; it is the loving and personal attention of Jesus Christ towards our souls during the process of dying, that enables resurrection; and which enables Heaven to exist...

And which enables Heaven to be heavenly, including that there can never be any desire for, or possibility of, "war in Heaven".  

**

H/T - Francis Berger's comment that a possible motivation for those who insist on an Omni-God is that they fear that anything less than an Omni-God will not always and forever be able to defeat Beings that might strive to usurp creation. God therefore (supposedly) desires to retain an infinite and qualitative gulf between Himself and all created-Beings. (Or rather, this gulf just-is, and a consequence is that nobody and nothing can subvert creation.) Such a line of reasoning is, I think, just an extreme case of the much more general problem stated here: how can Heaven stay "heavenly" when its inhabitants are free agents. The above is my understanding of how this is so, and some the consequences. Once it is understood that the denizens of Heaven can, by free and irrevocable choice, permanently be fully in harmonious accord with God's creative purposes and methods - then there is no reason why Men cannot rise to a level of divinity on-a-par with God the primary creator; and join-with God as partners in the work of creation.  

Saving the Appearances - excellent audiobook version read by Aaron Parker

A complete audiobook version of Owen Barfield's most important book Saving the Appearances has been recorded on YouTube by Aaron Parker.  

This is an excellent resource, because Saving the Appearances, although extremely well written, has often proved to be difficult for people to understand. 

At least, many people, including myself, seem to have misunderstood the book and failed to recognize its exceptionally deep and transformative implications on a first reading. 

I think this is likely to be helped by Aaron Parker's impressive narration, which is highly engaged with the text; and articulated with an emphasis and modulation that makes it both easier to maintain concentration, and to grasp the argument. 

Saving the Appearances has been a life-changing book for many people. If you have never yet tried it, or tried and didn't "get" it; then here is a new kind of opportunity for you. 

At what point in The Lord of the Rings did Frodo claim the One Ring for himself?

Illustration by LizaGreywords

At what point in The Lord of the Rings did Frodo claim the One Ring for himself? 

Perhaps not when you think! 

Over at my Notion Club Papers blog, I expound a convincing and coherent theory by a Tumblr-user name of Mikke; that shines new light on what exactly happened at the climactic scene of The Lord of the Rings. 

Dirty Work: What about the "necessary evils" of civilization?

Having grown-up in the 1970s (i.e. as a teen), and one who also read a good deal of philosophical/ political stuff from the late 19th, early 20th century onwards; I was familiar with the problem that any civilization entails a good deal of Dirty Work.

My interpretation of Dirty Work is the stuff that needs doing in order for a particular society to sustain itself, but which is the kind of thing that it would be better if nobody did; and therefore it is an ineradicable flaw that somebody has to do it. 

Whatever the society, real or imagined, and no matter how ideal in terms of what is realistically possible - it was pretty generally recognized, including among honest socialists (who used to exist!) and others of the left, that there is always Dirty Work that needed doing. 

That DW might be coal-mining, agricultural drudgery, factory assembly lines - or it might be military and police, prisons and guards, propaganda and incentivizing... But there is always Dirty Work to be done - and it was regarded as a genuine problem how to square this necessity with the ideal society; because it is a problem with all societies. 

Even among those who acknowledged the problem, there were always people who supposed that kicking the can a bit further down the road constituted an answer. 

Replacing labouring people with machines was one instance - because it replaced the problem of doing exhausting physical labour; with instead a vastly complex system of multi-national, multi-personal, economics and trade - including systems of education, training, factory work, transportation etc - all of which was just as systemic, just as mandatory (hence, ultimately coerced), as the toiling peasant.

The same problems apply to any imaginable system of religion that might be integrated with any ideal society. The building and maintenance of churches, the provision of religious professionals (priests, theologians, administrators etc) and the systems needed to provide these (education, training, discipline, monitoring etc), a system of laws and rules for the religion - the problem of Dirty Work in any realistically conceivable religion is indeed very extensive   

So this problem of the necessarily coercive and Dirty nature of every realistically conceivable society, was a constant problem for those who were honest, and who also hoped and intended to improve human life on this earth. 

The key terms above include "realistic" and "honest" - because (starting in the middle sixties, and beginning to become dominant through the 1970s) it became evident that it had become acceptable, indeed mainstream in public and intellectual discourse, to dispose of the problem of Dirty Work by being unrealistic and dishonest. 

For examples; by denying there was a necessary problem, or removing the problem by hand-waving. That is certainly the point we have now reached, and for a long time. 

The discussions of sex and sexuality, or race, are prime instances. The favoured outcomes are merely wish-fulfilment daydreams. Realistic evaluation - e.g. in terms of negative outcomes of policy, inevitable compromises, necessary and unavoidable flaws - is not just neglected but prohibited. 

This began with the denial of adverse personal and social outcomes from a system that allowed, then encouraged, extra-martial sex, promiscuity, normalized cohabitation, and introduced "no-fault" divorce - and went on from there as the sexual revolution expanded without limit.    

Environment is another instance. In the early-mid seventies it was acknowledged that preservation of nature and enhancement of the natural environment would require a lower population, a lower "standard of living", a great simplification of life, fewer and less complex machines - with less consumption and travel and so forth... 

But currently all such Dirty Work inevitabilities are just left-out, blocked from discussion - and boosteristic, vague, wishful thinking reigns unopposed.  

Much the same applies among modern Christians. While it used to be very generally accepted that there is a large Dirty Work aspect to system-integrated Church Christianity (of all denominations, although the main problems differed for each) - that this was an ineradicably very mixed solution to the problem of religion; nowadays such matters are left-out of discussion.

Probably in consequence; the Dirty Work, systemic aspects of the Christian churches have almost-completely taken over; and everything else (the actual religion that is supposed to be "provided" by the apparatus of organization) is so marginalized as to be all-but invisible (or, as in the Birdemic, eliminated until-further-notice). 

Furthermore; those who advocate a return to a society rooted in orthodox traditionalism seem to be living in an unrealistic and dishonest fantasy day-dream; where either there are no Dirty Work aspects of their desired theocratic system - or else these necessary flaws are re-interpreted as Good Things. 

This problem applies to all actual and possible Christian Churches. System always entails Dirty Work. 

What I mean is that stuff which used to be known as "necessary evils", are either no longer regarded as necessary or (more often) no longer regarded as evil!... Usually on the basis that the system advocated is, overall, judged better than the (totalitarian, materialist, evil-motivated) system in place currently - which is a very low bar to leap! 

And this applies pretty much across the board, including among far too many Christians. Dishonesty and unrealism are institutionalized; and not just accepted, but required in public discourse - even among dissenting minorities. 

So I have circled back to my old (well-worn?) point about the necessity of honesty, if anything is to be accomplished from the situation we now inhabit. 

And the further point I wish to make is that - in a world where honesty is neither valued nor permitted - this is a matter for each individual to do for himself. Self-honesty. 

Striving for honesty about everything, with oneself, for oneself (and God). 

Personal responsibility in all (or as many as possible) things - in other words. 

Recognizing "Entropy" (change, death) as The Problem - there have been three suggested Answers

Even if we (somehow) lived in an utterly perfect society under an utterly ideal political system - there would still be the problem of evil. 

Even if the problem of evil was (somehow) cured; then there would still be the problem of entropy - of change, degeneration, disease, death. 

Entropy is the ultimate enemy.

(Although modern Westerners have lost sight of it; the ultimacy of the problem of entropy has been recognized at least since the earliest known Greek philosophers, and is the focus of the Fourth Gospel's account of the purpose and work of Jesus Christ - i.e. at the very heart of Christianity.)  

There have been (I think) three suggested ways that purport to solve the ultimate problem of entropy:

1. By Stasis

2. By Spirit

3. By Resurrection  

The cure by stasis is that entropy is caused by (indeed actually is) change; and is solved by a reality in which there is no change. Eternity is therefore static. 

The cure by spirit is that entropy is caused by matter, by "the material"; and therefore is solved by the replacement of matter by immaterial spirit. (Including that our death is, ultimately, due to being incarnated.) Eternity is therefore spiritual. 

The cure by resurrection is that there must first be death, and after death (for those Beings that "follow" Jesus Christ) there can be a transformation, a re-making; such that we again become incarnated (i.e. made of solid "matter") that is everlasting, inhabiting a Heaven where we remain our-selves, and in which there is change.  

The idea of resurrection as a cure for entropy is therefore something new and different from the more ancient ideas of stasis and/or spiritualization.  

I find the answers of stasis and spirit to be incoherent from a Christian perspective; because they raise the problem of why a loving personal God would compel His children to pass-through the entropic phase of mortal incarnation. If stasis, or spirit, are the answer - why bother with all this tedious mucking-about in this state of change and as matter? If entropy is to be solved by stasis or spiritualization, why create the problem at all - why create change, why create matter?  

But resurrection has not been understood as a third and qualitatively different solution from stasis and spirit - so that most supposed-explanations of resurrection, instead revert to variations and combinations of stasis and spirit. 

A satisfactory and coherent explanation of resurrection needs to include:

1. Why death is necessary? Why does God not go directly to the non-entropic state of things? 

2. Why our continued mortal life is necessary? If death is necessary to the abolition of entropy, then why don't we die ASAP and get on with the real business of post-mortal resurrected living? 

It is because I could not find any such explanations, that I was compelled to devise coherent answers for myself; and why I ended-up with a new kind of metaphysical Christian theology. 

The Litmus Tests are really learning opportunities

The Litmus Tests to which I so often refer on this blog, are a mixture of old and new - they are continually being added-to. 

I first conceptualized them in 2020 in reference to the Birdemic and Peck, which were added onto much longer established Totalitarian Establishment strategies - such as pacifism, socialism, feminism and sexual revolution, antiracism, climate change etc. 

Since 2020 there have been further Litmus Tests, such as (especially in the UK) the war against the Fire Nation. And currently there is a Litmus Test with reference to taking sides in the civil war that is splitting the globalist materialists of the Totalitarian Establishment.

(Or apparently so - because the civil war may ultimately, at the highest level, be a faked show put-on to manipulate the masses.)   

It is pretty clear that the Litmus Tests never stop. As commenter Laeth has said; each new Test probes for different vulnerabilities among those people (and institutions) who had been able to hold-out against being assimilated into active support to the Totalitarian Agenda*. 

Thus the healthism of the Birdemic/ Peck led to the corruption of most of the the holdouts among mainstream Christian churches... Conservative Catholics, Evangelicals and Mormons that had resisted the sexual revolution; became wildly-enthusiastic about closing their churches and suspending activities until further notice; and imposing lockdown, atomistic social isolation, and habits of systematic interpersonal fear.  

Later; some of those who had successfully resisted the Birdemic manipulations, then joined with a nationally-orchestrated, media-constructed, Orwellian "two-minute hate session" against the Fire Nation - a two-minutes that has continued for three years, so far (and which is still actively attempting to create a self-annihilating all-out state of war, with the UK as prime target). 

The current situation wit hte new President in the USA is but the most recent Litmus Test. This has, like previous tests, been able to subvert and "turn" a significant proportion of those "holdouts" who had resisted the Birdemic and Fire Nation Tests. It seems that perhaps a majority of "based" online anti-woke, self-identified Christians; have gone all-in for an almost delirious combination of schadenfreude with this-worldly-optimism; the whole thing focused on various Antichrist-figures among the mainstream, totalitarian establishment. 

In one sense these Litmus Tests can be understood as an almost inevitable consequence of the increasing power of Satan and his demons and human servants within this-world - clearly, they will continue to win more-and-more souls to an more-certain (self-chosen) damnation. 

On the other hand they may perhaps be seen as tests allowed by God; because of the opportunities each one brings for a different kind of spiritual learning, and therefore spiritual development - an education in preparation for our post-mortal resurrected life. 

(Which education is, IMO, the purpose of our sustained mortal life. We each continue to live because we have more that it would be good - and perhaps essential - for us to learn.) 

However, I personally do not see the Litmus test as allowed by God nor as a divinely ordained method of spiritual education. Instead I see them as things that God cannot prevent, in this world as it actually is. 

My understanding is: The Litmus Tests originate variously, but become strategies due to their potential for evil and are sustained for that reason. 

They are not of-God; but God can and does (as always) make the best of the bad situations that result, because of his love for each of us, as His divine children. 

And we should take the same attitude of making the best spiritual use of the situations. We should regard the Litmus Tests as direct challenges - not to our peace/ prosperity/ comfort/ convenience; but challenges to our innermost spiritual freedom, the primacy of Christian love, and the requirement for absolute personal responsibility. 

The core part of this is realizing that, for all their geopolitical qualities, the Litmus Tests are Not primarily about material circumstances for large numbers of people in this-world - on the contrary; their true primary reality is directed at the free individual human soul; who always-can and needs-to discern reality in-and-for-himself; whatever the pressures and distractions of this material and social world.   

*Note: As I have previously said; the special significance of Litmus Tests, as with all temptations to sin, is that failure on even a single Test can be sufficient to induce a person to choose reject salvation and choose damnation. Therefore, it is a misunderstanding to express satisfaction that some particular person or institution has passed one, or several, or a majority of the Litmus Tests. In principle and in practice; even when just a single Litmus Test is failed, then that may be a sufficient basis for corruption and inversion of values. And this is made much more likely because the Global Totalitarian Establishment will reward and amplify any such failure; to convert passive acquiesce into active support.     

The scope of aphorisms

I have often recommended aphoristic writers. 

And I have (at least since I began regular blogging in 2010 - a year or two after I became a Christian) myself developed an aphoristic style of writing (as may be evident by comparing my earlier writing). 

So, I need no persuading of the virtues of aphorism. 

However there are limitations on the effectiveness and value of this type of writing. 

An aphorism only takes the reader so far and to an uncertain destination. 

Why? Because really to comprehend, we must see the workings of thinking. 

The ideal is not to present conclusions merely, but that the reader - through the process of reading - participates in the thought processes of the writer.

 

Therefore the best use of aphorisms comes when they are presented in some quantity, and in a sequence that represents the movement of the author's thought. 

When this is done well, a reader can get benefit from the journey - even when the destination turns-out to be a place he dislikes. 

**

Note: The first aphoristic text that grabbed me was Wittgenstein's On Certainty; which is derived from notes made on a few occasions; jumping around a problem, tackling it by rushes, from different angles. I can't remember Wittgenstein's conclusions, if any; but I appreciated the way he tackled the business. 

Is a real (or feigned) resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics, en route to the needful spiritual awakening?

There is, for a month, what superficially appears to be a resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics from the USA (i.e. a politics rhetorically rooted in national economic and societal self-interest); and this is depicted, by some of its supporters, as being the first step in a rebuilding of Christendom; - therefore a stage en route to the much-needed spiritual awakening. 

Putting aside that this Secular Right revival is, I believe, feigned not real - and that this will soon become evident - even if we were to accept it at face value, then is it "a good thing" spiritually?

We cannot expect any answer to this question from studying individual policies, e.g. by trying to infer an implicit coherent net-strategy behind the flurry of apparent contradictions*. 

As always we need to infer underlying intentions, motivations etc - which are rooted in the nature and affiliations of those persons and groups making the statements and policies.

If, however, we assume for the sake of argument that we are witnessing a genuine attempt to build a stronger secular society - a society that is clearing the ground of the self-hating and self-destroying post-sixties New Leftism; and if we assume that this is being done in order to promote the material well-being of nations - we can then ask from a Christian perspective whether, if it is intended and could happen, this would be A Good Thing?   

Would it be A Good Thing if the USA could become a stronger nation, characterized by enhanced military power; secure borders; enforcement of law and order; a more efficient, more meritocratic, more genuinely productive, and more home-grown economy etc...

Would this kind of material improvement actually be A Good Thing for the spiritual status of its people (and of the world)?  

On the surface, the answer seems obvious - that such a society would be preferable to what has been the case for the past several decades. 

But on the other side, we also need to look ahead: we need to ask whether a stronger and more cohesive, but still fundamentally materialist, God-less, acquisitive, consumerist, comfortable, better-entertained, techno-totalitarian society would really be A Good Thing? 

We need to ask whether this is what is most needed - here, now? 

Whether the vast human effort and attention, bribery and compulsion, involved in striving for such change to such a society, is not very badly misplaced? 

And most fundamentally to ask whether this is possible At All? Given all that we should have learned by-now, about the innate self-destructiveness and evil-tendencies of any and all such societies? 

After all, the strong, increasingly-Godless, rapidly-growing USA of the 1950s was exactly this sort of success story. 

Yet, even at that time, in the mid 20th century; it was clear to thoughtful and observant Christians and secular people alike, that it just would-not-do, and was inevitably doomed to go (more or less) exactly where it actually went.

There are many examples of such analysis, but one will suffice: Nihilism by Eugene Rose, later Father Seraphim.  

People here-and-now need to step-back from immediate, and substantially manipulated, emotionality; and instead consider such long-term, strategic, spiritual matters; because we can be sure that those who practice the dark arts of Geopolitics are already doing so. 

 

*Note: Those with memories that extend back more than a few months, ought to have learned that having some public figure speaking some or several specific factual truths, or refuting one or a few of the innumerable lies of mainstream Leftism; does Not amount to anything At All, in terms of indicating a trend towards a truthful, honest, more-Good society. When underlying metaphysical assumptions are poisonous, then debates over particular assertions are always utterly ineffectual. 

The lesson of so-called AI: Most of Man's "thinking" is just "thinking-about", like the abstract symbolic token-juggling of Artificial Intelligence

If you have ever experienced real thinking on a subject, you will know that this rare and relatively brief activity is qualitatively different from thinking-about the same thing. 

Once you have actually thought on a matter, you can recognize when others have not - but are merely parroting on that subject. And you will also be aware that most of your own speaking and writing is also a species of parroting - even when it is a matter of parroting your own previous real-thinking... 

(This, by the way, is analogous to Wittgenstein's distinction between doing Philosophy, and the usual academic business of just "parroting" on the subject. It is what I mean when I say that I was only doing science from 1994 to 2015, although I was officially "a scientist" for some years on either side of that.)   

The current mass imposition of so-called "AI" (Artificial Intelligence) provides one potentially valuable learning experience, if it makes us realize (with shame) how much of our own mental activity is hardly superior to the kind of automatic and unconscious processing of these computer programmes.

The shame is that Man is free, hence capable of doing more than parroting. 

But computers are not Beings and cannot be free; hence they are always, only, and necessarily; forever stuck in the activity of "thinking-about" - by which I mean the whole business is symbolic and abstract, and the relationship of this token-juggling to real-reality is purely asserted; and the validity of the assertion purely conjectural*. 

(*This applies even when computers are used by spiritual Beings, such - especially- as demons; the computer cannot ever itself become a Being, because all Beings are eternally pre-existent, and cannot be made or destroyed. But a computer and its activities may be included within the scope of the spirit of a Being; rather as (but in a material way) the water in our blood may be included in our own Being.) 

We can describe the business of thinking-about in terms of tokens; tokens that "represent" things, concepts etc, and the "thinking-about" is the process of (for instance) selecting, extracting, extrapolating, combining, and arranging these tokens. 

The tokens are supposed to represent reality, in some way; but there is no "participation" in this reality - the token is not that which it represents, and the processes of token manipulation are utterly separate from the reality that is supposed to be represented by it. 

No matter how much it may be claimed otherwise, the tokens and what happens to them, are not that which they purport to represent.  

But there is another kind of thinking which is involved in the actuality of that which is being-thought, a thinking that participates in reality. This is a matter I have tried to discuss in terms such as primary thinking, and direct knowing (and which is discussed in Rudolf Steiner's books Truth and Knowledge, and The Philosophy of Freedom). 

This participating-thinking can be envisaged (although this description here is linguistic, hence itself, of course, a model) in terms of our thinking becoming the same as the thinking of other Beings; a sharing of thinking in real time. 

This is reality, because participated thinking is real - so to believe the above we must also recognize that our thinking is potentially part of ultimate reality... Our thinking (when it is primary) changes the world. 

But many/most people nowadays assert that our human thinking is itself always-and-only a symbolic activity, that our thinking is just another instance of token-juggling - and this elucidates why so many people are so completely confused by and about AI. 

They are confused because they have pre-decided that human thinking is exactly the same kind of abstract symbolic merely-representative activity as computation, then they can find no difference between thinking and the stuff that AI programs are doing.

Yet much/most of what we modern Westerners call thinking is indeed guilty as charged: merely symbolic, merely representative, merely pattern-making with tokens...  

And perhaps more so now than ever before, because of our ideology that this Must Be what thinking is, that thinking cannot-be otherwise - and to believe anything else is wishful thinking or delusional. 

Thereby, that non-participating, alienated, symbolic-representative understanding of the world which led-to, is-encapsulated-by, and is imposed upon Men by the current so-called AI - becomes habitual, and indeed mandatory, in public discourse. 

To think otherwise is partly a matter of assumptions, and partly of experience. If you have never experienced primary thinking, direct knowing, then it is easy to believe that it does not exist - or that it is just a self-deluded variant of that token-juggling which constitutes almost all of our personal, social, and professional living. 

And people probably never will experience the participating possible in thinking, if they are not motivated to do it; unless they invest a level of time, attention and effort that is extraordinarily rare - even, or especially, among the intellectual classes involved in science, academic, law, philosophy - and Christian theology. 

Note: A clearer understanding of the distinction between abstract-symbolic, token-shuffling thinking-about, and the participative possibility of real thinking, may be had from a careful reading of Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances (1957). 

Courage without hope? Once possible, possible no more

One of the ideas of JRR Tolkien that seems to have influence far beyond the scope of his works, is that of the Northern idea of courage without hope. "Northern", especially in terms of the Norse culture of Scandinavia (including Iceland), and also the broader Germanic culture, including Anglo-Saxon England.  

It seems that the Northern style of paganism was one without ultimate hope, because only the greatest heroes could look forward to a continuation of martial life beyond death; but (in the Scandinavian religion) even these, and the gods themselves, were destined to be defeated and annihilated in the final battle of Ragnarok.

The quality that Tolkien, and others, admire about Northern courage, is that such Men would continue to strive and to fight, despite that they accepted the certainty of defeat. 

This kind of bleak, stoic, attitude of courage without hope, is one that is often advocated as suitable for modern Men; since our culture is also one without ultimate hope. 

Indeed moderns are without even the proximate possibility of a temporary persistence of life beyond death; as warriors training for that final, doomed-to-fail, battle.

Something similar might be asserted for the Hebrews of the Old Testament, who seem to have believed themselves all to be destined to a (literally) nightmarish post-mortal existence as demented ghosts in Sheol; yet who were apparently capable of extreme fortitude and striving.  

But I regard the conceptualization of courage without hope to be a modern, anachronistic, and fundamentally untrue characterization of the attitude of ancient Men. I regard the conceptualization as flawed by failing to take into account that ancient Men were much more groupish in their consciousness, much less individual. 

Ancient Men were not alienated, did not experience themselves as cut-off from other people, the natural world, and the world of spirits and gods. 

On the contrary, they seem to have experienced life as spontaneously immersed in the consciousness of these other Beings. Their awareness, and their actual perceptions, included other Men, animals, plants, spirits and gods - and the dead were, at times, directly experienced as being present and active.  

My understanding is that this spontaneously immersive and diffusely-aware consciousness, this connectedness to other including spirits and the dead, meant that ancient Men could not be without hope in the way that modern Men routinely are. 

We Moderns are spontaneously alienated from "the world" from our adolescence; and we are kept in this state of genuine hope-less-ness through adult life by both implicit and explicit metaphysical assumptions of our culture. 

We Moderns are not just alone in a dead universe, we mostly believe that our consciousness is a mere by-product of brain functioning; we are taught that the only communication is via signals, symbols, words and images; all of which are distorted, manipulative, and prone to misinterpretation -- so we can rely on nothing to be true. 

We are even taught that our inner subjectivity, our stream of thinking, is cut-off from our own minds and bodies; as well as isolated from every-body and every-thing else -- so our self-awareness and -experience is trapped and helpless, a mere prisoner inside the brain-box.  

Our culture both asserts, and has these assumptions built-into public discourse - mass media, official communications, laws, rules and regulations; that the universe happened without overall purpose or meaning, that the material is the only reality, that there are no gods or spirits; and that human life is a merely contingent product of prior material causes. 

We are said to be no more than a "random" combination of genes, developing in an accidental environment, and bounded by a death which entails complete destruction of body and mind. 

Thus modern Man is hope-less, disconnected, and alone in an utterly futile universe that lacks purpose and where values are merely temporary expedients; conventions made-up to motivate people duing their brief existences and to make society possible. 

Therefore, ancient Men were never hope-less in the way that is normal for modern Man. Their courage was, indeed, rooted in a spontaneous, unconscious and inevitable sense of connectedness to a purposive and meaningful reality - innate assumptions that were far more powerful than even the most nihilistic religious conceptualizations. 

In modern Men, as we see all around us; hopelessness leads inexorably to cowardice; because there is no reason at all for Men to be courageous in the nihilistic world of Western Culture.   

What makes Good good?

All Christians believe that God is Good and loves us. 

But what does this actually mean? 

What does it mean to be Good? 

In particular; is Good a matter of preference merely, as modern materialistic ideology would have it. Are Good and evil "relative" and interchangeable? 

What this "relativism" of values seems to mean in current Western/ Globalist culture, in an underlying and implicit way, is that what matters are peoples' feelings (or more exactly, some peoples' feelings) - especially their "hedonic status", i.e. whether they are happy or suffering. 

What counts as Good is what is believed to lead to happiness, while evil is whatever causes suffering (or is asserted to cause suffering) - and Good and evil can therefore change places according to the cause of gratification/misery in the current situation. 

It should be noted that this modern Western hedonic morality as the basis of values, is rooted in the assumption that we can objectively know, and indeed measure, the hedonic outcome of choices... 

The assumptions that we know and can quantify other-people's state of happiness; and that we understand the relationship between present action and future emotions - including in large numbers of people; and that that we can predict the major psychological consequences of material actions.

These assumptions seem to me nothing but wishful-thinking at best; and most often sheerly-obvious nonsense...

Nonetheless; these are among the assumptions upon-which modern mainstream morality and values are based.  

  

Or is there instead some objective basis to Good and evil? By "objective" I mean here to ask: is there something about the nature of reality that distinguishes Good from evil? And if there is something objective about Good - what is it? 

Traditional orthodox mainstream Christian theology has it that God is Good because God created everything from nothing, because God is "omni" in nature. 

This is the argument of monotheism, something that this type of Christian shares with Jews and Moslems, and which is rooted in an assertion that God is Good because there is nothing else. 

In other words, by this argument, God is Good because God is everything, so that it is irrational, meaningless, to believe otherwise. Because there is nothing else but God - to be evil is meaningless, futile, insane... evil (by this account) has nowhere to go, and nothing to believe-in. 

The obvious objection to the monotheistic omni-God argument; is that if God made everything, is everything, controls and knows everything - then this abolishes the difference between Good and evil. 

The trad-orthodox definition of evil is more a matter of "Good is God" than "God is Good"; because (by this account) there is ultimately nothing except God and that which is wholly made by God - and God has been defined as Good. 

Apparent differences between Good and evil can therefore only be illusory, or temporary... But, even then, it is unclear why God should make or allow such illusions. 

(Indeed, it is unclear why the omni-God should do anything at all - since everything that has happened, is happening, or could happen - is all God Himself and his own 100% God-made creation. Creation seems to change nothing essential, to have no purpose or direction; because everything always was/is/shall-be.) 

Therefore, if we regard Good as relativistic, we just get a kind of this-worldly hedonic therapy, in which anything and everything is "justified" by assertions that it will make "people" happier, or less miserable. 

Or else, by trying to make Goodness identical with an omni-God, by asserting that all-is-God and God-is-Good; we end up actually abolishing the distinction between Good and evil. 

Anyone evil is then insane by his opposition to the only actual reality... Yet even this statement does not stand, because God must have made that person the way he is - i.e. insane.

The omni-mono-God philosophy explains nothing because it explains everything!

And such a conception of God seems especially antagonistic to Christianity; which must surely have an essential place for the divine Man Jesus Christ, and his doings at some point in history; and for the necessity of (in some meaning) "following" Jesus.

For a Christian; Jesus must make a difference, and that difference must be deep, cosmic, temporally-located, crucial. 

My own views on this subject have been expounded scores of times on this blog; but I will focus on the major objection to it. 

My understanding of Good: If God is a Being (or indeed two Beings - Loving Heavenly Parents) who found-themselves among a multitude of other Beings; and if this God began creating at some point in time; and if this creation is founded upon Love...

So that creation is something like "the purposive and mutually loving relationships between Beings that were previously and otherwise mutually unloving, lacking in shared-purpose"...

Reality is therefore a growing creation in an environment of chaos...

By this "model", Good is defined as God's project of creation; and evil is some kind of opposition to this project (anything other than joining with the project of creation - is may be any kind of opposition, from trying to exploit creation for selfish reasons, or trying to destroy creation). 

In theory, there is also the alternative of opting-out from creation. 

By my understanding of Good; Beings such as ourselves find-ourselves in an ongoing divine creation; and we need to decide whether we are on the side of creation or not.  

Good is the decision to join with God's creation. 

Opting-out is the decision Not to join with creation. 

Evil is the decision to oppose creation. 

Main objections to my understanding: Some things that some people find wrong with this scheme, are that I regard God as "just" a Being (actually two Beings) among a multitude of other Beings; that God's creation had a beginning and has therefore not been eternal; that God is finite in knowledge and power...

And that Good is only one among other rational possibilities. 

By my understanding; to be evil is to oppose the project of divine creation; but that opposition need not be irrational. Evil may be short-termist, evil will be un-loving, and may be manipulative, sadistic, spiteful... 

But evil need not be irrational (evil is only irrational when it denies the reality of divine creation). 

By my understanding: There really is no compulsion to be Good, because Good is one side in the spiritual war arranged around the actually-existing reality of divine creation. 

There is indeed One God, in the sense that there happens-to-be one divine creation, and this was an is the creation of God. 

There is one creation which is that we know, and which includes all other Beings that we can know. One creation within-which we and other Beings find-themselves when they become self-aware, when we/they become "conscious" of reality and their places in it among other Beings, and having relationships with these other Beings.  

Such matters could have been otherwise, but were not otherwise: this is reality - this is the situation within-which we exist.   

To loop back to the original incoherent ideas that Good is relativist because choice is rational and real; or else that Good is objective and necessary because there is mono-omni-God creating everything; I would say instead that Good is objective because God is The Creator; but the choice of Good versus evil is also real, has consequences that may be permanent, and it is a coherent choice to choose evil - even when the reality of one divine creation is acknowledged. 

By my understanding: To choose Good is to choose to affiliate with God's objectively real project of creation, and this project is built from love, because creation is the product of love.

Any Being capable of love is capable for choosing to affiliate with creation.

But evil may be a coherent choice, because creation takes place amidst continuing chaos - and continuing chaos is termed "death" (by the Fourth Gospel" and is spiritually-analogous to the scientific-material concept of "entropy". 

Evil is not entropy, but coherent evil entails an ultimate commitment to entropy and chaos in preference to divine creation, because entropy/ chaos is all that would remain when evil has done its work...

After evil has worked through to its conclusion; there would be a world without creation, which is a world without love; and that would be the return to a pre-creation world of mutually un-conscious and unloving Beings; i.e. the end state of evil would be Beings uncomprehendingly existing in a situation that has no coherence and no direction.

Thus evil is a possible and coherent thing to desire.   

In other words, by my understanding, divine creation is incomplete and (in principle) vulnerable to evil, and to entropy; or, this would be the case without the Second Creation of Jesus Christ. 

Primary creation of God is of-itself therefore incomplete and contingent; and Jesus Christ is therefore essential to the triumph of Good. 

But the triumph of Good is not the imposition of Good across all that exists - it is a Second Creation that consists of Beings that are only and wholly Good. That situation called "Heaven". 

This is why Christianity is the only coherent religion; and why Jesus Christ is and was essential. Jesus was Not essential to the primary divine creation; but Jesus is essential to the indomitable and eternal triumph of creation - in Heaven. 

   

Note added: What makes Good good is loving-creation - but only if you agree that love is, indeed good. Otherwise not. That which is good is therefore objectively real; but what makes the real objective, is personal. 

Power corrupts. Worship of power corrupts also

The insight that "power corrupts" (with or without the addendum "and absolute power corrupts absolutely") was an insight that emerged only from the end of the nineteenth century - as Tom Shippey notes in his analysis of the subject in JRR Tolkien: author of the century. 

In ancient and medieval times, power was not regarded as corrupting, but instead was thought to reveal the nature of its wielder. Power did not of itself corrupt a good Man. 

Yet by the middle 20th century the idea that power of itself actually makes all people worse (even when they started out good) was a truism - evidenced all around us, and around the world.  

My understanding of this phenomenon of corrupting power; would include that it was related to the emerged of the characteristic modern consciousness; a consciousness that is alienated - cut-off from God, the world of spirits and the group-mind of Men. 

Modern Men are existentially detached from The World in ways that were not possible in the remote past. 

In ancient times, a power-wielder was innately embedded in a social and spiritual world, such that to a significant degree he could not help but express the values and will of this broader world and its perspective. In other words; ancient Man was not a detached being, therefore responsibility for his power was always somewhat dispersed, and power was (spontaneously, unconsciously) wielded in a "groupish" way.  

(Exceptions are usually due to pathology, to some form of insanity.) 

Only in more modern times, and gradually, has power been able to interact untrammelled with the self-centred and selfish nature of a power-wielder. The corruption of power operates as a kind of feedback loop, within the alienated self. 

A further development has been the way in which power became embedded in bureaucracy, in The System - so that it is seldom very clear to what extent a leader actually has power. 

People typically are only given power when they are regarded as being the kind of person who will "do what they are told"; and those who do not obey, are rapidly got-rid-of So that many apparently powerful people feel themselves to be, and indeed seem to be, almost helpless in the face of constraints of a systemic nature. 

If, as many people say, the US President is "the most powerful person in the world"; then the world has recently seen a situation in which the US President was known and acknowledged to be mentally incapable of wielding power; and yet things carried on much the same. 

This suggests that when an individual is said by official sources to be wielding power and making decisions; then it is probable that this is untrue: it is an expedient illusion propagated to the public; perhaps in order to conceal who, or what, it is that is really making the decisions and deciding the strategy. 

This may be done for various reasons, including evasion of responsibility, or making effective resistance to power more difficult. 

But another reason for pretending some person has power, is that an image of the powerful individual tends to induce a worship of power in many people. 

George Orwell was very sensitive, perhaps over sensitive, to this. Writing in the 1930s and 40s - he saw this worship of power as a common attribute of the intelligentsia - of academics, functionaries, authors, artists, commentaries, journalists etc. 

Orwell's usual target was the radical left, including its literary lions such as GB Shaw or WH Auden. Such might, for example, delight in imagining details of the retribution to be wrought "when the revolution comes". Including the supposition of an attitude of calm, unyielding, masterful objectivity with which "necessary measures" are inflicted. 

But he saw analogous worship among figures of the right, including (for instance) Nietzsche, political theorist James Burnham, and the Roman Catholic converts such as Hilaire Belloc - who Orwell believed admired their Church mainly because of its potential or actual power. 

Among intellectuals, power worship is evident in the brutal relish (even sadism) with which such persons describe, or fantasize about, the forcible exercise of power - the overmastering imposition of will. 

There is, indeed, an almost-sexual gratification evident in this kind of vicarious triumphalism - a quality of self-stimulation in the writing, which (when noticed) becomes often embarrassing, and disgusting. 

The power worship that Orwell described almost a century ago is, of course, still endemic among intellectuals across the board of political and religious affiliation; and in much greater volume due to the expansion of the mass and social media. 

Power worshipping fantasy is easy to find, and hard to avoid among intellectuals; apparently because it soon becomes habit-forming, addictive, seemingly a compulsion; and few are immune to it. 

Although there is plenty of the naked and raw power worship of the "crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women" type; this impulse may be somewhat concealed by euphemism and pseudo-therapeutic affectation. As when the cruel exercise of power is enjoyed, but self-excused by the pretence it is done "for their own good", or "the greater good". 

Power is an unavoidable reality of this world; as Tolkien recognized. We cannot opt-out of the subject.  

As usual with sins, the sin of power worship occurs at the level of motivation - and I mean real motivation, not manufactured rationalizations. 

We must judge motivations; yet motivations must be inferred - they cannot be proven from "evidence, or by "logic". 

The dominance of power worship in oneself, or another person, is therefore a matter that each must discern and judge for himself, as honestly as he is capable of doing. 

And few of us are spontaneously true witnesses to our own motivations - it takes an effort. 

Antichrist phenomena - an Eastern Orthodox perspective from Metropolitan Agafangel

Who will be the Antichrist? - by Metropolitan Agafangel (25th January 2025)

The Antichrist will be accepted first by those who are waiting for him - under one form or another and for one reason or another. There are many such people who are waiting, but they all wait differently... 

The question is where, in what way, does the Antichrist appear before gaining power over the whole world? ...

For atheists, the Antichrist may be a leader capable of bringing order to the whole world. He can begin his activity as the president of any country or, even, a superpower (say, the United States), he can begin with any high position —at least, even with the Secretary General of the Communist Party of China (the general secretaries of the CPSU still dream of world domination, in the USSR, Stalin was an exemplary predecessor of the Antichrist, although he didn't succeed in taking over the whole world, he did get a "sixth of the earth"). 

Thus, the first period of the appearance of the Antichrist will be his coming to power in some significant and known field—political, social, or religious. Having ascended to one of the peaks of diverse earthly power and, according to legend, having participated in the construction of the Jerusalem temple, the second period of the Antichrist's activity will begin — this outstanding, talented, charming and intelligent man will begin to expand his power and unite in himself the key powers of authority, that is, to seize power over the entire world and in all areas... 

Ideally, the Antichrist will unite in himself the expectations of the coming of "someone great" for all peoples and religions. This is how Satan will be allowed to act...

The Antichrist will come when a type of the Soviet-communist system will be established throughout the earth — defined as democracy, but in reality — dictatorship and total slavery — physical, electronic and spiritual. 

This new order will be led by the finally united secret world government, referred to as the Scriptures as the "gates of hell," which, led by the Antichrist, will fight the Church of Christ (Mt. 16.18) — that is, the last remnant of genuine faith on earth. 

I first learned something of the idea of the Antichrist from Fr Seraphim Rose, at the time when I was strongly engaged with Eastern Orthodoxy. 

While I have moved a long way from the assumptions of Orthodoxy, and I nowadays regard the Antichrist actuality in a "soft and flexible" sense rather than literally; I continue, nonetheless, to be impressed by many of the distinctive insights and emphases - and there seems to be a powerful general truth about their idea of the Antichrist, which has very general applicability. 

One take-home message of this line of thinking for me; is the relative unimportance and potentially lethally-misleading quality of a spiritual evaluation based upon actions; and therefore, by contrast, a renewed belief in the vital importance of basing ultimate and crucial evaluations upon my discernment of underlying intentions, motivations, and spiritual affiliations. 

(Not, therefore, evaluations taken second-hand from external authorities - unless these pass an honest test of intuitive examination.) 

Given Man's innate craving for this-worldly flourishing; we are all-too-eager to seek and find a this-worldly saviour (whether personal, institutional, ideological/ theological - or whatever); and we are all-too-willing selectively to grasp at the straws of particular actions - and not-notice, ignore, or suppress our awareness of those dissonant qualities that reveal an anti-Christian underlying spiritual commitment.

In some Orthodox theology; it has been prophesied, and I fully expect this to be accurate, that it shall in practice prove impossible to convince most people that the various Antichrists (whether persons, institutions, strategies, policies or whatever) - that somewhat-closely simulate some Christian attributes; and actually a guise of demons enlisted in the Satanic anti-Christian project. 

And if all these Antichrists were (more or less) rolled-up into the single figure of a global Antichrist (which I personally do not anticipate will happen) - i.e. Satan wrapped in a cloak stolen from Christ - then the same will apply: the Antichrist would be accepted as some kind of representative of Christ, if not a returned Jesus himself. 

Although the Kingdom of Christ is Not Of This World, but lies beyond death - all too many people (including too many Christians) so much crave an earthly saviour, that they are most of the way to being fooled even before the Antichrists begin their deceptive works.      

 

Why can't our life have a "magical" or transcendent quality at all times?

It seems like, even when life is going well, we cannot experience it at the best and highest level "on demand". 

We sometimes experience the "romance" of this-life, a magical moment, or even magical hours and days; but this state does not become continuous - nor can we have this magic whenever we want it, nor even when we may feel we most need it. 

There are always mundane periods, and these may be normal; there is of course suffering, illness, ageing, and the prospect of death all around and about. But even when we are not immediately affected by such things, life may be experienced as mundane; that is dull, everyday, trivial, niggling... just stuff that happens. 

And sometimes, oft-times, we cannot snap ourselves out of this, nor can we do anything that genuinely works in attaining that magical and romantic state we may desire or even crave. 

The question is whether this inability of ours is something that might in principle be overcome. The question is whether or not it is theoretically possible that "life at its best" could become everyday life? Whether and/or when we feel most trapped in everyday life, or most in need of elevation and enchantment - we could learn how to rise from that dull situation to live life at its best, again?

I think we tend to go one way or another, and end-up claiming something that is untrue or impossible. 

Mainstream secular materialism has it that this life is really mundane; and that the romantic and magical is illusory, a temporary subjective aberration merely - and this is also the view of "oneness" spiritualties such as Western Buddhism. 

On the other side are claims that the romantic, magical, enchanted life of "higher consciousness" can (and should) become either permanent, or else available on demand - perhaps by some kind of spiritual self-improvement, or by practice of some kind of technique, method, skill - or maybe by adoption of a right attitude. 

But the basic idea is that this-life in this-world could and should become a paradise. 

For me, neither of these one-sided extremes are valid. It is an evil form of despair to assume that the bad things in life are real and the good experiences are illusory. Yet, there is nothing solid (just wishful thinking and unsubstantiated claims and rumours) to indicate that it is possible to live a magical life at all times or on demand - nobody ever seems to have done it. 

Christianity is the only form of understanding that I know, which takes both sides into account - both the reality of the romantic, and the inevitability of the mundane; and which goes beyond them.

Jesus Christ knew that paradise is real but temporary, and never available "on demand" because of the nature of this life and world (which is both entropic and evil); therefore the only really-real and actually possible paradise is by resurrection to life in Heaven, which lies outside this world, beyond our "biological" death. (And which, of its nature, can only occur by personal choice.) 

Only Heaven is "romantic" on-demand and eternally; and that only because Heaven has left-behind both death (entropic change) and evil, which are intrinsic aspects of this-world. 

It is exactly because Heaven on earth is real, that Jesus was able to create Heaven and make it possible for us to want and choose Heaven; and it is exactly because we cannot have a permanent or on-demand Heaven in mortal life and on this earth, that Jesus enabled resurrection and created the sustained and everlasting romantic-reality of Heaven.   

Has the world become better or worse since the time of Jesus?

Has the world become better or worse since the time of Jesus? The question is worth raising because people have believed and said both. 

Some people assume that Jesus made the world better, and that things were improved by the life, death, resurrection of Jesus. 

They assume especially that Christian societies are better than not-Christian societies - so that the conversion of more people, the Roman Empire, and many nations, to the Christian religion; led to an improvement within those societies - and consequently (probably) the world. 

Other people (apparently especially in Medieval times) regarded the time of Jesus Christ as the source of once for all revelation, and an unique spiritual impulse; so that the further away in time the world went from the ascension of Jesus, the more the world declined - the worse the world became... 

Until eventually the world would become so evil that this would lead to the end times, and the second coming, judgment day etc.

   

It seems that there is no objective way of resolving such questions, because there are no agreed criteria for quantifying and summating the goodness of the world; such that we could measure and compare whether the world at one time is overall better or worse than another.

When goodness was equated with obedience to a particular church, then it seemed possible to measure - in the sense that the size and power of that church, and the devoutness of its members, was in principle quantifiable. 

But such an equation now seems untrue. It is recognized that churches may be wealthy and populous while becoming increasingly corrupted; and that devout people who obey their churches rules, may well be un-Christian, or anti-Christian in their motivation. 

More deeply; there is the matter of whether the work of Jesus Christ - what he did, how he changed the cosmos - had anything directly to do with the spiritual state of large numbers of people in the world...

We could ask whether the work of Jesus is not about The World as such, and only very partially about material and measurable things; but is instead primarily about spiritual matters, and the post-mortal fate of persons. 

If Jesus's work is primarily individual, spiritual, and about resurrection; then any effect on the world at large will be secondary to the implications-of, and a long and complicated way downstream-from, various individuals choices to follow Jesus. 

Perhaps the proper question is to ask whether Jesus's work was - in its essence - of this world, or Not of this world? 

  

JRR Tolkien's first good poem, and the beginning of the whole Legendarium

By Alan Lee

Over at The Notion Club Papers blog, I discuss the September 1914 draft of JRR Tolkien's Earendil poem; which I regard as his first successful poem, and which also (and by no coincidence) is concerned with his powerful and astonishingly creative response to the Anglo-Saxon word "Earendil". 

It was Tolkien's attempts to understand the meaning and context of this word, that first catalysed the vast mythology of his mature achievement. 

When the Earendil poem was first written, this work of decades was yet latent and unmade - but, looking back, it seems that the insight of his verse hovers on the edge of the process: "as a ray of light leapt over the twilight brim".

Big decisions every Christian needs to make in evaluating the Bible

I think most Christians, but perhaps especially Protestants, have experienced doubts about the role of The Bible in their faith. 

On the one hand, it seems to be the core evidence concerning Jesus Christ's life, work and his teachings. On the other hand; it also seems intrinsically unsatisfactory for so much to hinge upon A Book. 

There are just So many problems with this! So many questions that need to be answered, if we are to pin everything that is most important upon A Book. .  

Which particular question strikes each person as most significant varies. Since modern Man developed greater self-awareness and a compulsively questioning consciousness, matters which previous generations simply "took for granted" becomes doubtful. 

Modern Man exists (as a fact of his existence) in a mind-space outside his own culture, and indeed alienated from himself. This reality can only be avoided by not-thinking about it, by not-taking-responsibility - and - here-and-now, in a secular and materialist culture - not-thinking leads away from Christianity. As has been the clear trend for more than two centuries.   

There are, of course, matters of the constraints of communication, and relating to language, translation textual accuracy; and the problem of understanding meaning, when what is written is in the context a different culture with different expectations, knowledge and assumptions.  

For me, the most personally significant doubts are more fundamental; and begin with the questions of who compiled the Bible, on what principles, and with what authority to decide both the content and arrangement?

Even more fundamentally, how and why was the role of the Bible in Christian faith decided, and on what grounds?

My point is neither to assert that doubts about the Bible need to be fatal, nor to provide pseudo-objective answers to the multiplicity of problems; but instead to emphasize that the whole question of "The Bible" inevitably and unavoidably leads back to each individual person (you and me) making assumptions. 

We can choose to take our assumptions from external sources, but which external source, and which grounds for choice we find compelling, will itself entail assumptions. 

Personal assumptions are inescapable in both the aspects of being personal and being an assumption hence a choice - although this reality can be, and often is, denied!

The Bible does not make a Christian; rather the Christian makes The Bible, or rather A Bible. 

His Bible is another Mans Bible to very widely variable degrees, and in many various ways. 

Indeed, The Bible is optional to Christian faith*. A Man might follow Christ to resurrected eternal life without knowing The Bible; or this might be a choice.  

For me, all of this means that there is no objective basis for The Bible; and its usage and value are ultimately rooted in personal faith. 

And what doubts apply to The Bible, and the necessity for personal assumptions, applies (mutatis mutandis) to each and all of the sources of Christian knowledge, including the self-identified Christian churches, theology and philosophy, and such academic disciplines as history.   

In the end, I think we reach the conclusion that The Bible cannot be the basis of Christian faith; unless, and only in such ways as, we have personally assumed - and thereby made it such.

*It seems obvious to me that God the Creator and our loving Father would not have made a world for His children that depended upon each and every one of them having access to a particular book, and reaching a true understanding of that book. (Neither would God have made a world in which salvation depended upon the intermediary of a particular church.) The implication I find inescapable; is that the bottom-line of Christian faith cannot be any-thing external, but can and must be something that is some combination of that which is innate to every Man, and that which happens directly and unmediated between Man and God. Of course, this conviction renders the socio-political aspects of traditional Christianity untenable - which is the reason why so few will accept the obvious... I mean, most Christians are primarily and essentially interested and motivated by the socio-political possibilities of the religion.   

The anti-woke Right are being set-up for a bait and switch inversion

As I suggested a month ago* - I feel sure that pseudo-radicalism of the new US Presidential administration is merely a move in a within-Establishment civil war. The "anti-woke Right" commentators who are deliriously cheerleading the new government, and apparently investing their expectations and hopes in its success; are being set-up for a scam.

The anti-bureaucratic populism is a pose and a pretence - the reality is an inter-office, inter-agency predation, a squabble between branches of government over who gets the lion's share of state resources; and which aspect of the agenda of demonic evil shall be the priority. 

A blizzard of theoretical executive orders concerning domestic affairs is the bait; but all this smoke and mirror distraction will be swept-away by larger geopolitical events; and the switch will be begun by a fake pennant event that is intended to lead to a US commitment to participate in war in the Middle East.

That is, I believed, "the plan" - and it should be evident; although of course things may not work-out according to plan - a fake pennant event may misfire, and the free agency of human beings means that nothing is pre-destined.    

*Interestingly, I made a self-contradicting typo in the above prediction, which seems to have passed unnoticed (certainly by me!). On January 8th I wrote "Before this April (i.e. within less than a month of the new DT administration)" - "Less than a month" does not make sense, unless I meant before this March - and my recollection is that this indeed is what I intended. My understanding was that DT took over on 22 January (I may have been mistaken about this since the EOs began a couple of days earlier), so that means before 22 February - which leaves only a couple of weeks remaining for the "fake pennant" event to happen, if the prediction is to come true.