"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!" - Satan's favourite slogan. And why there are so many Litmus Test fails

Every time the demon-serving Establishment come up with a new Litmus Test for The West, there are a lot of new fails that follow a standard pattern of self-justification by a this-worldly-expedient, materialist, Satanic trope of "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". 

We saw it with the Birdemic: the lockdowns, social distancing, masking, pecking policies - were seen as backed by the entirety of the Establishment, therefore irresistible in this-world, inevitable here-and-now...

And the inference was drawn that since these seemed inevitable; "therefore" on "pragmatic" grounds we "might as well" accept these policies...

Argument was apparently pointless "therefore" we should make the best of things and go-along with them without (probably) self-harming argument or fuss...

So (in the end) we might-as-well approve these policies, and make the best of the situation for ourselves - since there was "nothing we could do about it" in practice.  

If we leave aside the arguments about probabilities and practicalities - what is truly inevitable; and also leave aside the question of lack of courage, and merely making excuses for cowardice...

Then we can focus on the deep issue at stake for Christians; which is that by focusing on this-world, "effectiveness", and pragmatism in the here-and-now - they have ended-up supporting the wrong side. 

They have switched sides in the spiritual war: they have taken the side of purposive evil - they have become advocates on behalf of Satan's strategies*.  

This happened again in relation to the self-styled "AI" that was suddenly (at the end of 2022) world policy, top-down implemented, and emanating from the Establishment institutions of global totalitarian 

This is a Litmus test issue that has (so far, apparently) been failed by some of those who had passed previous Litmus Tests including the Birdemic-Peck and the Fire-Nation War; who now engage-with, explore, and advertise what they say are the possibilities of AI for "Good": for spiritual and/or Christian purposes...

This superficially seems bizarre - since the evil nature of AI ought to be obvious from its provenance (i.e. who developed and is pushing it), and the focus and nature and stated goals of propaganda in its favour. 

Yet the usual pattern of spiritual corruption is evident - and with same-old usual "can't beat 'em. join 'em" justifications.  

The root of this repeated pattern of failed discernment; Christian apostasy; and changing sides from God to anti-God, from Christ to Antichrist in the spiritual war of this world - is failure to understand and live by the fact that the kingdom of Jesus Christ really and truly is Not of this world.  

What this means (or should mean) is the practicalities and probabilities of this world should mean Nothing when it comes to discerning Good from evil, and choosing our sides. 

Ultimately; who cares what you or I feel about what is and is not possible in particular circumstances? Who cares whether we are courageous or cowardly. 

(Jesus came to save sinners - and cowards certainly are that - but it does not matter to salvation.)  

The point is that salvation is not about what is practical or possible in the circumstances in which we find ourselves, and neither does it depend on exceptional personal qualities. 

But salvation does depend on wanting what is good, on wanting salvation - which is everlasting resurrected life in a heaven that is wholly good, and which excludes all evil.

Salvation does depend on knowing and choosing The Right Side. 

Therefore, when we fail a Litmus Test and as a result end-up by innerly supporting the side of evil; then we have made an actual choice against salvation - and this inner decision is typically very evident from the perspective of those who have made the choice for salvation. 

People start-out by trying to calculate this-world expediency; and end-up by picking their spiritual alignment on that basis. 

The Litmus Test fail has actually merely unveiled an un-Christian mind-set. 

It does not matter what are the (real or guessed) worldly probabilities and practicalities - if we are choosing our spiritual alignment on a this-worldly basis, then we are behaving un-Christianly. 

What we should do is clear, simple, and within the capacity of everybody in all possible circumstances. 

(Jesus opened an achievable path to salvation for everyone.)  

We should discern Good from evil - which in the case of Litmus tests is easy - as easy as such discernments ever have been. 

(Evil here-and-now is as obvious as evil ever gets.) 

Then by inward act; we choose the side of Good, recognize and reject the side of evil. 

That's it, that is all! - yet little as it seems; it's too much for most people to do. And that is because their eyes and minds and aspirations are overwhelmingly and ultimately fixed on this world, and not the next. 

 +++

 *NOTE: It has always seemed clear to me that advocating sin is much worse than practising sin. This, because we cannot help but be sinners - that is, unaligned with divine creation - and almost all the time. While to act as an advocate for some sin is voluntary and purposive. 

(This also entails that "hypocrisy", in the sense of pretending to be something we are not, or better than we really are, is of itself less-bad than defending and arguing in favour of a sin. The main evil of hypocrisy is, in fact, simple dishonesty.)

The reason why we ought Not to engage with "AI", is the same reason we ought not to engage with demons

Whatever you say or do: AI just keeps-on coming at you...

I don't know whether you have ever felt that somewhat despairing sense of the weariness of mortal Men, when engaged with simulated-human/ pseudo-intelligent "AI" programming - mechanisms that, very much like demons, do not fatigue, and always comes back-at-you -- again and again, with no end point...

This is what chess Grandmasters reported feeling, when they first engaged with powerful chess computers - a "Terminator"-like relentlessness; needing neither rest nor sleep.

We humans use-up attention, energy, motivation on these interactions - but AI does not. 

We cannot go on-and-on; but AI can and does. 

If we persist in engaging with AI; we shall sooner or later be worn-down and yield to it...

Perhaps inwardly acknowledging its "superiority", or (whether consciously or unconsciously) conforming to its mode of operating, its materialist and mechanical cognition. 

This is Of Course one of the primary reasons why we have had AI gratuitously inflicted upon us by the demon-affiliated Global Establishment, why AI is made to be addictive...

And why the spiritual-corruption of those human beings who gratuitously engage-with and write-about AI approvingly, is so very obvious and frighteningly rapid.

***

Note: On the other hand... 

Every single time we discern this demonic reality of AI, when we recognize the evil temptation, and inwardly reject it - we have learned a spiritual lesson; and we have made spiritual progress. 

So our current situation is not All bad!

Not if we take the opportunity to discern, and repent when needed, and learn-from experience. 

(Such is the nature of this mortal life... Unlike The Borg, our resistance to evil is not futile, because resistance is part of the point of this phase of existence.)

Frodo Baggins: "an intellectual" among Hobbits.

 

An observation on the unusual character and taste of Frodo; over at The Notion Club Papers blog.

The absurd Secular Right delusion that the reason for the triumph of the Left was a strategic blueprint for the "long march through the institutions"

Following on from my earlier post; I'd like to add a comment on the absurdity of that oft-repeated claim or insinuation that the (undoubted) triumph of the New Left in the West; was planned and driven by some kind of blueprint for a "long march through the institutions" - a scheme devised by intellectual theoreticians such as Gramsci, Marcuse and their disciples. 

This is nonsense of a kind that this only possible to those with an inverted understanding of the world. 

I mean the kind of people who believe that "the history of ideas" is something caused by top-down influences from the words of philosophers - for instance that the subjective-objective split in modern minds derives from the publications of Descartes; or that the pronouncements of Professor Kant in Konigsberg led to the common belief that reality cannot be known directly and therefore "everything is relative/ a-matter-of-opinion".

The kind of people who see the Left as a Christian heresy, as caused-by Christianity! Rather than the truth that the rise of Leftism reciprocally mirrored the decline in Christian faith; and that the triumph of Leftism was completed only after Western apostasy from Christianity, and the establishment of fully secular social institutions and discourses. 

The non-religious opponents of mainstream New Leftism, or the Secular Right, are very keen on attributing the triumph of the Left to theories and plans; because radical Right theorists intend, or at least hope, to use the same kind of strategy to impose their own ideas. 

That is, the Secular Right believe that if only they could come-up with the correct theoretical strategy, disseminate it sufficiently widely, and then get it implemented - they will be able to influence the West in the direction that they desire. 

In other words - and this is often stated explicitly - the intent among at least the more radical members of the Secualr Right is to to use what they suppose to be the methods of the Left, but to redirect them to supposedly "Right Wings" objectives: Leftist means to Rightist ends. 

Aside from the fact that this is an instance of the Boromir Strategy - or Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron! - and therefore will inevitably have the actual effect of promoting the Left; this theoretical, top-down, Rightism is based on false understandings of the reasons for the triumph of the Left. 

This false understanding of the Left derives, ultimately, from the fact that the Secular Right actually is itself of-the-Left in that it is based in materialist non-religious assumptions, and rooted in values that are psychological - in some version of a utilitarian and hedonic calculus of gratification and suffering. 

The only true opposition to the Left is religion; and the only true religion of salvation is by following Jesus Christ. 

But this is a religion "not of this world" in its essence... 

Therefore; socio-political theories rooted in denial of a personal creator God, materialism, and exclusion of the spiritual from life, can only do net-harm.  

How is it that successful, feted, mainstream Establishment people nonetheless regard themselves as "radicals"?

The phenomenon by which people who (perhaps) began life as cynical radicals or supposed-revolutionaries; later become successful and highly rewarded and decorated bureaucrats, managers, executives, politicians, and committee people - yet still regard themselves as radical - has been noticed (and sometimes mocked) for many decades. 

It was first apparent after those who had engaged in activism (demonstrations, sit-ins, etc) as students; later went on to join the Establishment, to gather prestigious jobs and positions, money, power, awards and medals (and, in the UK, titles such as Sir/ Dame/ Lord/ Lady)  - but often maintained their younger styles of self-presentation (hair, clothes, sexual lifestyle and the like); but always trumpeting their self-image as anti-Establishment, radical, leftist, altruistic, engaged etc. 

This is now so normal and near-universal as to be expected and largely unremarked. 

It is now so usual for Heads of Corporations, Professors and Presidents, doctors, lawyers, teachers, executives and managers express themselves as radical and leftist - that this has become mandatory and monitored; part of job applications and promotion procedures, and compulsory training...

Anyone who is not explicitly radical and anti-Establishment is indeed intentionally excluded from positions of high status, fame, power and wealth. 

As I said, when this is noticed it is usually to mock, or else to point-out the hypocrisy. 

Yet this phenomenon is, in truth, quite extraordinary and historically unprecedented; therefore we are dealing with a fundamental and significant phenomenon which demands a structural explanation.

To be clear: in the past Establishment people supported the Establishment. 

It is very strange indeed that in The West, now and for many decades Establishment people desire - and are indeed required - to subvert, destroy, and invert the Establishment (starting always with whatever is most good, or most functional, about the Establishment)!

This at first seems like a paradox or contradiction, for people to be destroying the basis of their own success; but it can be explained quite simply at a motivational level.  

If you imagine that you are a member of an alien civilization, "an alien", who is motivated by resentment against another civilization "the Establishment". 

Then it makes perfect sense for the alien to both do the best for himself here-and-now, within the Establishment, and also to do so in a way that tends to weaken and destroy the Establishment. 

Personal success is achieved by strategic destruction. 

If you regard yourself as an alien to the civilization that is your "host" which you fear and despise, then the best strategic route through life is to behave as a parasite that feeds-off the host. 

Although successful parasites weaken their host, and tend to destroy their own niche, and kill themselves; but if the parasite can evolve faster than the host and has foresight; then each parasite can be continually seeking new niches to exploit. 

For example, a path to success as a manager is to suck the blood from one organization to ones own advantage, then - just before the institution expires - move-on to vampirise another. 

That is precisely how the modern Establishment operates: both subjectively, in terms of their motivations - and also objectively in terms of the way that society has become structured as ruled by a managerial bureaucracy-mass media. 

(This is what lies behind the so-called "long march through the institutions" of the New Left. It was not achieved by tens of millions of middle class people all over the world following the blueprint of an obscure theoretician; but is the natural and inevitable consequence of implementing the inner motivations of the niche-seeking, parasitic post-1960s Establishment.)   

Such an explanation makes perfect sense of the self-image and actions of the Western ruling class. 

So, in what sense are the Western Establishment actual and conscious parasitic aliens - given that we are talking here about a large segment of the population?

My answer is, in the sense that the Establishment are atheist, materialist and hedonic in their fundamental nature and motivations - which means they are opposed to God, Divine Creation and Jesus Christ in the spiritual war of this world. 

In simple terms: by adopting ultimate assumptions about reality that are materialist/ spirit denying, creation-denying, god-rejecting, utilitarian - almost the entirety of the ruling class have joined the Devil's Party, adopted the world-view of demons, and are therefore quite naturally doing the work of Satan.   

The odd, superficially hypocritical and risible, apparently paradoxical, way in which cynical radicals develop into pillars of the Establishment while retaining their self-image and lifestyle as cynical radicals -- is actually a diagnostic symptom of the takeover of the West by those who are affiliated to the powers of purposive evil.  

It is from understanding things in this way that I conclude these are the most evil times in the history of the world. 

Notice: Barbara Pym continues

A decade ago-plus; I wrote a couple of posts about the English novelist Barbara Pym (1913-1980); and this is just to say I have continued to re-read these on an approximately two-year cycle ever since. 

I never seem to tire of her early novels; and every new reading brings a delight all the greater for being sure and certain. 

My present encounter is to hear the main five of the earliest novels on audiobook - currently Less Than Angels - which would probably be a good first try for anyone interested in exploring her work; since many of the  major "themes" are there (these include High Church Anglicans, anthropology, middle-aged spinsters, "distressed gentlewomen", and curates) and a large cast of younger people as well. 

Pym's alter ego (there is always one in each novel) is this time a writer: the bohemian, thirty-something author of women's magazine stories. 

Pym is very much a minority and specialist taste as a writer; it's "comedy of manners", based on close observation of foibles and reactions in the minutiae of everyday living. 

Not much happens: a church jumble sale or a seminar on African languages counts as a Big Event. 

But for some people in certain mood; BP is just what is wanted - a real treat.  

What would be better than what Jesus Christ has to offer?

God is an answer to the problem of our existence in reality. 

The Christian God is a personal creator; and as such provides the possibility of purpose and meaning, if we choose to align with the divine. 

This God loves us each as a parent loves his or her child; and therefore we may have a personal role in creation - as a member of God's loving family. 

Jesus Christ is an answer to the problem of our life in this world. 

This actual experienced world is a mixture: life and death, creation and destruction, good and evil, joy and despair, love and fear...

Jesus offers the possibility of a life of creation, good, joy and love - forever and unmixed. 

It seems to me that Jesus's offer is the best I know of, that I can believe.  

It has one disadvantage, which is that Heaven lies on the other side of death: we must first die and be resurrected if Heaven is to become possible: if we are to be fitted for Heaven, and if Heaven and our-self is to become eternal. 

The only offer that I can imagine which would be better than that of Jesus is if it was possible to provide Heaven on earth now and without dying. 

I don't believe that this is possible*. I believe that the nature of this mortal life and world is such that entropy, death and evil are always going to be present.  

But I imagine that someone who could believe that real, unmixed, everlasting Heaven on earth and on this side of death was a genuinely possibility; would probably prefer it to what Jesus offers.    

 +++

* In case anybody is interested why I (personally) do not believe Heaven on earth is possible (others will reason differently, of course); the main reason is that I regard the free agency of Beings as primary. 

Unless each and all of the Beings on earth and in this universe (i.e. every single Being, including the mass of non-human Beings - animals, plants, "minerals" etc.) were to choose to live wholly by love; and allow the elimination of everything about themselves that was incompatible with Heaven -- then there would still be evil present in this world, and Heaven could not be made on earth.   

So much for evil: what of entropy and death? 

I regard "chaos" (of autonomous, uncoordinated, unaware of each other Beings) as primal; and God's creation as being imposed upon that. While there is no end to God's create-ing, there is a constant tendency to revert to the primal state, which is termed "entropy". So the harmonious cooperation that is creation, is always tending to degenerate; and "death" is the end of all earthly "things", forms, structures, Beings. 

In other words this is a mortal universe, everything changes, decays, "dies"; and everlasting life cannot be imposed upon it (cannot - because otherwise, with the creator as good and personally loving, eternal living would already have happened and be normal). 

I regard it as a fact of life that we all must therefore die, before we can be re-made eternally; from scratch, on the basis only of love (i.e. resurrected).  

I state my reasons, not to defend or debate them; but because I find them compelling. The point is not to argue about it, but to discover what You find compelling. 

In search of courage/ motivation

Ever since I began regularly blogging some 15 years ago; I have cycled around this distinctively modern problem of demotivation. Modern Western people are strikingly lacking in powerful motivators, compared with earlier generations - and this is the reason why we are so lacking in courage, so cowardly. 

The deep reason is obvious enough - our atheism, materialism, our systematically built-in cultural assumption that there is neither purpose nor meaning to life.

In a word: our nihilism. 

In seeking to escape such nihilism, some people turn to ideologies - but (lacking a personal and loving God) these always turn out to be rooted in negative values - hence incoherent; and incoherence cannot provide us with strong and lasting motivations. 

This is why people just go long with (what they perceive - as manipulated by the mass media) to be "the flow". 

Lacking inner motivation, they seek to conform to externally structured and short-termist goals relating to personal gratifications. Lacking inner motivation and ultimate purpose, they have no reason to be courageous. 

The answer is, of course, Christianity - but exactly what this implies is unclear. 

All of the major Christian churches are, and nearly all of Christian discourse is, nowadays so overwhelmingly corrupt and distorted in emphasis; that to become "a Christian" is only a very small start down the path of discovering a strong, valid and good motivation for life. 

One problem is that Christians are told to seek the truth in "a church" (i.e. to discover and obey a/the "true" church) - yet Christianity is replete with discourses placed at a level of "idealization" and detached abstraction; such that whatever was resolved by such procedures could never motivate a flea - and doesn't! 

This applies to the vast structure of logic and legalism, complex doctrines and dogmas, wranglings over language and translation, ancient history and context; and endless bitter disputes over the valid structures of hierarchy and authority.  

Consequently, lacking strong motivators, the actual motivations of Christians are just "whatever is socially and personally expedient": whatever is most rewarding, least risky, and in-general easiest in their particular societal niche. 

The would-be Christian falls into such mire because he is told always to seek truth (and motivation) in some external and objective - yet always and necessarily human at the interface - persons and institutions. 

In other words, there is an assumption built-in (from the history of religion and culture) that truth is a thing-out-there, and that truth ought to impose upon us - our job being merely to let this happen.

This assumption talks as if human experience, consciousness, awareness, intuition and insight - had not existence except as distractions. 

Actual people (particular human individuals) are edited out from it, except as a source of interference. 

The picture it accepts is one of a human passivity that excludes the essential "presence" in the description of our distinctive existence as living beings. 

What people don't realize is that this not how things are, but it is a theory of knowledge and behaviour and life and spirit. As long as we allow ourselves to assume such a theory, then we will always be alienated (because we are not actively participating in the process), can never know truth (because it is out there), and shall never be strongly motivated of our-selves - but only secondarily following some external source of guidance. 

Even when someone escapes (for a while) from the deadly assumptions of our civilization, and recognizes that the world is not out-there but participative; and that motivation must derive from our primary involvement in the creation of reality - then the actual daily/ hourly business of being motivated to Good remains a present problem...

But at least it is a real problem, in which we are primarily and personally concerned; and a problem that involves both us and the world; both us and God...

And, after all, this mortal life is a transitional phases - not a thing to be solved. 

What we should seek is the courage and commitment to keep engaged and keep learning; guided both from within and by our real and creative participation in divine creation. 

Ultimately, there is no possible division between inner and outer, subjective and external - reality is inconceivable without a basis that includes both. Yet at the same time we are not immersed in unity, but distinct beings. Our picture of reality should explain how this works. 

And like the knowledge itself, this is something that is learned by inner participation and engagement in creation. 

Learning this is not possible when the self is self-expunged; it is not something learned-from any conceivable external source.  

Our selves must be engaged and participate in the reality outside ourselves. 

Such knowledge is motivating because we personally and actively know it, and such motivation gives courage. 

Note added: Motivation/ Courage are therefore a by-product of solid (Christian) conviction - and not something that can be sought directly. If sought directly, then all that will result is "psychological courage" - which is a product of external causes interacting with internal disposition - and will only be as strong or lasting as the stability and strength of those external causes and internal disposition. The way to get motivated (and have a reason for courage) is to discover meaning and purpose in a way that is underpinned by personal conviction of personal destiny. 

Perhaps a womanly and procreative aspect of God is necessary for a solid belief in eternal life?

I am re-reading Geoffrey Ashe's fascinating study The Virgin (1976), which is focused on Mary, Mother of Jesus Christ (Ashe was a Roman Catholic) - but takes in the broader perspective of goddesses throughout history, in a non-hostile - indeed sympathetic - fashion. 

He makes the stimulating suggestion that a Goddess was primal in ancient spirituality, because she was the assumed basis of the procreative hence creative; and that some form of female deity is needed for Men really to believe in a life beyond life. 

The idea is that a supreme male deity cannot sustain belief in a full life beyond life. So that when the ruling Goddess goes; the afterlife becomes very partial, ghostly, and all-but irrelevant. 

Male deities could never bestow life of their own nature as the Mother had done. Zeus and his colleagues were immortal, but they did not transmit that quality to their human subjects... 

Through most civilized and semi-civilized lands... death ceased to be a passage to a future life... the dead were no longer pictured as significantly existing. They were reduced to feeble, bloodless shades in a gloomy underworld. For the Greeks this was Hades...

With the fading of the Eternal-Womanly, with her cutting-down or anathematisation, [for the vast majority, with extremely few exceptions] death had become the end with no prospect of rebirth. 

Israel's shift was similar... The Old Testament has no doctrine of survival or return... the dead become shades. They do down to an underworld called Sheol, The Grave.

The sole Israelite immortality is collective... God's chosen community...  

I think it likely that Ashe is "on to something" here. 

In the book; Ashe is preparing the ground for an attempted explanation of the rise of Mary the mother of Jesus as a more and more important focus of Christian faith - recognizing that this phenomenon cannot be accounted for by Scripture, or by the practices of the earlier generations of Christians. 

With Mariolatry (Ashe says) we seem to be dealing with some kind of deep and direct apprehension of spiritual reality, probably coming from grassroots, bottom-up, the "masses". Christian leaders and theologians seem merely to have been trying to explain and validate theoretically something that already was beginning to become important in practice. 

From my own experience; I find it striking that Mormonism included a very strong element of the "Eternal-Womanly" with its dyadic deity composed of Father and Mother in Heaven. 

And - perhaps in consequence? - the "Mormon culture of salvation" was (at least until fairly recently) probably the most vividly lived and believed-in form of Christian afterlife among the major Christian churches. 

The spiritually unsatisfactory and unconvincing nature of one-sidedly masculine, Christianity is something I find very striking. I mean the monochrome hardness, negativity, heartlessness, legalism and this-worldliness of Mary-rejecting forms of Protestantism is something I feel is very evident. It is one reason why England ceased to be "Merrie" with the reformation.

But there is something of this in all of Christianity. 

(And this defect has not-at-all been ameliorated, let alone cured, by the dominant trend towards secular materialism in all the Christian churches, which comes-in on the back of leftist ideology. Spiritual problems can only be made worse by "liberalization" - which is actually and always covert apostasy.) 

Insisting upon the non-sexual nature of God does not work either - this is just an attempt to escape contradictions absences and by raising abstractions; which has the effect of confusing people - and thereby impairing motivations.

Furthermore, the idea and ideals of ultimate transcendence of sexuality point away from Christianity (rooted in Jesus, the divine incarnate mortal Man) and towards Oneness spirituality, where (eventually) every-thing merges with everything else - in a timeless stasis.   

The problem is that it does not really make deep theoretical and theological sense to insert Mary alongside the (masculine) Trinity; and she is therefore always accorded an ultimately secondary and intercessionary" role in creation - no matter how central is her position in everyday worship (eg. devotion to the Rosary, or Marian icons). 

But even worthwhile degrees of habitual lifestyle and provision of psychological comfort are insufficient motivations in a world so dominated by evil-affiliated institutions. 

In our unavoidably self-conscious era; these inner contradictions about Mary have become nigh-lethal to strong Christian faith - as is evident all around us.

 

This is why I regard Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Mariolatry as "on the right lines" but ultimately insufficient and unsatisfactory. 

And, as Ashe described , this requisite kind of development can only come from directly apprehended knowledge - it is not already existent. 

To emphasize: what is required is not something that can honestly be derived from existing Scripture, theology or history.

Furthermore it needs to arise bottom-up; which means from individuals, not institutions.  

If modern Men are to grasp and retain the needful structuring-focus on resurrected eternal life; if we are to live-by knowledge of Heaven; then we will need explicitly to discover and embrace what will be new truths of eternal verities concerning women in relation to creation and salvation. 

Let me be clear - Traditional Christianity is now always and all-the-time dishonest

By my evaluation, traditional Christians are being consistently dishonest about what their faith actually entails. 

They talk and write that real Christianity is about humble obedience to the obvious and necessary truth of that external authority which is The Church. 

Meanwhile, all the time, top to bottom they are making personal subjective choices. 

They have chosen their church, chosen to regard it as the real church, the true church, the necessary necessary church. 

They have chosen the evidences by which they argue for all these - they have chosen how to interpret these evidences. 

They have chosen which among the leaders and administrators and practitioners of their church they will regard as true and worthy of obedience - and conversely they have chosen which voices are heretical, wicked, foolish etc. 

They have chosen what is vital and significant among sins and virtues, and one a daily basis they choose how to live their Christian lives among the almost limitless possibilities. 

These are just facts about religion, about Christianity, here and now, as it actually is. They have been and are exercising personal choices all the time. 

And speaking and writing about the need for humble obedience to the obvious truth of their Church - as if that was possible - makes any difference to the facts. 

It is therefore dishonest, in-denial, and grossly misleading. 

To have an honest and relevant discussion, it is first vital to acknowledge the realities -- and the reality is that not a single person in The West actually practices the humble, obedient, Church-led religions so insisted-upon by Traditionalist Christians. 

They do not, and neither does anybody else - and it is impossible. 

Such plain facts of Christian living ought to be the agreed and basic starting point; if what is desired is coherent and helpful discussion.

Motivational speakers, or writers - Edward Dutton on Jonathan Bowden

I recently read my old colleague Ed Dutton's biography of a "radical Right" political figure called Jonathan Bowden (1962-2012); which has just been published. 

I had never heard of Bowden until after he had died, and was not interested by what I discovered. His ideas were seemingly derived from the same kind of (fundamentally deficient) "based", "reactionary", nationalistic, Nietzschian, this-worldly and hedonically-calibrated non-religious sources as are always knocking about on the internet - ideas capable of generating a little bit of light, but no sustained heat.

So it seems that JB was not an original or coherent philosopher - it was not what he said that made him distinctive, but how he said it. 

What was of general interest about Bowden, as Dutton presents him, is that he was an orator of genius, a live public speaker who was capable of inspiring and motivating people in a remarkable way - so that those present retained the influence for a long time afterwards.

It seems that the inspirational effect was sufficiently objective that Bowden has developed a posthumous following, based upon videos of his speeches.  

Ed describes him as a "shaman" - to emphasize the strong magical spell that JB cast on his listeners. 

The other striking aspect of Bowden was that he was a long-term and wide-ranging self-aggrandizing liar about almost everything to do with himself. 

This was very extreme; and while his friends and colleagues realized that Bowden was prone to exaggerate and fabricate; apparently none of them realized the sheer scope and depth of his dishonesty. 

As well as all kinds of stuff about a constellation of false academic qualifications and intellectual attainments; perhaps the strangest lie was a highly elaborate construction about being a wealthy and successful businessman, with a wife and four (or five) children. 

Bowden provided people with all kinds of everyday details and specifics about the family's history and current doings - when the reality was that Bowden was never married, never had a job - and subsisted on a very small income from his father and benefits, probably never had a girlfriend, and lived alone in a rotting caravan. 

This strange story makes me think about the role of motivational speaking, and by extension writing - the considerable extent to which we seek, and rely upon this...

And how there are some people who are exceptionally gifted in this direction; and in ways that seem to depend extraordinarily little upon their actual attainments, or the content of what they are saying. 

On the one hand, it is striking how highly valued is this ability - how grateful people are, for being stirred-up and given confidence and direction. 

And on the other hand, how little substance is needed for this to happen - or even how that substance may be vague, impossible, or incoherent.   

It seems a fact about humans that we desire to be inspired by others - no matter or unworthy or flimsy are those chosen - none of which seems to make a difference to the intense loyalty and affection that are directed at those capable of doing such inspiring. 

As Dutton analyses it; this is what Max Weber termed "charisma" in a leader - and charisma can, to some extent, be associated with a variety of adverse and undesirable experiences and personality traits. 

Nowadays, charisma is mostly artificial and manufactured by the machinery of advertising, public relations, propaganda and saturation mass media coverage; so that someone without any exceptional degree of genuine charisma can be passed off as a "shaman"...

(Just as the public can successfully be manipulated to react to very ordinary-looking actresses and actors, pop stars or other public figures; as if they were truly beautiful, handsome or sexy; or can be induced to regard mildly-competent, socially-conformist and ideologically-mainstream pundits or writers; as if they were towering intellects, path-breaking radicals, or creative powerhouses...) 

But there is also such a thing as real interpersonal charisma - that does not depend on anything except human presence and the human voice - and this "real thing" was apparently what Jonathan Bowden had in spades. 

Lady Day

It seems worth noting that this is Lady Day  - March 25th, officially the Feast of the Annunciation, commemorating the day that Jesus was conceived on his Mother by the Spirit of God. 

Lady Day was greatly celebrated in Merrie England, and was indeed - until 1752 and the imposition of the Gregorian Calendar, when it was moved to the 6th April - the first day of the New Year.

Coming four days after the Vernal Equinox, Lady Day has the same kind of astronomical basis as Christmas has in relation to the Winter Solstice - and thereby links with natural religion. 

England in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages was known for an especially high degree of devotion to Mary - probably something that came via the Celtic Church, with its many links to Constantinople; but was powerfully sustained over many generations. 

It was a day for various kinds of religious celebrations, and also a day on which fairies might be seen; suggesting a distinctively Celtic harmony and synergy of the pagan and Christian forms. 

Lady Day is timely because such matters are much on my mind; in particular the question of the underlying spiritual reality (rather than the theological superstructure) of Christian devotion to Mary - which strikes me as overall a Good Thing, however critical I am of most of the details.

Devotion to Mary seems like a corrective to the abstractions of orthodox monotheistic Trinitarianism, and a heart-warming of Christianity - as well as recognition of a fundamental and metaphysical reality. 

It also seems like a part of England's destiny and the destiny of the English; in some rather obscure way, that I think needs elucidation and therefore deserves a greater effort of understanding.   

We Are Not Alone, objectively - but subjectively, we are alienated

The alien Marvin (the Martian), asserts objective reality 

Modern alienation is a very real thing: which is to say the experience of being cut-off from God, reality, this world, other people... is inescapable as a subjective experience, and this has profound religious, social and political consequences. 

Yet alienation is an inwardly-caused phenomenon. Alienation is not a reality imposed by the external nature of things.

We were all spontaneously and involuntarily (and most unconsciously) immersed in "everything else" at the early phases of our existence - and that is the primary reality of divine creation. 

It could be called a complete web of "interconnectedness" - except that "connect" assumes that we begin as separate, and must overcome separateness by connecting. The reality is the opposite - we begin as only partially separated in our awareness from the oneness of divine creation. That is the baseline.  

We modern Men are now alienated because in the course of human development we have each cut ourselves off from that spontaneous immersion in "everything else": the barrier arises from within us. 

That barrier which cuts-off modern adults can be, and is at times, dissolved (or demolished); for instance by dreaming sleep, mental illness and brain disease, intoxication - or sometimes by meditation.

But all of these make us dysfunctional, and none of them succeed in restoring the natural spontaneity of an earlier phase of consciousness.

The earlier phase of spontaneous immersive consciousness is like the childhood phase of development - such that once an individual has developed beyond childhood, childhood can never wholly or healthily be re-established.

In other words; we should take the cut-offness of modern alienation as a fact-of-life and the basis for further developments - yet we also need to bear in mind that the ultimate reality is, as it always was, one in which we are naturally and inescapably immersed in reality - including the reality of the divine, of the universe, of other people. 

Therefore we do not need to "re-connect" because dis-connection is not the problem. 

Instead; the problem is in our own consciousness - which is "stuck" in a phase that denies the reality of its immersion in the whole of divine creation. 

What we need to work-on is our own personal consciousness of reality: we need to become conscious of that we we are currently not conscious. 

Modern Man usually denies the reality of that of which he is not spontaneously conscious - such as the divine. (That is: we deny the reality of God because we Moderns are no longer spontaneously and continuously aware of God, as was once the case.) 

I am saying that we need, instead, to acknowledge the reality of our connectedness-to/ immersion-in the divine; and from that conviction strive to become conscious of the actuality of this link.

Acknowledge reality: then strive for awareness of that reality...

To put it differently; we Modern men have (under God's will) developed alienation, which is an increasing individual independence from the whole - and this development has happened because this is also a greater freedom and agency*. 

In other words; the "universal" awareness that was once spontaneous and inescapable, is now voluntary and chosen.

What is needed is not a return but a development. So, this voluntary and chosen acknowledgement of connectedness to other people/ the world/ God is a new thing - a deliberate step forward - not a surrender or relaxation backwards..

A doing, not an undoing.

Because new, the needful awareness is subjectively experienced differently from the old childhood or child-like consciousness - we need to be self-aware, aware of our own awareness. 

This is not under compulsion nor necessity; this is something that we are aware that we have-chosen (and that it could have been, could be, otherwise). 

From such a perspective, all looks different. We know what we know via our subjectivity - that is; our subjectivity is part of all possibilities of knowing. 

Subjectivity makes everything possible, and a change in the nature of our subjectivity affects everything. 

So a deliberate attention to developing consciousness makes a profound difference to everything - including our experience of Christianity.   

**

*Modern alienation is therefore meant-to-be just a phase; en route to a higher - more developed, indeed more divine - form of consciousness. 

There can be no political "Right" - so, what instead?

I have often noted that there can be no political Right that is genuinely distinct from the Left; unless it is rooted in religion. 

In other words, what people call the Right (including the "far Right" - whatever that may be) are from a Christian perspective and at root, just a type of Leftism - that is, they are all this-worldly and aiming at hedonic outcomes (i.e. human psychological gratification).

I believe this is true, and consequential; but whereas 15 years ago I saw religion in terms of a church, now I regard it as unavoidably personal: Romantic Christianity. 

So how then does religion work as an alternative to the pervasive Leftism? 

The answer is that the real alternative to Leftism is much, much more radical than anything ever dreamed of by any kind of The Right. 

The Right tries to keep what it likes from our Leftist Western civilization, and eradicate what it does not like; but Romantic Christianity recognizes that this process must cut very deeply indeed to eradicate the roots of evil - so deep, indeed, that our kind of civilization seems inconceivable. 

What would happen instead is also inconceivable in detail and at large - except that it would be more like a family than a state. 

However unsatisfactory this individualist/ romantic world view may seem to be, especially to those whose ideology continues to be socio-political and group-ist in nature - it does seem to be the only positive (Christian) possibility; given the way that human consciousness has developed.  

Online, free, searchable, no-frills King James Bible and Book of Mormon

Friend of this blog and administrator of the Romantic Christianity aggregator New World Island, David Earle; has made available a plain text (no frills!) version of the Bible in the Authorized Version - and done the same for The Book of Mormon. 

For those with an exploratory mind-set; this has a facility for looking at "random" verses from these volumes, and their subdivisions.   

Enjoy!

The causes of gratuitous wars

It is fascinating (as well as alarming) to see the British political system, bureaucracy and mass media; combining forces to justify and escalate full war on behalf of a remote and disconnected not-ally - including explicit and repeated demands for re-armament, a war economy, and mass military conscription (something not seen here for some 70 years). 

The same is happening over most of Europe. 

And this has been building-up for nearly two decades; by lies upon lies gradually building-up the image of a necessary cartoon super-villain that "must" be fought - or else we shall all be doomed...

(Or rather, even more doomed than we already are by the nakedly evil plans of our national rulers.) 

There have been many gratuitous wars throughout history. One of the most famous is that described in Shakespeare's Henry V; which is depicted as having been due to an insulting gift of tennis balls! 

Much more likely, the war was proximately due to the multi-generational yearning of England's usurping Norman Kings to rule in their native France - a country they have always (and still do) prefer to what they regard as the uncouth English. 

The tennis ball incident was just an excuse to "justify" something Henry wanted to do - like happened again in WWI and WWII, with their pseudo-altruistic (but not actually done) excuses of saving Belgium, and Poland. 

Plus that the Normans were addicted to war as the supreme form of sport (and they were usually very good at it). 

That kind of motivation doesn't really persist in the West, now; yet the current leadership class of the UK and Europe are very keen to engage their nations in all-out gratuitous war. 

There are similarities between past European wars and this current one; but also there are enormous differences. 

One difference is that current national and regional leaders altogether lack the personal prowess, courage and decisiveness of an heroic character like Henry V. They are, indeed, both pathetic and despicable individuals - and collectively. 

The leadership class has for decades been marinated in a cultural soup of pacifism and suicidal altruism. 

Also the mass populations of the West nowadays are (to put it mildly!) not longer trained for war (no compulsory longbow practice! The military have low status, and do not appear in public in uniforms.) - and have been thoroughly demoralized by atheism, materialism and cultural destruction. 

The Western masses are by now docile, distracted, self-destructive - utterly repelled by the idea of war insofar as they even think about it (which is very little).   

Yet, as so often; the "justification" for such a war is gratuitous, profoundly unnecessary, without any possibility of average-overall national benefit; therefore the "need" for war must be built on long-term, systematic deception and untruthfulness - and lying misrepresentation of the actual purposes. 

What interests me is the different motivations that seem to be operating at different levels of The System. 

At the lower and middle levels (the managerial and intellectual classes); the push for war seems to be just another manifestation of their system of incentives - such people behave in ways that they believe will provide them with the greatest prosperity, security, and status among their kind.

When The System is set-up such that supporting war is advantageous to such persons, they will support war - in the usual way that they "support" any other System-priority such as sustainability, antiracism, "equality"; that is to say; they approve and develop and inhabit bureaucratic structures and processes; which are supposedly directed towards that end.   

At a higher level - say, that of national leadership of large institutions, organizations, corporations - there is need for individuals who will actively construct false narratives, suppress truths, engage in multiple immoral and illegal activities; so at this level the motivations need to be cruder, more personally corrupting, more consciously sinful. 

These middle-leadership-level people need (at some level of awareness) to give their allegiance, or at least their obedience, to the strategies of evil purpose. 

This is why we can observe their personal corruption; their strange emotions and reactions, their snake eyes or zombie eyes - all evidencing that they have-been through some kind of shock-and-awe, brain-washing, blackmailing, or spirit-breaking - that guarantees their allegiance. 

For such people; engineering gratuitous war is just "politics as usual". Plus, war has a direct personal appeal of providing for greater opportunities for power-grabbing, abuses with impunity, enacting revenges and torments, self-enrichment and self-gratification - and suchlike abuses, which are always made easier by war. 

Beyond this level of societal control and war-mongering, I am not aware of the identities of human personnel involved; and the spiritual powers (demons) become dominant. 

And because these are unembodied spirits, their motivations are different from those of humans. 

These spirits with direct affiliation to the side of evil are primarily engaged in a spiritual war. 

The realities of spiritual warfare are strategically focused on the damnation of Men in accordance with the motivation of their leader (i.e. Satan); but also are tactically motivated (more individually, in the shorter term) by a kind of vampirism of spiritual energy - an enjoyment in feeding-off the evils of the human condition, and from the destruction of souls.  

At this highest and more strategic level; the purpose of war is very different from that of national leaders. 

For instance; the strategists ideal is a war that is unwinnable, interminable, and constantly escalating into greater extremes of mutual destruction, resentment, lying - and despair. 

Such a war would be intended grow to include as many as possible of the national leadership class who engineered it; as well as the managerial/ intellectual class who justified it to the masses. 

Indeed these bureaucrats of war (i.e. the national institutional leaders etc.) provide greater spiritual energies to vampirize exactly because they have given their souls to evil; than would the unwilling, unenthusiastic, driven-masses who would experience the greatest sufferings and casualties.  

 

How great was the Red Baron - Manfred von Richthofen?

Manfred von Richthofen - the Red Baron - was the top scoring ace in World War I, with 80 confirmed kills; a number that seems likely to be essentially valid.  

The greatness of the Red Baron was always contested (or, at least, ambivalent) in the British air force - Royal Flying Corps/ Royal Air Force* - both at the time, and since; with people on both sides.

On the one side, Manfred vR was proven as a very good pilot and (perhaps even more important) an excellent marksman. 

On the other side; once he had become a German national hero, he fought with tremendous advantages that were not available to anybody else - especially not on the Allies side. 

The Red Baron was a combat theoretician and inspiring leader; who devised methods for achieving successful results in combat under the most favourable conditions, with the minimum losses on his side. 

He would fly at high altitude with a very large "circus" of other scout (i.e. fighter) pilots - larger than any groupings that the Allies were using, so that von Richthofen would nearly always have the vital air combat advantages of height and outnumbering. 

As leader of this circus; MvR had several (not just one) other pilots "covering his tail", so he could concentrate on downing his chosen victim, without the usual (for the Allies) need to be vigilant. 

Furthermore, the Baron benefitted from the usual German strategy of staying on the German side of the lines, and waiting for the Allies to come to him. 

Also he would usually avoid combat unless under favourable conditions (especially height advantage and numerical superiority). There was a relatively low threshold for breaking-off an engagement if it was not going well or when height superiority had been lost; rather than fighting it out from a position of mere parity. 

What this amounted to is that the Red Baron was certainly an excellent fighter pilot, but that his supremacy in numbers of kills was attained substantially because of his prolonged survival - and this was due to the unique advantages he fought under.

These advantages were necessarily obtained at the cost of limiting and reducing the combat effectiveness of the German air force in general, and Richthofen's circus in particular. 

By contrast, the RFC (under the aggressive leadership of High Trenchard) had a much higher-risk "offensive" strategy, of seeking out the enemy; and taking-on other formations even when disadvantaged by being over enemy lines, lesser height, and fewer numbers. 

The Allied air forces were used primarily in support of the Army (their primary role was reconnaissance and artillery ranging), and were often sacrificed to the needs on the ground. For example the RFC/ RAF played a decisive role in containing the massive German counter-attack of March 1918 by close infantry support, bombing and strafing throughout daylight hours - but at the cost of very heavy losses of men and machines; mainly to ground fire. 

In contrast; the German command seem to have regarded the Red Baron as providing most value to the war effort, as a national symbol of heroic individual prowess - his personal survival was therefore important, so he was undoubtedly protected.    

It is unsurprising that some RFC/RAF regarded von Richthofen's supreme numerical success as significantly "manufactured" and thereby artificial - despite his undoubted excellence as a fighting flyer. 

This must have seemed confirmed when the Red Baron's death was caused by breaking his own rules of engagement (perhaps due to combat fatigue?); when he followed his intended victim across to the British side of the lines, alone and without anyone to guard his tail, and down to a very low level where he became vulnerable to rifle and machine gun fire. 

Yet these were fighting conditions that most RFC/ RAF pilots were compelled to endure on a daily basis. 

In the event; it was some unclear combination of being attacked from behind by an Allied fighter, and/or ground fire, that led to the Red Baron's demise.  

The distinctive red Fokker Triplane came down on the Allied side of the lines, with Baron Manfred already dead (probably from a single bullet) - where his body was treated with respect by the RAF, and accorded a full military funeral.

That night, some British Pilots held a party in honour of the Red Baron, and toasted his health. Others refused to participate - including the great Irish ace Mick Mannock, who was made very angry by his squadron's celebration.   

In conclusion, I think both sides were correct. Manfred von Richthofen was a great leader, tactician, and ace; and also the magnitude of his achievement was significantly manufactured, and the result of unique privileges. 

*The Royal Flying Corps was part of the British Army. Combined with the smaller Royal Naval Air Service, it became the first independent air military, the Royal Air Force, on 1st April 1918 - smack in the middle of the first massive German attack of that year.

This post was stimulated by reading Aces Falling: War above the trenches, 1918; by Peter Hart (2008).

Shakespeare's identity revisited

Shakespeare's birthplace in Stratford - 

a lovely place to visit on a sunny day

As happens recurrently, there is a resurgence of the argument that the bloke from Stratford upon Avon could not have written the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. 

This will never cease; because details of WS's life are so sparse, because authorship in those days involved a great deal of copying and adapting, irregularities of spelling and nomenclature; and also because some of the (lesser) Shakespeare-attributed works are probably by others or done in collaborations (as has emerged in mainstream scholarship, over the years - for instance the Passionate Pilgrim poems).  

Nonetheless, all the people that I have read who make this argument against Shakespeare, have been arguing from what I regard as false premises, as I have explained before. 

Firstly; Shakespeare is so much better than the second best writer in English Literature (whoever that might be, which has always been disputed) that there cannot be any argument of a kind which suggests that Shakespeare of Stratford was incapable of writing something - but somebody else was. 

If we genuinely recognize the quality of Shakespeare, then nobody was capable of writing it - in the sense that there has never been anybody else in the same league.

So no alternative identification as author is any more plausible than Shakespeare of Stratford.  

Secondly; the quality of the works attributed to Shakespeare mean that the author was a first-rank genius; and it is not valid to apply the probabilities that apply to normal people, to the work of a major genius.  

The example I used was Isaac Newton, another first-rank genius - but one whose life is well documented. 

It is striking that Newton's actual achievement is impossible on the basis of what is known of his life. 

The fact that Newton's achievement was not predictable on the basis of his biography, yet he did it anyway; is evidence that when dealing with major genius, normal predictions and probabilities are meaningless. 

There is - as I said initially - a mystery about Shakespeare as the author of the best attributed dramatic works. 

Yet I find the usual narrative of a Grammar School boy from Stratford; from a rebellious, recusant Catholic family on his mother's side, and the rest of it - to be rich, coherent and satisfying. 

After all the caveats regards particular works or parts of works; to me, Shakespeare of Stratford rings-true. 

Prosperity Gospel Lite

Everybody rightly makes fun of the pseudo-Christian preachers of a "prosperity gospel", when their message becomes too crude, short-termist and monetary - e.g. those US televangelists who state that if you contribute to their church, you will get a better paid jobs, or suchlike. 

But the prosperity gospel in a "Lite" version is actually very common among Christians; I mean the belief that those who lead their lives in accordance with Christian beliefs and practices will survive and thrive in socio-economic ways. 

For instance; proponents of PGL may state or imply that being Christian will help you to have a successful business, get the girl/s, be a "real" man, attract admiration from "real" men etc.

And the flip-side of Prosperity Gospel Lite are negative assumptions such as "get woke, go broke" and the assumption that leftist men are despised by the desirable girls. It is PGL to imply that conforming to the mainstream ideology usually leads to failure.     

The major theme of justification for the PGL is that Christianity is the Truth, and that living in accordance with reality is likely to be more successful than a deluded existence of obedience to a false and virtual world. 

At root, all this is false, because it is a roundabout way of asserting that Christianity is expedient. 

It has never been true, except insofar as State Christianity was sometimes, in some places, sufficiently powerful, true and uncorrupt; that a life of faithful church-obedience could be a reliable route to worldly success. 

But in our current overwhelmingly atheistic, materialistic, leftist world; the expedient path of worldly triumph leads away from Christianity - at least over the predictable short to medium-term.

Optimism about success in this world is one thing; being-Christian is another. 

Christians need to be clear about what their religion actually is about, primarily and essentially; and that is our positive desire and intent to attain salvation: resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Implications about this mortal existence flow backwards from this post-mortal intent.

There is no general reason why "being a Christian" would necessarily lead towards a "successful" (high status, wealthy, comfortable, pleasurable, healthy, pain-free) mortal life; and indeed there are plenty of reasons why it would not. 

  

A note on the static implications of divine omniscience

I have harped-on about the problem of regarding God's omniscience as necessary and definitive, and what malign effects this assumption has for Christians. 

I was thinking more on this matter, when it struck me with forcible conviction that omniscience is part of an assumption that reality is ultimately "static" - by which I mean that if God is to know everything (past, present, future), then divine creation must be completed and unchanging in an ultimate sense. 

The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians - if not for strict monotheists such as Jews and Muslims; and insofar as omniscience is taken seriously and rigorously; it pushes Christianity (both in its deep theory and in societal practice) towards a pure monotheism by which freedom/agency, and creation/ development are foreknown and bounded.

Indeed, it seems logically to collapse towards a Hinduism or Buddhism that regards this experienced world of change, time, apparent freedom, apparent creation - as maya, illusion; not really-real.  

And this world of illusion is very difficult to square with faith in a God that is Good and loving to us each as persons. 

Why would such a God, that is omniscient, create a fake-world inhabited with deluded creatures?  

The omniscience of God is a really bad idea for Christians -- incoherence of theology is always a bad thing, especially when that incoherence is so up-front and obvious, yet denied and obfuscated by incomprehensible/nonsensical abstractions. 

Omniscience isn't explicitly stated in the Bible, quite the reverse! And is starkly contradicted by the eye-witness narrative and teachings of Fourth Gospel, and most of the other reported Biblical accounts of Jesus. 

It makes me wonder what Good reasons (there are plenty of bad ones) could exist why so many orthodox Christian intellectuals, for so many centuries, have absolutely insisted-upon such a monstrous doctrine - such a gratuitous stumbling block to faith in Jesus Christ?    

"AI" in public discourse: It's a case of persons, or else nihilism

God is personal, and human beings are persons too - and ultimately reality is a matter of relations between persons, or more exactly Beings (alive, conscious, purposive etc). 

Life in 2025 is pushing us towards either a clear recognition of this reality, or else a collapse into nihilism, then despair. 

Inwardly to reject the so-called "AI" push/takeover ought to be a no-brainer for a discerning Christian; but way too many have failed to recognize this latest threat - which means they have taken the side of consciousness-denying abstraction, rather than personhood. 

AI is therefore a Test. And, as with all the Litmus Tests, un-repented failure in one Test strongly leads to further ramifications of the problem (to more sins of other kinds) - and I sometimes observe a remarkably rapid collapse into general failure of discernment. 

To deny the qualitative gulf between AI and the personal, goes with a (typically "optimistic") denial of the realities of our civilization. 

Once we have edited-out the absolute necessity of individual human beings from our definition of discourse - inevitably, there will be adverse consequences spreading-out from this un-repented failure - metastasizing: forming secondary spiritual dysfunctions. 

The "problem" is that to reject AI means to put oneself outwith the mainstream - which is infiltrated and polluted with fake-discourse. 

And it is trying to spread, all the time. Already this blog has experienced several AI pseudo-commenters*.

The answer is to reject the modern value of "openness" including to become suspicious of "strangers" as being probably-malign, in the same way that happens in tribal societies.

Trust must be "earned", including being trusted to be human and free; rather than mechanical and automatic.  

And therefore some humans will, in the nature of things, be rejected as AI - not least because many/most people in public discourse are already operating mentally (and spiritually) at the same level as AI, so as to be indistinguishable from an algorithm.  

But that is their problem - not mine. 

*An increasing proportion of public media discourse consists of AI-generated text interacting with AI-generated comments/ reviews/ discussions. The truly pitiful thing; is those human beings who are paying attention to it.

"Masculinity" and "femininity" versus the actual person of Mother in Heaven

While I assume that God is Dyadic (a Heavenly Father and Mother) - this is something I have not really grasped, not does it correspond much with daily experience. 

Partly this may be because we Christians are intended to relate primarily to Jesus, rather than the primary creator; but partly it is because I tend to get "hung-up" on inaccurate and unhelpful assumptions relating to principles, rather than persons. 

An example of an unhelpful/ misleading conceptualization would be that of Coleridge's "polarity" between "two contrary forces, the one of which tends to expand infinitely ["masculine], while the other strives to apprehend or find itself in this infinity [feminine]". 

One such assumption is that habit of thinking of male and female in terms of being specific exemplifications of those abstractions: "masculinity" and "femininity"... Abstractions that are somehow floating unattached beyond time and space, and sort-of imposing-themselves-upon Beings (as it were to make them men, or women)...! 

Really; things must be otherwise. 

Our Heavenly Parents are those two Beings who (in actuality, not by any prior necessity) first committed to eternal love; and on that basis began divine creation. 

It is their two natures, originating as two Beings, that ramify through all of creation since.  

Thus male and female both structure and power creation; but in this personal way - derived from actual living, conscious, developing Beings; and not therefore in terms of abstract metaphysical forces or fields or tendencies. 

As (always?) with metaphysical realities, it is not possible to derive the metaphysics from empirical specifics (such as actual men and women) - nor is it possible to derive any particular empirical specifics from the metaphysical assumptions. 

If the universe truly is derived from a dyadic God; then that universe includes everything that exists, has existed, or could exist - and this reality (this Primary Creation) in which we dwell; includes not just divine creation, but also entropy/death and purposive evil. 

What this seems to mean - among many other things! - is that our experience of Mother in Heaven ought not to be pre-conceptualized in terms of an ideal earthly-mortal Mother, nor any other archetypal female conceptualization. 

Of course, if that is what we have decided in advance that we will find, then that is what we will find - and any female archetype really is there; but only as a selective, hence distorted, part of the reality. 

This stricture applies both to Goddess conceptualizations; and to the Blessed Virgin Mary - whom I regard as ultimately a selective and distorted representation of the reality of the actual person of Mother in Heaven.

(Albeit the veneration/worship of the Mary, Mother of Jesus has - in some times and places - been very valuable as such; and IMO far preferable overall to an exclusively "masculine" conceptualization of God.)

I think the difficulties of you and I experiencing the person of Mother in Heaven are therefore partly due to the nature of God the Creator - who is not personal in this world, in the way that Jesus Christ is personal; partly it is due to the ultimately-dyadic nature of God (and the consequent difficulty of disambiguating Father and Mother, who are necessarily participating-in each-other); and partly due to our usually false expectations concerning what She is like.   

So, what is She like? 

The best answer is: She is like who-She-is. 

...Which can be known - as here on earth - by personal experience, by getting-to-know a person. 

But She is not to be known in terms of exemplifying a list of supposed-female attributes, nor can any list of attributes validly communicate her reality.

Was Boudicca's revolt originally intended as a distraction from the Roman annihilation of Druidry?

"Bolshy Boudica", a British heroine, 

as depicted by TV Horrible Histories 

The story of Boudicca's revolt against the Roman occupiers in AD 61 is well known; and it is usually explained as having been caused by Queen Boudicca having been whipped and her daughters raped by agents of Nero. 

But another idea struck me while reading Geoffrey Ashe's history of Glastonbury, King Arthur's Avalon (1957). Ashe emphasizes that the Druids were a major obstacle to Roman rule in Gaul, due to the proximity of the Druidic colleges in Britain, which Julius Caesar said was the centre of Druidry. 

Druids seem to have been an elite and secretive caste, with a very long (twenty year) initiatory apprenticeship into an organization that combined many functions such as priests, prophets and augers, healers and repositories of history and lore. 

In sum, British society could not function without Druids. 

Ashe makes the plausible suggestion that the destruction of Druidry was in fact the major motivation for the successful Claudian invasion and occupation of Britain from AD 43.

It is therefore very  likely that Druid control and coordination was extremely strong in Britain; since they were the grey-eminence rulers of the British regional kings, a national organization that bridged between the regional Kingdoms. 

If their destruction was indeed the Roman aim, then from AD 43 onwards, the Druids were fighting not just to retain their power, but their lives. 

This danger to the Druids became potentially terminal in AD 60 into 61, when the Romans had pushed the Druids back into the Island of Mona (modern Anglesey) off the north coast of Wales, and the Romans were preparing an invasion. 

The Romans then planned to invade and occupy Wales, thereby completing the conquest of Druidic Britain. 

My suggestion is that - as this threat to Druidry developed, and the Romans sent their legions to the north-west of Britain to attack Mona - the Druids sent word to Boudicca instructing her to start a rebellion in the South East of the country. 

In other words, Boudicca's rebellion may have started as a military distraction, intended to divert Roman resources away from their plans to destroy Druidry. 

The Boudicca diversion, if that is what it was, was partially and temporarily successful. 

It did not save Mona, nor the Druids gathered there - perhaps the rebellion was too late; or perhaps the Roman's anti-Druid strategic priority trumped their desire to save the Romanized populace of south east England?

In the event, the Romans were able to win their battle against Mona, invade the island, kill the Druids and everybody else, and burn the sacred groves.

But thanks to Boudicca, the Romans could not consolidate their victory - not yet. The island of Mona was not occupied. The conquest of Wales was delayed. 

The legions were compelled to return to the South East, where they defeated the Boudicca rebellion - which had by then grown to enormously destructive proportions. In their usual fashion the Romans proceeded to crush the responsible populations, in order to deter and prevent any similar event recurring. 

But this took time and resources. So that Mona was not occupied by the Romans until another sixteen years had passed, and mainland Wales was not occupied until AD 78.

So, if Boudicca's rebellion was a distraction motivated by the Druids, it proved very costly and only temporary in effect. 

On the other hand, Boudicca did kill many tens of thousands of Romans; and destroyed Colchester, St Albans and London. 

And she delayed the conquest of Wales - and thereby probably delayed the final annihilation of the socio-political structures of Druidry - by a significant period. 

In sum - what I am suggesting here is that the causality of Boudicca and the Druids of Mona may be the reverse of how these are usually explained. 

Traditionally; the explanation is that Boudicca rebelled because the Roman legions were occupied in the opposite corner of the country in destroying the Druids. The rebellion was allowed by the attack on Druidry. 

What I am instead saying is that Boudicca rebelled under instruction from the Druids, with the intention of bringing the Roman back from Mona: in hope of saving the Druids. 

The idea is that Boudicca rebellion was instructed, not allowed. She was not taking advantage of the absence of Roman legions; she was instead intending to divert the legions from destroying the Druids.  

The Absolute stupidity of (totalitarian) bureaucracy

There is an absolute and ineradicable stupidity at the heart of The System: the bureaucracy that controls our totalitarian society. 

This is something that I observed first-hand in the year and a half I worked in the National Health Service administration. What is characteristic of the stupidity is a conviction that because we need it to be so, then it can be so*. 

When The System finds some-thing necessary, then The System will believe that it is possible. 

Indeed, The System cannot comprehend that what it regards as necessary, is actually impossible - because The System only takes regard of itself. 

The System is its own world; and works by assuming that itself is the whole world. 

So that when The System recognizes something as necessary, or even as simply desirable - then The System also automatically-intrinsically regards that something as possible. 

We see this characteristic everywhere - or, at least, we can see it if we stand outwith The System, which apparently not all that many people can or do (or even want to do). 

We see it at the large scale and at the small scale of bureaucratic operations. 

At the large scale there is the colossal socio-economic phenomenon of the Global Climate Warming/ Change Emergency; by which something not-a-problem, and anyway immeasurable (i.e. the temperature of the earth/ocean surface/ atmosphere is not measurable coherently); and which has unknown determinants; is claimed by The System to be understood, predictable, and controllable (by The System) down to fractions of a degree... So The System regards the climate problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

On a smaller scale there is the current wave of AI ("Artificial Intelligence"), which The System believes it needs in order to exert what The System regards as the necessary degree of monitoring and control over the mass population. And the fact that "AI" cannot by its nature possibly work in the real world for such purposes, and therefore it does not work; is unknowable by The System. So The System regards the AI problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

And implementation of such schemes is also something that The System knows how to do, to its own satisfaction, by the means it has generated internally. 

So that the actually accelerating collapse of social order and capability in the world outside The System, and that this collapse is actually caused by The System, simply does not register; because it is not part of The System.

From inside The System, the only "real" problems are ones of implementation: the problem that "people" simply aren't properly doing... whatever it is that The System currently wants them to do. 

Which means that the only "real" problem for The System is that of monitoring and controlling "people". 

And thus the circle is completed.    

 *The specific instance when this became clear was when I was questioning a government minister in a meeting at the Health Authority. The NHS bureaucracy had set as a numerical-monitored-target, that national suicide rates should and would be reduced. I pointed-out that this was nonsensical, because nobody knew how national suicide rates could be reduced. The minister rather impatiently explained to me that it was necessary that Psychiatric services had a target (or else they would be neglected), and this was the only suitable measurable outcome; so now it was "up to us" to discover how to reach that target - i.e. how to reduce national suicide levels in line with the targets. In practice, The System generated some (totally conjectural) methods that it believed ought to work. These were accepted (eagerly) because something must be done. The hypothetical notion was, basically, prescribing more antidepressant drugs (because that must stop suicides, right?... Ignoring that the SSRI drugs actually increase suicides, which was what happened in the real world). And so drug-pushing was the policy which got implemented. At least until The System changed the targets, for reasons of its own.

Note added: The above is a soft version of the Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann - which is summarized and developed in the Appendix of my (pre-Christian, and leftist) book The Modernization Imperative.  

Deity is a person

When I think back across my conversion from (almost) lifelong atheism to Christianity, it seems clear that the biggest barrier was that God the creator is a person. 

Even in my youth I was prepared, even keen, to adopt abstract deistic principles, and assumptions about the directional or cohesive structure of reality...

But the idea of the creator as a person was an assumption that I ruled out - quickly, effortlessly - as obviously absurd, obviously childish. 

Yet now I regard creator-as-person as an absolutely foundational and essential fact (and assumption). 

Spawn of Hartley Hare?

My life seems to have been plagued by Hartleys; which I blame upon that archetypal Hartley: Hartley Hare - who I tentatively presume to have been a transdimensional and temporally omnipresent being; capable of exerting influence of many kinds, by many means.  

Such were my thoughts when I saw notice that our latest local Church of England Bishopess is yet another Hartley (Helen-Anne). The resemblance to HH is obvious:

Then there was, of course, that old fly-fisherman JR Hartley - whom I have mentioned before:

And I have also referenced Hartley Coleridge (who was born in the most boring town in the world, and whose erstwhile home I have stayed in) - eldest son of Samuel Taylor; who also has the look of Hartley Hare about him:

A malign presence in mid-childhood was the ubiquitous product Hartley's New Jam, especially its strawberry manifestation; which (from memory) was low on fruit, high on pectin; and relied heavily on various flavourings and preservatives and shocking pink food colouring. A typical Hartley-inspired product, as the makers signal by their almost demonic depiction of the Hartley-childrens' faces:

 If my experience is anything to go by; whenever you encounter a Hartley - beware.