Despite that this is a selfish blog, consisting of me thinking-in-writing some of the notions I get in the early morning; from time to time I do invite questions from readers, and this is one of those times.
Hi Bruce, As a pastor, your writings on the three main type of evil, Luciferian, Ahrimanic and Sorathic. Can you write more on the Sorathic evil as it fights against Ahrimanic evil, that you see happening in the last couple of years?
Hi Bruce, I discovered your blog during the Birdemic hoax and since then drop by every day. I've also read your earlier essays about scientism.
I'd like to ask you about the industrial scale operation of housing tens of thousands of third world males in army bases, hotels, old schools etc. across the entire country. What is the endgame?
@Njr - There is a hierarchy of evil at work. Almost everybody behind the policy believes they and their cause will benefit. The masses are ever stupider and ever more cowardly because they live only for this world. They do or don't do on the basis of whatever seems easiest and causes least personal angst.
At a low level there is selfish-short-termist evil. My money from your pockets stuff. Jobs for the poverty industry. A Good Cause for the woke bleeding hearts to emote over. Masses of money for the construction industry. etc
There is the totalitarian agenda of materialistic evil - omni-surveillance and total control, where inputs and outputs are dictated.
At the top level the agents of chaos are preparing a situation of social and economic breakdown, violence, starvation and disease.
Plus that the whole situation leads to a staple diet of mandatory social dishonestly - lies, evasions, misrepresentation, self-blinding, value inversions - layers and linkages of sinful untruthfulness which draws in almost everybody.
@Latigo - As I see it the Sorathic (chaotically destructive) evil is an almost inevitable progression of the Ahrimanic (totalitarian) mindset. So a lot of it works by the natural further progression of the totalitarian overlords and their minions - I think that this corruption can be observed in some of the "leadership" class.
The other point is that it is very difficult, long term and resource consuming to build a totalitarian materialist system - so the Agents of Chaos find it easy to destroy - and there are almost innumerable ways of damaging something complex.
The totalitarians are intractably stupid on some major themes - because their aspirations are based on inversional wishful thinking. This is exploited by the Agents of Chaos.
For example, the totalitarians are fundamentally anti-human - and are therefore readily manipulated into adopting colossal destructive projects such as mass immigration (based on the believe that humans are "units") and AI (the belief that these humans units are necessarily computerizable) - which will certainly destroy the System they so cherish.
So it's easy for Sorathic evil to destroy Ahrimanic evil - but "natural" selfish lustful (Luciferic) evil is much harder to manipulate, which is why Sorathic comes after Ahrimanic, and not much before.
All the litmus test posts are very good. Among my favorite.
Much appreciated, thank you.
This is my situation: except for the sexual revolution and anti-racism and tattoos, I fail the litmus tests (global warming, covid, ai, anti-aging, healthism).
But when someone explains to me why the litmus tests are evil lies and are anti-God, I'm able to understand the error of my ways.
I wish I had better discernment capabilities of my own.
I'm a relatively new reader (1yr). You write often about Tolkien's works with obvious and very much shared love of the fantasy world and characters he imagined. But you also refer to various themes in a serious way, as though they are an interesting study of certain aspects of Western Christian reality. Can you provide a bit of background into why you like Tolkien in this way?
How about some lighthearted questions. What's your favorite beer? How many feet of books do you have? Do you have at least one really nice bookcase? Who is your favorite character in of all of Tolkein's legendarium?
I'm a student of speech and language therapy. This is a profession with a therapeutic rationale (of course) and 99% of the professionals are women. You have a few posts about the therapeutic/healing view but I'd like to read more of your thoughts about the subject (especially in the "health" field). My question is: Can the therapeutic rationale be aligned with God? Or is it always "pushing" people to a wordly way of living/thinking? Nayra.
@Paaru - That is a microcosm of the human condition.
*
@Jackabond - There is no short answer; but my Notion Club Papers blog is the long answer.
As usual these things are personal - I have a strong and (so far) lasting personal love of Tolkien's work.
I would not expect many other people to feel this as deeply as I do. Yet, albeit a small minority of Mankind: quite a few seem to!
*
@Lucas - My chronic migraine means I can't drink enough beer to make it worthwhile. But beer was one of my top three favourite drinks - my favourite type was (usually) "real ale" type best bitter that had been brewed in the locale where I was drinking it.
Book shelves? Too much and not enough - and none are what my father (a dentist and trained as a joiner) would have called really nice; although some were plainly built of hardwood. But most important is the 42 feet devoted to The Inklings.
My favourite Tolkien character changes - at present it is Merry Brandybuck.
*
@Nayra - "Can the therapeutic rationale be aligned with God?"
As much as anything can, in this mortal life on earth - which is: to *some* extent, but not completely - and much is dependent on individual and inner motivations.
And dependent on a person's idea of God and alignment - for most self-identified Christians the question reduces to "can I stick to church rules while practicing my health profession?" - and the answer depends on the specific job, person and church.
Thank you for this blog: it has been very helpful and thought-provoking to me as a recovering materialist and atheist. I think you're right about traditionalists having to be Romantic Christians in the sense that they can't escape making choices as an individual, but how does Romantic Christianity avoid a collapse into pure subjectivism? That is, every man his own Pope.
And what are your beliefs about Hell, which Jesus certainly seemed to believe in and which was central to Christianity for most of its history. It's one of the big obstacles to my own adoption of Christianity: I find impossible to accept an eternal agony imposed by a good and loving God.
@RM - As for hell - there is plenty about hell and damnation on this blog if you do some word searches and focus on the material since c 2014. This is an example: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/02/conceptualising-heaven-and-hell.html
In a nutshell - "hell" is not one thing, but is defined negatively as what is chosen by those who do Not choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven.
This could be a choice of (subjective) annihilation of consciousness (as advocated by adherents of some Eastern religions, and seemingly quite a few Westerners). This would not involve conscious suffering.
But the analogue of traditional hell is when someone chooses to serve Satan and, after death, become an evil spirit - perhaps a ghost, perhaps one of the demons. he may choose this in order to stay in "this world" (as a spirit) and pursue some evil agenda such as pleasure, manipulation, spiteful destruction or whatever.
This is the nature of a "deal with the devil" (e.g. I want to do this, and in return I will serve you) - and, as with all deals with evil liars (including in this mortal life on earth) it Never works out as planned, and Always leads to misery.
Yet , as with this life on earth; those who get little but suffering and fear in return for choosing evil, nonetheless usually refuse to acknowledge their error and repent. Such is human nature, sometimes.
*
"how does Romantic Christianity avoid a collapse into pure subjectivism? That is, every man his own Pope."
Well, in the first place this cannot be avoided: nobody can stop other people misusing a "system" by elaborating the system with definitions, laws, procedures etc, as we see all around us; including among The most orthodox traditionalist Roman Catholics or Calvinists (among whom there are massive disagreements about truth and duty!).
In one sense - every man his own Pope is an oxymoron, in that the essence of the Pope for Roman Catholics is that there is one, and at the peak of an explicit and formal hierarchy - it was (historically) to impose the primacy of the Pope of Rome over all other Popes/ Patriarchs that was the main reason that the Western Catholic church left the Eastern c1000 AD.
Plus; The Pope has spiritual authority over all others - whereas every Man never could have authority over the others - it is incoherent.
Plus; every Man already is his own Pope, in the sense that every Man chooses whose authority to acknowledge. He chooses his religion, denomination - and within any denomination he chooses sides between the warring and mutually hostile factions. He also (nearly always) chooses among the doctrines and practices of his chosen authority.
By this time, there is not much that he has not Already chosen - except he probably chooses to deny the fact that he Has chosen!
Been thinking for awhile: what would be the best way to organise an association if one had to do so i.e doing so without voting? Would one elect officers by lottery instead of voting? Would unanimous agreements be a way of say securing and gradually changing its constitution? I've read your posts on bureaucracy and furher-prinzip and gemeinschaft and the ideal church as an extended family and friends....and I haven't been able to find some of the solutions/tips on how to organise when a bureaucracy such as an association is necessary.
@Owen - That's because there are no "solutions/tips"! Formal organizations are proto systemic, and that is exactly what is inevitably drawn into the vortex of totalitarian corruption.
It's either gemeinschaft/ family if you want to do Good; or join the evil club - at best the "lesser of evils" club .
How do you define the inspiration of Scripture? I recall what you consider inspired includes the Septuagint, Vulgate, KJV, and BoM, but I’m curious a. Does inspired imply inerrant and b. what is going on personally/psychologically/otherwise between the human writer and God? Is there a difference between Homer’s inspiration and the inspiration behind the Holy Ghost-approved Biblical texts and translations?
Thanks for asking! I appreciate this blog so much. God bless you and yours.
@Mia - I would not give parenting advice! Parenting is way too individual; and must be guided by love operating in always unique circumstances.
I am not so preoccupied with the inspiration of Scripture nowadays - I think we must seek for help in many places, and can never get away from the need to test (by a kind of honest and contemplative intuition) everything that is important.
Nothing is inerrant; indeed the idea is an impossibility for any communication that requires interpretation - which is every communication.
The main message I would emphasize is a judgment of the attitude of the author or translator; are they operating within an understanding of communicating the teaching of God or truth - or are they operating within the attitudes and methods of modern academic scholarship... Which is an utterly different thing, and typically has nothing to do with Truth.
So, I would say that modern translations of scripture are not even trying to be inspired, that is neither their method nor justification - consequently they are not inspired.
But almost any scripture that was composed in the context of a sincere belief in divine inspiration (such as the King James Bible or the scriptures of Joseph Smith) has at least a chance of containing something helpful and good.
I don't know about Homer, but an author like Tolkien was operating under similar inspiration IMO.
Hi Bruce,
ReplyDeleteAs a pastor, your writings on the three main type of evil, Luciferian, Ahrimanic and Sorathic.
Can you write more on the Sorathic evil as it fights against Ahrimanic evil, that you see happening in the last couple of years?
https://x.com/nietzschejunior has left a comment:
ReplyDeleteHi Bruce,
I discovered your blog during the Birdemic hoax and since then drop by every day. I've also read your earlier essays about scientism.
I'd like to ask you about the industrial scale operation of housing tens of thousands of third world males in army bases, hotels, old schools etc. across the entire country. What is the endgame?
@Njr - There is a hierarchy of evil at work. Almost everybody behind the policy believes they and their cause will benefit. The masses are ever stupider and ever more cowardly because they live only for this world. They do or don't do on the basis of whatever seems easiest and causes least personal angst.
ReplyDeleteAt a low level there is selfish-short-termist evil. My money from your pockets stuff. Jobs for the poverty industry. A Good Cause for the woke bleeding hearts to emote over. Masses of money for the construction industry. etc
There is the totalitarian agenda of materialistic evil - omni-surveillance and total control, where inputs and outputs are dictated.
At the top level the agents of chaos are preparing a situation of social and economic breakdown, violence, starvation and disease.
Plus that the whole situation leads to a staple diet of mandatory social dishonestly - lies, evasions, misrepresentation, self-blinding, value inversions - layers and linkages of sinful untruthfulness which draws in almost everybody.
@Latigo - As I see it the Sorathic (chaotically destructive) evil is an almost inevitable progression of the Ahrimanic (totalitarian) mindset. So a lot of it works by the natural further progression of the totalitarian overlords and their minions - I think that this corruption can be observed in some of the "leadership" class.
ReplyDeleteThe other point is that it is very difficult, long term and resource consuming to build a totalitarian materialist system - so the Agents of Chaos find it easy to destroy - and there are almost innumerable ways of damaging something complex.
The totalitarians are intractably stupid on some major themes - because their aspirations are based on inversional wishful thinking. This is exploited by the Agents of Chaos.
For example, the totalitarians are fundamentally anti-human - and are therefore readily manipulated into adopting colossal destructive projects such as mass immigration (based on the believe that humans are "units") and AI (the belief that these humans units are necessarily computerizable) - which will certainly destroy the System they so cherish.
So it's easy for Sorathic evil to destroy Ahrimanic evil - but "natural" selfish lustful (Luciferic) evil is much harder to manipulate, which is why Sorathic comes after Ahrimanic, and not much before.
The AI posts are very good.
ReplyDeleteAll the litmus test posts are very good. Among my favorite.
Much appreciated, thank you.
This is my situation: except for the sexual revolution and anti-racism and tattoos, I fail the litmus tests (global warming, covid, ai, anti-aging, healthism).
But when someone explains to me why the litmus tests are evil lies and are anti-God, I'm able to understand the error of my ways.
I wish I had better discernment capabilities of my own.
I'm a relatively new reader (1yr). You write often about Tolkien's works with obvious and very much shared love of the fantasy world and characters he imagined. But you also refer to various themes in a serious way, as though they are an interesting study of certain aspects of Western Christian reality. Can you provide a bit of background into why you like Tolkien in this way?
ReplyDeleteHow about some lighthearted questions.
ReplyDeleteWhat's your favorite beer?
How many feet of books do you have?
Do you have at least one really nice bookcase?
Who is your favorite character in of all of Tolkein's legendarium?
I'm a student of speech and language therapy. This is a profession with a therapeutic rationale (of course) and 99% of the professionals are women.
ReplyDeleteYou have a few posts about the therapeutic/healing view but I'd like to read more of your thoughts about the subject (especially in the "health" field).
My question is: Can the therapeutic rationale be aligned with God? Or is it always "pushing" people to a wordly way of living/thinking?
Nayra.
@Paaru - That is a microcosm of the human condition.
ReplyDelete*
@Jackabond - There is no short answer; but my Notion Club Papers blog is the long answer.
As usual these things are personal - I have a strong and (so far) lasting personal love of Tolkien's work.
I would not expect many other people to feel this as deeply as I do. Yet, albeit a small minority of Mankind: quite a few seem to!
*
@Lucas - My chronic migraine means I can't drink enough beer to make it worthwhile. But beer was one of my top three favourite drinks - my favourite type was (usually) "real ale" type best bitter that had been brewed in the locale where I was drinking it.
Book shelves? Too much and not enough - and none are what my father (a dentist and trained as a joiner) would have called really nice; although some were plainly built of hardwood. But most important is the 42 feet devoted to The Inklings.
My favourite Tolkien character changes - at present it is Merry Brandybuck.
*
@Nayra - "Can the therapeutic rationale be aligned with God?"
As much as anything can, in this mortal life on earth - which is: to *some* extent, but not completely - and much is dependent on individual and inner motivations.
And dependent on a person's idea of God and alignment - for most self-identified Christians the question reduces to "can I stick to church rules while practicing my health profession?" - and the answer depends on the specific job, person and church.
Thank you for this blog: it has been very helpful and thought-provoking to me as a recovering materialist and atheist. I think you're right about traditionalists having to be Romantic Christians in the sense that they can't escape making choices as an individual, but how does Romantic Christianity avoid a collapse into pure subjectivism? That is, every man his own Pope.
ReplyDeleteAnd what are your beliefs about Hell, which Jesus certainly seemed to believe in and which was central to Christianity for most of its history. It's one of the big obstacles to my own adoption of Christianity: I find impossible to accept an eternal agony imposed by a good and loving God.
@RM - As for hell - there is plenty about hell and damnation on this blog if you do some word searches and focus on the material since c 2014. This is an example: https://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/02/conceptualising-heaven-and-hell.html
ReplyDeleteIn a nutshell - "hell" is not one thing, but is defined negatively as what is chosen by those who do Not choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven.
This could be a choice of (subjective) annihilation of consciousness (as advocated by adherents of some Eastern religions, and seemingly quite a few Westerners). This would not involve conscious suffering.
But the analogue of traditional hell is when someone chooses to serve Satan and, after death, become an evil spirit - perhaps a ghost, perhaps one of the demons. he may choose this in order to stay in "this world" (as a spirit) and pursue some evil agenda such as pleasure, manipulation, spiteful destruction or whatever.
This is the nature of a "deal with the devil" (e.g. I want to do this, and in return I will serve you) - and, as with all deals with evil liars (including in this mortal life on earth) it Never works out as planned, and Always leads to misery.
Yet , as with this life on earth; those who get little but suffering and fear in return for choosing evil, nonetheless usually refuse to acknowledge their error and repent. Such is human nature, sometimes.
*
"how does Romantic Christianity avoid a collapse into pure subjectivism? That is, every man his own Pope."
Well, in the first place this cannot be avoided: nobody can stop other people misusing a "system" by elaborating the system with definitions, laws, procedures etc, as we see all around us; including among The most orthodox traditionalist Roman Catholics or Calvinists (among whom there are massive disagreements about truth and duty!).
In one sense - every man his own Pope is an oxymoron, in that the essence of the Pope for Roman Catholics is that there is one, and at the peak of an explicit and formal hierarchy - it was (historically) to impose the primacy of the Pope of Rome over all other Popes/ Patriarchs that was the main reason that the Western Catholic church left the Eastern c1000 AD.
Plus; The Pope has spiritual authority over all others - whereas every Man never could have authority over the others - it is incoherent.
Plus; every Man already is his own Pope, in the sense that every Man chooses whose authority to acknowledge. He chooses his religion, denomination - and within any denomination he chooses sides between the warring and mutually hostile factions. He also (nearly always) chooses among the doctrines and practices of his chosen authority.
By this time, there is not much that he has not Already chosen - except he probably chooses to deny the fact that he Has chosen!
Thank you.
ReplyDeleteBeen thinking for awhile: what would be the best way to organise an association if one had to do so i.e doing so without voting? Would one elect officers by lottery instead of voting? Would unanimous agreements be a way of say securing and gradually changing its constitution? I've read your posts on bureaucracy and furher-prinzip and gemeinschaft and the ideal church as an extended family and friends....and I haven't been able to find some of the solutions/tips on how to organise when a bureaucracy such as an association is necessary.
@Owen - That's because there are no "solutions/tips"! Formal organizations are proto systemic, and that is exactly what is inevitably drawn into the vortex of totalitarian corruption.
ReplyDeleteIt's either gemeinschaft/ family if you want to do Good; or join the evil club - at best the "lesser of evils" club .
How does one parent as a Romantic Christian?
ReplyDeleteHow do you define the inspiration of Scripture? I recall what you consider inspired includes the Septuagint, Vulgate, KJV, and BoM, but I’m curious a. Does inspired imply inerrant and b. what is going on personally/psychologically/otherwise between the human writer and God? Is there a difference between Homer’s inspiration and the inspiration behind the Holy Ghost-approved Biblical texts and translations?
Thanks for asking! I appreciate this blog so much. God bless you and yours.
@Mia - I would not give parenting advice! Parenting is way too individual; and must be guided by love operating in always unique circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI am not so preoccupied with the inspiration of Scripture nowadays - I think we must seek for help in many places, and can never get away from the need to test (by a kind of honest and contemplative intuition) everything that is important.
Nothing is inerrant; indeed the idea is an impossibility for any communication that requires interpretation - which is every communication.
The main message I would emphasize is a judgment of the attitude of the author or translator; are they operating within an understanding of communicating the teaching of God or truth - or are they operating within the attitudes and methods of modern academic scholarship... Which is an utterly different thing, and typically has nothing to do with Truth.
So, I would say that modern translations of scripture are not even trying to be inspired, that is neither their method nor justification - consequently they are not inspired.
But almost any scripture that was composed in the context of a sincere belief in divine inspiration (such as the King James Bible or the scriptures of Joseph Smith) has at least a chance of containing something helpful and good.
I don't know about Homer, but an author like Tolkien was operating under similar inspiration IMO.