Was Mozart's Magic Flute that rarest of birds: a *successful* revisionist subversion of audience expectations

I've often said that Mozart's opera The Magic Flute is perhaps my favourite piece of music, and an opus I regard as one of the greatest achievements of Man. So in my mind there is no doubt that - weird hybrid that it is - Flute is a supremely successful work of art. 

But when you know a work well, it is easy to forget first impressions and to neglect the obvious - and there is no doubt that on first viewing The Magic Flute sets-up character expectations in its early parts, that are inverted by the story's later development. 

What I had not noticed before is that these expectations are reinforced by the voice types - which tend to support the false expectations created by the story. 

There is a broad correlation across most operas between the altitude of the voice and positive morality; such that the virtuous, heroes and heroines, are usually the highest males and female voices - tenor and soprano; while the wicked characters tend to have the deepest voices - bass and contralto. 

In the Magic Flute, as it begins, we have the usual heroic tenor, who is enlisted by the Queen of the Night - a very high soprano - to rescue her kidnapped daughter from the demonic Sarastro - who is a deep bass. 

At first; the pitch of the voices tends to confirm our expectation of who is a goodie and who a baddie. 

But later discoveries and developments invert our expectations: the Queen of the Night turns-out to be cruel, dishonest, and power-crazed; while Sarastro is noble and virtuous. 

In terms of vocal range, and unexpectedly: highest is most evil, and lowest is goodest. 

This is the kind of subversion of audience expectations that has nowadays, and for the past few decades, become a tedious cliché of movies and TV shows. 

Stereotypes are inverted more often than confirmed. Revisionism is so common that people have forgotten what is being revised. 

Way back in 1791, Mozart had already done it - but, unlike his modern imitators: Mozart Made It Work. 

 

Modern materialists *cannot* believe in Heaven

Once someone has absorbed the assumptions of mainstream modern materialism, he cannot believe in Heaven - and, much worse, he does not even want it to be true!

That is a Big Difference between recent generations, and people of the past. In the past, people might not believe resurrected eternal life in Heaven was true... They might think it was wishful thinking, a made-up story to manipulate people... 

But, if they could be sure that Heaven was real and true, Of Course most people would want it for themselves; of course they would prefer eternal life is annihilation, reincarnation, or the dissolution of the self into deity.     

But our modern materialist assumptions spill forwards into our conceptualization of Heaven. People cannot escape the underlying conviction that eternal life is just more-of-the-same - it can only be a continuation.

The modern mind cannot, for instance, see any end-point difference between the imagined technological life-extension of transhumanism, and resurrected life everlasting... except that transhumanism is clearly superior, because it does not lie on the other side of death: you don't have to die to get it. 

What I'm getting at, is that our perspective is now so deeply rooted in this-mortal-life and the pervasive assumption that the material is all; that all our theories about the future carry these "realities" with them - our strong imaginations - what seems really-real - are always based on what seems really-real to us, here-and-now.     

My understanding is that we can only grasp the significance of what Jesus Christ did, and what he offers; if we can make a mental leap from this mortal life forward. 

We need to be able to imagine, and to assume, that "It Is All True" - that resurrected eternal life in Heaven is a possibility, and to experience that possibility imaginatively, and from that experience of Heaven to look back on this mortal life. 

That seems to be the only way that we can grasp the real significance of Christianity. 

Christianity has become something that cannot be explained! Well, we can of course say the words - but for modern materialistic people these descriptive and explanatory words will be distorted into this-worldly and material meanings: the words, the explanations, the meanings; will be seen from this-side (mortal life), and shall not therefore be understood. 

To understand Christianity is therefore a considerable challenge to the modern person. For a start, he must really want to understand it! - and that is very rare. 

It seems, instead, that a large majority of self-identified modern Christians want to "use" Christianity as an ideology to achieve this-worldly goals (strength, peace, prosperity, functionality, social justice etc). They are looking at Christianity, at Heaven, from this-side. 

For such people (and they are many!) Christianity is the basis of the kind of society, the kind of this-world, that they most desire - and such people are Very resistant to any other and "next-worldly" conceptualization.  

It is strange how something that used to be so simple, spontaneous and easily achieved as wanting everlasting eternal life in Heaven; has become something so qualitatively difficult that even the most devout and active "Christians" are utterly unable/ unwilling to comprehend it! 

Such "Christians" cannot comprehend Heaven in the sense that they cannot think Heaven; they cannot inhabit that perspective. Therefore their understanding of Heaven is necessarily false and/or unreal. 

Because they do not "get" Heaven; they cannot want it - and want something else instead. And therefore, of course, such "Christians" have not even begun actually to Do... whatever it actually takes to achieve Heaven.  

Our modern paradox is that we must first already know Heaven, in order to want and get Heaven. 

And our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. our materialist metaphysics; shared by nearly-all Christians, as well as nearly-everyone else) make Heaven unknowable. 

Such is the nature of our condition. 

Compulsive self-justification is lethal to honesty

The work of some insightful people, even some geniuses, is lethally flawed by their compulsive need to justify themselves -- past, present, and future. 

And this compulsion works like a cancer on integrity and honesty; until it has subverted then destroyed a person's ability to make a positive and valuable contribution. 

In other words, no matter how able you may be; if you are a Right Man - that is, a man who is compelled to prove, by everything he says and writes, that he was always ultimately right about everything. 

(Or, on those rare occasion that he was "wrong", this was somebody else's fault!)...

Then, no matter that you have produced good work you will first become a tedious bore, and later end-up by ruining your own legacy of good work. 

All you did that was worthwhile, gets buried deep under a sediment of self-aggrandizing rationalizations and exculpatory explanations. 

And by insisting that everything you ever thought, said, or did was actually part of an elaborate and perfect scheme and strategy - you will merely ensure that anyone who cannot accept your infallibility lock, stock and barrel; will be compelled to discard the baby of valid truth you originated. 

The baby goes does the drain; because of the necessity to throw-out a vast reservoir-full of tendentious, defensive, ego-promoting, dirty-bathwater.  

 

Groups (including churches) don't work - they are either ineffectual, or else tend to the side of evil

My insight against groups - i.e. the fundamental nature and potential of human groups* as of 2025 - is solidifying. 

Until not many years ago, I desired to be part of a good group, perhaps especially a church - but if not that then some other kind of fellowship; but I have gradually firmed my sense that - here-and-now, and if they are to be both good and helpful - groups can and should be secondary. 

What is primary ought to be the sense of individual responsibility for the understanding, choices, and commitments that are a consequence of our actual state of freedom. Groups are good insofar as they support us in this - but if the group comes to displace, shape, or dominate our intuitive understanding... Well, the outcome can only be bad. 

The thing is... we are (most of us) nostalgic for the preceding era of human consciousness, in which groups were primary; and our individuality was expressed within the bounds set by the group. This nostalgia for immersion in a group ethos can be so powerful as to amount to a desperation, a craving. 

Nostalgia is also amplified by what seems to be pragmatism, or even what is perceived as necessity. As when people conclude that the dominant Systemic (bureaucratic-media-political) evil of 2025 can only be resisted and fought by establishing an alternative System - groups/ institutions/ organizations/ corporations that are (supposedly) aligned to God and The Good and which operate in opposition to the mainstream Satanically-allied groupings. 

But groupism entails that a group be set-up and sustained in face of society as it actually is - which is totalitarian. And - more importantly - sustained in the face of human consciousness as it actually is.

This means that (here-and-now) all groups are fatally compromised by the demands of their own survival - and dually compromised by the nature of people and the nature of society.   

The nature of people is what makes groupism feebly motivating - feeble relative to the other influences of society in 2025; the nature of society is what makes groupism corrupting - since to survive the group will be linked to totalitarianism. 

Therefore a group will both fail to provide the kind of immersive sustenance that our nostalgia desires; while at the same time the compromises/ corruptions of any viable and sustaining group will draw its members towards the ruling Globalist-Western ideology of modern, mainstream, totalitarian leftism. 

For the simultaneous futility and malignity of groupism to be appreciated depends on recognizing that Men and Society as of 2025, are qualitatively different from Men and Society of 1925 - and what was possible and good a century ago is no longer either possible or good. 

Still, we are left with our nostalgia, and our cravings...

And this is why I think it has become so essential to go back to our deepest, our most fundamental and basic assumptions regarding the nature of God, creation, and Mankind - and our personal relationship to these great facts.

**

*Note: By "groups" I mean to include the whole range of organized and formal-or semi-formal grouping; such as churches and esoteric organizations (masonic, magical etc.), institutions, corporations and businesses, political groups such as nations and their subdivisions, locality-based groups, function-related groups (professions and the like), and so forth. But I do not include families, marriages, friendships - that are based on mutual and individual love - these are, I believe, of a qualitatively different nature from the kind of groups I am discussing.  here.  

Another Juniper - Gryphon

Following on from my earlier Juniper meditations; here is Juniper Suite from the first album of the 1970s medieval-folk band Gryphon. 

It's an unusual (and quite brief) example of the kind of "concept" music that was popular at the time; (according to the sleeve notes) meant to be illustrative of a bit of countryside of which the group were fond. 

Crossing a threshold into a New Age of consciousness at the Millennium - its unexpected fulfilment

I continue to cycle back to consider that the New Age of human consciousness, so eagerly anticipated by "spiritual" people of the late 20th century to be coming-upon Mankind at about the millennium - and by which we would cross a kind of threshold into a qualitatively different relationship with reality... actually happened; yet not-at-all in the manner hoped-for. 

There has been a transformation of consciousness, but it hasn't been of the kind that was so optimistically envisaged. 

People are not more spiritual; alienation, egoism, and awareness of separateness are stronger than ever. There is not a spontaneous sense of oneness, nor of attunement with the universe. 

The change did not make us better people, nor has it made us happier, nor has it led to a kinder human society with diminished suffering. 

Neither do people in general have either a closer relationship with nature, or a closer sense of personal involvement with ultimate reality. 

So much for what didn't happen - but if I believe there was a millennial transformation, then what did happen; and why did it go so wrong? Or at least, so very differently from what was envisaged? 

What happened was pretty much as predicted by Rudolf Steiner and confirmed by Owen Barfield - in that the changes of the past several centuries reached a threshold after which we were each required consciously to choose the basic assumptions on the basis of which we would understand our lives. 

The residues of innate, unconscious, spontaneous spirituality; that had been dwindling for centuries, finally became so weak and feeble that they ceased to operate. The progressive "disenchantment" became so extreme that social life ceased to be humanized, personalized and sweetened by it. 

Everything became materialistic and mundane; explicit, procedural, bureaucratic. Experience divided into the subjective and the objective - and the objective was impersonal - a realm of entertainment and exploitation, and exploitative entertainment - it became "politicized" and systemic. 

And - because we are alienated, nowadays we all know this; and insofar as we regard the public/ institutional, social realm as objectively real - then this is the reality we have chosen. 

Meanwhile, everything else, is regarded as subjective hence arbitrary - and relevant only to our private emotions*.  

21st century Man has chosen his assumptions, then chosen to assert that these assumptions are inescapable reality; and painted himself into this corner of purposelessness, meaninglessness and hopelessness. 

 

That is the nature of the millennial threshold and the New Age. 

Yet... if this can be understood, and if we choose to take ultimate and personal responsibility for what we regard as the nature of ultimate reality - instead of assuming that this is "a given" to which we can only submit passively...

Then we may consciously choose another path by which we each-and-all may individually participate in divine creation; and each bring to it something unique and irreplaceable. 

And that would be the threshold to a New Age, a new consciousness, which is worth living.  

**

* Note: I should also record that there is also an assertion of subjectivism - that because it is only in the subjective and personal that we can find purpose, meaning and enchantment, we ought therefore to regard the subjective as reality. Well, this is "easy to say" - but I have never come across anybody who remotely does it: either in their speech, or observable actions! Such a recommendation is (whatever its merits in an ideal sense) un-real and un-motivating, even to those who most vehemently espouse it. 

The self-chosen false dilemma of 21st century Man is therefore between an objective public discourse that is death and despair; and a subjective personal world that is experienced as unreal and unmotivating.

The (obvious?) conclusion is apparently a case of "back to the drawing board" to discover on what basis these (supposedly exclusive) alternatives were formulated. 

And, it turns-out, that means going back a very long way down - deeper than almost anybody else has been or is prepared to go...

Which is, in a nutshell, the reason for our current situation. 

  

We demand blueprints for living; yet we don't believe in blueprints

Yes but what shall we do about it? 

People are so eager to jump onto this question of what should we do, that we routinely demand action without understanding. 

For people of 2025; "doing" means: "Give me a blueprint!" 

Doing apparently begins with a blueprint, and happens via a blueprint. 

Advice and instruction is demanded in the form of such blueprint-variants as a plan, bullet points, a check-list, a flow-chart... 

A blueprint of instructions labelled with stuff like: How to save the Planet, How to save the West, How to be happy, How to stop racism/ sexism, How to get girls (or How to get married). 

And yet it is a stale truism that modern people no longer believe in blueprints. 

Unlike Men of a century and more ago - we of 2025 no longer accept the validity of categorical descriptions... 

The categories seem arbitrary - so many are the exceptions and overlaps. The stereotypes don't seem to fit ourselves or those we know. We don't believe in the possibility of any utopian state. The actuality of mundane life is impervious to our dreams and aspirations. 

So we demand blueprints - only blueprints are real and serious. But we compulsively ridicule, subvert and dissect any and all blueprints. 

Indeed, anyone who actually hands us the kind of blueprint that we crave; is assumed to be manipulating us for his own benefit - or else as an agent of The System. 

   

Such are the roots of our endemic demotivation. We assume that we ought to be motivated by some blueprint for  life; depicting life's purpose, meaning, and our future within it... We seek and seek for such a blueprint. Yet any actual blueprint is soon regarded as obviously invalid and inadequate. 

Such is a world rooted in negations, in negative values - a world where we know what we do not want, but haven't a clue what we do want - or else where our desires are in stark contradiction each wit hthe others, hence unattainable even in theory. 

We want a blueprint because it can - in principle - be shared - can be made policy, can be implemented...

And because anything less objective than a blueprint will (apparently) be just for our-selves. 

In sum: we know what we want, but we cannot have it. 

The answer must be to go back and go deep; and discover the nature of blueprints, the assumptions that lie behind them, our craving for them; to discover whether we really want what we so insistently demand - and so inevitably reject. 

Only then might we discover some alternative that might motivate us.  

"Buckle up!" - What a lame phrase...

A personal peeve is that phrase "buckle up!" - as prefacing something metaphorical like "We're in for a wild ride!"* 

This always strikes me as lame; in the same way as those signs in dull offices that say: "You don't have to be mad to work here - but it helps!"

The same kind of pseudo-jollity and false bonhomie; which, in practice, always seems to be affected by those most conspicuously lacking in either. 

*Or, in an earlier incarnation: "Fasten your seatbelts..!"

Resentment is almost unavoidable as a motivation - unless there is a stronger positive goal

I have often written about our age's besetting-sin or "master sin" of resentment; including how negative resentment is the basis of the mainstream dominating socio-political ideology of "leftism". 

(Where leftism is understood to include all types of secular materialism with some variant of an hedonic ethical basis - including conservatism, Republicans, libertarians, nationalists etc.) 

Thus the pseudo-goals of leftism (taken up and discarded expediently) such as equality, feminism, antiracism, anti-anti-semitism, climate environmentalism - are all negative, all oppositional in their nature, all against some-thing. 

...With the purported "utilitarian" justification that this negation will lead to greater human "happiness" of some group or all people - in which happiness is (in recent generations) equated, bottom line, with diminished-suffering. 

(And where suffering is itself conceptualized as a departure-from some implicit and imagined state of not-suffering.)  

The negations are indeed multiple, since to be against some presumed cause of suffering is already a triple-negation - or is it quadruple!... At any rate, in modern leftism there is no serious or would-be-coherent vision of an utopian, happy-state, of society. 

Thus we have the negative ideology of diminishing suffering; while lacking any reference state of a happy world and people. 

How did this happen? Because surely Man cannot and should-not live by negations alone? 

Not by accident; but not wholly imposed top-down either. 

Of course, nowadays the top-down structural political encouragements and inducements (the propaganda in education systems and the mass media, the subsidies and legal exemptions, the careerism) are all very evident. 

But there is another side to things - which is that, after the decline and end of spontaneous religiosity; there were no sufficiently-strong positive motivators.  

Nationalism is a good example; since in several societies it was the first attempted replacement for religion as a basis for social cohesion. Typically, nationalist movements start with considerable emphasis on positive national characteristics and "spirit", and national destiny... 

But always this proves to be too feeble to motivate, and the positive national destiny turns-out either to be a minority aspiration - and/or generally inadequate to provide a basis for national cohesion and direction. 

The nationalism invariably degenerates into double-negativity: into opposition to some source of presumed (or real) harm. For instance; the nationalism of resentment of some particular other-nation or group becomes the main theme, the main source of cohesion, the main basis of the main policies. 

This has been the fate of every nationalist movement of which I am aware: such Germany, Ireland, Scotland and... fill-in the gaps. 

A similar tale could be told of socialism degenerating into class war; feminism into sex war, pro-natural world environmentalism into a negative and destructive crusade against "carbon", antiracism into racism etc. 

The dominance of resentment is therefore a secondary consequence of the feebleness of positive motivators in a post-religious world. 

Resentment provides (at least in the short term) a basis for cohesion against a common "enemy"; and a basis for strategies to deal with this threat. 

But in the long-term, all these negations purposively destroy society - and this is inevitable unless resentment is superseded.  

  

What about individual persons? Why are we (nearly all of us) so helplessly vulnerable to pro-resentment propaganda that strives to turn us, each-and-all, into a self-perceived victim of somebody or something; a seething cauldron of entitlement, fears, anger, spitefulness? 

The ultimate cause is the same - which is the feebleness of our positive motivations. 

Of course it is facile to spout positive slogans, or pretend to be driven by positive goals about some future of enhanced achievement, creation, beauty, love... 

But actual behaviour (e.g. what people think, speak and write about; media and bureaucratic productions; laws, policies and behaviours) suggests that these are gross exaggerations that serve merely as dishonest excuses to hide the endemic negativity of core motivators. And we get the observable socio-cultural-psychological dominance of resentment as a core motivator. 

The only good answer; the only spiritual solution to the sin, is to recognize and repent it. 

This is an essential first step. 

Yet, if we desire to defeat a particular resentment in ourselves that is dominating and distorting our lives - and if we do not want simply to replace one sin by another: such as resentment replaced by self-aggrandisement (a common sight on the internet)...

Then we need to discover a genuinely positive and strong positive motivator that can press-down-upon and net-over-ride resentment; and this motivator must be religious. 

Because only religion is a stronger long-term motivator with sufficient potential for coherence and direction. 

And so we circle back to the problem of discovering a positive and personally-motivating and good religion in the 21st century - which is our only hope for genuine betterment. 

Juniper, Hexhamshire

This appeared in the Hexham Courant newspaper 1-4-2010: 

A Hexhamshire hamlet is changing its name in order to cash in on the millions of a sixties superstar. The tiny community of Juniper will in future be known as Jennifer Juniper, following a request from hippy Hero Donovan. Cash-strapped Northumberland County Council is understood to have agreed to the name change in return for a £5 million donation to council coffers. The denim-decked singer made a fortune in the 1960s from songs like Catch the wind, Universal Soldier, Mellow Yellow and Sunshine Superman, but his personal favourite was always Jennifer Juniper. He took a tour of Tynedale whilst staying at Slaley Hall and fell in love with the quaint hamlet of Juniper. He spotted a dappled mare grazing in a field and just wanted to be part of the place. Villagers have reported being offered large wads of cash for their properties but no-one was prepared to move out of the close-knit community. A consultation exercise on the name change is being carried out by the county council, but comments had to be in by noon yesterday.

(NB: Check the date.)

Juniper is a charming village in the scenic Hexhamshire region of Northumberland, south of Hexham; this was for centuries under the administration of the Archbishop of York, rather than the Bishop of Durham whose territory surrounded it by a wide margin.

(There were also, until the early 1800s, three "islands" of Durham County within the borders of Northumberland.) 

This absent landlordism meant that Hexhamshire was outwith the rule of law, and the area became notorious as a den of bandits and other ruffians - a place they could retreat with impunity, after wrongdoing elsewhere.  

Something of this danger still seems to cling to the region, if my experience is any guide; because over the decades we have been surrounded by a pack of farm dogs (until called-off at the last minute), actively attacked by an insane stallion (rearing and trying to smash down with his hooves - I somehow cleared a four foot barbed wire fence to escape); most recently menaced from behind a flimsy fence by an angry (?) mastiff and his mates when walking along a busy public footpath. 

This looks like the place of the dog pack... We stood on a stile, surrounded; fighting them off with sticks

Interesting location, altogether.

There is also an unusual and appealing (syncopated) folk song called the Hexhamshire Lass - here done by Fairport Convention.   

Social transformation or Personal transformation? Two historical ways of misunderstanding Jesus's work and aim

If it can be assumed that the Fourth Gospel is correct, and that Jesus Christ's aim and (successful) work was to offer those who followed him eternal resurrected life, in a second creation (i.e. another and new world) that is Heaven...

Then I think we can perceive two major directions of historical misunderstanding (or, perhaps, mis-appropriation) whereby Jesus was instead assumed to be instituting a new religion of this-world: one was making this-world a better place; the other was making ourselves better people...

Such that Jesus was mistakenly believed either to be offering:

1. Social transformation; or

2. Personal transformation.

Social transformation was assumed to be accomplished by social methods - aimed at the adoptive-"tribe" of Christians. 

This would be accomplished by building a new social religion, that is a new priesthood and church-organization; so that the life of all Men in that society would be changed. 

This actually happened; especially with the conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity. Through history there have been several societies that have been transformed, by several kinds of Christian church. 

The idea is that Men would be improved as individuals secondarily, by the primary means of making their social world a better place. 

Personal transformation was assumed to be accomplished by the already-ancient and still present methods of mystery religion (eg. in Mithraism): by selection, initiations, training of the mind in accordance with the will.

This also actually happened. The methods of personal transformation were variously adopted for the priesthood (and later for the religious orders) of the social religion. The goal of personal transformation also led to what-gets-called the "Gnostic" strand of Christianity.

The idea was that individual Men would be made better primarily (albeit in an esoteric setting); and such Men would secondarily, as a consequence, "leaven the lump" and make this world a better place. 

       

But if Christianity is not really about making this world a better place - and if Jesus is understood as having said that - ultimately, spiritually - this world cannot by its nature be made a significantly better place... 

Then this means that social and personal transformation - while both possible - will not have the effect of betterment. 

If, in fact, Jesus taught that personal transformation does not make better men, and social transformation does not make better societies - then the major emphases of the actual Christian religion through history have been wrong. 

(Whether or not Jesus is understood to have asserted or implied that social and personal transformation cannot - by the nature of this mortal and earthly reality - make the needful difference to the human condition; it can nonetheless be argued that his core and essential teaching was about the next-world, not his-world; and the post-mortal state, not about making people or societies better.) 

It is perfectly understandable that everyone will want a positive transformation of this mortal life: both personally and socially (even if they have different ideas about which ought to, or must, come first). 

In is perfectly understandable that people should hope and want that their religion will make them better people during their lives on earth, and make this this world a better place ASAP.

All this is understandable and indeed apparently inevitable...

For example: In our post-religious society; the atheist-materialist ideologies are focused on optimistic schemes aimed at positively-transforming our-mortal-selves and this-world. Indeed; everything else is excluded by assumption. 

But if, in fact, Jesus's essential and core work was aimed-at transforming our post-death and next-world state - and thus not at transforming this mortal life; then Christianity ought to have been - and ought now to be - a very different kind of religion than it actually has been and is. 

Appeals to moderation are always futile

When someone is "extreme", in whatever direction; then appeals to be moderate, to take a "middle path", are futile. 

Think about it: there are an infinite number of possible points between extremes. On what principle should we choose that point at which we are moderate? Presumably it isn't always necessarily half-way between extremes - but even if it was, what does that actually mean? 

Some kind of dilution of each extreme, somehow combined? Or some kind of 50:50 alternation between the extremes? Or what?  

In practice, the appeal for moderation is a negative recognition that neither option on-offer (by "extremists" is desirable - but no alternative principle is being suggested. 

The appeal to moderation is therefore an acceptance of the theoretical framework of the extremes; which is why it is always futile. 

And why - insofar as anyone really is motivated by moderation: their motivation is always weak. (There is no such thing as "a courageous moderate".)

So long as the theoretical framework is intact, then the extremes will carry the greatest authority - and no matter how well-motivated, moderation will be understood as an unprincipled and incoherent, hence  feeble and pragmatic, compromise. 

The real answer is never moderation or a middle way - but some higher principle; some framework that stands above, transcends, and contains the world-views of the extremes. 

Occult and Esoteric - what do they mean? How to approach them?

Occult means hidden, and often refers to hidden knowledge. Typically, this is knowledge that has been kept secret (e.g. by being sustained in a closed society) - or perhaps knowledge encoded, so that only those who know the code can discover it. 

But hidden knowledge may instead be clear and simple, not secret but instead "hidden in plain sight" - not encoded but simply ignored by the majority. 

Ignored perhaps because it is no interest, in some way unwelcome (opening a "can of worms" they'd rather not deal with); or indeed so clear and so simple, that most people regard it as necessarily wrong, because the knowledge strikes them as embarrassingly childish and simplistic. 

Esoteric means "for the few" - and mostly refers to groups to human societies. The term often refers to exclusive groups characterized by rigorous selection and prolonged training; and typically includes groups that claim to posses secret occult knowledge or the keys to understand encoded occult knowledge. 

But, analogously with the possible meanings of occult; esoteric groups "for the few" as such are not confined to the holders of occult knowledge; but characterize almost many types of functional human institution - such as some universities or colleges, and legal and medical professions - and these also implicitly claim to possess occult knowledge which is not understandable except by those who are trained, and have the "keys".

More significantly; there is the question of why some groups are "for the few" - which might be because only few regard the matter as real and important, or who have an active interest. An esoteric grouping may happen (or be attempted) because "the many" are indifferent or hostile to the subject. 

When the majority believe that which is false, and are evil-affiliated; then the possibility of allying with good is necessarily restricted to "the few" - or even to a single person.   

When it comes to evaluating occult knowledge or esoteric groups, it seems evident that the terms are descriptive rather than intrinsically evaluative. 

As usual; the valuation depends primarily on matters such as purposes and motivations, and whether these are on the side of God and creation - or against them. 

Whether the real and underlying motivation is for this-worldly power, wealth, sex, success and the like - or to manipulate others and nature? Or instead to seek potentially good-aligned goals such as self-knowledge, experiential understanding of reality, encouragement in pursuit of salvation etc.  

It seems to me that (as of 2025, in The West) most of the people who are explicitly involved in esoteric groups and engaged with occult knowledge are badly-motivated: they are on the wrong side of the spiritual war of this-world. 

But the same applies to most Christians; and to most Christians in any particular church or denominations: they are badly-motivated. That is most self-identified Christians are (overall) on the side that opposes God in the spiritual war. 

In this mixed world, by its very nature; all Men are sinners, all groups are corrupted and all knowledge is impure. 

It is not our task to attempt the impossible of redeeming, or even reforming, The World; but to navigate our way though our life by discernment and in accordance with our intuition and divine guidance; as we desire and commit to following Jesus Christ.

This may (and it seems likely, given the nature of the world, en masse, here and now) lead us at some point to some degree of engagement with explicit or implicitly occult knowledge and the esoteric: 

So be it.  

**

Note: The above was stimulated by re-reading Gareth Knight's biography of his great friend the Reverend Canon Fr. Anthony Duncan: Christ and Qabalah: or, The Mind in the Heart (2013).

One Heaven, many hells

There is one Heaven; the Second Creation that we inhabit by following Jesus Christ through resurrection to eternal life. 

But it is not a homogenous Heaven - almost the opposite. 

Heaven is "unified" by love - every "inhabitant" lives only by love. 

That means that Heaven contains as much variety as there are inhabitants. Every new person who ascends to Heaven adds to its variety. 

Some people - including Mormons - conceptualize Heaven as subdivided, or having "many mansions". 

That's not it; because it implies restrictions upon the saved, among the resurrected. 

And it is wrong insofar as it implies any homogeneity among the inhabitants of Heaven's supposed subdivisions. 

But there are many hells - in fact, they can't really be numbered. 

Hell is not a place, but wherever there is anyone (or any group) who oppose divine creation.

Only insofar as there is cooperation among those who oppose divine creation could there be said to be "one" hell; however; members of hell are unified only by their hatred of God; what they want is selfish - so there is endemic latent conflict within and between all hells. 

Hells are all in "this world"; all in the primary creation that you and I currently inhabit. 

Those "in Heaven" can go where they please, including this world, and any of the hells in it. 

Heaven is barred against all inhabitants of hell - unless they repent, and follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life. If they can't or won't repent and love, they will not experience Heaven. 

Only those who have made an eternal commitment to live only by love, can be "in Heaven". 

And that is one Heaven.

We can think of Heaven as like an ideal extended-family - every member is different in abilities and interests, and are at different stages of maturity; and indeed members each have personal preferences among the family. 

But just one family.   

Evidence depends on theory, theory depends on assumptions

If this is how it all began - then purpose, meaning and personal significance are merely trivial "optional extras"

Evidence depends on theory, theory depends on assumptions.

So; he who controls our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality - controls everything that ultimately matters.

(Just a reformulation of an old thought.)

We live in a world of public discourse that pretends to be determined by evidence; but evidence is not determinative - and cannot be.  

Because what counts as evidence, and what an item of evidence means, is dependent on theory. 

And all theories depend on assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

So that our assumptions concerning the nature of reality - i.e. metaphysics - determine all knowledge. 

And this is why totalitarian, materialist, atheism rules the world of public discourse, why all "evidence" seems to support it, and why there seems to be no evidence to support the spirit and the divine. 

It is why all "serious" theories acknowledged in public discourse lead in circles back to themselves; why "there is no alternative" and "resistance is futile".

It is why all discussion of purpose, meaning and personal significance seem arbitrary and feeble - and why hedonism, nihilism and despair are the pervasive moods of modernity...

Purpose, meaning, and the significance of the individual person are all excluded from the accepted and propagated picture of the nature of reality in this life and universe. 

For us; the ultimate assumptions of real-reality are of abstract impersonal particles, forces, processes, fields, energies, randomness... operating unknown and mechanically, algorithmically, in a world without consciousness, or life.   

These assumptions are built-into our public life, our pubic institutions; and from such ultimate metaphysical assumptions, any purpose, meaning, personal significance is arbitrary.  

Even for the self-identified religious; the purposeless, meaningless universe - indifferent to life and Men; is the real picture - much realer than that of God. 

Indeed God is regarded as having primarily created such a dead and futile world, without values: only later inserting some living beings, and finally humans. 

So, according to the mainstream and institutional reality; the purposeless, meaningless, impersonal world came first, and existed without our consciousness; by this we know which is most fundamental, which is most important - and is is not us.     

Thus the assumptions of our underlying metaphysical picture combine to rule-out the primacy and seriousness of  purpose, meaning, personal significance, and values in the universe and in our societies and individual lives. 

These are not regarded as fundamental, but merely "optional extras" - even for the religious. 

Public debate and discussions about evidence or theories relating to God, creation, good and evil etc. are all rendered necessarily trivial. 

Our motivations are poisoned at source. 

Those who controls our fundamental assumptions - control everything that ultimately matters.

This is one reason why the "alternative" internet makes no substantive difference; why those political animals who regard themselves as opposed to mainstream leftism make no difference; why even the most serious types of institutional religion make no difference.

Dig down; and they share the same deep assumptions as the globalist totalitarians - such that dissent is merely superficial, and ultimately irrelevant.

"Soft" totalitarianism in the Third Reich: or, How many Germans did it take to control three million Danes?

During WWII, the Third Reich invaded and occupied Denmark; and for the first few years (c. 1940 into 43) this was a classic example of what people nowadays call "soft" totalitarianism - meaning, totalitarianism imposed without use of violent coercion. 

Denmark had a population of about three million - so how many Germans do you think were needed to control this population?

The answer from military historian Rowland White's recent book (Mosquito: the extraordinary true story of the legendary RAF aircraft...) is... eighty-nine. That is 89. 

Averaging one German to administer more than 30,000 Danes.  

I found this very interesting; given that the Third Reich has (for obvious reasons) become a bye-word for the most purposively-aggressive and physical form of totalitarianism. 

Of course, the handful of Germans were backed by the threat of German military might and the rest of it; yet the numbers tell us that the imposition of totalitarian rule - even during a world war! - can be and was accomplished by "soft" methods...

Presumably some mixture of factors such as effective ideological propaganda, tacit support of the regime, and the calculations of fear and expediency in a situation where "there is no alternative" and "resistance is futile". 

The value of this insight is that most people doubt that we of The West inhabit a totalitarian system of governance, because we do not see the apparatus of violent physical coercion that we have been taught is a necessary feature of such politics. 

Yet, the example of Denmark proves that rigorous and efficient "soft" totalitarian rule is possible, and effective (at least, for a few years) by a tiny number of alien controllers; combined with the cooperation (or "collaboration") of sufficient natives of the national leadership class, and the tacit consent of the bulk of the remainder.

It also seems to prove that totalitarianism works best when it is "soft" - when it deploys soft-ideas rather than hard-violence. 

How many "outsiders" does it take to rule a UK of 60 million? 

Does it just scale up proportionately to... a couple of thousand aliens? Or are the economies of scale and fewer than 2K aliens are needed. Or do the difficulties multiply exponentially and maybe... tens of thousands are needed? 

Either way, it is salutary to realize that a thoroughly totalitarian system need not deploy large numbers of external-rulers, nor physical coercion, to be a very complete and effective mechanism of mass control. 

And, of course, this is exactly what we find, here and now - could we but recognize it.

Note: Rowland White's books tells a story of how this peaceful state of soft totalitarianism was deliberately subverted by British military intelligence by developing a sabotage network, that eventually grew to provoke violent German reprisals, and "hard" totalitarianism - which led to much greater Danish resistance; and the intended transfer of many more German personnel and resources to control Denmark. This effective intervention by another alien power - i.e. the UK - is also a demonstration of how a very few people who want to destabilize a system by guerrilla methods, can do so. The whole narrative seems to me one of elite external powers manipulating the Danish masses for their own ends.   

The magic of human institutions: Now absent, once always present; but never wholly sufficient

For most of recorded history until recently; many human institutions (organizations, formal groupings) were magical * - to some degree. 

The further back we go, the more magical they could be. The earlier in our life we go, the more likely that we would ourselves experience this magic. 

However, there were also not-magical groupings; and, no matter how magical the institution - there have always been those people who do not participate in it; being either immune to that magic, or susceptible but reject it. 

Furthermore, the innate magic of pre-adolescent childhood; means that - even now - groupings of such children often have a strongly magical ambience. 

The big difference across the generations relates to adult institutions - which used often to have a significant magical quality - but now are likely to be (almost entirely) soulless, dead, mechanical - and indeed purposively anti-magical... Zealous in their active destruction of any such qualities - typically by means of abstract and generic systems of bureaucracy and computerization. 

For instance; many educational institutions used to be strongly magical in their nature. This applied especially to small and localized institutions, or those with a mutually-selective character (i.e. both selected and selecting). 

Through my adult life I experienced educational institutions with considerable variations in the magical qualities; although I was also aware that most people were not consciously aware of such differences even when they spontaneously responded to them. 

Most people would speak against the reality and significance of such institutional aspects; and would cheerfully erode or eliminate magical aspects whenever this seemed expedient, from abstract ideology; or sometimes from sheer resentment-driven spite. 

Looking back; I could see that this institutional magic had, overall, been both more pervasive and common, and stronger (at least potentially stronger), the further back one went. 

Yet institutional enchantment was never complete. Human life was always and for everybody to some degree - marred by the "mundane" - this being the nature of our mortal state. 

The magic of institutions was therefore at its height (as I understand it) probably the major source of enchantment in human existence; while at the same time the very nature of institutions (plus the human beings who constitute them) meant that this magical quality was always both incomplete and contradicted.

 

And, through may adult life (from the 1980s) I could also see that this magic was innately ebbing - while also being purposively-expunged - from the educational institutions of which I knew. 

The difference across the decades was extreme. In my childhood and early adulthood the magical quality of (for instance) universities was (to me) palpable. By the time I retired from academia, the magic had been very-completely destroyed. 

Perhaps most evident when a soul-less, and indeed actively soul-destroying - institution, would attempt to cloak itself in the enchanted mantle of earlier generations. 

This would dishonestly be attempted using the mind-manipulating procedures of modern advertising and public relations; and would therefore fail to attain magic, but reduce enchantment to ideology, false promises of hedonism, fashion, and covert-appeals to status snobbery.  

While I devoted considerable energy to fighting this anti-magical trend, I now believe that a decline of that kind of spontaneous, largely unconscious, institutional magic was inevitable - due to the innate developments of human consciousness. 

When the human beings of an institution themselves come to lack spontaneous and unconscious magic; then enchantment is bound to wane from all institutions. 

The analogy with adolescence (nowadays) is close. Many children are spontaneously and unconsciously susceptible to enchantment; but the innate process of adolescence will abolish this; after which the capacity to know and live magically, must be the consequence of a conscious choice.  

In the later twentieth century, Western adults reached an "adolescence" of consciousness, so that spontaneous and unconscious magic receded - and if we were to continue to live any kind of enchanted life in our institutions; magic would need explicitly to be acknowledged as good, and purposively pursued.  

In sum: as we approached the millennium, magic needed to become self-conscious and consciously valued; or else there would soon be no magic.      

We know by now which of these happened! So complete has become the disenchantment of institutions, that (it seems) most people deny that things ever were otherwise! Most people assume that all institutions were always as they are now: spiritually-dead, exploitatively manipulative, habitually dishonest...

But such retrospective denigration is projection of our evil onto others; as can be seen if historical sources are experienced sympathetically. 

From where we actually-are; I find it hard even to imagine how institutions can be re-enchanted; because there is neither recognition of the problem, nor will to solve it. 

Furthermore; I am pretty sure that (from here, from now) institutional re-enchantment can happen only on the basis of Jesus Christ. 

Yet this needs to happen in a context where the churches are themselves very-thoroughly disenchanted - including by assimilation into the ideological materialism of totalitarian bureaucracy. 

This means that any future source of enchantment must primarily (i.e. as a first step) be sought outwith the Christian church institutions - and Christianity (plus/ minus specific churches) regenerated from that basis. 

From the spiritual place we now inhabit and the people we actually are; I cannot see any way that a Christianity rooted primarily in institutional affiliation (to any kind of institution, no matter how idealized) can succeed in doing what needs to be done.

On the other side; the attempt to do without enchantment; to construct a religion that operates at the level of institutional power, rooted in the mundane, rational, functional (e.g. a religion designed to implement a particular kind of society) - well, this will surely fail. 

Fail because it will inevitably assimilate to the existing mundane, pseudo-rational, quasi-functionality of that system of totalitarianism that characterizes our civilization. With Men as we are; any possible church-based, institutionally-rooted Christianity will be secular and materialistic, totalitarian and political, and spiritually dead.  

The only path ahead, is the right path ahead. 

**

*"Magic" does not mean Good - since there is black magic (intended to manipulate people and creation), as well as white (in harmony with God and creation). But magic is, of itself, good; in the sense that it recognizes the reality of our participation in creation; and by enchantment we are aware of this participation. Whereas the exclusion or elimination of magic is intrinsically an evil because rooted in falsehood, and the intent to cause spiritual harm.   

Bullied by Bullocks

Bullocks with attitude 

(Or maybe bulls? I can't tell.)

Bullocks are what we Brits call castrated male cattle, bred for beef. They may lack gonads, but they seem to have a good deal more testosterone than the females of the species.

I am not afraid of cattle as such, since I was raised in a dairy farming area; so I got used to repelling Frisians, when they were in my way. As a rule, a confident shout and waving the arms is easily adequate to disperse herds of cows. 

But bullocks are a different matter. They resist intimidation until one is almost on top of them, and even then glare at you, and only step back a couple of reluctant paces. After which they work together, and crowd around, with apparent intent to...

Well, I don't really know what bullocks are trying to do. I have never hung around to find out. 

They clearly want to surround - but to what purpose, exactly? 

They, after all, are herbivores; so presumably it isn't to devour; but maybe to stampede into pulp? 

So far, I have managed to get to a gate in time; unlike a friend of mine who was corralled by bullocks into a stream with steep banks in order to escape their attention. But as he stood shivering, up to his thighs in cold water; the evil beasts just continued to loom over him, refusing to go away. He was eventually compelled to wade half a mile downstream in search of a fenced-off field that would be safe. 

*

This is topical, because yesterday we were menaced by black bullocks, twice - when in Northumberland en route to the site of Stagshaw Bank Fair.

This once famous festival was founded in Anglo Saxon times, and for many years it was the largest fair in Britain; with people coming from all around the north of England and south of Scotland to sell livestock, have a wild time, and make an incredible mess. 

So that "like Stagshaw Fair" became a local term for anything in a state of chaos. The event was eventually closed down by the British government in the 1920s, after about a millennium of drunken disorder.

But now, like Shelley's Ozymandias, nothing much remains, except a bleak, tussocky wasteland, boundless and bare, stretching far away; enlivened only by some electrical pylons.

Not really worth the risk of death by hooves. 

   

Note: To the right of the pylon, you can see a whitish line - which is a shallow bog consisting of farmyard slurry (liquid manure mixed with urine), laced with diesel oil contamination. Our path consisted of large stone slabs, carefully laid a few inches under the surface of this poisonous morass (despite being an official public right-of-way). That was when I discovered that my waterproof walking boots had sprung several leaks.

Following Jesus - literally

As readers may know, I feel a need to understand Christianity so simply and clearly that it can be grasped as a whole, by a single act of thinking. 

I have previously explained what Jesus meant in the Fourth Gospel ("John") when he requires people to "follow" him; and I explained it in terms of the Good Shepherd leading his sheep from the front. 

I have also explained following in terms of us meeting Jesus post-mortally and being led by Him through the process of resurrection into Heaven.  

It now seems to me that Jesus might have meant  by "following", something even simpler and clearer because more literal.

We are enjoined to follow Jesus where he went. 

That is: if we want resurrected eternal life; we should follow Jesus to Heaven. 

That is: we should follow Jesus through the process of resurrection to get to that place or state of Heaven. 

But the main thing is to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

And we do that by wanting it. 

By wanting Heaven more than we want anything else, so that we will do... whatever is needful to get there; what is needful to achieve Heaven; and we will know what that is, when the time is right.

Following Jesus to Heaven is something we do after death, just as Jesus went to Heaven after his death.  

Here and now; what is required, is to be known in the context of having decided that we want to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

How we personally should live, is in expectation of following Jesus to Heaven.  

+++

*Note: "Following is Not therefore meant as instructions to follow a specific path or rules, nor modelling our life on Jesus's life, nor a matter of following any purported intermediary such as membership, words, rituals or symbols. In the past it was different since Men in those days were groupish by nature; and responded spontaneously in the right way to words, symbols, rituals. For us, here and now, we must follow Jesus specifically and personally - or, probably, we won't be following him at all.

The successful totalitarian global coup of 2020 has been breaking-up since - but world politics is still totalitarian

In 2020 those with the ability to perceive and learn, realized that we inhabited a totalitarian world: which means an evil world. 

In other words, our world is rooted in atheist, materialist, leftist assumptions; where all significant social institutions are interlinked and bureaucratically-subordinate to this ideology. 

This is why so many people have "politics" as their fundamental value; and why so many people behave as if everything is (at root) "politics". 

By "politics" they means the System of totalitarianism - "everything is politics" means that, bottom-line, everything in the public realm - discourse and behaviours, communications and actions - is part of this totalitarian system.

Since 2020, this unified world government has broken-up into two or more increasingly hostile factions; but the components are still totalitarian in their nature. 

This does not mean that all the totalitarian units are as bad as each other - they aren't, some (e.g. ours) are purposively worse than others. Some have hope of becoming better, more socially-Christian to be exact - while still ultimately totalitarian. Other factions are actively hostile to Christianity and its legacy. 

But all factions are bad in the way that totalitarianism is bad - which is a modern way (post 19th century): totalitarianism is only possible in a post-religious society, with highly developed and pervasive bureaucracy and mass media.  

What this means for religion is that all churches are part of the totalitarian system, therefore - insofar as churches are this-worldly institutions - churches are net atheist, materialist, leftist - and overall part-of-the-problem of institutional evil.

This implies that church-led "Christianity" will, overall and by net-effect, be totalitarian hence anti-Christian.

And so will church-rooted Christian people.    

Against this, and because of the nature of evil and its progression, there is an accelerating trend for the ubiquitous totalitarian societies strategically to self-destruct. 

The most evil parts of totalitarianism are those that are most pervasively and strategically orientated towards destruction in many forms - such as destroying nature ("the environment"), functionality (within and between social systems - i.e. destroying science, law, education, etc), agriculture, the health and lives of masses of people - and so on and so forth, right across the board. 

Destruction is not an explicit goal, however (except, presumably, at the power level above global totalitarianism); but instead totalitarian sub-groups are manipulated into mutual and internal destruction by their ideologies of opposition/ negation and value-inversion. 

The totalitarians are therefore induced by their ideological assumptions into incoherent sub-strategies, that accomplish the opposite of stated goals, and lead always to accelerated destruction. 

So, we find ourselves in a world where politics is everything, hence everything is politics; yet/ consequently politics is all evil - and political discourse is a clash between totalitarianisms.

It is extremely tempting to be drawn into politics, precisely because it is all-pervasive in functional discourse. This ubiquity makes it seem that politics (debate, analysis, choice, action etc) is fundamental and necessary.  

From inside The System anyone who refuses to share the assumption that "politics is primary and everything" is seen as shirking ultimate responsibility. 

Therefore we find, on the one hand, an expressed cynicism at politics; on the other hand - in practice - politics matters more to most people than anything else... 

Politics usually forms the basis of a person's world-view; and typically shapes all their other convictions and choices - including religious... 

Under totalitarianism, religion becomes primarily and mandatorily political - both in the mainstream and in dissenting groups.

Thus, subjectively; my life, my self, seem inescapably captured by The System - and the only way out seems to be political: a politics to end all politics, perhaps? 

My point is that we default to "political" discourse and convictions - under totalitarianism politics seems more important than anything, and more important than ever. 

But there is No Hope in this.

Spiritually, we must break out from the loop, which means we first need to disengage sufficiently to understand the nature of our situation: this understanding of our situation is the first and necessary step; and it is spiritually valuable in itself. 

What happens after understanding, is mainly a choice of affiliation; and when all the options in this world are evil-by-nature; then a Christian affiliation must be outwith this world.   

To me, this seems the only Good way to escape-from and subordinate the totalitarianism of "politics is everything". 

Corrupt the word associations: The best way to subvert Tolkien?

People often talk about how recent "adaptations" of JRR Tolkien's works and his world, seem to be attempting to divert or subvert his message into something qualitatively different; with devices such as Mary-Sue Girl-Bosses, nasty "hobbits", and sympathetic orcs. 

But probably a more potent subversion is less recognized: which is the use of Tolkien's names to label "tech companies" - corporations whose mission and activities are inversions of JRR Tolkien's personal values (and this applies whether it is good or evil names that are being deployed). 

In so far as such corporations achieve high visibility, this must have an effect of weakening and tainting, if not actually usurping, the nomenclature, when it is encountered in Tolkien's works.  

Is this just deranged fanboys cashing-in? Is the inevitable harm to JRRT an accident? Or maybe the corruption is intentional; because Tolkien is a threat to the corporate totalitarians? 

Well, make up your own mind.