Magical thinking under the veil of materialist mechanisms

One of the theses I have harped-upon here is that metaphysics is primary, and all "evidence" and reasoning happens within metaphysical assumptions (despite that these assumptions may be unconscious, or even denied). 

An example come from my earlier life, especially in my late twenties and thirties - during which I developed strong interests in all kinds of transcendental, religious, and Christian matters... But I remained metaphysically a materialist-atheist. 

For example; I believed that the thinking and aspirations of individuals and small groups could have a large and positive social influence, even when these were operating in obscurity. 

That intense study or conversations on a particular theme, or themed formal and ritual activity, might nonetheless affect "the world" in a very general way. Even when these conversations and rituals took place privately, in an unworldly or cut-off context. 

On the face of it, this was a magical way of regarding the world; in that it acknowledged that individuals, groups, symbols, ritual activities and the like had power that extended beyond their particular situation.

Yet when it came to the question of how such activities exerted their power; I would have resisted strongly any explanation of a spiritual kind. 

Instead my explanations were all of a material nature. 

In other words; I would explain all general effects in terms of observable communications, and their effect on psychology. 

For instance; a man thinking would, as a consequence of his thinking, communicate with other people by word, sounds, images - and these images would conceivably be registered and interpreted by at least one other person. 

And from there the communication might, potentially, be spread by other such channels of communication; maybe resonate with other people such that one person informs two others, in a geometric increase. 2,4,8, 16, 32 people would thus be informed - and soon enough there would be thousands, then millions who had been affected! 

Or perhaps inter-personal communications would be taken-up and even more rapidly amplified by mass media interacting with human wishes and motivations.

Plus the communications could be stored - perhaps in a magazine of book, or on an audio or video medium - and much later experienced and "activated" to start the above kind of geometric increase to exert general power. 

The point I would emphasize is that by such explanations, all past, present and possible spiritual phenomena could be and were explained on a material basis. 

And this will always be the case; because the metaphysical assumptions - in this case that there was no God, and no spiritual reality - will always be able to explain everything that happens and is real and needs explaining. 

Metaphysics can explain everything that happens that matters; because metaphysical assumptions are about the fundamental nature of reality: and thereby metaphysics dictates what counts as an observation, a fact, a valid mechanism, a conceivable or possible explanation. 

I think this way of materialistic thinking is very common - indeed almost universal, since we are all socialized into the metaphysics of aspiritual-atheist-materialism; and these are the assumptions that lie behind all public discourse of a significant, socially-functional, broadly-acceptable type. 

So we absorb this - mostly unconsciously - through childhood, and it is daily sustained and reinforced by the bureaucratic "System" the world of institutions such as government, law, media, corporations, education, medicine, science, police, military etc - and most of what churches actually do for nearly all of the time.  

And I repeat that this metaphysics cannot be refuted by any observation, by anything that happens. 

The only way we can break free from it is to have different metaphysical assumptions. 

In my case, this required that I become aware of my own assumptions, and aware that they were indeed assumptions - they were Not "facts of life".

They were prior assumptions; not inferences derived-from my knowledge and experience; nor derived-from the knowledge and experience of my society or institutions.   

This is why evidence or logical proofs of the existence of God, or of the validity of a particular religion or church, are ineffectual. 

This is why not even the LEGO Minas Tirith can compel an atheist materialist to acknowledge a personal deity and a providential universe! 

Defending the indefensible: an unfortunate - and almost unavoidable - hazard of being a serious traditional-orthodox church-obedient Christian

What I am trying to explain in this post; is how it is that so many serious Christians end-up expending so much energy on defending and asserting the most "indefensible" aspects of Christianity (past and present) - to the point that their program of life and society becomes all-but indistinguishable from that of orthodox Judaism or traditional Islam. 

In other words; by a series of steps they come to advocate and double-down upon a very hard-line, top-down, hierarchical, patriarchal, law-and-practice based system of society - with little or no space for individuality, freedom, or creativity. 

I am also suggesting that - given their baseline assumptions - this convergence of Christianity is extremely difficult to avoid, no matter which particular church or denomination to which that person subscribes. 

**

Most self-identified Christians are church-obedient; by which I mean that they regard external authority to be primary when it comes to being a Christian; and they further believe that external authority to be rooted either in the structure and practice of an institutional church, and/ or in a church-mandated selection and interpretation of scripture.

Most church-obedient Christians are are a liberal or modern persuasion, that operates in conformity to the prime directives of Left-Liberal values as expressed in the leadership of current "Western" civilization. These are not "serious" Christians, because their primary values are indistinguishable - in practice - from those of atheism and materialism. 

A minority of church-obedient Christians are what I am calling traditional-orthodox ("trad-ortho") because they dissent from the mainstream values, and try to adhere to "pre-modern" (conservative, indeed "reactionary") core teachings and practices of their church or denomination. 

These trad-ortho Christians are a type of serious Christian. 

In effect, a trad-ortho, church-obedient Christian has done a comparison of two systems of belief/ values/ practices etc: one system being that of their favoured church, and the other system being that of the Modern West. 

From this historical perspective, and given the integrated and inter-dependent nature of both rival systems; they have (not unreasonably) concluded that the reality of the situation is a case of all-or-nothing.  

It is seen as an either-or choice; a choice of one or the other.  

And, having decided (quite reasonably) that given this forced-choice between the two alternatives; their evaluation is that the church-system is evidently overall superior to mainstream modern atheist-materialism Leftism. 

Consequently; they then feel compelled (from honesty) to affirm the entirety of their version of the trad-orthodox scheme. 

This is, I think, more-or-less how it is that the trad-orthodox position comes to converge on an obedience-dominant model; and their hard-line, top-down, hierarchical, patriarchal, law-and-practice based system of society. 

When coming into conflict with mainstream atheistic modernism; this way of thinking is pretty-much compelled to deny any value or virtues in the modern critique of trad-orthodox society. 

So that trad-orthodox position is compelled to confront modernity on its strongest ground; especially some of the ways in which most modern people spontaneously, and often with a strong conviction, experience and feel most strongly - I mean issues relating superficially to matters of sex and lifestyle; and much more fundamentally to individuality, freedom, and creativity. 

In effect; trad-orthodox often end-up expending much of their effort in first defending, then actually asserting, the faults, defects, limitations - and indeed evils - of the churches and denominations of the past.  

Because of the nature of modern society and modern people; this situation seems almost unavoidable - at any rate it seems to happen to serious and church-obedient Christians of all kinds: Eastern and Western Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Nonconformist Protestants, Mormons - and all other kinds and flavours. 

The more serious the church-obedient Christian, the more extremely this phenomenon is observable.

In practice, this situation seems to be unavoidable; at least so long as the real situation is regarded as one of a forced choice between two integrated and systematic options - both alternatives assuming that ultimate authority is located externally, and therefore that the highest personal virtue is obedience to that authority. 

The weakening effect of metaphysical mismatch (when you *know* something, but cannot explain it)

There are many situations in the modern world where people are in a situation that they know something, but cannot explain it; they cannot justify this "knowing" in terms of their underlying assumptions - their "metaphysics". 

In such situations, their knowing is weakened to the point that it is usually overcome easily, and the person is unable to resist the corrupting effect of immediate and chronic societal and personal pressures. 

Such a mismatch between metaphysical assumptions and intuition is one of the most significantly malign factors in the world today. It therefore ought to lead to an examination of the assumptions, but it almost never does - for a variety of reasons. 

To clarify; I mean the situation when a thing is asserted or proposed, and initially we experience a clear and deep (and true!) intuition that X is wrong. 

But then we find that our scheme of explanation fails to provide us with sufficient understanding of why or how X is wrong. 

And the consequence is that we assume that X must be okay after all... we go along with X; and maybe end by supporting X - if that is expedient. 

It works the other way around too, and with just as bad results. 

Someone or some-thing that our hearts - at first - tell us is of great and profound positive value* is challenged, is threatened... We would tend to defend this vehemently. 

But then we discover that our basic assumptions do not allow us to explain or grasp why this has such extreme importance. We realize that cannot justify its importance on the basis of fundamental metaphysics! 

*(A clear example is music, visual art and architecture. People may love some piece of music, greatly value a picture, building, landscape - or they may viscerally be morally-revolted or aesthetically-repelled - but they cannot find any fundamental reason why even such strong positive or negative feelings should be regarded as important.)

Lacking fundamental understanding; therefore our defence is enfeebled, at best; and often we are are crippled from defending that we value - even to ourselves! 

The threatened Good Thing is allowed to disappear without dissent, without resistant, without a fight...

 

Modern Man was thoroughly set-up for this situation by mainstream modern atheistic materialism; which inculcated the idea that metaphysics (the examination of fundamental assumptions) was meaningless nonsense. 

Instead our beliefs ought to be based on "evidence" and pragmatism - what is "helpful" and what "works"... 

This is a thoughtless, stupid or dishonest philosophical assertion; because what counts as valid or compelling evidence - what is regarded as helpful or working-well - are concepts embedded in fundamental assumptions. 

And this should be evident when people with different metaphysical convictions argue; the same "fact" means something different to each, because interpreted differently. 

But such is the ignorance-of, prejudice-against, or incompetence-at metaphysical reasoning; that such fundamental differences in assumptions are instead interpreted as moral differences (as in "anyone who disagrees with me must do so because he is a fool, insane, or a bad person"). 

Sometimes, especially in the past, such a mismatch did not matter too much; in the sense that people could recognize and defend goodness (and vice versa) despite the lack of metaphysical foundations. 

But, as CS Lewis said, what characterizes this current era is that "things are coming to a point", or, more exactly, this has already-happened. 

And one consequence is that metaphysical mismatches are now being exposed and probed as never before. And (by no coincidence) at just the time when we are less capable of metaphysical reasoning than ever before. 

This has fundamental Christian implications - implications which are generally denied, precisely because of our modern tendency to be ignorant of, or denigrate, or be unable to examine and analyse our fundamental assumptions. 

The most important of these is in relation to Jesus Christ, and why he is essential. 

In the past, justifying and explaining this did not seem so pressing; and the fact that classical theology cannot provide a clear and direct answer did not seem to matter - Christians were simply absorbed in the demanding and complex business of obeying their church and being-a-Christian (as defined by their particular church) to "bother" about metaphysics. Leave that to the experts! 

Consequently, yet astonishingly; the failure to explain metaphysically why Jesus is essential persisted through the Great Schism, the Reformation and the Mormon Restoration and up to now!   

But to the modern mind, a failure to explain simply and clearly why Jesus is necessary means that Jesus is not necessary, is inessential; hence Jesus is seen as ultimately disposable. 

This is one deep reason why so many modern people see nothing distinctive or definitive about Christianity, and no essential difference between the major religions. 

Another, for Catholics, is related to Mary, Mother of Jesus. 

In many times and places of the past, and especially Medieval England, Mary was venerated at the core of Christian practice - but not of Christian theology. 

Yet, in the past the inessential nature of Mary to theology, demonstrably comfortably coexisted with her centrality to devotional practice.  

But nowadays this just will not work. Nowadays it seems clear that if Mary is fundamentally inessential to theology, then this means she is optional: which boils down to Mary being no-more-than a personal lifestyle preference. 

Quite a change and come-down from the last days of Constantinople! When Mary united Eastern and Western Christians; and was the motivation for thousands of men courageously to fight to the death in defence of the city. 

With Mary; I mention a Catholic example, because intellectual Catholics are so devoted to logic. But there are innumerable other examples. 

The point is that there are many and vital instances where our intuitive knowledge is contradicted by our fundamental metaphysical assumptions: when we know but cannot explain. 

I regard it as imperative that we, each of us as individuals, are able to support our fundamental heartfelt convictions with deep metaphysical reasoning. 

This is a must because without the underpinning of a fundamental understanding and ability to explain-to-ourselves; all our convictions are built upon sand, and shall be swept away by the next flood of Establishment propaganda and public pressure or immediate expediency - as became all-too-obvious in 2020.  

And unless these mismatches are sorted-out - by discovering and analysing the validity of our assumptions, and bringing intuition into harmony with metaphysics - then we shall continue fatally to be enfeebled, and controlled by malign powers.  

Positive Greatness is non-transmissible. Religions, Ideologies, Systems are useless - when it comes to yielding Good consequences

I find it recurrently very striking that although I may admire, study, reflect upon individual persons (my "mentors"*) - my strongly positive feelings about such people almost-never extend beyond that specific person; almost-never includes even their close associates, disciples, heirs... and almost-never include the religion, ideology or (generically) the "system" that the admired individuals propagate. 

(Negative harm and evil can indeed be encouraged and propagated, as we see all around us; but this does not seem to apply to the positive and Good.) 

In one sense this is obvious and to be expected - and yet it is not what most people, including myself, tend to assume. 

On the contrary, we assume that there is something transmissible about positive goodness and greatness: that the idea of a Great and Good Man will tend to promote greatness, that the associates, disciples, followers, heirs of a GG Man will share - or at least significantly-encourage - the same positive greatness. 

Again and again I find that The Great and Good Man's positive-greatness may be real and strong; and yet the people associated are either mediocre and ineffectual; or else overall malign and negative in their nature and tendency. 

Furthermore, and something harder to grasp: The GG Man's own account of what is necessary and desirable for Goodness and positive change is also wrong!

The Great and Good Man's religion/ ideology/ System of understanding and explanation, his System for working to generate positive change - also shares this quality of being - in actual practice - ineffectual and useless at best; but often and with apparent ease readily made into a mechanism for the pursuit of evil. 

The people who are supposed to continue the work of the GG Man do not do so: they either degenerate into a relatively harmless but ultimately useless-for-Good pastime/ hobby/ club/ lifestyle choice...

Or else they become actually negative and harmful in their intent and outcomes; a vehicle for the pursuit (whether directly, or by lending support) of evil ends. 

Examples of the futility and/or malignity of Systems associated with those I regard as my mentors and Great and Positive persons abound, indeed it is exceptions that are hard to find. 

Most significantly, I have come to believe that this is true even of that greatest of men: Jesus Christ. 

With the single exception of the author of the Fourth Gospel; I do not find the same greatness in any of those who were associated with Jesus, or who propagated what they believed to be The System that Jesus seemed to be recommending/ commanding. 

And I find the usual mixture of ineffectuality and tool-for-net-malignity in The Systems attributed to Jesus, and allegedly associated with Jesus. 

What does this mean? 

The conclusion would seem to be that Institution and System are intrinsically useless at best, but actually net-harmful in practice. 

Perhaps we can only get benefit by direct inner-contact with the spirit of the Great and Good Man himself - because we ourselves are unlikely to do good by attempting to propagate this Greatness. 

When it comes to the good and the positive in this life; maybe we can actually do little more than point at a Great and Good Man, with a personal recommendation; and maybe also give an account of our own experience of such contact? 

*Some of these recent mentors who are writers, who have had a positive impact (as I judge), and who I have often blogged about are ST Coleridge, Rudolf Steiner, Dion Fortune, JRR Tolkien, Owen Barfield, William Arkle, Gareth Knight. Several of these taught a System - and all of these came to seem wrong and net-harmful. They had associates, followers, disciples etc - and unless the individuals were independently Great and Good themselves; such persons have always proved disappointing, exerted a net-negative influence, and often (I judge) were/are of bad intent. 

wrt Tolkien and Barfield - see the comment by AnteB, and my reply. It should be noted that a GG Man may have other GGMs in his circle - but their greatness is, essentially, independently achieved rather than derivative. For instance, and contrary to what he himself asserted and probably believed; Barfield's greatness was essentially independent from that of Steiner. GGMs are not reliable witnesses when it comes to their own special qualities.    

What can replace "The" church for Christians?

For most Christians in recorded history (although not in the Gospels) being-a-Christian is the same thing as being an observant member of "The" church. 

But, of course, the identity of that The as it is applied to church; has varied in often incompatible and hostile - even lethal, and frequently evil - ways; since very early in recorded church history. 

Since the minds of Men and (therefore) society have both changed, Christians now choose The church for themselves, and choose which faction within that The which they are to be observant to. 

However; Christians then typically forget or deny that their own choices are rooted in personal assumptions - and usually pretend (for they are being untruthful) that their-"The" church is objectively, and evidentially, the-"The" church. 

So; for Men here-and-now churches cannot be, therefore they are not, what they were. 

Churches cannot be "The"; and cannot provide what they once (often) provided - and especially no church can be regarded as The in that way which was natural and spontaneous for so many centuries.  

What, then, can - or should - replace what The church once used to be? 

The first answer is nothing, there can be no replacement; because churches are all institutions, and all institutions are changed. 

All institutions are substantially and motivationally totalitarian-bureaucracy-assimilated; and have lost their distinctive purposes and the life-meanings that flowed from them - churches are now fundamentally, as well as in-practice, this-worldly. 

But perhaps what the churches used-to provide can be divided between spiritual and social? 

If so, the spiritual provision used to be external; mediated by symbolic, language and ritual; quasi-objective; and to-be-obeyed. 

This is exactly what has gone, and therefore this cannot be replaced for modern minds. At least; it cannot be replaced effectively and with sufficient motivational power. 

Churches as spiritual sources are self-subverted, hence relatively ineffectual - and so are church people. 

Instead, spiritual sustenance needs to come from direct participation with the divine - and all Christians therefore need to become mystics, in a certain sense. All Christians need themselves to communicate with (of know) the divine and the Beings of this world. All Christians need to be clear that their ultimate evaluations Just Are individual - and should work on making these as valid as possible. 

What of the social aspects of church? 

The social side of what churches once were cannot be replaced either; because society has transformed in its structures, laws, traditions, evaluations - and so forth. There is no longer an old-style church niche. 

Furthermore, with people as they now are; social support, inspiration etc is not, and cannot be, generically prescribed. First because generic provision is not wanted, not needed, and indeed actively abhorrent. 

But also because social provision (by whatever is The chosen-church) is so scanty, incomplete, crude, intermittent, insufficiently-sustaining... and basically unsatisfactory. 

We are long-since at a point (and this can, surely, only increase) where each individual Christian needs to seek for the social support he needs - search for wherever he can find it; in whatever form he can tolerate; and social support provides what he most needs; and in whatever way works-best for himself.

(Although that "best" is itself almost sure to be both short-term and insufficient.)

My conclusion is that the model of "Christianity" based upon The church is either dead and gone, or already-feeble, mis-matched, and dying.  

The alternatives to The church are not replacements but substitutes; and all substitutes rely upon an acknowledgement of the validity (as well as the necessity) of individual discernment, choice and validation. 

As see this as a plain fact - and IMO Christians ought to be honest enough to acknowledge plain facts. 

Not a war to win, but a war to destroy

Long-term (six year plus) readers will know of my recurrent "obsession" with the subject of evil; and the nature and definition of evil. 

This is because I believe that the nigh-universal lack of understanding of evil has rendered almost-everybody helpless in the face of a very powerful class of persons who have successfully engaged the hearts and minds of a very high proportion of the population of The West, and many other places. 

Bluntly; lack of understanding of evil has led many hundreds of millions of people (at least) into supporting strategic evil - and with a clear conscience, because they regard that evil as actually "good".

In other words, the inability to understand the nature of evil has led to moral inversion: what is really and intentionally evil is regarded as good, and vice versa.  

And people are not (as they may once have been) merely victims of manipulation - because it is of the nature of evil that once embraced it increases (evil feeds-upon itself).   

Thus we find that the nicest people are, on average, the most deluded; the most likely to be most powerfully supportive of the strategies of evil. 

This is particularly stark when the strategy being supported is a deliberately maximally-destructive war. 

And a war intended to embrace in destruction its supporters - themselves, their families and friends, their homeland, their ideology and passionate convictions - all that they superficially suppose that that they hold most dear. 

A world war is openly being planned - with full public declaration, before our eyes, in the mass media - in the West: in the UK and Commonwealth, EU nations, the USA, and beyond. 

Indeed this war is becoming the only game in town: as a long term strategy war is displacing all the other evil-motivated plans/ "good causes" such as I term the Litmus Tests: socialism/ leftism, CO2 climate environmentalism, birdemic-healthism, antiracism and feminism, the sexual revolution etc. 

All are being wound-down, and preparations for war are building-up.  

What is worse - or rather worst - is that this war (which is, in part, intended to be an expansion of the war that has been going in Eastern Europe over the past four-plus years, and in the Middle East more recently, and incipiently in East Asia) is not a war to win; but a war intended to destroy.

What is already afoot and expanding in Europe, is war of a kind seldom or never seen before in human history. In this actual and coming war; although one side does indeed want to win, and wants an end to the war (or begins that way); those who control the the other side want this war to continue, to expand, to increase in intensity - without end-point.

This happens because those who control one side are not of that side, but are instead (successfully and without being detected) using that side primarily and ultimately to pursue all-round destructive purposes.

This is happening, the strategy is working; things are much worse than almost anyone - including the experts - realize; exactly because almost nobody in the West understands evil; and especially they do not understand the sheer negativity of evil.

War analysts (of all sides) consistently assume that war is about seeking benefit, a negative means towards positive goals; and will end when that benefit has been attained. 

But when a war has been created, and is being sustained and expanded, in order to destroy; and ultimately in order that the participants come to support that goal of destruction - then this is a very different matter. 

The developing war situation is one that cannot necessarily be stopped or reversed - even if there was a general and effective will to stop it - which there is not. 

Evil has such an easy time in the modern world because there are so very few people (and none with power) who are strongly on the side of God and Good.

The mass of people cannot and do not support Good because they do not believe Good exists, or has any objective meaning. Their vague notion of good is something that exists (temporarily) only psychologically; as culturally-contingent notions in the heads of themselves, and people like them. 

The idea that The Good is a part of Reality, or The Universe; is literally meaningless to mainstream modern people - it is not so much denied as something that simply does not make sense. 

But we need to recall that the war of this world is always and ultimately a spiritual war; so this is no exception. 

This is a ultimately war to induce people - as many as possible people, on all sides - to align with spiteful destruction as a spiritual goal.

And this happens by value-inversion; by inducing people to regard evil as good and vice versa; and this is easiest when evil is not understood. 

And this failure to understand evil becomes inevitable when people do not believe-in or understand Good. 

And this failure to understand goodness is inevitable because so many people have assimilated the official and culturally-mainstream fundamental assumptions - e.g. that there is no God, no spirit, no salvation: no possibility of external and objective purpose and meaning in the universe.  

The ongoing and accelerating war of destruction is a consequence of these deep and multi-generational cultural trends. 

This stuff is not some hypothetical future scenario; on the contrary this state of deep incomprehension and value-inversion describes where we are now, culturally. 

And where we are stuck; because it can be seen that the problems run very deep, and have many layers. 

Which is presumably why we are all marching blandly and blindly towards a vastly destructive and intentionally-endless war that nearly-everyone supports indirectly with sadistic vehemence. 

Note: those who publicly oppose the ongoing-upcoming war are also (very nearly always) part of the fundamental problem that has led to the war, and share the same war-generating fundamental assumptions. They do not oppose the war for Good reasons. 

Hell - Where did it come from, where did it go?

I was reading a biography of Stevie Smith by Frances Spalding, and a chapter concerning her relationship to Christianity - by which was largely meant the Church of England. 

At one point it quoted a passage to the effect that the one thing SS found most repellent was the idea of Hell. In particular, to summarize, Stevie rejected:

Hell regarded as a place of eternal torment, to which people were sent by default, on the basis of divine judgment. 

In rejecting this idea of Hell, as well in her response to this rejection - i.e. ceasing to be what she regarded as a Christian - I suppose Stevie Smith was representative of her era.

Certainly I have often seen or heard the same kind of thing said by others. 

It seems that (in some broad sense) Hell came-in with "Christianity" around or after the time of Jesus - and disappeared with Christianity through the 19th and 20th centuries. 

And, at about the same time as Hell was disappearing - people began finding the idea repellent; because those who rejected Hell also assumed that Hell was not true: assumed that the Hell concept is ,and always had been, false. 

And therefore the Hell-rejecters infer that the primary nature of the Hell concept was as a psychological manipulation used to terrorize people into joining and obeying the Christian church. 

In other words, the Stevie-Smith-esque moral critique of Hell, already rejects the reality of Hell: it already assumed that Hell is not and never was real. 

The question I address about Hell is: Where did it come from, where did it go*? 

What has apparently happened; is that the modern human mind has become unreceptive to the reality of Hell. What once seemed real, possible, almost inevitable - has come to seem an obvious deception. A cruel, because manufactured, mass manipulation. 

To summarize: Hell used-to "work" very effectively as a mechanism of population control; but it does not work anymore. 

This historical change towards Hell-incredulity is usually interpreted sociologically; meaning in essence that the change in Men's minds was caused by changes in society. 

If the sociological explanation is true this would imply that if modern society was changed then Hell could again become an effective motivator; and this change would happen whether Hell is regarded as a reality that is now being denied, or if Hell is regarded as a not-real tool of social control.  

But I believe that sociological change to restore Hell could not and therefore would not happen. 

I suggest instead that Hell first came, and then went, because of changes in human consciousness. 

In other words; I am saying that Hell arose because Men's minds became receptive to the idea; and this change led to sociological change; and then Hell dwindled because Men's minds changed further - and then society changed to reflect this. 

The idea is that Hell is a product of a particular phase of Mankind's consciousness - and that phase has now passed. 

On this view; because Hell is primarily a product of Man's consciousness; then it would not be possible to restore the ancient idea of Hell. 

And if Hell is a product of consciousness at a particular phase of development; then a modern-day religious society could not motivate people with such an idea of Hell, even if it is true; and for the same reason; a tyranny could no longer effectively control society with the false-but-believed threat of Hell. 

What was this phase of consciousness that was so receptive to Hell? I would term it a semi-alienated state of partial group-mind. 

My idea is that in ancient (pre-Christian) times; Men were not alienated but were (mostly) immersed in their society, and actually lived as a part of the group-mind. The after-death experience was then regarded in a groupish way - whatever happened beyond death, happened to the members of the group. 

Men were not then afraid of becoming an "existential outcast" in the manner of Hell. 

Hell emerged when Men each began to separate their personal consciousness from the group-mind; and Hell was (I suggest) a consequence of this state of being semi-alienated. 

Man's hope was to retain the state of being in this group-mind after death; but Hell came from the terror that - after death - the group may choose to cast-out the individual because of that individual's transgression of the group-norms, and consign him to the eternal torment of being existentially-alone. 

The sociological phenomenon of Hell was therefore a consequence of Men's innate angst concerning emergent alienation from the group mind; which is why Men became receptive to the idea of Hell. 

But in the development of human consciousness, Men continued to detach from the group-mind; until for recent generations Men have ceased to experience the primacy of the group-mind - to the point of being unaware of it, and even denying its reality. 

Modern Men regard themselves as almost-wholly alienated; and therefore tend spontaneously to regard death as an inevitable and universal annihilation. 

In the officially (and inwardly-perceived) modern secular-mainstream understanding of each Man dwelling in a purposeless and meaningless universe - there can be no divine judgment. 

And the idea that mortal life death might lead to a default-inevitable state of being tormented cannot for a modern Man) be true - because for modern Men, after death there is nothing.    

For modern Christians (with the alienated consciousness we share with other modern Men); Salvation and Hell are alike consequences of personal choice in relation to the divine; not a judgment. 

And as this alienated consciousness continues to develop; these personal choices of post-mortal situation become more individual, bespoke, unique - and reciprocally less and less group-defined, less and less categorical in nature. 

Modern Christians now understand Hell (insofar as they have thought about it seriously) more as a positive choice - Hell is a choice made by those who have decisively-rejected (for whatever reason) the desirability and chance of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Hence, for the consciousness of modern Christians; "Hell" is real but differently-understood than 1-2000 years ago. 

The modern concept of Hell is nowadays negatively-defined as "everything but" Heaven. 

For modern consciousness; Hell is therefore an open-ended variety of possibilities - and insofar as Hell is for some individuals experienced as a situation of eternal torment - then this is what has been asked-for, and from-which they do not repent.  

*NOTE: The title of this post references an amusing and enjoyable novelty song that my kids used to dance-to; mainly from a Wii Just Dance compilation. 

AI-dolatry is an Antichrist phenomenon, because the Antichrist is The System

I just stumbled across a post of mine from 2018 on the (now stale) subject of Jordan Peterson; in which I described him as an Antichrist figure. 

The idea of an Antichrist is not really of any general and public use for discernment, because of the mass and institutional breakdown in truthful consensus. 

Nonetheless it is a subject to which I find I recur, because so many individual people remain spiritually wedded to external authority, and in a totalitarian "System-" world, that means that almost all self-identified Christians are following Antichrists. 

The question I ask is: will such people follow their Antichrist to self-chosen damnation, or at what point will they realize what is happening to them?

(Luckily for Mankind, by my understanding; this point of recognition and repentance can be post-mortal.)

The current AI-dolatry (i.e. the positive embrace, and in-practice promotion, of the "AI"-agenda) is evidently motivated by evil-intent when advocated by mainstream left-materialist ideologues; but the phenomenon takes-on an Antichrist role and quality when found among self-identified Christians. 

What I see is Christians who support (and spiritually I am inferring an inner support) an actually overall- and net-evil strategy; on the basis that they see in such a strategy the possibilities for a selective, partial, "if-only" possibility of Good.  

IMO, this rationale is how people justify to themselves an inner subordination to external authority.

Because when all actual external authorities (all formal and public institutions; including all the churches) are actually integrated-within the System of global totalitarianism - then this just-is the Antichrist phenomenon, as I understand it.

I mean; people choose to subordinate themselves spiritually (and therefore psychologically) to a powerful and influential entity (i.e. The System), even when that entity is net-evil; by an argument that there are aspects of The System that may be turned to good... 

Which "may" be good understanding, then gets transformed to an assertion that it "will" be good... in my hands, the way that I will use it...   

So the world is (apparently) full of Christians who support one or more of the primary agenda items of global totalitarianism (such as "AI", a foreign war, the Birdemic-Peck, CO2-climatology, sexual revolution...); because they have convinced themselves that they have nuanced these strategies into specific pro-Christian activities.

From overall-evil intent, they finesse particular Good Works, "Christian" works; of one kind or another. And claim that this particulars are then the main thing: that they personally can nuance the particular Goods, without spiritual-complicity in the overall evils.     

The reason why this kind of reasoning has become so massively-dominant is exactly that The System is everywhere, and inescapable - we are all sustained-by-it and work-for-it.   

Therefore - in this-worldly terms - as a brute fact we are all of us deeply-complicit in strategic evil, in this-world. 

Which means that - to do good works in this world, to be "practical"; we can only work with The System: we can only "make this world a better place" (including better for ourselves, and those about whom we care) by accepting The System in some overall fashion, and despite specific dissent.

This brute fact of a self-identified Christian - in-practice and inescapably - supporting the large-scale demonic agenda; becomes a potentially agonizing "cognitive dissonance" insofar as Christianity is regarded as a this-worldly religion - i.e. a religion that "makes this world a better place". 

It is to avoid this cognitive dissonance, indeed stark contradiction! - that so many Christians end by choosing spiritual-subordination to the the ubiquity of global totalitarianism, while asserting an officially-propagated false and virtual understanding of the world. 

Thus, most Christians - including serious Christians - are engaged in whitewashing the actuality of global totalitarian evil: either they deny its reality as an existing fact, or else they falsely construct a fantasy of the fundamental, coherent, and purposive evil of The System of global totalitarianism - as if it were instead a drama of good versus evil Establishment people and institutions. 

As if minor distinctions between greater and lesser evil purposes somehow included the operations of purposive good; as if a mass of competing negations could eventuate in positive values...  

Things have come to a point; compromise is no longer validly possible; we are compelled to choose between clear and distinct alternatives of evil and Good. 

It is not a matter of what we do but what is our faith. If we base our ultimate faith in-this-world, we shall become of-this-world.  

Either we recognize that Christianity is, and (deep down) always was; a next-worldly and individual religion - i.e. a faith that does not depend on practical obedience to the authority of any specific institution/s - or else we will be following one or another of the many Antichrist phenomena that constitute The System. 

Either we are rooted in this-world, in which case we shall be in truth supporters of "The Antichrist; or else we locate our faith and hope in post-mortal resurrected eternal life, in Heaven. 

Movie review - Good Fortune (2025)

Good Fortune (2025) works pretty well as a mainstream Hollywood comedy; it is a fairly typical "3 Star" movie (i.e. 3/5 Stars; i.e. worth watching, but not re-watching). 

What makes Good Fortune rather different is that it is very earnest in tone, and tackles the deep subject of "meaning in life"; and, as such I found its assumptions and aspirations interesting and illustrative, and I continued thinking about it for a while after watching. 

I was attracted to the movie because it features an angel as a main character (and I find it interesting to see how this device is used); but the conceptualization of angel is - as usual - a being that "helps people" in very practical ways (almost trivial ways, in the case of our protagonist) in a universe assumed to be wholly materialistic in its nature. 

But the angel comes-up-against a person - endearingly played by the film's auteur Aziz Ansari - whose constantly-working life is on a down-trend of materially deprivation and insecurity, such that it seems to him not worth living. 

The other main character is an ultra-wealthy technology-investor-type of the post 1990s style; whose life is depicted as very pleasant and easy - and a lot happier. 

Magical-life-swaps ensue; and these are used to examine the question of what Makes Life Worth Living, in order to save the "soul" of the despairing protagonist, and undo a plot conundrum. 

These "things" that MLWL, are all depicted as material; except for romantic (and maybe filial) relationships; and, to an extent, casual friendships. For instance, much is made of the Mexican food Tacos, as a symbol of the good life; and a cheap kind of good life... that could/should be accessible to all. 

Because the life worth living is materially-conceptualized, the "answer" to the problem of meaninglessness and despair is a material one; and that which is arrived-at is (implicitly)... mid-twentieth-century, Old Left-style socialism. 

So; Trades Unions are very positively depicted as a way "forward", and redistribution of wealth from the few ultra-rich to the hundred-millions of grindingly poor; is explicitly stated to be the solution to poverty. 

Economic socialism is portrayed as if it were a "radical" notion, but in reality the ideal utopia is almost exactly a reactionary yearning for the 1950s in The West. Something that already has-been; and something which was vehemently rejected at the time, by the exact same class of people who are making this movie!

In other words, Good Fortune implicitly rejects the post 1960s "Civil Rights" New Left focus on race, feminism, and the sexual revolution; and argues for a restoration of the Old Left focus on socialist economics.  

Except, of course, it doesn't! Because the movie has the usual (mandatory) quota-casting and soft-sell idealization of "vibrancy" and the rest of it. 

So what is actually being advocated is to re-impose Old Left economics on top of the actually-existing New Left society... 

Therefore (and for obvious reasons); Good Fortune says nothing-at-all about the decades of colossal immigration; which was exactly the primary cause of the (rightly-) vilified mass life of a "gig-economy" of low-paid, insecure jobs getting worse at one end...

And the tiny minority of ever-fewer, ever-richer and ever more-powerful class of people at the top...

(Who were, of course, the class of people producing, scripting, directing, and acting the movie.)  

It is an historical fact that it was the Old Left who favoured a Trades-Union-dominated, high-minimum wage economy, Characterized by strong top-down regulation of work conditions, enforced exclusion of competition, labour protection, and secure contracts. And these were the group most vehemently against mass immigration and "globalization".

(For instance, as I well remember, it was the Left of the Labour Party who most strongly opposed the UK's entry into the "European Union" in the referendum of 1975.) 

And this was for very obvious reasons (i.e. "obvious" to common sense, if not to the current ruling intellectual class of Hollywood opinion-formers!). 

But my main point is that this morally-earnest movie can come-up with no higher ideal for human existence than reversion to the actually-achieved socialist Old Left, mid-20th century. With its notion of a "decent minimum" level of material provision and security for the masses; in the context of a structurally-secular vision of reality.

Yet even this mundane, low-animal-level, "barnyard ethics" social-utopia of "comfort and convenience for all"; is rendered an impossible "fairytale" - by the insistence on the continuing destructive reality of open-ended massive immigration - with its inevitable consequences!

 

It is the old story. Those who ask for, work for, live for, aspire to have "nothing more" than a comfortable life of minimal decency; will thereby become so alienated, fearful, demotivated, and despairing that they will have even so meagre an existence taken from them. 

Materialism is incoherent - and leads to incoherent understanding and therefore the inability to recognize/ conceptualize/ defend simple-self-interest in the medium/ long-term. 

This; because human beings Just Are by nature religious and spiritual. It is built-in - whether we like it, or like it not. 

Excise religion etc; and we become fundamentally helpless; self-hating drivelling idiot-lunatics. 

In sum; we are creatures who can only function in a (broadly) sensible and realistic way, when we know that this mortal life is not everything...

Subtract all this context; and what remains is not just happy (or miserable) animals; but something less-than an animal. 

If everyone who follows Jesus is resurrected into Heaven; what is the point of leading a good mortal life?

For many people, it seems that Christianity has always offered too much and too easily - and too equally. 

So long as a person attains "salvation" then he is given eternal resurrected life, in a Heaven without evil or death...

This universal reward for all who follow Jesus Christ has often seemed to obliterate any necessary value in this mortal life on earth, or any reason for living "well" in this earthly existence. It seems as if everybody gets "the same" result, no matter how good or how evil his actions during mortal life. 

I suspect that this kind of inference is a consequence of the very common way of thinking about "human beings" as interchangeable members of a class, rather than as unique individuals: such that resurrected people in Heaven are vaguely-assumed to be identical creatures living almost-exactly the same life - "equal" in all important respects. 

But if instead we can develop an understanding of Jesus's work as aimed at unique individual persons ( individuals that have always been unique, and whose destiny is to remain unique); then it becomes evident that resurrection to eternal life must be of an unique soul. 

And, insofar as our unique soul can change through life - can learn, can get better or worse... then the result of this change, will affect the outcome of resurrection.  

In other words; if we compare someone who has tried to lead a virtuous life and who has learned from his mistakes; with someone who lived to use others for his own pleasure and gratification - the outcome of such difference will be that: that which is resurrected is different in each case. 

If we look at life subjectively; when we each come to a major life choice, our soul will be changed in different directions according to our decision and its outcomes - such that when it comes to resurrection, then we can expect to end-up differently.

Because what went-into resurrection was different - what comes-out from resurrection will be different.  

If we spend much of life in a state of resentment, which we justify by a narrative that we are innocent victims, and if we engage in spiteful fantasies of revenge on our oppressors; then this evil aspect of ourselves will need to be left-behind at resurrection. 

Any and all that is not "of love" is left-behind at resurrection - so that our resurrected self will be diminished by however much is evil and is un-repented. 

But if, instead, we were able to recognize that resentment is a sin, and we acknowledged this sin in ourselves and aspired to turn-aside from it - then such a process of learning and repentance during mortal life, means that our resurrected self will be rooted in a larger, more complex and balanced character. 

Of course, we need to be clear and unambiguous that even the most evil person imaginable - one who has dedicated his life to using and harming other people, animals, plants and the rest; can nonetheless repent "at the last moment" (which I believe comes after death, post-mortally) - and can, in principle - i.e. if he truly desires to follow Jesus - repent and receive resurrected eternal Heavenly life. 

But such a person will need to leave-behind a great deal of his mortal self to become fit for Heaven. 

His resurrected self will, and must be, made a very different character from his mortal self. 

Only that which is good is resurrected; because that which is evil cannot be carried forward into Heaven. And this is why it is "worthwhile" to live well, to learn spiritually from experience; and to repent our sins. 

Proof of resurrection?

Many Christians (and the official doctrine of many churches) assert that resurrection does not come soon after death on an individual basis; but is delayed - perhaps waiting until some version of a judgment day, when resurrection happens "communally", for everyone all at once - albeit individuals are "judged" individually. 

However...

The Fourth Gospel does not include a "second coming" or "day of judgment"; and its narrative is consistent with resurrection happening as an individual process, and happening soon after each person's death - with its examples of Lazarus and Jesus himself, both resurrected within days. 

Jesus also seems to describe rapid individual resurrection - for example, as I understand the following two passages: 

4: 31 - In the mean while his disciples prayed him, saying, Master, eat. But he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest. 

I understand this to be Jesus talking (poetically, metaphorically as we regard it) of how he is finishing the work of "him that sent me" - meaning both that this work was incomplete, and that Jesus has - here and now, not at some future point - finished it. 

Everything has been done, everything is ready.

No need for delays. 

5: 21 - For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. ... Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. ... 

I understand this to be stating that those who believe and follow Jesus will have everlasting life - i.e. resurrection - and will pass from death into life, will pass through death into resurrection. 

No delay. 

Further, that this benefit also applies to those who died before the advent of Jesus. 

"Christianity" ought to be much clearer on this subject; and more focused upon the promise of resurrected eternal life; and that this shall come to each to wants it and follows Jesus, and "soon" after death. 

No delay, no waiting for indefinite periods until a day of judgment. 

This also means that there are many of the dead who have resurrected already. 

And therefore, in principle, these living resurrected people are a potential source of direct personal evidence for the reality of resurrection, available to living people now.    

In other words; we are not necessarily dependent, ultimately, on second-hand sources such as theology, scripture, or the teaching of religious authorities. 

Because there is a possible "proof" of the truth of Jesus's promise - a proof that might be accessed by many people, here-and-now.

This assuming that there can be contact between individual living mortal Men such as you and me; and at least one or more of those who have died and been resurrected. 

The pain of childbirth: Can Christian hope alleviate the sufferings of mortal life?

Because being-a-Christian is essentially about resurrected eternal Heavenly life beyond mortal death; it may seem that - even if it were assumed to be a real and attainable possibility - this is not of any help in helping people deal with the sufferings of this mortal life.  

And, after all, it is this-life and its suffering that presses most strongly upon us; in a day by day (minute by minute) way. 

What most people most-want is: Help. Now!

It seems, on the surface, that another-life after this-life cannot be of any genuine assistance. 

We must still live-through all the miseries and pains, and perhaps for many years, before attaining the transformed state in a deathless and good situation. 

However, this understanding is mistaken; because resurrected eternal Heavenly life creates a larger context, that transforms what went before - both by expectation, as well as in retrospect. 

What I mean can be illustrated by the pains of childbirth. 

To generalize: giving birth (especially for the first time) is often extremely painful. It is often about as painful as anything can be: genuine agony, and this may continue for hours.

(Although, of course, medical technology nowadays provides methods for alleviating this pain.) 

And this is when things go well!

Unless you have experienced, or been present at, such a childbirth; you probably don't believe me - or think I am exaggerating ridiculously. 

You probably think: "If childbirth was really as painful as all that, then surely I would know about it? Surely people would go on about it more than they do?"

Well, the point is that - when childbirth is anticipated positively (the baby is wanted), and goes well, and a healthy baby ultimately arrives - then people more-or-less forget about how painful the process had been.

More exactly, they don't forget so much as put the pain into the context of having-a-baby; the pain happened by-the-way, almost as a means-to-that-end. 

The pain of having a baby - even while it is happening - happens as part-of, and en route to, a desired destination.  

In other words the occurrence of child-bearing pain is contextualized by its meaning and result; and this has a powerful influence both during, as well as after, the agonies of giving birth. 

To understand the power of such a context; consider that the same amount of pain which happens in childbirth would have a very different, and much worse - indeed traumatizing - significance; if it were deliberately inflicted in the course of torture.

The pain of torture would be worse both at the time, and also worse in recollection; than the same pain happening in a childbirth context.

(Again; assuming the baby was wanted, and was alright when born.)     

To close the analogy: this is like the effect of resurrected eternal life on the sufferings of mortal life. 

Having the destination of Heaven as a purpose, has a transformative effect on the meaning, hence the experience, of suffering during mortal life. 

Transformative both during suffering, and also when looking back from resurrected life on that suffering.

This does not make the pain of life go-away; any more that the childbirth context prevents the pain being very painful indeed.  

However the meaning of pain is part of the suffering; and when the meaning of pain changes, the nature of the suffering changes. 

The reason why the pains of life are worse for modern people than it was during the ages of faith - is that for modern people pain has no meaning, because an atheist-materialist life has no purpose. 

Pain without purpose is pain without meaning; so pain without purpose is experienced as "pure suffering".  

The pains and sufferings of mortal life are far too many and too various for there ever to be any possibility of preventing or curing them all - and some causes of suffering are innate and intractable to the Human Condition.

Therefore we should not consider Christianity as if it were a supposed-painkiller, nor as a preventive or therapy for the sufferings of mortal life. 

However; our mortal life - including its pains - is given purpose and therefore meaning by the desired destination; by personal positive transformation (resurrection) and the Heavenly life to come.

And this affects our experience of suffering in mortal life while it is happening, as well as in retrospect.    

"Unfinished business" in dreams

I often have unpleasant dreams just before waking; and if I try to go back to sleep after one such, I simply return to the dream. 

At one level, I take this to be telling me "You have had enough sleep: time to get-up!"

But if I set aside the specific content of the dreams, and instead consider what the dream makes me think-about and how it makes me feel; I can often recognize that the unpleasant qualities of a current dream derive from unhappy aspects of past times, decisions, situations, relationships, or the like.

The dreams are about "unfinished business" from my past. 

The "rawness" of such dreams, their power to evoke sharply unpleasant feelings; is, in particular, a response to highlighting my own defects, weaknesses, errors, and sins relating to particular events or eras of earlier life. 

Underneath these dreams is an insight that much of those problems I experienced from bad situations and events and people; was rooted-in - or at least made much worse - by problems in myself... 

The unpleasant dream nearly-always draws my attention to negative aspects of myself - aspects that (it seems) need to be recognized and acknowledged...

My bad character traits and selfish, short-termist mistakes; that require to be registered as indeed... bad character traits and selfish, short-termist mistakes. 

And I need also to note that these problems remain; as evidenced my my continued inability to come to terms with the situations and events... 

It is this persistence of the problems - and the attempt to deny my own part in the matter - that gives bad memories their continued raw power to annoy and irritate!

Of course, this can be considered at the psychological level - with the "therapeutic" aim either of stopping the bad dreams, or else of stopping their power to annoy, irritate, induce misery etc. 

But this is to miss the point; which is that these dreams are spiritual phenomena; if we are able to recognize the fact and to respond spiritually. 

From a spiritual perspective; these dreams are doing an important job; and that job is open-ended - so we should neither expect nor want such dreams to stop!

(At least, not if we want to make spiritual progress throughout our mortal lives.)  

The dreams need to continue because our defects of character, the errors and selfishness of our past sins, are not finite! There are more genuine and significant problems about us than could possibility be dealt-with. There is always "room for improvement".  

The matter of acknowledgement and repenting is always good-for-us; but does not have any end-point - we are never finished with repenting so long as we are alive: there is always more such work to do. 

However; I am not suggesting that this ought to be a full-time occupation or anything like it! 

That would be a lop-sided, unbalanced, distorted life. And a life that seems extremely unlike that of Jesus Christ during his years of ministry - which was a life which had many aspects and facets; many positive, loving, and creative; as well as those that were negative, sorrowful, and reactive. 

But I am suggesting instead that for some of the time, and some-times more urgently than others, and some-issues more urgently at some times (when some specific unrepented actions/ attitudes/ sins etc. are - here-and-now - e.g. blocking spiritual progress or causing us to advance in evil) - we ought to give attention to our unfinished business. 

So there is a question of priority, or even necessity, about the particular issues that each of these dreams are raising for our attention and consideration. 

After all; dreams (largely) come-from us; therefore usually have meaning-for us. 

In sum - when we have such dreams - it is probably worth thinking about them in the spirit of learning from them... Rather than simply forgetting about them ASAP; or "curing" the bad memories with a strong cup of coffee! 

Subfertility is willed biological extinction - an intractable fact. What then?

People are apparently unable to grasp the very simple fact that the "subfertility*" of all the populations of all the developed nations is a strategic choice of biological extinction. 

The peoples of the modern world are willing their own annihilation. 

Of course, the averaged population choice in favour of death is composed of multi-millions of individual choices - which have, presumably, thousands of specific reasons and motivations. 

Nonetheless, if we are talking at a population level, in terms of group averages of reproduction - then the deep psychological (indeed spiritual) problem; is that the population has chosen its own destruction. 

At every level from the family, through the tribe, clan, nation - religion, or ideology. 

This seems to me a far more significant fact than real-but-temporary issues such as an ageing population. It is very solid, biological, evidence of the short-termism and self-focus characteristic of all modern populations. 

This is, in itself, a product of the changes in human consciousness that have happened everywhere - which could be described as alienation, or as the autonomous consciousness. 

In the past, people felt themselves part of a group-consciousness. Much of behaviour was unconscious, automatic, and flowed-into each person from the group-mind. 

The group-mind could be resisted, but such resistance need to be active. 

Individuals did not therefore consciously "decide" to have "at least three children" (e.g. weighing the options, calculating the risks and benefits) - instead it was not experienced as a choice, certainly not an individual choice. 

Wanting children was just "what people did"; and "I" am "people"... so I want it too.  

Modern consciousness doesn't work like that. 

We modern live "inside our heads" - looking-out. 

We often pretend to be concerned about other-people-in-general and in-the-long-term; but endemic subfertility shows that we don't genuinely and powerfully experience such oft-expressed care and concern. 

Ultimately, we don't care about the extinction of our kind; and we don't care so deeply that we cannot even notice or acknowledge that it is happening!

If we don't care about the extinction of our people - And We Don't! - then all the other altruistic and planetary concerns are revealed as puffs of wind! 

This relates to the currently so-evident "wars and rumours of war" - which are also symptomatic of the same underlying spirit**. These wars, and their gratuitous and gleefully spiteful nature, are a consequence of profound facts of human spirituality - here-and-now. 

To be clear - I am not suggesting that we "ought" to be less selfish, more long-termist, more group-minded: the reality of our situation is that these are impossibilities. 

We can in theory ask for them, recommend them, incentivize them - but because people do not want them, they will not happen - just as all attempts, everywhere, to reverse subfertility have utterly failed (but mostly, they are not even attempted). 

These are facts of the human condition in this earthly mortal existence. 

Sins are fact - they cannot be evaded; but that does not free us from the responsibility to acknowledge and repent them.

Why do we find it so difficult - impossible, even - to acknowledge and repent facts which will not be changed? Usually because we do not fundamentally desire to change the facts; or if part of us does want to change - we cannot make ourselves do it.

Why are we so eager to pretend these are soluble problems, why expend such energy in evasions?

Surely this intractability of mortal Life is at the very heart of Jesus's message, and the reason for his great gift (or offer) of salvation? 

What we need to do is something that we think is "too easy" or "not worth" doing...

Therefore we do not do what actually-is needful, and possible for everybody - and thereby reject salvation.   

*Anything less than two-point-something children per woman, on average. The point-something is (approximately) to account for children that do not survive to adulthood, or are otherwise infertile. Biologically speaking, it is very probably necessary to have considerably more than an average of two children per woman to replace the human population - if significant and cumulative genetic damage is to be avoided.  

**The world is breaking down. When that happens the structures of civilisation develop cracks and start to fail after which the normal forces of entropy and decay take over and do the rest. 

Recent wars are the result of a loss of centre. The centre is the spiritual focus of a society, what it is grounded in and what sustains it. When that no longer holds then things do fly apart, as the poet says. 

We have had no centre for a long time in the West which is why we have pitiful replacements such as human rights and democracy but these have no real substance to them. They are feeble ideological substitutes for what we have lost or rejected and they don't really inspire anybody for long. 

Wars come about because of ambition, and that is certainly a factor with the present one. But there is something else going on which is a simple desire for destruction. 

When the world has no meaning, and it has none without a sense of something beyond itself, we can find a crude purpose of sorts through destruction. Destruction is easy and it's exciting. It can stimulate the jaded palate and thrill the mind that has become bored and without a deeper goal.

From William Wildblood

"What do I think about X? Excuse me, I'll just ask..."

The idea that what we think, believe, do; ought-to-be derived from some external authority - which is, in practice, always some institution/ organization/ corporation... some formal group of people - is something that we recognize in others, but seldom acknowledge in ourselves. 

I had a friend who had recently become a member, or some kind of associate, of the UK Trotskyite "Socialist Workers Party"; and he described to me how things worked there, ideologically. 

Whenever there was some big new news story - an invasion, an economic crisis, a strike, civil disorder - a meeting would be called at which the event was ideologically framed and explained, and members were told how The Party could make use of it: therefore what to think and do about it. 

This is how communists work, and this has been well known and obvious to others, whenever any argument with them is attempted.

It is why communists can and do, in lockstep, make 180 degree turns of policy as required by Part expediency; as when Hitler made a pact with Stalin, then again when Germany invaded the USSR.

In 2020 there were several such 180 degree No-then-Yes instant turns: whether Testing was needed; whether Masking was needed; was Christmas to be cancelled?

Analysis, debate, argument was futile: what was false, wicked, unnecessary yesterday; becomes true, good and compulsory today - and this is all rational, consistent and absolutely necessary. 

When authority lies with an institution, so does truth and legitimacy; so there are no valid grounds for dissent.

There is only either obedience, or just-punishment. 

This is also, by somewhat different procedures, how churches work when they are powerful in the lives of people. 

(This fundamental identity of control procedures is one reason why people - mistakenly* - assume that "ideology" and "religion" are the-same-thing - and that totalitarianism and theocracy are fundamentally identical.)

When some new "thing" emerges for which the church view is not immediately obvious; there is a some mechanism by which the churches framing, explanation and instructions are handed-down.

Because the church is the essential and only mediator of the divine; it is the ultimate repository of truth, beauty and virtue - so that all anyone absolutely needs to know is what the church thinks, and then to obey it.

Outwith which there is nothing but selfish, sin-rooted, individual will.  

This model of institutional authority represents a world-view - a mode-of-consciousness - for which the ultimate responsibility for important attitudes, beliefs and behaviours lies in some external and formal social grouping. 

It was (apparently) not always and everywhere thus, but it has been thus for recorded history: with ultimate authority variously - but always externally and institutionally - located.  

The "job" of each individual in such a System is to internalize as much as possible of the approved views and ways of reasoning that characterize "that social institution" there-and-then given custody of his conscience; and when the answer is not obvious - to seek and follow appropriate guidance. 

Such an external-authority-based set-up dictates the role of intellectuals in terms of the social institution. 

The job of an intellectual in this scheme is that of a commissar: to learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view. 

When there is dissent or opposition to the institutional view, the job of the intellectual is overcome it - by whatever means he can, by whatever means are effective - while staying within the institutionally-ratified assumptions, evidences and methods. 

The point is that the intellectual's own thinking is in service of this task. He will not think in any way that might lead to another conclusion than that of the institution he serves.

This is why institution-serving individuals will never, under any circumstances, acknowledge or even discuss their fundamental - including metaphysical - assumptions. 

They will only-and-always operate-from those assumptions; they will only assume the rightness of the institution they serve. 

This is the cause of a feeling we must all have experienced, must all have come-up-against - even if our own thinking is in service to a church or other societal institution. 

Perhaps the most usual encounter to evoke this feeling is with a bureaucrat who is trying to enforce the institutional will upon us; trying to get us into-line with the current strategies and priorities and behaviours. 

We may be lured into defending our case for dissent or disobedience (or inadequate enthusiasm!), or arguing against the institutional POV; but we Will realize (later if not sooner) that we are just talking into sand. 

Our interlocutor is not interested in what we think, not interested in the validity of our arguments - he already knows what we are supposed to think and do.  

His only interest in our arguments is to refute them using institution-approved arguments, to bring our views into-line with institutional views...

Or else to discredit our perspective (usually by discrediting us).  

Most of the people, most of the time, behave in this way - in all walks of life. 

It might be most obvious in political ideologies, churches, and bureaucracies - but it is the same everywhere nowadays; including the areas I worked in: medicine, academia, teaching, and science. 

This is proximately because in modern life all social institutions have become primarily bureaucratic; and all bureaucracies are linked to (and indeed form) the global totalitarian System. 

But it is also because many people, and nearly-all intellectuals in particular, regard ultimate authority as residing in some social institution such as their ideology, or employer, or their church (or The System) - and see their ultimate job to be defending and propagating that institutional authority. 

This reality is what underpins and causes the futility of argument; here and now. 

Most argument that we encounter in the media and professionally, is between individuals "representing" institutions. 

The main exception to this commissar-like situation, is when individuals are more or less "psychopathic"; when they are selfish, self-seeking, short-termist - and are using institutional camouflage - faked attitudes and assumptions, subverted/ inverted procedures etc), to pursue to their own personal agenda - seeking wealth, sex, power, fame, admiration; or whatever "turns them on". 

Anyone who is seeking spiritual truth, trying to understand his own situation in this world and larger reality; anyone who seeks a religion and a way of living - will come up against this commissar or bureaucratic externalization of authority. 

In effect; the seeker is supposed to strive for a situation in which he accepts the external authority of one church or another. 

In practice; this means that the seeker is supposed to accept some external authority (e.g. the truth and validity of Church X) as the first step - from which all-else follows. 

Because once a particular external institution is accepted as the fount of authority, validity, goodness and correct procedure - then the seeker can (and is expected to) hand-over his conscience and honesty to that institution.     

From then on - his ultimate role in life, or at least the role that dictates what counts as ultimate - is to himself learn, defend, and transmit the institutional view. 

It is difficult, it may be impossible, for any individual to find anyone who will engage on any other basis than that of first accepting (or being rhetorically-duped into accepting) the primacy of some external authority - some denomination, church or other institution. 

Life becomes a choice between actually-existing social institutions. 

Duty becomes a matter of serving the chosen institution. 

And if you are not happy about this situation - you will probably have no alternative but to accept responsibility for yourself.  

You can then expect to be attacked by everyone who serves any institution (i.e. almost everybody!)

But in a totalitarian-bureaucratic world where all social institutions are orientated towards evil; this path of personal responsibility is the only alternative to serving one or another (or several) organizations assimilated to the demonic agenda. 

You real choice is between serving overall-evil body, heart, and soul; or seeking a direct and personal knowledge-of and relationship-with something better.  

*"mistakenly"; because when religion is sincere, it is regarded by adherents as being ultimately spiritual and underpinned by the divine. This makes a difference. The question is how much difference - and in what ways different? The difference may be so feeble as to be ineffectual; the ways of difference may be for worse, as well as for better.  

The problem of "reacting" to current affairs - the example of the 2020 Birdemic

Much of the public space is taken up by people "reacting" - especially to news and current affairs; including a wide rage of stuff from celebrity gossip to (what are presented as) Serious Analysis of the Big Issues of our day. 

I have, myself, done a lot of this - over the decades. 

At the trivial end of the spectrum; this kind of reaction material is dealing with obviously (indeed aggressively!) trivial distractions from mundane living - as when YouTubers film themselves acting their emotions on "unboxing" consumer items. 

(Indeed; my YouTube feed shows that "so-and-so Reacts To such-and-such" is a large and popular genre on this platform - and no doubt others.) 

The Trouble Is at the other end; would-be serious analysis of the Big Issues and events of the times; because that is where people are trying to reflect and to work-out their own basic stance on Life and how we ought to lead it.

Take, for instance, the 2020 Birdemic and the subsequent multi-million-person Peck - a subject about which I "reacted" and wrote a great deal at the time, and since. 

The Trouble Is that we don't really know what was going on - even at the most basic level (and never shall). 

We know (at least, I feel that I know, because it is not a secret) that the 2020 global lockdown event in "response" was in some general sense planned. But probably that is all we do know, for sure. 

More exactly the response was definitely planned - including the Peck (which was several or many agents, seemingly), because the Peck had had already been made; but what the Birdemic event itself was is something about which I don't think anybody is at all sure. 

I don't doubt there was a plan, something was launched, and that there was some kind of deliberate "seeding" of the environment with some-thing; some modified-agent that was intended to be highly infectious and highly lethal and lead to a real "emic". 

But if so; it seems that the plan did not work as-planned; because there was no highly-lethal and highly-transmissible agent (or, perhaps, only a very little of it) - and it is possible that the "cases" (including deaths) were nearly-all (or in some times and places literally All) a combination of other agents and no agent. 

The observed and reported data can easily be explained in terms of false attributions of causes to symptoms and death; and false positives from signs and tests that were wrongly and dishonestly deployed and interpreted 

This "nothing-burger" understanding of the Birdemic itself (as distinct from the response it it) is quite possible. 

But so also are many other scenarios, at more and more "superficial" levels; where various parts of the official story, some of the official data, are factually-correct (even when the implications of these facts are false and manipulative).

Maybe there was a real-new-agent that spread around the world infectiously, but it just didn't have a high mortality. 

And (if so) exactly then some possible questions (much discussed!) include: where did this putative new agent come-from; was it natural or contrived; how and why was it released?

How was the media coverage managed? How much reportage was completely fake (did not happen IRL) and was instead enacted; how much did happen but was done deliberately? 

And, on top; how much was indeed spontaneously happening (as reported), but distorted and amplified and misrepresented by reportage? 

Then the questions of actual human pathology - sickness and mortality. 

Aside from how many of the attributions of causality were lies or mistaken; there is the Huge question regarding how much suffering and death was caused by the putative agent (i.e. by "the Birdemic"), and how much by the "response" to the Birdemic (i.e. lockdowns, distancing, masking, swabbing, gross neglect etc). 

The response (which we know was pre-planned) was claimed to be working against suffering and death - but the response certainly must have caused some, much, or perhaps most of the suffering and deaths attributed to the Birdemic-itself. 

And if the response caused most of the suffering and death, then was this s&d an accidental (deluded or incompetent) by-product, or was mass s&d strategically intended as part of "the plan"? 

And if the suffering and death was indeed strategically intended - then did the strategy succeed?... Did the actual amount of extra suffering and death match-up to what was planned?

My point here is to emphasise just some of the uncertainties that surround "reacting" to current affairs; and the implication that some of the reactions that are intended to be sceptical - and intend (or claim to intend) to oppose the Establishment agenda, will instead actually support the Establishment agenda. 

For instance; analysis and scepticism regarding the official story of the origins and mode of spread of the Birdemic; usually accepts (or takes for granted) the reality of the Birdemic: i.e. it implicitly believes the official story that there was indeed a highly lethal and infectious agent whose genetic sequence is known. 

Or; dissent over the nature and effectiveness of lockdowns or distancing, often accepts the assumption that some kind of general government-imposed societal response to the Birdemic was necessary (despite no evidence from official data of unusually-high mortality rates before the lockdown/ distancing).

Whereas, if there was no significant reality to the Birdemic in the first place; then no response was ever necessary in the first place; which means that a response was actively contra-indicated (given that the scale and nature of a social (indeed international) response in terms of major social change; was itself inevitably itself bound to become a significant cause of disease and death. 

So dissent, opposition, analysis - may quite easily end-up supporting and sustaining the very agenda it tries (or appears to try) to oppose.

Especially when the nature or reality of The Problem is not-really-known, and perhaps unknowable. 

In a nutshell; when we react to anything we know of, or think we understand, only or mainly via officialdom and the mass media; we absolutely need to bear in mind that there are a vast range of possible realities, and in reacting to one, we are always assuming another.

And the range of possible realities extends from nothing at all having happened (total fakery), through levels such as the event being real but staged or permitted, to the event being factually (more or less) as-described - but the interpretation of that event being dishonestly manipulative. 

All we can ever know for sure is that (as of 2026) the official story is always false - but we can seldom know in what way false; so our reactions may be being manipulated in ways we do not detect, and may therefore do more harm than good. 

"A chain of loving relationships" - How Christians may help those they love to get to Heaven

I am impressed and convinced by the way that the Fourth Gospel always describes Jesus's love in terms of specific and inter-personal loving relationships.

(This is a very different definition from the more usual understanding of Christian love as ideally having such attributes as unconditional, altruistic, even impersonal.) 

Given that I believe we choose to accept or reject Jesus's gift of resurrected eternal life after our death; this interpersonal understanding of Christian love has helped me to grasp how it is that our love during this mortal life, may help others whom we love to choose Heaven. 

It works as a chain of loving relationships.

In brief; once one person has chosen resurrected eternal life; so long as that dweller in Heaven has had loving relationships with others during his mortal life; then that first person to be saved sets-up a chain of positive influences for those who die afterwards. 

Salvation is always an absolutely free and autonomous personal choice, that can neither be compelled nor prevented.

But if we have had a loving relationship during mortal life with someone who has already attained salvation before we die; then after death, and at the time when we must choose whether or not to accept resurrection, that beloved person will "visit" us - will come into contact with our post-mortal spirit.    

It seems to me that Mormons are correct in their teaching that:

The most powerful incentive for Christian salvation is the desire to continue personal relationships beyond death with those we have loved during mortal life. 

So, when it comes to deciding whether to accept salvation, anyone whom we loved in mortal life (potentially more than one person - but one person is enough) can assure us of the reality of eternal life, its nature, and the presence of those with whom we might to continue relationships. 

There will always be a free choice; but my point is that knowing there is already some particular person whom we have loved that has made the choice of Heaven and who already dwells in that state - could be a positive and decisive influence in favour of accepting salvation.   

As an illustrative example, suppose there was a woman (a grandmother) who was exceptionally loving during her mortal life; loving her husband, children, sons- and daughters-in-law, and grandchildren - and that she accepted Christ's salvation. 

As her husband, children, grandchildren etc. died; she would be able to visit and assure them of what was possible beyond death; of how the loving relationships of mortal life could be continued, and could continue to develop eternally, post-mortally. 

The effectiveness of this influence, would presumably depend substantially on the strength of interpersonal love, during life - and this strength would perhaps (usually) be diluted with succeeding generations, and would cease after two or three generations.

This is where the "chain" aspect comes-in... If the grandmother firstly influenced her daughter to accept salvation; then the daughter would provide her own children with a (potentially more direct) influence of a mother's love (rather than grandmother's), when the time came for the grandchildren to die - and so on down the generations. 

The chain would also potentially branch, with loved husbands and wives - if the one who dies-first accepts salvation, then a loving spousal relationship could provide a link to Heaven.  

Once the "system" had been going for a few generations, it might resemble a web or network, rather than a chain - which would provide (potentially) more robust because multiple possibility of positive personal-loving influences; by which a recently deceased post-mortal spirit may be encouraged or convinced to choose resurrected Heavenly life.