What is it to be spiritually uncompromising? (With reference to the Christian Litmus Test Fail of so-called "AI")

A couple of years after becoming a Christian, I encountered the work of Fr Seraphim Rose - I warmed to him immediately, as he was a modern Westerner who had become an uncompromising and spiritually-dedicated Eastern Orthodox monk - while at the same time embodying a warm-hearted, loving nature.  

One of my greatest disappointments on becoming a Christian was the insipid worldly compromise of all the Christians I knew-of: they were, where it most mattered, spiritually indistinguishable from the mainstream of atheistic materialists. 

Seraphim Rose - with his ascetic and hermit-like life - was (it seemed to me) on a different and qualitatively higher level of holiness; that very unusually enabled him to discern clearly; and give full value to the depth, as well as breadth, of the modern spiritual malaise.

By contrast, other Christians I came across really did not seem to grasp the profundity and seriousness of our civilization's spiritual malaise. 

However; I fairly soon recognized that the monastic life - which attempts to live materially in a way that is compatible with spiritual understanding; is not an answer. 

Seraphim Rose was almost unique among monks in his warm-hearted asceticism; because other monks are either warm-hearted but worldly, deluded, often corrupt -- or else they may be genuinely ascetic but with a narrow, harsh and prideful rigidity. (A group that Seraphim Rose called "the super-correct".) 

In other words, I now distinguish between the inner spiritual self on the one hand; and the public and social self. 

Indeed, I think that the - inevitably failing - attempt of people to live their lives fully in accordance with the highest Christian hopes; is actually a major source of spiritual corruption among Christians.

What actually happens is that Christians cut their Christianity to fit the cloth of their nature and circumstances. 

In other words, the limitations of their personality and abilities, and the pressure of their lives, are allowed to dictate the scope and aspirations of their Christian faith.

They limit their definitions of Christianity to whatever they can themselves accomplish.    

Examples include the spiritual Litmus Tests of our time. 

The practicalities of living in an evil totalitarian system mean that most people will "inevitably", more-or-less, go-along-with the demonically-originated evil strategies that are designed to engineer our society into a machine of damnation. 

A current example - a spiritual test that most Christians have failed spectacularly! - is so-called "AI". 

The way it seems to work is that a Christian finds himself in a work or life situation in which he is compelled to use, and even to work-with and develop and propagandize-for - "AI" systems. Compelled in that either he follows these bureaucratic diktats, or else he fails to get the job, is sacked from his current job, or cannot get promoted above a low level. 

Or else the Christian cannot resist the temptations of using AI to amuse or divert himself. 

Or he may find that he cannot resist using "AI" to add a professional (pseudo-creative) gloss to his own productions; or to project an image of greater knowledge, competence, understanding than he personally possesses - maybe at work, or in his hobbies.  

Then, because Christian finds himself in his actions and life either compelled to use, or expediently using, "AI" - he argues that therefore "AI" is not (in its actual origins, and implementation) intentionally evil; but is merely a neutral tool; or a Must-Do qualitative breakthrough in societal capability - with potential significant benefits for humanity that we therefore have a duty to exploit... 

Because Christian actually uses "AI" and has no intention of stopping; he infers that - because he is A Christian - therefore "AI" must be A Good Thing, and he soon finds himself defending and proselytising for "AI" in both public - but also even in private.   

I have come to believe that if Christians try to insist upon a compatibility of Christian actions with spiritual aspirations; what this actually leads-to is a dishonest denial of real and significant evil among Christians, and the air-brushing of their own sins as trivial or non-existent.

"Rigorous" and devout Christians are therefore, in practice (nearly-always) those who make a big deal about their own avoidance of some categories of Big Sins (like murder, theft, rape, sexual infidelity and unchastity, drug use &c.) - while denying, engaging-in and defending many other sins; but especially those expedient and publicly acceptable besetting-sins of mainstream modern life...

Sins such as systematic untruthfulness  - eg. the frequent and extreme levels of habitual and pervasive dishonesty that are now a condition of all middle class employment, including in all churches. Or fear and resentment. 

And defending or promoting the cause of global AI.  

The orthodox and traditional idea is that all men ought to cease from all sinning; so the answer to such examples of sinning as lying for money and status, and covering-up the demonic totalitarian plans for corrupting Mankind with "AI" - is that people ought to stop doing this - as people should stop doing everything bad. 

My view is different, because I accept as a fact that people cannot (as well as will not) stop sinning*. 

People who must deceive in order to keep their jobs and get promotions, will continue to deceive. 

People who are managerially-instructed to implement and promote "AI" will continue to do this; and those who personally get pleasure or profit from using "AI" systems will continue to exploit them for such purposes. 

In general terms: people will continue to sin, and will continue to have no serious intention of ceasing from sin. 

However, this is not a reason to pretend that sins are not sins, that evil strategies are not real, that people personally aren't working to overall-promote the plans of the demonic world rulers. 

But following what I take to be a core teaching of Jesus, I expect that all Men are and will be sinners and will not, cannot stop doing this, and shall not even have any serious or workable plans to stop sinning - and this applies even the most devout and ascetic and good of modern monks like Seraphim Rose, even in the most ideally un-worldly of environments. 

I see no reason why this our pervasively-sinful and evil-promoting lives are incompatible with being a genuinely devout and uncompromising Christian in our spiritual aspirations.  

In sum: we must not compromise our Christian principles in all their depth and rigour merely because we cannot and never will live-up-to-them. 

Indeed, only by separating our spiritual understanding and aims from the corruptions of everyday life; can we really discern, understand, appreciate the nature of this world - and the profundity of our own corruption - and do this without being overwhelmed by despair (which is itself a potentially terrible sin).  

We can always be at work at clarifying our spiritual nature in the most uncompromising way - indifferent to the constraints and practicalities that are inescapable. 

+++

* This is what Jesus also says, by my understanding; at least in the Fourth Gospel. Jesus does not select his followers for their good behaviour, nor does he say that his followers should cease from all sinning - but instead Jesus implies and says he came to save actual sinners. Stopping sinning - either in particular or in general - is Not the way that Men attain eternal resurrected Heavenly life. 

When someone very belatedly notices some specific problem, that has actually been massive and "obvious" for decades...

Every day, more than once a day, I come across somebody (IRL, or on media) who reports, tentatively - as if making some wild claim - that he has noticed something... some-thing that has been massive, and should-have-been grossly-obvious, for decades. 

Some people regard this level of insight as a promising sign of someone coming to his senses, and beginning to extract himself from the propaganda systems in which he is immersed...

But in practice this almost never happens. 

Instead - maybe - the first noticing leads merely to some very restricted insight into some circumscribed domain of Western society; with nearly all the rest of it being taken on trust, and regarded -indeed - as solid and true, so it is implied that if This-Problem could be fixed, then Life would be much better. 

Apparently, individuals get so smug about noticing some-one-thing, and so preoccupied with "fixing" it, that they feel no need to venture into more dangerous levels of understanding ^. 

Partial and superficial understanding, then blocks anything genuine; anything potentially of spiritual value. 

Hence we get the Single Issue (or handful of issue) Politics that plagues our age. Those people and organizations who always trace everything back to One Fundamental Cause: to some specific group of people, some particularly malign economic or social principle or motive, some particular form of persecution, some particular sin... 

Whatever. 

(And once decided upon, this "root cause of all our significant ills" becomes un-dis-provable - and supportive-evidence is found everywhere...! Such is human nature, and the constraints of argument and proof - which depend on assumptions far more than upon "evidence".)

What I find so dismaying about these partially-insightful, partly-aware, people is that - from my understanding - things-in-general are much, much worse than they suppose; the state-of-the-world is far more pervasively and deeply evil than they seem capable of imagining.

To me; these folk - who very explicitly regard themselves as clear-sighted, tough-minded, "red pilled", ready-for-anything - strike me as dewy-eyed optimists...

Too insecure and emotionally fragile to confront reality*. 

And this is simply because such half-awake, semi-realistic folk are viscerally invested primarily in their own status and success in this world - the same world that they pretend to critique savagely - yet the world from-which they yearn for recognition and reward.   

Such people cannot countenance the real nature of this world without despairing - so they cling to a distorted picture of our situation: a world-picture that is acknowledged to be faulty only to such an extent that they can convince themselves of the possibility of fixing it. 

If only - they assert - everyone-else would believe as I believe, do as I do, do what I tell them - then everybody would be So Much better-off. 

Any recognition of the deep, pervasive, and intractable nature of the flaws of this world in general and Western Civilization in particular (including, of course, its self-identified Christian churches) - is rejected with a savagery borne of a this-worldly idealism that feels itself to be on the cusp of becoming overwhelmed by incipient despair. 

+++

^ It is often asserted that "surely it will do some good" if the single-issue problem is fixed, or even ameliorated. This is a seductive argument, because in an idealised model of the situation it seems obviously to be the case that things would be better if such-and-such a problem were improved. But there are two usually-lethal difficulties: one proximate and practical, the other ultimate and even-in-theory. 

The practical difficulty is that there is always some very powerful within-System reason why any clear and serious problem (like open-ended mass immigration to the UK caused by European Union rules) that could straightforwardly be fixed, has actually not been fixed. This means that the totalitarian system does not want the problem fixed, which means that The System will fight hard against fixing, making even the slightest change extremely resource and time-consuming; and The System will do all it can to sabotage the process. So Brexit (voted for in 2016) was supposed to fix the problem of UK mass immigration at a stroke. But the totalitarian Establishment sabotaged Brexit to "BRINO" (Brexit in name only), and mass immigration has in fact increased very substantially since to reach record levels (admitted officially a million, but really more) in 2024. Mass Immigration indeed declined rapidly and substantially, albeit briefly. when The System had other priorities - i.e. during Birdemic lockdowns, proving that the problem was easily soluble. But because The System wants to destroy the UK - including by mass immigration, MI was resumed and accelerated very quickly from summer 2020. 

As well as such pragmatic limitations, there are ultimate and theoretical reasons why fixing a specific problem, or a few specific problems, will not work - which is that the system is totalitarian; and totalitarianism is both all-inclusive at the institutional level and evil by its nature. In effect, if any specific part of The System underwent significant improvement and became more Good; this would be detected by the whole System, and the anomalous part would be "healed" - would be brought-into-line with the aims and methods of all the rest. This destructive "immune response" is indeed irresistible (which is why all significant institutions of all types have "converged": become part of the totalitarian system). All institutions are bound to the rest of the system by multiple mandatory and motivational connections - formal (like laws, taxes, subsidies, regulations etc) and informal (mass media pressures, awards or slanders, discretionary harassment by bureaucrats, infiltration by hostile pro-Establishment agents etc.). No significant institution can opt-out of The System, as of 2025; because institutions are now parts of a societal and civilizational whole.    

* Such people will not see the obvious and long-term fact that we live in a totalitarian society; a society in which bureaucracy and management (and the mass media) links and coordinates all the major social institutions - politics, civil administration, law, finance and the economy, education, police and military, science and research, the arts and entertainments, charities/ pressure-groups/ NGOs; and of course the organized and economic manifestations of religions and spiritualties. 

All institutions are now linked by rules, practices, and a value-system. All are monitored, controlled, propagandized by a multitude of mechanisms. 

This includes everything you can think of in the societal realm; excepting (for some people, some of the time) our-selves (i.e. our divine, primal selves) and some primarily-motivating personal and loving relationships - such as the family.  

Thus, The totalitarian System is neither all-powerful nor all-knowing; yet to underestimate its scope and capability - to regard its flaws as if a fixable glitch - is merely to confirm that you are yourself inside The System . 

Totalitarianism means that all social-activity is linked; there is no discrete, detachable or specific problem - so there is no realistic possibility of significant reform within The System we actually inhabit.  

And The System is everything in the public domain (i.e. all those institutions described previously) - so that we all depend upon it for all of those functionalities. Casual talk of destroying The System fails to account for this destroying functionality, and the means of support. 

The real-reality is that we all depend - for nearly-all the many aspects of living - upon the same System that is purposively evil; and is purposively destroying itself, and destroying us. 

Such - nothing less! - is the scope and nature of our situation.

NOTE ADDED: The above is not a counsel of despair, not unless you believe that institutions and their practices are everything that is significant, and this-world is all-there-is. In other words; the real and true answers to our situation are non-institutional, and rooted in the resurrected eternal heavenly life to come. Such real answers derive from our-selves and our freedom, our direct and personal relationships with God and Jesus Christ and divine creation in general; and the answers work by love between persons and Beings.     

Optimism and the ideology of progress: the Achilles Heel of Western Civilization

I have often commented on the absolute need and demand for optimism that is characteristic of our Western civilization. 

So much so; that many Western Christians have come to identify here-and-now, this-worldly, optimism with the virtue of Hope - which ought to come from faith and trust in God and the salvation of Jesus Christ that happens beyond death. 

So much so; that too many Western Christians refuse even to entertain pessimistic socio-political analyses, because for them pessimism about the future leads them to despair - which they rightly recognize as a sin. 

Their mistake is to suppose that the fault lies in the pessimism, rather than their own this-worldliness, their absolute demand to feel optimism. 

I will argue here that the ideology of progress, and the dependence on psychological optimism, are an Achilles Heel of Western civilization - which both explains and predicts the decline of real Christian faith: a faith that ought to be rooted in hope, not optimism. 

Historically, as the religion of Christianity waned, the ideology of Progress waxed; so that the one replaced the other as the dominant world view.

(The term religion ought to be reserved for religions with gods, spirits, another-world etc. Secular, materialist, this-worldly belief-systems - such as nationalism, communism and other species of Leftism - should instead be termed "ideologies".)  

This emergence of a "replacement for religion" of Progress was very evident, and much discussed, in the late 1800s and into the early decades of the 1900s - and it was so powerful a movement of thought that it hoovered-up and assimilated mainstream church Christianity. It also led to the Theosophical Society-derived, Hindu and Buddhist influenced, "New Age" spirituality of the past half century or so. 

Such a replacement of spiritual, other-worldly, religion by a this-worldly and materialist ideology; seems (in retrospect) almost inevitable - given the socio-political necessity for providing people in the Western nations with some sense of purpose and a basis for organization. 

This progressive expectation - this optimistic expectation - affected all the major Christian churches and denominations, especially those that saw (for some decades, at least) church growth - such as evangelicals both Protestant and Catholic, pentecostals, charismatics, Mormons... 

All were institutionally optimistic about continued expansion in numbers, growth in resources: outcomes of "success" that would be materially measurable. All looked towards some approaching this-worldly triumph, and socio-cultural dominance, or even takeover. 

Even that characteristic modern Western spiritual form called New Age, incorporated optimistic progressivism into its belief in reincarnation. 

Contrary to historical conceptualizations of reincarnation; New Age reincarnation provides grounds for optimism, being seen as an almost-inevitable process of learning, and consequent incremental increase in spiritual stature, with spiritual "progress" accumulating across many incarnations. 

New Age "Karma" will be the cause of this-incarnation constraints, and we may suffer set-backs from bad choices or bad-luck in our present life; but New Age Karma is essentially an optimistic process; building towards higher spiritual status.  

So - there are psychological (and consequently sociological) advantages to the modern spiritual ideology of optimistic progressivism. These include:

1. An expectation of change, therefore novelty and variety of life.

2. The expectation of something to look forward to, incremental betterment of the human condition; because things will improve - sooner or later, and all adversity is regarded as a set-back (e.g. the notion of "what does not kill me, will make me stronger").

3. Provision of a sense of historical direction, and therefore a basis organizing principle for one's life, and society. 

4. A belief that this Will Happen. That is, the implied (if not explicit) idea of "historical inevitability"; so that progress is something that happens to us, is imposed-upon us - and all we need do is respond accordingly; operating like a wave of positive change that we can surf into the future. 

   

However, there are (as is now evident) deep, inevitable, and ultimately fatal, problems with the ideology of progress, and a life built upon optimism. 

One is that by conflating Christian hope with optimism about this-world; Christians become vulnerable to despair when their life in this-world gets worse - and despair is something they are (rightly) told is a sin. 

Therefore, to avoid a despair which is actually a consequence of their secular and this-worldly ideology; such Christians refuse to be realistically pessimistic under any circumstances; e.g. deny the past reality and probable continuation of terminal decline in Christianity, and their church. 

They deny even the possibility that their church may be annihilated (whether by destruction, or by assimilation into some other institution or system) - because such a possibility would lead them into despair. 

The absolute necessity for optimism therefore renders modern Western populations (including most self-identified Christians) dangerously vulnerable to manipulation and external control, by any societal (or spiritual) powers that can affect their psychological state. 

At first people are manipulated into supporting almost any socio-political ideology that offers them an optimistic world view, that offers a feeling of participation in an inevitable trend...

But eventually, having been disappointed over and again, and having lost faith in a better this-world to come; then these people will be manipulated into despair - and by their own assumptions they will be trapped in this despair. 

In effect, such people will lose faith in God and will cease to believe in salvation, because they demand to feel optimistic about an inevitably better future in this-world. 

Such people will see their own pessimism as evidence of God's failure (or non-existence) to make this-world a progressively better place. 

And they will regard eternal salvation beyond death as merely a pitiable (and dubious) second-best compensation for what they regard as Jesus Christ's failure to ensure an always-improving mortal life and world. 

It can be seen that the ideology of optimism and the expectation of progress has been a highly successful long-term demonic strategy. 

Our only hope of hope, is our-selves to abandon the demand for optimism; which includes understanding and experiencing that the true object of Christian hope is located beyond the grave...

Such hope being situated safely out-of-reach of our current psychological feelings concerning the likely prospects for an improving mortal life on this earth. 

"Fear and Trembling"? Certainly Not!

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." 

Philippians 2:12 (written by the Apostle Paul.)

This seems fundamentally wrong for these days and times, in terms of how a Christian ought to approach life. 

Of course, this mortal life is tragic - as well as joyous; and we ourselves are weak, and prone to fear, resentment, dishonesty and many other sins - as well as blessed by divine freedom and the capacity for love.

But I am sure that Christians are not intended by Jesus Christ to regard our salvation with fear and trembling; and that - indeed - to do so is a sin akin to despair. 

F&T is a sin because it is evidence of a lack of faith in God's goodness and power. 

On the contrary; salvation is in our own hands; as is evident throughout the Fourth Gospel - which (to simplify) means that if we want salvation, we can have it. 

We get it by following Jesus Christ - and that "following" means after this mortal life; and following analogously to a lost sheep following a Good Shepherd. 

For us (here, now) the great thing, the great problem - is Not-at-all about the difficulties of navigating salvation; but much more fundamentally and lethally Not Wanting Salvation.

It is therefore misguided and counter-productive to emphasize the uncertainty of salvation, to make it a matter properly approached in a spirit of F&T. 

(As if God was a stern monarch and Judge - rather than God being our loving parent/s.)

What we need and ought to be doing, is not inculcating an attitude of fear and trembling; but instead helping people to want salvation...

Firstly by clarifying what salvation is; secondly by clarifying what are the alternatives.

And then (hardest of all) getting people to think about this matter sufficiently deeply and consecutively, to decide what they really hope-for, for themselves - on a timescale of eternity. 

"They" Want Us Dead - but dead too-late, too soon, and dying in fear and/or despair

The subject of death is becoming mainstream in modern materialistic culture - but, of course, death is framed by our evil-motivated Leadership class in ways that (if the frames are accepted) with induce us to choose damnation instead of salvation, and such as to corrupt as as much as possible. 

There are many aspects to death. One is that, in this entropic world, we will die. Another is that we dwell in God's continuing-creation, and God therefore can influence the way we die. And then there is our own freedom. 

I therefore assume that God (by his creative work) engineers the best "time to die" for us; within the constraints of entropy and the freedom of other beings (including, but not only, human beings). The best death is when - from our freedom, we willingly agree that this is the time to die - at which point, the process of death (which happens in time) will begin. 

But this best way to die is precisely what the weight of modern culture attempts (on the whole very successfully) to thwart - by two main means (although there are many others). 

The first is to induce us all to cling to life, for as long as possible - so that we will not consent to die when it is "our time" (and God will do everything possible to ensure that we - and those we love - know it is time). Hence the clichés such as "stay with me" that present dying as always a failure of will, a giving-up in despair. 

A good deal of modern health services are built on exactly this assumption - that everybody ought to want to stay alive, at whatever cost, for as long as possible -  hence the truly vast expenditure of health and social care in sustaining human life far beyond its biological span. 

But the vital thing to remember is that this artificial sustaining of life is only possible because that is what so many modern people are choosing. It is not difficult to die, and people will die when they are ready - when, at the deepest level, they have chosen to die. 

The other corruption is to regard death as something that ought to be done with the minimum of suffering, and therefore - to be on the safe side - we need to arrange to be murdered (assisted dying) before there is "too much" suffering. 

This discourse is rooted in extreme and chronic (existential) fear - the fear of what might happen to us...

Combined with such an extremity of fear of suffering that even a few minutes of pain (such as might result from actual suicide) is intolerable to contemplate... 

Ancient Romans used (apparently calmly) to kill themselves with a sword or knife - but modern Man demands (literally demands, as a human right) painlessly to be murdered by someone else, with legal approval, by some technological contrivance that is claimed to eliminate suffering. 

In the materialist culture of the mainstream West, there can be no conceptualization of faith and trust in God; not even trust that God will ameliorate our subjective experience of suffering at the time of death (as seems to happen in so many animals). 

Neither do we trust God to know when it is our "time to die" and will provide us with that knowledge when the time comes. 

Consequently there seem to be a lot of "bad deaths". One is the death of someone who is clinging to life for every last moment until overwhelmed by entropy - and total body failure supervenes - and whose soul is, presumably, dragged "kicking and screaming" into the after-life state. Which seems like a very bed preparation for the choices to be made at that phase of our lives. 

Another bad death is one who mistrusts God, or more the reality of God, and dies in a despair so profound that he cannot summon the courage to anticipate enduring even a few moments or minutes of suffering en route to the after-life.  

Another bad death is suicide; which is death too early - before the "time to die" - which happens when suicide is motivated by sin - sins such as fear, despair, or resentment ("that will show them!") 

A common things seems to be the death of those who have rejected their "time to die" and who have chosen to live on in a state of what must therefore be unrepented, hence probably cumulative, sin. In other words, who have (for weeks, month, perhaps many years) been progressively corrupted in soul by their embracing of fear and despair; such that when they eventually die they are significantly worse people than if they had died when God believed that they should best die. 

If such a corrupted soul accepts salvations in the after-life - which opportunity is, of course, open to all - they they will take much less of themselves through resurrection to eternal life. 

What I mean is that we can only take-forward what is good in us, and must leave-behind what is not-good. So those who die later will need to repent more and therefore shall take-forward less than if they had accepted death when God chose was the best time. 

(In other words; if there is a best time to die; then dying later than that time will be worse; when best and worse are judged by post-mortal and Heavenly standards.)

If we accept this idea of there being, for each person and spiritually-speaking, a time to die - and that this time is known by God; then it is indeed obvious that there is vast current propaganda otherwise. 

A denial of there being a time to die. 

And the colossal cultural effort to persuade people that their time of dying is an event to be decided by anything-other-than God: e.g. by "individual choice" of mortals who have accepted/ chosen annihilation after death (i.e. choice in context of materialist metaphysics); or chosen and administered by The System in some combination of Global Establishment/ State/ Law/ Media/ and Health (or Death) Services. 

Political optimism is an Antichrist phenomenon

Just a reminder, eight years on - referencing the current environment of optimism among the self-styled "based" online - that we live in a totalitarian civilization; and that to desire for its revitalization by the results of an election is the kind of sin implied by the Antichrist phenomenon - to place one's hope in one who is not Christ, but in important and fundamental respects - a this-worldly net-opposite of Christ*. 

Recall too, that this-worldly pessimism Is Not Despair. 

Nor is optimism a Christian virtue; indeed, it may be an evil coping-mechanism. 

With matters as we know they are in The West; we should hope for the best (because we do not know everything) -- yet our hope needs to be not of this world;  but we should expect things to get worse - because that is where we are+, and the trend for generations, with self-destruction baked-in; and "the worst" is what Western people deeply and overwhelmingly want.

*Of which the "queue a-none" PSYOP was a prime instance: its mantra being that we ought-to "trust" [i.e. assume the positive inner motivations of a mainstream politician, and team], "the plan" [i.e. The System - i.e. external and human guidance; and do not take personal responsibility for your value-discernment]. 

+Things are much worse than you think: progressing over more than two centuries, by now the rot goes very deep and very wide. Reset to an earlier phase is impossible - it has never happened, and it never will.   

Socio-political optimism is merely an estimate of probabilities - not a virtue (Christian hope is "not of this world")

Socio-political optimism is merely an estimate of probabilities - not a virtue. 

The Christian virtue of hope is properly "not of this world". It is directed beyond death, beyond resurrection  - towards Heaven.  

So, an optimistic estimate of this-worldly (including socio-political) probabilities may be honest or dishonest, objective or manipulative, well-informed or blind, rooted in joy or in fear.

On the other side: pessimism about this world, including pessimism regarding the future socio-political situation, is neither a virtue nor a sin. 

In and of itself, pessimism is just a different estimate of future probabilities. 

What makes pessimism a virtue or a sin, is the true motivation behind a declaration of pessimism.  

In these times, one besetting sin is to despair existentially; to despair of salvation and God's loving creation; because of our personal (incomplete, biased) understanding of the events and probabilities of this-world. 

Another besetting sin of these times is optimistic despair... A Micawber-like clutching-at-straws type optimism; motivated by the reality that someone cannot psychologically tolerate the reality of a pessimistic evaluation. This is a refusal to face fear - therefore itself a species of despair; driven by lack of faith in Christian hope.

Whereas; it is virtuous (albeit a fine-line to walk) genuinely to be a joyous, hope-filled, pessimist!

 

War in this Planet of the Apes

A great performance by Andy Serkis (plus CGI) as Caesar

I've only watched it once, but the recentish movie War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) keeps coming to mind as I contemplate the global situation. 

In particular, the way that the film demonstrates that it can - in practice - be impossible to prevent war over the long-haul; when even just one powerful grouping on one of the sides is really determined to cause a war. 

In the movie, with its secular perspective, this outcome is unalloyed tragedy; but in this mortal life... not necessarily so. 

I believe that this the situation at present - when one powerful grouping on the "Western" side is determined to provoke escalatory wars in many places, simultaneously - and ultimately everywhere. 

It seems very likely that They will succeed in causing world war - from somewhere or another, sooner or later - because that is just the nature of people and things in this mortal world. 

And by "war"; I mean a war that however it began soon develops into an unjust war, a war of evil-aligned against evil-aligned (at best, of greater and lesser evils): 

A war with no possible winners. 

So - if futile global war is in practice and eventually unstoppable - what then? 

What difference can you, or I, or anyone make?

And the answer is that we can make all the difference. 

Since this world is essentially in a state of spiritual war; then it is the attitudes, understanding and motives of individual persons that matter essentially. 

In war as in peace; there is all the difference in the world - which is actually all the difference in creation and eternity - in any war, according to the minds of individuals who participate or contemplate that war. 

When those individuals understand the spiritual reality of that war, and align with God rather than with one or another of the "sides" - that makes a difference. 

When individuals do not despair but repent their own fear, resentment, hopelessness as it (inevitably) arises - that makes a difference.

(For Christians, sin (i.e. evil and death) are inevitable. What matters is repentance. 

(And repentance, properly understood, is a positive inner act of affirmation and allegiance.)  

When individuals look beyond the war, beyond the tragedy of mortal life - to eternal resurrected life in Heaven - that makes all the difference. 

Spiritually to learn-from experience, is what this life's about. 

There are many, many bad things that happen in this mortal life and that cannot be prevented. 

That is inevitable. 

The big question we need to settle for our-selves is - what then?

 

The strategic PSYOP of global horror intended to overwhelm with fear and inculcate despair

It strikes me that there has been and is a very long-term demonic PSYOP, which has largely succeeded in embroiling the world's discourse in a non-stop festival of horror, with the aim of overwhelming us with fear and inculcating an extremity of despair. 

There is, of course, more than enough horror in the world at any time, and then there is a vast amount of lying, selection and distortion. 

And nearly-all of this reported as happening remotely - elsewhere and to other people (or indeed, supposedly, in the past) - and we know it only by second-/ third-/ nth-hand report by agents... 

We know it mostly (or wholly) via agents who serve the agenda of evil; and who supply slanted or inverted concepts with which we are intended to interpret their alleged-facts. 

On top of this there is a dominant ethic, or value-system, which both implies and argues that - because of the alleged extremity, pervasiveness and causes of this reported-evil; remote evils are actually the most significant evil in the world. 

By comparison; whatever evils that we personally experience and know are portrayed as trivial and subjective. 

This combination of depictions of extreme reported horror, with a pervasive and powerfully-enforced value system that puts this reported horror at the centre of the ethical concern of people worthy of admiration and respect, makes for a potentially lethal cocktail. 

I say potentially lethal, because (like so many aspects of the modern world) this evil-made and evil-motivated situation within divine creation, is made-use-of and intended by God to teach us vital lessons during this actual mortal life here-and-now. 

It is nigh impossible to avoid exposure to this inducement to sin; and to be influenced by it. Yet, as Christians; we ought first to recognize that fear and despair are sins that must be acknowledged and repented. 

The upshot is that we are each compelled to deal-with this very strong source of temptation to sin; so that we will not be manipulated into evil attitudes for the evil ends of our evil overlords!

As usual in such situation; our single most vital defence is to acknowledge what is going-on: that we have been deliberately placed and kept in a deliberately corrupting situation by the powers of purposive evil and their servants.

But no matter how corrupting the situation (and how compromised we have become by past choices); our loving God (by his creative power) will always ensure that there is a way to learn and an open route to salvation.

From that basic understanding, our experiences of being-manipulated may lead to us learning many and important life lessons (of permanent benefit to us in the life everlasting to come); and to develop attitudes that lead us towards salvation - rather than towards the intended self-damnation consequent upon surrendering to fear and despair. 

Spiteful fantasies of the suffering of enemies, are usually projections

Something that is very evident in the mainstream-leftist mass media, the alternative-"right" blogosphere, and among traditional Christians - is a tendency publicly to engage in (and advocate) fantasies of the suffering and destruction of their enemies.  

I don't expect better from leftists and the secular "right" - but I do expect better from Christians; in the sense that this kind of stuff is revealing of the individual embracing a fearful, resentful and spite-driven nature .

Fear, resentment and spite are all sins; and all besetting (characteristic) sins of our time and place - which is why this "revenge fantasy" stuff is so common, and so generally tolerated. 

Tolerated and indeed excused; on the basis that (from whatever point of view) the subjects of spiteful fantasies of suffering "deserve it". 

Which may or may not be correct, but is irrelevant; because the sin lies in the (apparently) un-repented (because publicly celebrated) indulgence of one's own fear/ resentment/ spitefulness. 

Of course, many of us (me included, for sure) are prone to this kind of sin; we are variously assailed by gnawing fear, brooding resentment, and fantasies of what horrible things we would enjoy happening to our enemies. 

And if we don't suffer from these sins, then there will be others - just as much sins, and just as prevalent and tolerated-approved! Such as dishonesty, and despair. 

After all, we are all sinners, as Jesus told us; and that's an intractable fact of this mortal life.

What matters is whether we acknowledge and repent the sins, when we begin to become aware of them...

And public propaganda and celebration of our own sins is the opposite - it is doubling-down on sin. 

NOTE: Doubling-down on sin in public usually makes that sin even more difficult to repent. It seems to be a common psychological trait that when we have made public commitments to sin, then (the sin of) pride deters us from publicly acknowledging (or even in private acknowledging, to ourselves and God) that we have made a mistake. This is why the demonic overlords have arranged society such that we are bribed and coerced into multiple public celebrations of value-inversion. But; no power on earth can prevent the repentance of a man who wants to repent and instead choose affiliation to God and divine creation.

NOTE ADDED: The problem of spiteful revenge fantasies is particularly acute and increasing, because the top-down-engineered descent of the world into destructive chaos provides almost daily temptations. Christians need to remind ourselves that "my enemies enemy" is not, thereby, my friend; and that overall spiritual good comes only from good motivations - and not as a by-product of evil intent. 

Spite is all around us; invisible, dominant: the fruit of resentment, fuelled by despair

Spite, spitefulness is a strong candidate for The Worst Sin (I've blogged on this often). 

Another word for (aspects of) spite is Schadenfreude - but this is more often treated as an amusing foible, trivialized; than recognized as among the worst of evils. 

Surely we can all, if honest, recognize in ourselves (and infer in others) this most evil of evils: a desire to harm others, to make others suffer: a motivation that will, at extremes, risk or sacrifice even oneself? 

Surely we have all felt an arising impulse that responds to awareness of happiness, beauty, moral decency, honesty in other people or the world around us... with an impulse of hatred, the urge to destroy it, to smash it. 

We observe perfection; and then a stab of desire to mar that perfection. The urge may even be yielded to, when "harmless" - as when we see a perfect reflection cast by a still pool of water... And then respond by smashing it to smithereens by hurling a rock into it! 

"Harmless" fun, maybe - a tiny lapse, in the scheme of things; no lasting harm done... Yet if we examine the motivations for such everyday (trivial) destructions, we may (if honest) find spite at the root of it.

Likewise for our actions against others. These may be rationalized as necessary, or because "he deserves it"; but at root, the motivation may be spiteful: "I want to see him suffer".  

Most people, most of the time, squash such vile feelings in themselves (and certainly try to forget them) - but surely we have all experienced them? 

And - if we have any insight or capacity to reflect - seen this in other people (including the best people, at times; including those we love the most), and perhaps been at the receiving end of it? 

People who cause trouble among groups of friends - break-up friendships, relationships, even marriages; who spread malicious rumours, mislead, misreport, life; who engage in "he said, she said" betrayals. 

And surely we have at least thought about doing such things ourselves?  

Spite is ignoble, it is despicable - but it is real.

It is found to some degree in almost everybody, and it is the master sin ruling some people (and many demons). It is seen all through human history, and all around us - yet, spite is hardly acknowledged. 

(Except, maybe, in stories about youngish children! Enid Blyton often included spiteful characters, named as such, in her stories - which is how I first put a name to it.)

It is regarded as more sophisticated and pseudo-intelligent to analyse spite in terms of other motivations - especially disguised forms of self-interest. So, the harming of B by A is likely to be described in terms of how harming B benefits A (perhaps indirectly, or over the long-term). 

But the point is not whether spite can be explained-away - Of Course it can! 

The point is to to Ask The Question. Is this spite?

We absolutely need to know whether whether spite is the real motivator behind behaviour; because if it is, then such behaviour cannot be appeased by fulfilling self-interest. 

And, like most sins, spite feeds on its own gratification. When infliction of harm brings gratification, then the infliction of more harm to more targets will probably follow.    

Spite cannot be bought-off. Spite will not be satisfied by less than suffering and destruction. 

Thus when spite is explained-away - this merely allows for the undetected and more effective deployment of more spite. 

And spite is a natural product of the besetting modern sin of resentment - with the dominant ideology of The West being the creation, encouragement, subsidy and protection of ever-more "resentment groups" defined in terms of class, sex, race, sexuality or... whatever*. 

And (in the West, the developed world) this is a world of despair (whether actual or incipient). Because nearly everybody lives-by the assumptions that reality has no purpose or meaning, and that human life is followed by annihilation. 

With such assumptions; existential despair is normal and rational; such that self-distraction from this (supposed-) reality has become perhaps the primary life goal.    

When we have so many people who fundamentally assume themselves to be victims, and who despair; the ground is prepared for the operations of spite - first directed against those who are most resented (i.e. the supposed "oppressors"); but soon (as the sin takes grip) directed against pretty much anyone who in any way irritates us. 

When the most spite-dominated people are also among the most powerful, wealthy, high status, and influential in the world - then we have.... Well, we have exactly what we see around us in the world of geopolitics, global strategy, and the international and national leadership class. 

This world of "Sorathic evil".  

A world in which anything that is (or seems to be) of-God, or Good; anything apparently manifesting the transcendental values of Truth, Beauty or Virtue. Anything wholesome, innocent, natural, spontaneous, care-free... Any such becomes a prime target for spitefully-motivated attack. 

Yet, up to now, spite is invisible. Trivialized. Explained-away. 

By refusing to recognize the operations of spite in ourselves - failing thereby to acknowledge and to repent its sinful nature; we thereby fail to recognize spite in others. 

So spite can be everywhere, dominant, and increasing - yet we choose to be self-blinkered against perceiving it. 

And until we are aware of spite; the operations of spite cannot be resisted - either in ourselves, or others. 

* Leftism now rules the West and much of the world; and Leftism is a negative, oppositional ideology built upon resentment, and depending upon continuing expansion of resentment. The so-called political "Right" (of all types) is merely a variant of Leftism**. This can be seen in its domination by resentments, but of a different inflexion; typically inversions of mainstream Leftism: e.g. resenting women instead of the Leftist resentment of men, resenting the Left-approved races etc. Of course, such motivating resentment is rationalized and explained-away on quasi-objective grounds - yet the actuality of resentment as prime motivator is sometimes revealed when spite-driven desires or fantasies are expressed; as well as by the relentlessly negative and oppositional focus of Rightist discourse (against, against, AGAINST!). 

**The only alternative to the Left is religion. All secularism, all atheism, all materialism is ultimately Leftist. 

H/T - This was stimulated by a comment from Avro G. 

The therapeutic perspective on life runs so deep that we don't even notice; yet points (again!) towards mass suicide

It is deeply strange to contemplate the extent to which people believe that the main purpose of life is therapeutic - by which I mean, that people believe the main purpose of life is to deal with the problems of life. 

The fact of life and living is taken for granted, and the problems of living become the dominating focus. 

 

It's like asking: "what is the purpose of life?"; to answer: "striving to overcome misery and suffering". 

Yet - if this really was so: Why life in the first place? 

 

And yet, if you ask modern, high-status, kind, compassionate, and "enlightened" people; they would very likely state that some version of "striving to overcome misery and suffering" is the highest moral and ideal activity that they can imagine.

That - indeed - is the modern idea of what a "good person" would do. 

Twenty-first century "Christians" (if you can find one) would agree - and would regard Jesus as the best Man who ever lived exactly because he went around healing people, feeding the poor, raising the dead - and eventually set up a church that (allied with government), "made the world a better place" through taking practical action to overcome misery and suffering.

 

Apart from the philosophical/ theological/ ideological superficiality and weirdness of adopting a double-negative conceptualization of life and living - this is strategically-feeble as a motivator compared to some actual positive goal. 

And when the double-negative understanding of life and morality collapses; it often leaves-behind (the sin of) despair; because the realization dawns that if my life is striving to overcome suffering, then the only certain answer is death and annihilation of that life. 

 

In a world where death is understood as utter annihilation of the self; a life-focus on the alleviation of suffering is the precursor to a culture of death attained by suicide.   

The common attitude that Men in general, Western Man specifically, and people-like-us in particular, are a "cancer on the planet", likewise feeds the implication. 

 

And further; if anything like social apoptosis is going-on, such that the spiritually-defective are inclined to eliminate themselves; then the predicted mass distribution of Suicide Pills becomes not just rationally defensible, but something regarded as the highest kind of altruistic morality of which modern Man can conceive. 

     

In Case of War, take the Suicide Pills: When Social Apoptosis meets spitefully destructive totalitarianism

A few months ago I formulated the term Social Apoptosis as a model which may help to understand the way that Western Civilization is eliminating itself. 

The idea is that in the individual cells of multicellular organisms, or individual organisms in social animals such as humans; there are evolved mechanisms by which individuals (and probably groups of such individuals) delete themselves from society, by choosing not to reproduce. 

Such apoptosis can be understood as intended to pursue "strategic", long-term and overall benefit at the expense of short-term and individual benefit; so that the individual has some kind of built-in "programme" to sacrifice its own survival and reproductive prospects in order that larger goals may be achieved. 

 

Something of this kind certainly seems to be at work in Western Civilizations; both individually - where a majority of the native populations choose either not to reproduce at all, or to be subfertile (with much below replacement levels of offspring). 

Modern societies exhibit little in the way of what used to be regarded as natural instincts for self defense or survival - there is a much greater observable concern to avoid avent moderate or brief suffering and pain than to stay alive and leave-behind children. 

(The idea that it would be thought necessary to encourage people to defend themselves and their conditions, or to have children, would have seemed bizarre to most humans throughout history!) 

And apoptosis apparently also operates at a societal level, where whole nations (essentially all Western nations) have for some decades tolerated, and often enthusiastically embraced, multiple policies whose consequence is self-extermination - even when self-extermination is explicitly stated and aimed-at. 

 

Of course; there are many other external and top-down factors at work. But I feel that there would have been a great deal more in the way of mass resistance and refusal if it was not that so may individuals and groups apparently regard themselves are deserving of elimination. 

This widespread sense that "we" - as individuals and societies - deserve to be eliminated, meets with a leadership class that is increasingly motivated by a spiteful desire for destruction. 

A leadership class that demonstrates an implicit - and sometimes explicit - personal satisfaction at the suffering of individuals, and the decline of social institutions. 

 

One reason why unrestricted world war is now such a high probability, is this combination of a Western Civilization that feels it ought to be eliminated, and is motivated by the desire for elimination; with a totalitarian leadership class that would enjoy creating a situation in which this elimination would happen on a rapid and massive scale - accompanied by the greatest possible degree of human fear, misery and suffering. 

 

(While it is only The West that is ruled by a class many of whom are actively seeking destructive war on any excuse, or none; it only takes one side to make a war. Or rather, the only alternative to war in such circumstances, is passive acquiescence to being genocided.)

 

In a spiritual sense; this is understandable in terms of the elimination of religion, and indeed the reality of the spiritual, from the minds of modern Men. 

Our publicly operative metaphysical assumptions are utterly nihilistic; we are taught and believe that there is no purpose or meaning to our lives, or indeed to life itself. All is accident and determinism.

In The West it is fashionable, and publicly approved, to regard Mankind as a plague upon the planet - and the universe... 

The obvious conclusion is that we should eliminate ourselves. 

 

This is our situation here and now; and one reasons why the prospect of explosive and wholesale destruction seem to be increasing all the time.  

An implication of this spiteful-suicidal synergy is that The West will continue to destroy its own military capacity, even while trying to escalet wars on mutliple fronts. 

So "They" want war - but they are Not planning to fight a war... 

What does this imply?

 

To me it suggests that if, or when, They get the war they so much want, involving Western populations who deeply feel that they deserve to die; instead of trying to win the war by fighting - the leadership class will implement a mass distribution of "Suicide Pills". 

Thus there will be a war, and from fear and despair, encouraged by a monothematic propaganda onslaught; the Western masses will kill themselves in droves - the Suicide Pills enable the masses to kill themselves without suffering, and fear of suffering is the only thing that stands between many people and desired annihilation.

That is my prediction. Sooner or later we will be hearing about a plan to distribute Suicide Pills, freely, to the Western Masses - to be used "compassionately" in case of the third world war that is the leadership class's major current project. 

 

Of course, painless death will rather thwart the desire to inflict suffering - and the sadistic demons won't like it... 

On the other hand, the Master Agenda is that of Satan - and that is self-chosen damnation, of which a pretty reliable preparation is to die in deliberate and unrepented sin. 

To kill oneself in fear and despair (and, probably, in a state of seething resentment against God and Jesus Christ) is itself a rejection of Heaven, and the willed choice of Hell.   

Sins and repentance - (properly understood) an easy problem, and simply solvable

The main problem of the modern West is the inversion of sin; which is that the traditional sins (especially sexual, but also pride, envy, greed etc.) are not sins, but instead virtues. 

And the reciprocal invention of new "deadly sins" that are not sins, such as (the actual current usage of) racism (seemingly now regarded as the sin of sins - unless the recognition of traditional sexual sins as sin, is even worse). 

But value-inversion is made worse by a legalistic understanding of sin, in terms of categorical lists with operational definitions. This is literal rending of sins is necessary if any "sin" is to be made the basis of our totalitarian System.  

For example; the not-sin of racism is a specific concept referenced in bureaucratic strategies, regulations and laws - operationally defined in measureable terms; such as specific words, or percentages of personnel (pre-divided into good/ disapproved and bad/ being-promoted races); and by mandatory active participation in defined antiracist initiatives and actions (e.g. mass genuflecting, parades and speeches, display of posters and flags etc.). 

So, although the not-sin of racism is supposed to be a thought-crime, a wicked motivation; in practice it gets operationalized in quasi-objective terms: you are guilty of racism by saying or writing this taboo, or by failing to join with that ritual, or in terms of percentage "representation". 

In strategic spiritual terms; this legalism and literalism represents the reduction of (imperceptible) spiritual conceptualizations of sin, into a controllable material manifestation; in a world where official and public discourse recognizes only "the material" as real and significant. 

By the sustained operations of actual social reality; the populace are trained to regard the legal and bureaucratic definitions of detectable and measurable material manifestations of sin, asif they Just Are the sins themselves. 

In other words; because society treats sin legalistically and objectively in categories; that is how people habitually, unthinkingly, moralistically regard the reality of sin. 

 

Of course; what I have described as the current materialist-totalitarian reality of values; is a simple inversion of the old religious system of values, which was dominant from the medieval era until recently - which also regards sin in a legalistic and categorical way. 

Sins were conceptualized in terms of categorical lists of behaviours that would send someone to hell, unless he specifically repented each of them. Repentance was often understood as going through the entire list of one's sins, and repenting them each and specifically - before being allowed-into Heaven. 

(I find it bizarre to suppose that the whole world of creation and our-selves can thus be cut-up into discrete chunks, some of which are sins! My understanding is instead that reality is only validly divided into separable Beings; but sins are part of the continuous field of divine creation - they can be distinguished in terms of emphasis, but cannot ultimately be separated and divided.)  

Such a linear and sequential procedure of repentance might need to be done during mortal life (e.g. by confession and absolution) or afterwards (for instance in a Roman Catholic purgatory, or the "toll-booths" of Eastern Orthodoxy).

In practice; such a way of thinking and behaving was so dominant that people also came to believe that only these categories of official sins were real or significant sins. 

Consequently; many of the besetting sins of modernity - such as dishonesty, existential fear, and resentment - became invisible, ignored, denied. 

So that habitual and expedient exponents of untruthfulness (such as nearly-all modern managers, politicians, bureaucrats; and professionals such as teachers, doctors, lawyers, the police and military, and church leaders); will mislead, be dishonest, and outright lie systematically and for-a-living - on a daily, or even hourly, basis - while having a clear conscience! While regarding themselves as good-people, including Good and exemplary Christians. 

One side-effect of this categorical way of thinking about sin has been that people come to regard themselves and others as not-sinners (and other people as sinners) - the world of Mankind being divided into sinners and the Good. 

Such people regard themselves as basically good human beings; so long as they refrain from the listed sins (or the worst of them, at least) - or else repent them specifically. This leads to a sense of self-righteousness that is a gross distortion of the realities of our mortal life. 

On the other hand; the ubiquity of some of the listed sins can lead to a sense of despair and helplessness; and other people react-against this by asserting that if a sin is universal, or very common - then it can't really be a sin! - and is simply being used by religion to control the population. 

This also applies to modern value-inversion - for instance when white people are officially regarded and regard themselves as inescapably racist, and therefore experience inescapable white guilt - rendering them demoralized and obedient to those who offer rituals of expiation.

  

My point is that - from the Fourth Gospel Christian perspective which I believe is true - legalism and categorical description is a basically mistaken and itself-sinful way of thinking about and conceptualizing sin. 

From Jesus's teaching, we are all sinners all of the time; because we are not wholly-and-always motivated by Love. We are thereby misaligned with God's creative will, hence all of us (as we are) are utterly unsuited to dwell in Heaven. 

But this is Not a cause for demoralization, demotivation or despair; because Jesus has said that all who follow Him shall be resurrected to eternal life in Heaven.

The best way to think of sin is very generally; as whatever would prevent us (as individuals) from accepting the gift of everlasting life. 

We may each have one or more besetting sins that we find difficult (or impossible) to give-up in order to enter Heaven - but this is ultimately a matter of not loving Jesus enough, not wanting Heaven enough. 

If we love and desire above all to follow Jesus Christ; if we take the side of God and divine creation in the spiritual war, and wish to participate in creation eternally - then quite naturally we will repent, shed, leave-behind any and all sins (named or unnamed) in order to attain our deepest desire. 

If we desire to be re-made (i.e. resurrected) such that we become motivated only and always by love eternally - then sin is just the name for anything and everything which would prevent that process of re-making. 

Repentance is the word for our agreement to having stripped-away and left-behind all that would otherwise prevent resurrection into Heaven.  

It is really very simple. 

Christianity is a positive (not double-negative) religion; it is opt-in (not a matter of passing a test); God is our loving parents (not a judge administering laws), Christianity is a family (not a monarchy). 

We are not meant to worry over sin! Jesus came to save sinners - we need to focus primarily on the saving, not the sins: we will know the sins in consequence of our desire for salvation. 

If we understand Jesus's teaching in the way it was intended and exemplified (and which can be confirmed here-and-now by the guidance of the Holy Ghost); 

and if we therefore base our faith on positive love and the choice of following Jesus Christ to Heaven -- 

then we know that everything important about "our sins" will be recognizable clearly and simply, and we will know what to do, and we will do it - when the time of choice arrives. 

Predictions for this New Year

Now that we have passed the winter solstice, we are in the New Year - or would be if there was any secular coherence to the concept! 

(A religious New Year can be any time; and indeed it was, even in England, where the New Year was March 25th - Lady Day - until just a few brief centuries ago; the residue of which is the "financial year" beginning on April 6th after some extra days were added to the calendar in 1752.)

However... One thing I have learned since 2020, is that I am hopeless at predictions - at least in the medium-terms of months to years. No matter how I feel that some-thing will, or will not, happen soon; this means next to nothing when compared with what actually happens. 

So, predictions are, for me, merely an indication of how I feel about the way that things-in-general are shaping. 

What has wrong-footed me is that British people still have basically the same general attitudes as they did in 2019, or 2000. Astonishing things have happened, and keep happening; but the basic mindset, the explanatory system, the underlying interpretative assumptions, have not changed significantly. 

At some point, I guess there will be a change (on the basis that I understand the world, which I cannot help but hold, without creating a self-refuting paradox!); because the mismatch between reality as I know it, and reality as it is generally assumed, is vast and widening.

Maybe that will happen in 2024? But even-if-so that is not necessarily, or likely, to be A Good Thing; because without a prior and cataclysmic spiritual awakening the outcome will be a despair that is likely to enhance self-loathing and accelerate the established cultural suicide. 

As I have often said, it seems likely to me (and this is being officially encouraged) that an epidemic of suicide will sooner or later happen in the West; including urgent demands for medical assistance in making this a painless procedure.

On the flip-side, will be murderous cults rooted in prideful and resentment-fuelled self-assertion (and some of these will probably include self-described traditionalist Christians).   

That Pride is not a legitimate antidote for Despair ought to be obvious, especially to Christians - but it isn't obvious, or, at least, the sin of Pride is strong enough to overcome scruples. 

Again on the flip side, the sin of despair is also capable of subverting and destroying real Christianity.

What is actually needed is - presumably, mutatis mutandis - modelled by the life of Jesus Christ; which is that fear should be defeated by faith, rooted in hope, validated by God's love of each of us. 

Death is a serious business, and while we are sustained alive than we have important spiritual work to do; but we cannot allow ourselves to regard death as the worst possible outcome. From a Christian perspective there are many things worse than death (as evidence by the Sainted martyrs, among many others).

To put matters differently; we need to recognize that survival cannot, and should not, be our priority. Partly because survival merely means some delay in dying. And partly because the price of surviving may be evil - and, indeed, that we are each asked to pay the cost of prolonging personal survival by embracing evil in our heart - is all-too-likely in these End Times.   

This-worldly pseudo-Christians cannot tolerate anything pessimistic, because that makes them feel despair

I have noticed that one of the barriers to (in the first place) valid Christian understanding, and (secondly) to a valid comprehension of how Very Bad things are in the world, now; is a mistakenly This-Worldly and Morality-Centred perspective. 

Furthermore, being this-worldly and morality-centred means that such Christians, almost-inevitably, are un-repentantly tainted by Residual Unresolved Leftism; since a TWMC perspective is also characteristics of the socio-political globalist totalitarian mainstream. 

Thus; this-worldly and morality-centred "Christians" gravitate towards a world view that could literally (non-pejoratively) be described as a type of Christianized fascism; since fascism was the early twentieth century's primarily-secular reaction against internationalist communism. 

Yet, of course, "fascism" is itself a species of Leftism - albeit a less complete and more-functional leftism than communism, socialism, or the current post-sixties "New Left"-ism.  

A Christianity that understands itself primarily in this-worldly and moral terms is catastrophically vulnerable to pessimism - where pessimism is understood as the belief that things in this world are already Very Bad Indeed, and most likely to continue getting worse. 

Anyone who is fundamentally this-worldly (whether self-identified as Christian, or not) will find it very difficult to avoid despair (which is, of course, a deadly sin) unless he is dogmatically and systematically optimistic; and this means that he cannot tolerate pessimism - no matter whether a pessimistic evaluation of this-world is valid or not. 

In other words, for the this-worldly "Christian" an optimistic understanding of this world is mandatory; and any pessimistic evaluation of current and future conditions is absolutely ruled-out, in-advance, by-assumption; otherwise the individual will be overwhelmed by despair.

This partly explains why so many Christians are so falsely optimistic about the condition of the world now, and its probably future; why they are so resistant to a realistic appraisal of this mortal life; and why they are so often drawn into advocating and supporting residually-Leftist and collectivist socio-political programs. 

Note: The answer to the impasse - which would enable Christians to be realistic about the nature and prospects of The World - would, of course, be to base one's Christianity primarily upon Jesus Christ's promise of  resurrected eternal life; as clearly set forth in the Fourth Gospel ("John").  

Easy to say and to want, but impossible to do fully or consistently

Easy to say and to want, but impossible to do fully or consistently...

That structure implies to so-much of Life - we cannot actually do what we genuinely want most to do. 

Except things are even worse! Because it isn't really even "easy to say" what is true, good and virtuous - even that usually takes a lot of discovering. So much so; that when we have discovered The Good we are prone to think that our work is done - yet, really, it has only just begun and never shall be completed. 

Such is the nature of this mortal life - nothing is perfect, nothing lasts... But we have enough of what is Best for us to know that we want more, and forever.   

At present; I am aware of my own failure to recognize the livingness of this world; my failure to live in accordance with the knowledge that there are no Things but only Beings. I know this - but I don't experience it very frequently, and live mostly as if the world was indeed dead and indifferent - as our civilization assumes. 

Similarly; I am aware of my own lack-of-awareness of a whole world of spiritual Beings - principally the Dead, particularly the resurrected Dead - but also, presumably, all manner of other spiritual Beings - some on the side of God's creation, others almost indifferent or undecided, others who have chosen to oppose God... I believe these exist and are important; but I am hardly ever aware of them; hardly ever genuinely take them into account. 

I don't suppose any of this can be overcome in any complete or lasting fashion - at least, not by me. There will be this gulf between knowledge and belief on the one hand; and lived experience and practice on the other hand. 

It could be said, therefore, that we are all 'hypocrites' in that nobody lives up to The Good. 

Yet despair is a sin; and we need to counter the consequent pessimism by reminding ourselves that if something is impossible, and God is the creator; then God does not expect it! 

What God, presumably, wants from us is not the perfection but the learning, knowing, and striving. 

What God expects is not material (which, anyway, is always defective, entropic, temporary) but spiritual - and we are only partly and intermittently spiritual Beings.

We need to know enough to know what-we-want: that's the main thing. 

 

Sins are Not finite and discrete - therefore they are un-countably numerous

It is probably a consequence of the legalistic notion of religion (e.g. The Ten Commandments specifically and the Hebrew Law generally) that there are specific categories of sins, and that Men in their lives will commit a certain finite and (in principle) countable number of these sins. 

This then suggests that there must (sooner or later) be some kind of reckoning of sin; whereby each Man must be evaluated and compensate for the specific sins which he has committed. For instance; I have heard it said that after death a Christian must (in some way or another) be confronted by, and account for, each and all of the sins he committed during mortal life.

But this is wrong; because sins are in truth a consequence of our nature and that of this world. They are the degree by which we diverge from a complete harmony with God's creative purpose. 

This divergence, this failure to live-by-love, is not a matter of X number of specific acts; but instead a matter of every Man having (to lesser or greater degree) a wrong orientation, wrong motivations, wrong gratifications etc. 

Sin is the consequential totality of being-wrong and going-wrong, of divergence from the divine.  

Some Christians talk as if they themselves, or most other people, are Basically Good; and commit just a few sins per day/ month/ year. And they are able to think like this because they only count Big Sins (e.g. breaches of the Ten Commandments, or Canon Law), and completely ignore (or accept as inevitable hence 'natural' - hence they 'don't count') the innumerable instances of (for example) spite, fear, dishonesty, resentment, lust, despair etc; which everyone experiences every day - indeed every waking (or dreaming) hour. 

But that is a wrong description of the human condition. Each of us comes into the world as an unique Being and into an unique family and social environment; and we make an unique set of choices. 

And all of us are, to a significant degree, un-aligned with the 'perfect' life which would be lived entirely by love...

Sometimes we do come into harmony, and therefore we experience to some degree what a Good life is like; but inevitably we will soon steer or drift "off course" again. All who are capable will experience the Good in order that every such person can know it, and then potentially choose Good; after death when given the opportunity to follow Jesus Christ. 

Eternal resurrected life in Heaven is the perfection which we mortal beings on earth cannot attain: indeed, the fact that it is unattainable is exactly why Heaven is necessary; and why Jesus Christ was mortally born and did his work of salvation: so that we - like Him - could attain to Heaven via death.    

After death we are not - therefore - confronted with, and called to account for, our sins understood as a sequence of discrete phenomena that must individually repented. The situation is Not a double-negative of cancelling sin. I see things the other way around, almost. 

What we are confronted-with is the positive and unitary choice of whether to follow Jesus, and be admitted to Heaven - this, on condition of leaving-behind anything about us that is inconsistent with that wholly-loving reality. 

One who loves Jesus, and loves God enough (a Saint, perhaps), or even one who desires to be in Heaven unconditionally because of those deceased that he loved and who love him who are already there (and, aside, I think that contact with the beloved resurrected dead will be apparent at that point) - such people will make that decision for Heaven quite easily. 

But others may find that there is some particular "thing" about himself that he is reluctant to "give up", some "blockage" that stops him from making the choice of Heaven. 

This is known as his besetting sin. 

Then a particular and discrete choice may arise that corresponds to a particular and specific "sin" in the more traditional sense. Then we will be confronted with the need to repent that besetting sin which blocks our access to Heaven* - and it will be made clear that we must give-up that part of our mortal selves if we are to live eternally "in Love". 

In sum: the choice of Heaven is not understandable in terms of repenting every one of a large number of particular sins; because that is a wrong way to understand sin. In reality, our sins are uncountable, because they are not categorical and because they are so integral to our being and this world. 

However; many people apparently have a broadly-categorical besetting sin (or more than one) that, unless repented, will block the decision to choose salvation. And such specific sins may indeed need specifically to be confronted and repented.  

*Note: This was, for me, helpfully depicted in CS Lewis's The Great Divorce. h/t - A recent comment by Mia triggered the above reflections. 

Why are the commonest sins neglected? Because they are socially-approved

The spiritual war is fought in public over whether the 'sins' of mainstream, totalitarian leftist-materialism ought to be regarded as primary (e.g. racism, sexism' climate- or peck-denialism...); or whether instead the traditional Christian sins such as adultery, fornication, drunkenness etc.) ought to be the major focus. 

(The mainstream has the advantage in this dispute because they deny that the Christian sins are sinful at all, but rather virtues; while the self-identified Christians usually agree with the totalitarian left that attitudes such as racism, sexism, and -denialism are indeed sins - and will, for example - routinely and officially exclude leaders who disagree with any of the mainstream leftist definitions of 'sin'.) 

My usual list of the most dominating sins of this time and place includes fear, resentment, dishonesty and despair. 

But these are - at best - almost completely neglected by Christian teaching - which continues to focus on more traditional (and spectacular!) sins of a sexual nature; or sins that are (at least officially) still against the law: things like murder, rape, theft etc. 

Such a focus has the unfortunate (but probably deliberate) effect of creating and sustaining "Pharisaism" among Christians, which I would here define as the belief that sin can be avoided - with enough effort. 

Well, yes! Spectacular sins can indeed be avoided. And avoiding these is made much easier by the fact that they are socially dis-approved, and if detected they will be punished. 

But my understanding is that Jesus said this was not only insufficient, but a harmful attitude to life. 

Sin, as such, is so pervasive in the human condition as to be unavoidable; and the belief that sin can be avoided leads to what Jesus termed 'hypocrisy' - that is, to assumptions of purity and authority on the basis of being (at least publicly) able to avoid a few extreme and spectacular sins; while neglecting the far more frequent, but equally in need of repentance, sins of everyday life - such as dishonesty.

Did you murder anyone yesterday? Probably not. And, if you did, you probably repent it. 

But were you dishonest yesterday? Yes You Were! And probably dozens, maybe hundreds of times; especially if you are a manager or a professional or any kind of leader. 

Indeed, most middle class people are dishonest as an essential (and growing) element of their job: they are strategically, calculatedly dishonest for-a-living.  

Did you repent these dishonesties - did you even notice them at all? Even worse - do you regard yourself as a truthful person, and deny that you were and are dishonest? 

Sins such as dishonesty are un-noticed and therefore un-repented because they are socially-approved, and often socially rewarded: 

Back in 2020-2021; we were all socially expected to fear the birdemic - and anyone who did not express sufficient fear was regarded as a danger to public health. 

Resentment is the motivational basis of antiracism, feminism, socialism and many other leftist ideologies (and several actually-left but supposedly-right ideologies such as nationalism); and nowadays such resentment (whether personal, or vicariously expressed 'on behalf of' the 'oppressed') is mandatory in public discourse. 

A manager and a politician is rewarded for dishonesty (e.g. calculated misleading, untruthfulness and indeed lying - if lies effective and deniable); and will be sacked if he refuses. Much the same applies to scientists, doctors, lawyers, church leaders, economists, the police and military... essentially it applies everybody in leadership or 'expert' positions in major social institutions. 

My point here - which I think was also Jesus's point in His teaching - is that we sin all the time, and deliberately - and we have no intention of ceasing to sin when those sins are socially-allowed/ mandatory; because to do so would put us out of a job, and exclude us from human society. 

Fortunately (!); Jesus came to save sinners, and not those (non-existent) persons who are sin-less.  

Jesus asks 'merely' that we acknowledge that we sin all the time, and cannot (indeed we do not wish to) stop sinning: and 'yet' these and we are exactly those who Jesus can and will save... So long as we are prepared to acknowledge and repent the fact.  

How does this fit with salvation? Well, in the Fourth Gospel ("John") the word "sin" is mostly used to mean "death" - that is, death without resurrection, death without salvation. 

Resurrection (i.e. eternal life, instead of death) depends on what we can call repentance, not on ceasing to sin. 

And repentance is necessary to salvation because resurrection requires that we are prepared to acknowledge sin as sin, and leave it behind us before we can proceed to eternal life in Heaven. After all, Heaven would not be Heaven if sin was still present - there can be no sin in Heaven; but we are all sinful, nearly all the time; therefore we must reject All sin before we can be resurrected into Heaven.

Repentance can therefore be thought of as the firm intent to leave-behind all sin (spectacular and unnoticed) when the choice and chance of resurrection comes to us (presumably, after death), and when all such sins shall be brought to our attention*. 

To "follow Jesus" means to repent all our sins. And it is those sins that are socially un-recognized, denied, or rewarded which are far less likely to be repented than the big and obvious sins on which nearly-everybody is agreed.   

*We cannot, of course, recognize all our individual sins during this mortal life - there are too many, and we lack sufficient discernment! But we can avoid falling into the damnation-trap of denying sin, especially when it is brought to our awareness. That way, when we come to the point of decision, we will not be held back from salvation by our habitual, ingrained and calculated unwillingness to let-go of 'the least of' our sins. For instance; someone who has spent forty years 'justifying' his own deliberate dishonesties in the workplace; may find it very difficult to acknowledge that dishonesty Must utterly and forever be repudiated in Heaven.