Saturday morning music - A Chopin nocturne played by Valentina Lisitsa

Valentina Lisitsa

Frederic Chopin only composed for piano, and his music is the most pianistic among all the great composers - absolutely specifically tailored around the instrument. 

He also pioneered a new way of composing (at least, in his best works) in which all of the rest of the music was dedicated to "supporting" the melodic line, so it would have the maximum effect. The same applies to the tempo - which needs to be fluidly subordinated to the needs of the melody. 

In Chopin's solo works, the pianist's left hand is usually "pushing" the musical-attention up towards the melody in the right hand; and much the same happens in the most successful parts of the piano concertos. 

The method for playing Chopin is also very specialized; and although almost any decent pianist can play the notes in Chopin - to play his music well is a rare and difficult art for which many of the greatest pianists have been completely unsuited. 

For instance, even thinking about a Bach-focused player such as Glenn Gould playing Chopin is painful (actually, Gould strongly disliked Chopin, which is just as well); but the same applies to many of those greats whose repertoire focuses on Beethoven and the Romantics. Someone like John Ogdon, for instance, had immense power, technical mastery, and architectural control - but was utterly unsuited to Chopin; not least because he was built like a bear.  

The first great Chopin playing I heard was from Maurizio Pollini, and I've never heard better since. But I stumbled across this live video of Valentina Lisitsa playing a Nocturne which is as good as anything by anybody!

What is remarkable is to watch how she achieves the gorgeous results. Her hands seem about 50% longer than usual, each finger has a mind of its own, and it looks as if she has had the bones in her hands and arms replaced by rubber (rather like what magically happened to Harry Potter in the Chamber of Secrets). 

Languid doesn't even begin to describe her playing - so laid-back she is almost horizontal; and she strokes the keys as if each was a small, delicate, furry animal.

This is, presumably, exactly what is need for exactly this music. 

Anyway - prepare for that particular brand of total sensuous enjoyment which is utterly distinctive to Chopin. 

A Harry Potter Retrospective

Although the unprecedented "Pottermania" that gripped the Western world until approximately a decade ago has now receded; the opinion I formed of the Harry Potter series some 15 years ago as being a work of genius has by now survived multiple (six?) complete re-readings - plus further dippings-in. 

I find my appetite for the Harry Potter books undiminished, and get more from every time I encounter them. 

I was late to the series, having sampled and discarded the "Philosopher''s Stone" and a couple of earlier books. 

I kept falling at the fence of The Dursleys - especially in the first book, where this part of the plot takes up many slow and tedious chapters before Harry eventually enters the Wizarding World. 

It therefore does not surprise me that this book was rejected so often before finding a publisher - if the editors were anything like me, they will not have got through the early section to reach the good stuff later.  

Those parts of the books featuring the Dursley family continue to strike me as mostly unsuccessful, and written at a much lower level than the rest. 

The Dursley characters are cartoonishly unbelievable, when they are not figures of oppressively heavy-handed juvenile satire. 

Furthermore, the way that Harry (who is believable, and with whom we empathize) is physically and psychologically tormented by the Dursleys in the first and other early books; is so appalling that it is either viscerally horrific and overwhelms the other elements of the story, or else we are compelled to adopt a superficial and appropriately cartoonish level of engagement in our reading (which is what most people seem to be doing). 

Thus it was not until 2009 that I actually read the Potter books; although I had watched the movies as they came out, with no great depth of appreciation - except for "The Prisoner of Askeban"; which is (in retrospect) unsurprising, since the movies had been almost completely filleted of profundity. 

Then in 2009 I read the second-to-last book "The Half-Blood Prince" before launching into the crowning glory and triumphant vindication that is "Deathly Hallows". 

After which I went back and read all the earlier five books, albeit probably not in order of publication.

And "I was hooked".  

Harry Potter has since, over a span of fifteen years proved to be robustly enjoyable across a wide range; from its large cast of memorable (indeed archetypal) characterizations; its abundant and delightful humour (surely this is an under-rated facet - these books are very funny in parts); the richness of invention, excitement, and adventure; the very impressive plotting (mastery of the full range of techniques of an expert murder mystery writer was evident); and most importantly these books spiritual depth and edification across the series. 

The accomplishment of such a long coming-of-age time-frame, for several major child characters as well as Harry, makes these books unique in my experience.   

While I have no idea how the Harry Potter book-series will fare in future; in terms of mass marketing and cultural significance; for me they have easily passed the test of repaying repeated engagements over a long time span.

Recommending Michael Gambon as Simenon's Maigret, 1992-3, Granada TV (And a comment on how a bad man could create a good fictional character.)

I've recently watched the two series of adaptations from Georges Simenon's Maigret stories; released in 1992-3 by the British ITV company Granada; and starring Michael Gambon as the eponymous detective.

I found these extremely enjoyable. They are excellently constructed TV plays, with good teams of actors; and Maigret as depicted by Gambon was a very decent, likeable, and impressive detective - which is (for me) a vital aspect in the enjoyment of any such series. 

The setting of 1950s Paris was strikingly convincing (although it wasn't actually Paris!); and (being made more than thirty years ago - unlike these woke-preachy times!) the characters also fit their appropriate time-and-place in terms of motives and behaviour; so that I got the feeling of being transported to another world. 

**

Somewhat aside; I found it interesting that Simenon was able convincingly to create such a basically good man as Maigret - given that he was not himself such a person: at least not overall.

(...This negative evaluation of Simenon is from what I have gathered, and indeed it seems to be a general belief - I leave it to readers to explore this issue for themselves. By contrast; the goodness of Miss Marple is easily understood as exemplifying Agatha Christie's fine personality*.)

How is it that a mostly-bad man (as I think Simenon was) can write an essentially-good man like Maigret? 

One answer is presumably that Simenon was, like everyone, a mixture of good and bad motivations; and he wrote Maigret from that which was good in himself - from the better part of himself. 

Another aspect is that Maigret mysteries are light literature, in a minor genre - and do not attempt to tackle the greatest or deepest matters such as the conflict of spiritual good and evil, or the nature and implications of death.

It would - I think - be impossible for Simenon to write great literature. To attain greatness an author must draw upon his deepest nature, and for his vision of reality to be essentially good, would entail that he himself was personally committed to goodness.

In other words: the work cannot be greater than the man.  

(The greatness of The Lord of the Rings is necessarily a product of Tolkien's greatness as a man; etc.) 

But a man who was fundamentally petty, greedy, dishonest, unprincipled, selfish or the like - and one who was affiliated to such values - cannot produce genuinely great work - try as he might. 

**

Note: Of course, an author or other creative artist may be good when producing a masterpiece of greatness; yet may change, may become corrupted, later - and I suggest he would then become incapable of greatness. 

Something of this kind has, I think, been the case for JK Rowling - whose Harry Potter series I regard as great (although at a lower level than Lord of the Rings). 

The Potter books (especially "Deathly Hallows") were written when she was committed to Christian metaphysics and values. 

But Rowling later rejected her former ultimately spiritual perspective; instead embracing and advocating this-worldly secular leftist values. Her post-Potter work is consequently (it seems to me) at a very much lower level. 

*This difference between Simenon and Christie - deriving from their authors - could be encapsulated by saying that Maigret is a good policeman; while Miss Marple is a good person. 

JRR Tolkien's two, very different, "silver-handed" characters

Another silver-handed character, but not from Tolkien... 

"Wormtail" from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling

A note on a striking but contrasting re-use of the given-nickname "silver-handed", with resonances spanning across some thirty years of Tolkien's writing life. 

Lockwood & Co. by Jonathan Stroud - notice and recommendation

I have just read - with great enjoyment - all five novels in the Lockwood & Co. series by the English author Jonathan Stroud. 

I came across this via watching a recent eight-part Netflix TV series (of which the first three episodes are good adaptations of the first book of the series; the final five episodes a not-very-good elaboration of the second book).

And then discovering that my daughter had an old signed copy of The Screaming Staircase from a decade ago when the author gave a talk locally. This got me started. 

The five-part Lockwood & Co. book-series is recommendable as an exciting story with a satisfying resolution; having particular strengths in terms of alternative-history-type world-building, an interesting and coherent magic system, and a generous helping of humour and high spirits (I frequently laughed out-loud at the quips and comments between the main characters). 

It is essentially 'light reading', and doesn't have any spiritual depth - despite being about death and ghosts; but the author is good at varying the tone between thrilling adventures, and 'cozy' interludes (much as JK Rowling does in the Harry Potter books). 

If I had to say what the Lockwood & Co. series is most like; I would make a comparison with Rick Riordan's modern retellings of Greek, Roman and Norse mythic material (most famously the Percy Jackson series) - which are mostly written for a somewhat younger audience than L&C. Or Brandon Sanderson's 'Young Adult' books such as The Rithmatist published in the same year (but The Rithmatist - a particular favourite of mine - also has subtly-implied but definite spiritual/ religious depths). 

As always when I make a recommendation; the disclaimer: People who like this sort of thing, may find this the sort of thing they like. 

When 'spirituality' become merely materialistic - lessons in "defense against the dark arts" from Rudolf Steiner in 1917

One of Rudolf Steiner's deepest prophetic hints was from a series of lectures in late 1917 which were collected and published in 2004 under the title Secret Brotherhoods and the Mystery of the Human Double. 

(All the lectures are also available free on the Rudolf Steiner Archive as GA 178, although these translations are less comprehensible than the 2004 collection.) 

I have been re-reading these remarkable works - as always sifting and reinterpreting Steiner's valid 'raw insights' from the (wrong) metaphysical schema and his frequent errors of overelaboration. 

Steiner's prediction was that through the twentieth century and into the next, the demonic powers, assisted by their human servants (i.e. the 'secret brotherhoods' of the book title - nowadays broadly corresponding to the highest human levels of component institutions of the global totalitarian System) would have the primary strategy of convincing the masses that this is a wholly material world. 

This is the ideology we may call leftism; but which is in essence identical with philosophical materialism/ positivism/ reductionism/ scientism. 

Indeed, so successful has this strategy been, and so dominant and habitual its world-view, that we do not have a generally-accepted name for it! Why name what (nearly-) everybody believes?

The reason behind this materialism project is demonic, in the sense that it is the most effective way of achieving mass damnation. 

In the past, it was necessary to induce Men to reject Christ and choose Hell in an explicit kind of way; but with global materialism Christ, God, creation, and the whole spiritual world are simply regarded as not-real, nonsense; a childish and foolish delusion.

The question of Jesus Christ has not been refuted by materialism, it has instead been rendered incomprehensible, meaningless, absurd! Which is far more effective.  

But the plan of materialism needed to account for Man's perennial seeking for 'spiritual' meaning; for something beyond the mundane - and Steiner perceived that therefore there would need to be ways of rendering and reducing 'the spiritual' to the material. 

So that people who regarded themselves as spiritual would actually conceptualize 'spiritual' in a materialist way - without realizing the fact!

And this is precisely what has happened with the New Age tendency in spirituality; which itself evolved and expanded from roots in 'Eastern' or 'Perennialist' Beat Generation in the 1950s, then 1960s Hippy spiritualties.  

What happens in such 'spiritualities' is that the spiritual is very rapidly 'operationalized' as something material. 

Most obviously there tends to be a focus on this world rather than life beyond death; thi world is seen as the most urgent, the most important, the most real - eventually the only really-real. Therefore, the New Age assimilated to mainstream Leftist political ideologies and projects...

Perhaps the commonest example is when spirituality or consciousness is interpreted as an abstraction therefore not as personal - and using terms from physics; as when New Agers talk - and think! - about spirit in terms of energy, light, vibrations and frequencies. 

Another spiritual reduction is when there is a focus upon Healing - and the bulk of New Age spirituality gravitates towards some model of Healing or Therapy - which is both this-worldly, and rooted in feelings, which are substantially material phenomena since they depend on the body and brain, and can be (to some extent) manipulated and controlled.

Thus we arrive at the typical New Age spirituality - rooted in this world, and in feelings; and spiritual practices (such as meditation) become a type of psychotherapy.  

Ironically, Anthroposophy has itself taken exactly this path into materialism; and (in its institutional manifestations) has consequently become assimilated into mainstream materialistic leftism. This tendency towards abstraction (including physics metaphors) is seem in Steiner's metaphysics, and his explanation of the nature of Christ. 

And the energies of 'Steinerism' became focused on the institution (Anthroposophical Society) rather the individuals; and on the 'applied' materialistic and this-worldly aspects in medicine, education, agriculture etc. 

Furthermore (and Steiner himself had encouraged this) the legacy of Steiner became materialistic - with 'expertise' being understood in terms of comprehensive and accurate scholarship of 'what Steiner said' on this, that and the other - regarded as de facto infallible. 

Therefore, Steiner's greatest 'disciples' - who are all more or less 'heretical' in terms of the materialist orthodox interpretations rooted in 'what Steiner said' - have been largely ignored, rejected or unnoticed - for example Valentine Tomberg (expelled), Owen Barfield (marginalized), or Joseph Beuys (unnoticed). 

Looking back over the past century we can easily see that Steiner was profoundly correct about the way in which materialism has triumphed - explicitly in the realm of public discourse; and implicitly in a great deal of the 'spirituality' of today; which is characterized by abstraction, usage of 'scientistic' vocabulary and concepts, and a focus on 'therapy and 'making this world a better place'.  

What is needed is almost the opposite - and Steiner also said this in these lectures; which is to regard the universe as a creation populated with personal Beings - not abstractions; and therefore true spirituality as consisting in a personal relationship with the many spiritual-Beings - such as God, Jesus Christ, angels, the 'so-called dead', and indeed aspects of other Mortal Men.  

And, on the other side - the side of evil; the capacity to recognize that evil is also personal not abstract; therefore purposive, not accidental. 

From this comes our only genuine defense against the dark arts of evil which is recognition, understanding, and rejection - rejection by means of affiliation with God, which (as of 2022) must come through commitment to following Jesus Christ.  

Note: the term 'defense against the dark arts' is a reference to the Harry Potter series of novels; which I am currently re-reading with pleasure and profit. 

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows... re-read!

I've just finished re-reading Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which I have read many times before. It really is a superb novel - especially for a Christian. 

The other six preceding Harry Potter novels are all good, in different ways - but there are many people who would find the Deathly Hallows a powerful, even transformative, experience - but would would find it unenjoyable to hack through the earlier (more child-orientated) HP novels to reach it. 

If so - do not be put off! You could do as I did and read plot summaries (or, if you prefer, watch movies) of the earlier books and then begin straight-in on the Deathly Hallows - or else (as I did) read summaries of the first five and start with book six (Half-Blood Prince) - which is the first fully adult novel and narratively-continuous-with Deathly Hallows.   

Christians who appreciate fantasy fiction should set-aside most of whatever they have heard about Harry Potter or JK Rowling, and at least have a look through Deathly Hallows. 

It might be one the great experiences of your reading life, as it was for me - as it was for Jerram Barrs. 

Harry Potter illustrates that the sides of Good and evil are primary; and that personality and behaviour are secondary

The original Harry Potter series of seven books, completed by the superb "Deathly Hallows" volume, is probably the major Christian fantasy fiction since the Lord of the Rings; because (as well as its many incidental delights) it has a deep moral structure, and this deep plot concerns depicts matters of primary and transcendental importance for Christians.  

As such, the Harry Potter (HP) books can illustrate and clarify some of the most important questions of value that confront us in the world today. 

One such is that the single most important choice a person makes is which side to take: the side of Good or that of evil - and there are only two sides. 

In the HP books, Voldemort is a picture of Satan, and his side includes both a cadre of Death Eaters (analogous to demons), and a great mass of people who just go-along-with the agenda of evil for various motives - serving its overall goals, and passively absorbing and adopting its core beliefs and motivations. 

In life, as in Harry Potter, there is no value-neutral position, and sooner-or-later it seems that everybody (even the non-human magical 'creatures such as House Elves, Centaurs, Goblins and Giants) is compelled to pick his side, and choose one way or the other.

And also as in life; in the fictional world of HP - some nice people chose the side of evil; while (more or less) many of those on the side of Good are (more or less) nasty people   

This aspect of Harry Potter has particular value in these times, since our situation seems to be that most of the nice (decent, sensible, hard-working, intelligent, kind..) people are on the side of evil; while many of those on the side of Good are more-or-less nasty.

Perhaps the major nasty person on the side of Good is Severus Snape; who is represented throughout as a thoroughly nasty man - yet one who by his great courage and genuine love (for Lily Potter, Harry's mother) has heroically chosen the side of Good. 

Another less obvious example is Dumbledore; who emerges as a greatly flawed character, with a strong tendency towards deception and manipulation and who struggles with a temptation for power and an almost paralyzing sense of guilt for his past affiliation to evil and its consequences; yet who is more solidly on the side of Good, and working-for Good, than almost anyone. 

An even less obvious example are the Weasley Twins - Fred and George. These share a tendency to callous cruelty, indeed sadism, which is a serious character flaw. In general they are hedonistic and manipulative without regard for the consequences for others, although because they are charming and 'cool' they are generally well-liked. But Fred and George are always staunchly and courageously on the side of Good - because they are sustained by an indomitable fraternal and familial love, which is their bottom line. 

And while the Death Eaters are almost always very nasty people, there are several on the side of evil who would be regarded as 'good guys' in terms of everyday social behaviour. 

For instance, Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Magic (in the earlier books) is a kindly and avuncular character, and his faults would seem to be mostly minor: cowardice and untruthfulness, unacknowledged incompetence, and wilful blindness to the reality of evil emergent. Yet these faults are unrepented such that that he ends-up working for the triumph of Voldemort and against those who oppose him; this despite believing himself to be motivated towards Good. Fudge is a type seen frequently these days - heading-up major social institutions of all kinds (including leaders of the self-described Christian churches).

The later Minister of Magic - Rufus Scrimgeour - also ends-up on the wrong side despite his admirable courage and staunch opposition to the Death Eaters; because he subscribes to various Big Lies, and becomes corrupted by the doctrine that the end justifies the means.  He wants Harry to participate in various official lies, tries to blackmail and bribe him; and attempts to make Harry subordinate his 'chosen one' mission to the current 'needs' of propaganda and the magical bureaucracy. He also dishonestly imprisons (with torment) the naïve and innocent Stan Shunpike, on the pretense that SS is a Death Eater, because Scrimgeour believes this will help the cause.  

Ludo Bagman - the Head of the Department of Magical Games and Sports - is another 'type' seen among the nominal leaders used by the Global Establishment nowadays (e.g. Boris Johnson). A charming, popular man - for whose incompetence and stupidity people are usually prepared to make excuses because they find him likeable. "Ludo" emerges as a self-interested gambling addict and defrauder; one who bought his position by providing secret insider information about the Ministry to a Death Eater; and who abuses his position for his own pleasure and profit. Bagman (the name implies a criminal go-between) overall, in many ways, aids the ascent of Voldemort.  

JK Rowling is clear that the determinant of a person's status of Good or evil is which side they take; and also that the two main virtues that most matter in this choice are love and courage. 

Love is, of course, the core Christian virtue which 'drives' all that is Good - while courage is necessary for that virtue to remain dominant, and to resist the insidious, pervasive and powerful forces of corruption when evil becomes dominant - when "The Ministry has fallen".   

Lack of courage - cowardice, represents a lack of faith in the cause of Good, and concern with the expediencies of this world rather than fundamental values; so that fear unrepented and unopposed is the root cause of a great deal of corruption. 

Self-sacrifice is required of all the Good characters at some point in the series; and this is not possible without the right motivation of love, and the key virtue of courage in that cause. 

Harry himself is naturally the greatest moral exemplar. A very flawed hero; throughout the books he comes to a clarity and conviction of what matters most - what must not be given-up; and eventually he makes the ultimate sacrifice by which the world is saved from evil. 

'Moderate' leftist dissidents (like JK Rowling) may be specifically-correct and show courage - but they strengthen the evil System whose 'extremes' they deplore

This is a slightly topical post - for once, and I am not setting a precedent (nor am I inviting further topical references in the comments!); because it has been triggered by JK Rowling's rather courageous persistence in making blunt and true public criticisms of the trans extremes of Leftism. 

Similar situations are common, and always have been common - I merely reference 'Rowling and trans' because she has neither backed-down nor apologized - and because she is as famous as anybody in the world at present. 

Note: I have written extensively about JK Rowling on this blog - because I regard her Harry Potter series as a work of genius in its genre. 

It is - of course - proximately A Good Thing for anybody to speak the truth, any truth, in a world of lies; and to do so requires courage. 

For this JKR is to be applauded. But...

The mindset of a moderate Leftist like JKR is interesting. She can see clearly that for the trans agenda to enable and excuse (multiple instances of) rape of women is an evil. She can perceive that rape is morally of far greater seriousness than the imposition of lies about sexuality. She is prepared to say so, despite extreme pressure. 

But...

JK Rowling makes her criticism from a Feminist perspective; and both the trans agenda and feminism are aspects of Leftism: feminism early, and trans coming more recently. 

Nonetheless it is a fact that both feminism and trans share the same political history, have the same ideological roots, and employ the same nature of justification. That is both are utilitarian: both feminism and trans claim to make more people happy, more of the time - both claim to reduce human suffering and diminish injustice. 

Yet both lack metaphysical roots, because feminism and leftism are free-floating ethical systems - they assert their goodness, their justice etc; but with no transcendental basis for doing so. 

Trans is a plain lie and a value-inversion - and a far more extreme form of Leftism - but both feminism and trans originate in exactly the same mind-set, motivations and assumptions. 

JKR has (apparently) not reflected on how it is that such an obviously insane evil as trans has arisen, how it has been internationally been adopted; how trans is supported by all major institutions in government (world and national), finance, corporations, and the mass media. 

Trans is now part of employment and criminal laws; and is coercively enforced worldwide - as Rowling is currently experiencing. 

How does JKR suppose this situation has arisen? A situation where almost everybody among the Establishment - most of whose opinions she endorses, and whose general assumptions she 'passionately' shares and expounds, and who are (or were) her personal friends and associates - has unified so unanimously around such an extraordinarily wicked lie? 

In essence, Rowling (like so many other dissident, 'sensible' Leftists) sees and deplores one or another particular symptom of evil; but shows no serious interest in understanding the underlying cause which has led to this happening. 

Quite the opposite - she endorses almost everything about Leftism - except a few specific points where her own 1990s feminism clashes with nearly-everybody-else's 2021 trans-ism.

Rowling is the one who is out of step ideologically - almost everybody else in Leftism has followed the internal oppositional logic of Leftism through to the trans conclusion. 

And therefore the net effect of her dissent is to support the Leftist System that creates and sustains exactly the evil she deplores. 

Because - where else could the trans agenda possibly come-form - except Leftism? This discernment, this conclusion, is not "rocket surgery": it is about as obvious as anything could be - unless one is self-blinded by exactly that same ideology...    

JK Rowling deplores a real and extreme abuse and moral inversion. Well done! However, she argues from Leftism, without apparent awareness that this evil abuse is a direct and logical product of the assumptions of her own Leftist ideology. 

Just as feminism grew from opposition to traditional sexual roles - first opposing inequality of opportunity, then inequality of training and experience, then inequality of outcomes... But it did not - could not - stop there. 

Feminism soon evolved into denying obvious innate differences in men's and women's nature, disposition, motivations and abilities. And this has been the situation for decades - in all major corporations, institutions, organizations - in government and the media; and apparently Rowling is quite happy with it.  

From this feminism's false and dishonest denial of difference between men and women, it was but a short-step - just another short false and dishonest step! - to asserting that men and women were inter-convertible; and crushing anyone who says otherwise... Exactly as the feminist Establishment has, for the past generation-plus, crushed anyone who asserted true-and-obvious functionally significant sex differences. 

Leftism is 'progressive': it never stands still, it cannot stand still - because it has no structural basis for standing still. 

This is because Leftism is oppositional, critical, subversive - it is not aiming at any particular social end point but at a state of 'permanent revolution'.

Therefore Leftism will always lead to value inversion - that is, to extreme, insane and evil lies - because there is nowhere else for Leftism to go!

Rowling is thus engaged in the futile gesture of trying to stop the cancerous subversions of Leftism at a particular point that rationalizes some specific ethical values which she personally regards as primary.

Implicitly, thereby, JKR operates on the basis that Leftism is the only acceptable and moral ideology. 

Unfortunately, but inevitably, that deeply pro-Establishment, pro-System, pro-Left message is what is communicated by JKR's highly-particular act of courageous dissent.

And this pro-Establishment Leftism is precisely why JK Rowling (and other dissident Leftists of her ilk) remain able to dissent; why their dissent is given so much publicity, and is so widely disseminated by the mass media - and why she has not been excluded by The System; as is anyone who denies the assumptions of Leftism is excluded.

Courage is a virtue; but courage on the side of evil and therefore against God's creation is not something that a Christian can endorse. 

Being Woke a religion? Bah! Controlled opposition...

Some commentators on 'the right' seem to think it is a clever insight and useful analysis to describe Wokeness/ Political Correctness/ New Leftism as A Religion. They announce this as if it were a strikingly original thesis, a radical and dissenting position - and a basis for effective opposition*. 

Yet, when one Googles "Woke" and "a religion" there are over six million hits - spread across mainstream media as well as dissenting sources (and that is just using the relatively-recent "woke" as a search term)**.  

So the idea of Leftism (or communism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, healthism, antiracism or whatever) as A Religion is very far from original, new or marginal.

Nor is the idea oppositional to The Establishment - indeed the level of official media coverage of this concept makes clear that the 'idea' of regarding Leftism as A religion is one that serves the interests of Leftism, and promotes the Globalist, totalitarian Left agenda. 

How? Well, most obviously because Leftism is, Very Obviously, anti-religion generally and anti-Christian specifically - root and branch and explicitly. So much so that one has to have a very special kind of blindness Not to see such an obvious fact. 

But that that particular blindness to the obvious is common, normal and is atheism. The people who regard it as clever and useful to call woke-ness A Religion are people who regard religions as ultimately false. 

These Woke=Religion people do Not believe that we dwell in a divine creation, do Not believe in a personal God, do Not believe in a spiritual realm that contains, and is greater than, the material, do not believe in a life beyond biological death. 

All of these are core-to and characteristic-of Religion, and without them belief system is Not a religion but merely 'ideology'. To call something that rejects them all A Religion; is merely to deploy a common Leftist subversion that what matters most in an 'institution' is Not its deep and distinctive 'function' or attribute; but something it shares with all others. 

Thus a school or university is Not about education, nor science about truth, nor law about justice - but all are 'really' about Leftism. Likewise when it is asserted that Religion is Not about God, the spirit, life after death, divine creation etc - then the concept of Religion has been hollowed-out and killed.  

To call Leftism A Religion is intrinsically anti-religion, including anti-Christian; because it regards religion sociologically and politically - and an institution purely; in terms of is effects not its causes. 

To call Leftism a religion is therefore a positivist, reductionist, materialist stance; it comes-from a position that is itself one of de facto Leftism. 

This discourse is, indeed, merely an in-house squabble among Leftists, it is merely office politics in which pragmatist-hedonistic Leftists. 

The Woke=Religionists desire nothing more than a comfortable, prosperous and peaceful life; they are pushing-back against 'idealistic' Leftists who are happy to pull-down civilization in order to 'signal their virtue' and feel good about themselves. 

But pragmatist-hedonic Leftists are, after all, Leftists; and have taken the side of Satan against God - chaos against creation; hence rejected even the possibility of coherence in thinking or social organization. 

These are tough times in which we are called to make a binary choice of taking side with Good or with evil; and in which everybody has already made a binary choice (although that choice is not irrevocable). 

The Woke=Religion crew have already made the wrong choice: so they are part of the problem, not a possible answer.    

*Note. Of course, trivially, Wokeness is like a Religion - in some ways. Just as Men are like monkeys, lizards, trees, amoebae in some ways. Any thing is somewhat like any other thing. The point at issue relates to core essential attributes. Religion can be analyzed as a generic social institution - analogous to a corporation, a political party, a profession - or whatever. But the question is whether this captures the distinctive quality. To say Woke is A Religion is to reject exactly that which is distinctive to Religion - to deny (as inessential) that which is distinctive to a religion. It is to argue from assumptions that regard religions as institutions merely.  

**Further Note: The concept of "controlled opposition" (CO) referenced in the title refers to the way that the Establishment promote dissent that focuses on partial specifics of the Leftist agenda - while accepting the core root and basis of that agenda. To be mainstream is to be controlled. 

To be part of the "controlled" opposition does not require that the pseudo-dissenter is aware of playing this role; as I know from experience (i.e. my own self-consciously 'dissenting' writings, lectures, administrative work etc. - up to c2008  about when I became a Christian - were in fact controlled opposition). CO merely requires that the dissenter accepts the basic assumptions of Leftism regarding the nature of reality and what is important (i.e. materialism of discourse and explanation, hedonic-utilitarianism as the aim of life/ policy/ society etc.). 

A recent prominent example of controlled opposition was the meteoric media rise of Jordan Peterson - a Leftist with a few points of disagreement with the mainstream agenda. Another would be the recent attacks on JK Rowling in relation to trans. 

(Interestingly, Rowling was converted from being a Christian to Wokeism by the clever Establishment trick of providing massive mainstream media publicity to the ignorant criticisms of obscure US 'fundamentalist' Christians. She reacted, as intended, by repudiating the pervasive and explicit Christianity of the Harry Potter books.) 

The controlled opposition of Woke=A Religion is core Leftist - the Establishment aim being that popular dissent be channeled into a short loop which sooner or later returns to support the mainstream Left agenda, while quibbling over details. Even the most extreme 'secular Right' attitude is merely a longer loop CO strategy, sustaining that which is maybe 'only' 66% Leftist - but the intended end-result is the same. 

Further extra note: There are some real Christians who have used the "Leftism is a religion trope". These are not necessarily Leftists, but they are mistaken. This is a tactical example of the Boromoir Strategy of Hey lads, let's use the One Ring to fight Sauron! - i.e. they are rhetorically appealing to the anti-Christian/ anti-Religious sentiments of their audience in order to discredit Leftism. Or maybe they are trying to make the more subtle argument of "Leftism is Bad religion". This contrasts real with fake religions: that Leftism is the kind of inadequate fake religion that is sucked-into the psychological-spiritual vacuum created by rejecting real religion. However; subtlety and nuance in rhetoric play into the Enemy's hands. Whatever is intended by this argument, the consequence is almost sure to damage the cause of Christianity - because the argument implicitly accepts Leftist premises: surely the worst possible strategy? So, even when motivations are genuinely good, Woke=Religion-speak is still a mistake.      

Making faces - Singing songs

 One of Kingsley Amis's real-life "faces" - some kind of 'upper class twit' like a retired Colonel, I guess?

In one of the best of comic novels - Lucky Jim, by Kingsley Amis (1954) - the eponymous hero is described as having a repertoire of 'faces' which he adopts in response to the vicissitudes of his constrained life. These are sufficiently elaborate and effortful that they grant Jim some degree of satisfaction: they seem a valid response to adverse phenomena. 

I have a rather similar thing, which is to sing the words "Mental Person" to the tune of Handel's Hallelujah chorus; whenever I see some characteristically "2020" bit of human behaviour - such as wearing a 'face covering' outdoors, or alone in a car. 

What actually happens is that I hum the tune audibly, while inserting the repeated Mental Person lyrics* internally.

I would not go so far as to recommend this tactic to anyone; but I have found that it converts a situation that would normally make me angry and frustrated, into a smile - or even a laugh.

 

Note: It is to Ron Weasley of the Harry Potter stories that I owe this usage of the term 'Mental'. This reminded me of the way that we used the same word for the same range of phenomena when I was a primary school kid in rural Somerset... which is, after all, just nextdoor to Gloucestershire, where JK Rowling spent her childhood only half a decade later.

*My exact © lyrics are Men-tal Person, Mental Person, Mental Person/ Men-tal Person - Oh Person that is Ment. 

Mass misdirection: How come - after so many dystopian novels, TV shows and movies - people still can't recognise evil totalitarianism when they are living it?

The thing is: They are clever! Not all-knowing, certainly not all-powerful - and highly fallible; but They are clever. A lot cleverer than most of their pseudo-intellectual critics who will explain-away the biggest, fastest, most universal and comprehensive change in the history of the world as some kind of random coincidence of something or another.


I mean that, just four months ago, the world was qualitatively different; and now almost everybody is living under an extremity of control and restriction that would have been literally incredible, just four months ago. All the talk is that this change will be permanent, in some form.

It happened. And - fundamentally - hardly anybody has noticed; and hardly anybody who has noticed can see the obvious cause; but instead grasps and holds-tight onto the transparently inadequate and incoherent excuse that everything is necessary because of the deadly birdemic plague - and the totalitarian world must continue because of the birdemic plague...


This is all the more surprising since - for the entire last generation - the best-selling, and biggest impact media have been all-about evil totalitarian dystopias; from Harry Potter and the Hunger Games through innumerable other variants of the same idea. And this was building upon the past century of similar products - The Time Machine, 1984, Brave New World etc.

These have been massively disseminated, in multiple media. Now, why would the Global Establishment be so keen on making and sustaining mass media phenomena describing totalitarian dystopias, if that is what they were planning to impose upon us?

The answer, I think, is misdirection.


We have seen many, many evil totalitarian dystopias; but the evil-ness of these societies has always been portrayed as militaristic, violent and murdering. (That is, Luciferic evil.)

This is indeed natural, because in a godless and secular society; directly causing physical suffering seems to be the only kind of evil that people recognise. Thus in these modern dystopias, the baddies are bad because they torment, torture and kill lots of people.

Therefore, when a totalitarian society arises that does not (any more than usual) torment, torture and kill great masses of people - and what is more, was implemented without any uniformed, marching armies and by consent - then it just isn't noticed, and is indeed denied.

Misdirection has worked. 


A godless materialistic society has no belief in any purpose or meaning to life; therefore the idea of evilness as micro-control of behaviour and thought has no reality. It cannot be grasped.

Such a society denies the non-material, the spiritual - indeed it barely acknowledges the autonomous free agency of human beings; who are continually redescribed and modelled in terms of being wholly-determined or statistically-random in their actions. The existence of evil spirits is regarded as being childish, dumb or an insane delusion.

In such a world - and this is mainstream and mandatory in Western discourse - there can be no genuine intent, not even of humans; and everything is explained by the forces acting-upon humans.

One would have supposed that the indescribably vast evidence of humans planning and scheming throughout history and into the present might have had some traction - but no.

The only acceptable view is that stuff just happens, either because it must - or for no reason at all; but at any rate, evil strategies are ruled-out a priori (by assumption) because evil Men are not self-motivated and evil spirits don't exist.


The actually-existing Ahrimanic nature of modern evil is beyond comprehension; hence unrecognised; hence unopposed. The evilness of a society of omni-surveillance and total-control is seen only when this is used to pursue violence; and there is no conception of materialistic reduction being evil in itself.

In sum; when reality is spiritual, but Men are materialistic, then the basic nature and point of life become utterly invisible to consciousness. At an unconscious and inarticulate level; Men retain an awareness of spiritual realities - and it is this that causes the demotivation, fear and despair underlying much of the world today. But unconscious and inarticulate does not suffice.

Therefore, the best and most important thing that we can do is to bring to explicit consciousness these vague feelings and hunches about what has happened and the nature of this current situation. We need to make our-selves aware of that understanding already latent in us.


This is the indispensable first step... But towards what? The answer is: To the salvation of our souls, to life everlasting beyond death.

Those who don't want Heaven can get what they want under totalitarianism - they have no problem with being misdirected.

Those who want Hell or self-annihilation for themselves have no problem with totalitarianism, because it is a demonic mechanism of damnation. They can continue to live under misdirection.

But you may be different. If you want Heaven, if you are a Christian, you need to understand.

"Hogwarts Hogwarts - Hoggy Warty Hogwarts" A round to sing with children

This little gem of a scene was inexplicably deleted from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire movie - a decade ago I learned the 'school song' with my kids, and we would perform it in the car.

Aside - the scene below would have been the best in the Half Blood Prince movie (indeed perhaps the best in all eight of the series) but it too was edited-out. It would have been inserted just before the Death Eaters attack Hogwarts, when Snape knew he would have to kill Dumbledore:

"Gandalf for President" - Tolkien and fandom

When I first became interested in JRR Tolkien in the middle 70s, there was not much attention paid to him by the British mass media - but when there was, there was always some reference to the popularity in US college campuses, and to phenomena such as the 'Gandalf for President' lapel button, and graffiti along the lines of 'Frodo Lives'. Then The Lord of the Rings (LotR) movies in the early 2000s triggered another - much larger - wave of mass-, and the social-, media fandom.

When I consider the phenomenon of Tolkien popularity represented by the Gandalf for President button, I can find no relationship at all between that and what I value in Tolkien or LotR, with what is actually-in Tolkien; indeed the joke political slogan is the antithesis of what the LotR represents ex-plicitly, im-plicitly and every kind of plicitly... Saruman for US President/ Sauron for UN President would make a great deal more sense.

In their way, 'fans' of Tolkien are sincere; and may expend a great deal of time, money and effort in their fan activities. Yet, in the end it gets the participants nothing-at-all - it corrupts Tolkien rather than learning from him.

Fandom - by its insatiable (daily, hourly) appetite for novelty, and it mass nature, always corrupts; and always corrupts in the direction of prevalent mainstream ideology: whether that be 60s hippiedom, late 70s environmentalism, or - since the 80s and increasingly - the various facets of the sexual revolution, political correctness and 'social justice'.

Instead of learning-from Tolkien; it is quite normal for fans to read-into Tolkien whatever happens to be the current nihilism, hedonism, materialism, atheism... somehow fans find in Tolkien exactly what they seek - or else try (in effect) to 'teach' Tolkien about feminism, socialism, radical sexuality... whatever - for example via the vast mass of fan fiction (including 'slash' fiction) that quite explicitly inserts this kind of stuff into Tolkien's world.

Other fandoms are closely analogous - revealing that this is a property of fandom rather than being related to specific authors or their work. In Harry Potter, another work of Christian fantasy with traditional values at its heart; the main fan website was initially obsessed with the 'shipping' (romantic relationships between) the main characters, in all possible and inconceivable combinations. Later the web pages and fandoms were quite explicitly and systematically enlisted for a check-list of current social justice campaigns, such as agitation for same sex 'marriage' legislation. And the fans duly complied, with apparent enthusiasm and zeal.

Or Brandon Sanderson - I recently attended a talk, reading and book signing done by Sanderson; which was packed with hundreds of fans who turned-out and paid money to be there... and I say fans, because in the Q&A session every single one of the couple of dozen questions was related to the most trivial, ephemeral and superficial aspects of his work. There was not one single interesting, insightful, or challenging question asked by this mass of people; not the slightest indication that the novels were anything other than depictions of magic systems and 'cool' personalities.

Sanderson is an active Mormon, and all of his work is permeated with a serious consideration of religion and spirituality; both on the surface and as underlying structure. But it was clear that for Sanderson's fandom this was of sub-zero interest - invisible and irrelevant. 

The phenomenon of fandom is therefore at best trivial and fashion driven, there being more incommon between fans (regardless of what they are fans-of) than between fans and the subject of their fanaticism. Fandom is corrupting and destructive of whatever is good in the authors and works that get caught-up by it; and in its advanced form, fandom embodies subversion and inversion of whatever is specific and distinctive in its subject matter; the aim being to reinterpret and rewrite it in line with currently-dominant, top-down, manipulative social campaigns that ultimately emanate from (and are funded by) the global Establishment elites.

So the phenomenon of fandom is a product of evil purpose; and has a malign influence all-round. No wonder that the elderly Tolkien was so confused and appalled by its first stirrings in the 1960s, and by the 'Gandalf for President'-type expressions.

Journalists thought that this was 'ungrateful' of him, because masses of fans led to more sales and more money in Tolkien's pocket.

But Tolkien was not a 'professional author' - he wrote from the heart and for the highest motivations. And he realised that fandom had nothing to do with him or his work; but on the contrary was the attempted obliteration of his work, the attempt to harness his books for a dark agenda.

The Harry Potter Litmus Test to discriminate between Christians and Christian-Fellow-Travellers

By Christian-Fellow-Travellers I means those primarily political (e.g. conservative, reactionary or libertarian) political intellectuals who approve-of Christianty (they may even self-identify as Christians) without adopting a Chriustian perspective... I mean people like Roger Scruton or  Jordan Peterson, who are the examples here.

By contrast are people who are primarily Christian, and from-that derive their political views - my examples here are Jerram Barrs (a Calvinist) and John Granger (an old-calendar Russian Orthodox).

The test I propose is to consider the reaction to the Harry Potter books among those who actually like the books - who find something to admire in them.

If you can be bothered  to watch these four videos - I think you can see that the Christian-Fellow-Travellers miss the Christian-point of these books; and this comes as a consequence of their primarily political persepctive.

So what is my point here? It is that there is a world of difference between being a 'Right Wing' Christian-fellow-traveller, and being an actual Christian - and that difference includes the persepctive from which you view and interpret the world... including the Harry Potter books...

I should add that since publishing the Harry Potter books, and in her public persona and pronouncements; their author JK Rowling gives every appearance of having apostatized from her Christian faith, and indeed is in-effect an influential anti-Christian. Nonetheless, the Harry Potter books themselves tell a very different story.
 

Notice of The Books of Unexpected Enlightenment by L Jagi Lamplighter

There are not many new novels that I enjoy these days (although I used to read recent fiction voraciously up to my early twenties) so I am always delighted to discover something that hits-the-mark; and I will always re-read any novels that I have enjoyed (often several times).

So I was very pleased to come across the Books of Unexpected Enlightenment by L Jagi Lamplighter:

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/works/the-unexpected-enlightenment-of-rachel-griffin

(I will not be including any 'spoilers' in this notice (it is not a 'review') so that anyone who likes the sound of the books can discover what happens for himself or herself.)

There are three novels, so far, in this series; and I have enjoyed them all very much, with re-reads being even better than first time.

They are distinctly odd books, to me; I haven't come across anything of the kind before. They are light and humorous in tone, mostly - pitched at a Young Adult readership; but also very complex in terms of their magical and fantasy system ('hard' fantasy in terms of world-building); and they offer a lot of 'glimpses' of further vistas and back-stories (in the same kind of way The Hobbit does).

Many of the 'ingredients' of the books are quote explicitly, and indeed self-referentially, drawn from other fantasy works (such as the Narnia Chronicles and Harry Potter) - but the way they are combined, twisted and added-to creates an unique 'flavour' which I find very appealing. 

The character of 13 year old magical schoolgirl Rachel Griffin provides the point of view, and she makes an unusually multi-faceted heroine for this kind of book; yet she reminds me of several 'tomboyish' young women I have from real life - both in my schooldays and as an adult. Rachel combines courage with romanticism, innocence with encyclopaedic knowledge, she is independent - yet very loving of family and devoted to friends.

Indeed, her character and the books are strange in that way that sometimes strikes me when I realise (for the umpteenth time, yet it is still rare) that women are different from men not just biologically but in some deep and existential fashion; such that it is like sharing a world with elves or some other 'species'!

(As a believer in Mormon theology, I regard men and women as complementary parts and the completion of the wholeness of Man (there is no generic 'human being'); and that we all are either a man or a woman, in essence and from eternity. So to know Man it is not enough to know men - that is incomplete; one must also know women.)

The Rachel Griffin books are therefore fantasy fictions from a woman's spiritual perspective in a way that is not the case for, say, Harry Potter - and in a totally different way from the large mass of anti-men fiction-by-women.

(Which itself isn't all bad by any means! One of my absolute favourite novelists, Barbara Pym, is very bitter about men - not for doctrinaire reasons, but as a consequence of her own unusual nature and experiences.)

Anyway, Jagi Lamplighter's Books of Unexpected Enlightenment are both light and entertaining reading, packed with adventure, incident, love and friendship; but they also have touches and glimpses of something distinctive and deep. Some people, like me, will find them quite special and endearing with a flavour all their own.

Religious *and* spiritual: Prejudicial hostility to non-normal states of consciousness, mysticism, magic, 'the occult' etc among (real) Christians

Many modern Christians, including real Christians, have a reflexive and inflexible hostility to 'Religious Experience' - that is, to anything like mysticism, magic or what they term the occult.

Such attitudes come-out, for example, in the visceral hostility to JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Harry Potter as being demonically-inspired and/ or tending to lead people into evil preoccupations and practices - such as conjuring spirits.

This particular mind set is associated with Low Church, Charismatic type Protestants (especially in the USA). Such people claim to be able to draw a sharp line between Religious Experience (such as speaking in tongues or faith healings: good) and Magic (bad), usually defined on the presence of key words or practices such as wizard, witch, divination and spells. 

Similar - albeit 'less extreme' attitudes are also prevalent in a mind-set to be found among Western and Eastern Catholics of a Traditionalist type, and the more traditionalist, scriptural Protestant churches.

What this amounts-to is the belief that normal everyday consciousness is the only 'safe' way to be - and any form of altered consciousness - such as is associated with mystical, magical and occult experiences or knowledge - is to be avoided, absolutely (or rejected if it happens) as being likely to be of demonic origin.

In a nutshell, such people are real Christians - and yet they are solidly against Religious Experiences, in the modern world; because these may be evil in origin or effect. 

Such traditionalists will acknowledge that in theory Religious and mystical experiences may also be of divine or angelic origin (as is amply attested in The Bible, the early church, among Christian Saints of the past etc.). This might be taken to imply a middle path - of approving mystical experience but with caution; and indeed that is my own view of things.

But in practice, Traditionalists are prejudiced against Religious Experiences - by which I mean they pre-judge all claims of mysticism to be fraudulent or deluded unless-proven-otherwise; and in practice there never-can-be objective, public proof otherwise.

Such people will never actually be convinced of any proof of or evidence for the validity of mystical experience - at least not when mystical claims are made by people or groups they dislike - which amounts to people outwith their own denomination +/- a shortlist of other approved churches.

(Part of this is that they typically have an unexamined assumption that true Religious Experiences only happen to those of exceptional sanctity; and such people are extremely rare, especially in the modern world. Where they get this assumption, given the vast number of Biblical and real-life counter-examples - and the fact that Jesus came, and Christianity was founded, explicity for sinners - I can't imagine: but they clearly do assume it.)   

I am sure that the Fundamentalist or Traditionalist prejudices against Religious Experience/ magic and mysticism is a very major error of modern Christianity; because Christianity is essentially a mystical religion, and if mystical aspects (whether they are labelled magic, occult or whatever) are excluded; then the faith is dead - becomes a mere matter of obedience to a bureaucracy or set or rules.

(Obedience to legitimate authority is a virtue - true; but I see not the slightest sign that Jesus regarded it as the primary virtue!)

Particularly damaging is that this prejudice against Religious Experiences implicitly consigns modern Christianity to operate within Modern Consciousness - which is of its nature materialist, reductionist and positivist. Indeed Modern Consciousness is a truly horrible thing; which drains contemporary life of felt meaning and purpose; so that the Christian who lives within it can have a faith only 'in theory' - because any validating mystical experiences will be rejected as demonic.

If ever there was a playing into Satan's hands, and doing just exactly what he wants: then this is it! - A Christianity which (from a secular perspective) has all the disadvantages of an absurdly magical foundation; yet vehemently rejects all possible experiential advantages of a magical consciousness!

So we get the weird spectacle of the adherents of a magical religion, with a magically validated organisation (i.e. a church), who spend their time reading and discussing magical events (in the Bible, lives of Saints etc), and performing magical rituals such as the Eucharist and Prayer... yet living within a distinctively modern and rootedly anti-magical discourse which expends great energy in distancing itself from any people who actually experience magic in the here and now and strive to live in a more expanded and sensitive consciousness than that of a modern bureaucracy!

In sum Christianity need to be spiritual as well as religious; and must not be squeamish or prejudiced against mysticism, magic, the occult.

Yes, this is a risk; but Life is a risk: intrinsically (Christianity takes a middle-way about pretty much everything except Love, Repentance and Forgiveness) - and the opposite risk of promoting a dry, legalistic, merely doctrinal Christianity is to advocate a mere corpse of Christianity.

Mysticism is, simply, a risk we have to take.

The unsubtle corruption of 'shipping' (and 'slash') applied to stories

'Shipping' seems to be derived from relation-ship-ing; and I first heard the term in relation to the on-going Harry Potter series - when online 'fans' would spend vast amounts of effort and time in discussion the nature and possible future of relationships between Harry and Hermione, Harry and Cho, Ron and Hermione, Snape and Lily and so on.

Fan Fiction rapidly began to burgeon with shipping narratives; including what used to be termed 'slash' fiction (derived from an earlier era of Kirk/ (the slash punctuation mark) Spock stories - i.e. 'shipping' Kirk and Spock).

I first came across slash around the time of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings movies - when there seemed to be a lot of slash Fan Fiction products (some parody, some serious, some pornographic).

Shipping, in a general sense (including slash) is now very prevalent in fandom - almost to the point of dominating some of the most popular TV shows, movie franchises and teen novels. Indeed, it seems that 'shippers' (those who do the shipping, write the fictions and discuss it endlessly) are setting the agenda and framing the discourse.

I regard shipping as mostly an appalling corruption and degradation of fiction; and I suspect the motivations of those involved. In particular, I deplore the trend to re-frame all friendship in sexual (or potentially sexual - will they-won't they?- or dishonestly-denied sexual) terms.

(The Netflix TV series of Shadowhunters, and the books themselves, as I understand, are serial practitioners of this trope.)  

This began in the sixties - for example William Ready's early biographical and critical book about Tolkien suggested the Inklings was a kind-of homosexual grouping. But now it appears that the subversion is simply taken from granted; and that the friendships of Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Legolas and Gimli are simply assumed to be slash-until-proven-otherwise.

Likewise the fandoms of all traditionalist recent narratives, from Harry Potter, through Strange and Norrell, to Star Trek and My Little Pony to whatever latest blockbuster TV series - are seen through the lens of shipping - as mere fodder for sexual speculation and fantasy.

And since the modern sexual arena is so debased by superficiality, fickleness, selfishness and exploitativeness, this has the effects of dragging a lot of potentially elevating and ennobling and inspiring work down to the level of salacious sniggering.

As I say, I don't think this is a random occurrence - indeed, I strongly suspect that there is a degree of conspiracy, funding, planning and purpose behind (and manipulating) this systematic debasement of The Good - wherever it is found.

The mass of fans are, mostly, victims; but in return for short term stimulation they are colluding in trivialising and destroying exactly what they find most valuable about the things they love.

Albion Awakening - a new blog

I have begun a new blog, with John Fitzgerald and William Wildblood as collaborators, on the theme of spiritual Britain, and especially England - potentially awakening from centuries of slumber.

http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk

The blog sees itself as working in a lineage of 'Romanticism' which I perceive as including (but not restricted to) the likes of William Blake, ST Coleridge, William Wordsworth, JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Owen Barfield, William Arkle; and (currently) Jermey Naydler and the fictional worlds of JK Rowling's Harry Potter and Susanna Clarke's Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell...

(John and William will be adding to this list from their distinctive personal experiences.)

That is, English Christians of creativity and intuition who are especially concerned with the transformation of human consciousness. 

We sense a time of stirring, and perhaps an impending moment of decision; and the blog is primarily intended to provide clarification, inspiration and daily encouragement to those who hope for that new and spiritual England we can call Albion.

The 'sacred landscape' of England is the opposite of geometric!

We took a rail trip out to Hexham yesterday - a favourite place. The Abbey, in an earlier version built by St Wilfrid during Northumbria's 'golden age' was once the largest building in Europe, north of the Alps.

The views of the River Tyne and its valley, seen from the train window, are evidence of the wonderful strength of beauty that remains, waiting; and it is delightful that the buskers (i.e. street musicians - a melodeon player in one place, and two fiddlers in another) were playing folk music - including this (first) tune:

Anyway, as I travelled out I was reading a collection of John Michell's essays (Writings and rants of a radical traditionalist - recommended by this site's sometime guest blogger John Fitzgerald: Thanks!) - and reflecting on Michell's popularisation of the idea of the sacred landscape of Britain.

But Michell was a 'geomancer' and described the sacred landscape in terms of straight tracks, roads and Ley Lines of energy force - the ancient sites along along such alignments - and the detailed geometric/ astronomically-oriented  diagrams of monuments such as Stonehenge - this kind of thing:

Michell also painted geometric designs, e.g.:

But, I am struck by exactly the opposite!

That the sacred landscape of England - in large and in microcosm is extremely irregular, asymmetric and un-geometric - and this applies to Neolithic/ Bronze Age - Celtic or Anglo Saxon designs, sites, roads etc - I see little in the way of straight lines, sharp points, repeating patterns:

So, although I am pleased that John Michell drew attention to the subject of sacred landscape - I feel he was barking up the wrong tree in discussing it in terms of geometry and numerology.

This would, indeed, be appropriate to somewhere like Ancient Egypt, with its stereotypical obelisks, pyramids, right-angles - sharp edges, smoothed and polished stone - all silhouetted against a plain blue sky...

But England is all mists, rugged rocks, and wavy lines - it was an English painter (Hogarth) who said the line of beauty was a curve - and English literature prizes its array of unique characters (not 'representative' 'types') which fill Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dickens... Harry Potter.

John Michell was a Christianised (but not actually Christian) Platonist - with a strong element of the Pythagorean number mystic. This is alien to my temperament! - I find it a mystery why anyone would want to 'explain' spiritual beauty with mathematics!

Why would so many people want so much to describe everything as ultimately a matter of geometric shapes, or of 'fractals'!

Yet to regard mathematics as the underlying truth or reality - the archetypal world of 'forms' - is a deep and powerful urge among many, probably most, Western intellectuals since Ancient Greek times. So they see nothing absurd or contrived about covering the British landscape with abstract lines, angles and shapes drawn on maps, and aligned.

Although I reject this approach, I don't have any equally comprehensible and depict-able alternative for the sacred landscape - so me it is a miracle of intuitively sensed but undescribable rightness - like an unique character from Chaucer's Canterbury Tales or Shakespeare's plays, the 'design' can be shown and felt, but not made into a formula.