What caused the surprising re-normalization after the 2020 global coup (Birdemic and Peck)?

I was and am amazed at the remarkable degree of re-normalization within Western societies; that followed after the successful early-2020 global totalitarian coup which was effected under the excuse of the Birdemic, and the giga-imposition of the (unnecessary, ineffective, harmful) Peck.

That the significant collapse of the world state was Not due to any kind of positive spiritual awakening is obvious from the mass failure to understand and learn from 2020; from continued strategies of Western self-destruction by multiple means; and from the gratuitously destructive, Western-caused, wars that are continually sustained and escalated.

My best guess of the cause of totalitarian recession post Birdemic is of increased dissent among the ruling class, causing loss of governmental cohesion and control.

To sustain the 2020 coup required that members of the "elite" ruling global government would suppress their own selfish short-term inclinations; and instead pursue a long-term group-agenda of mass surveillance and population control.

But instead, the erstwhile world rulers have broken down into multiple hostile factions, each pursuing a more local agenda.

Plus - rampant and accelerating individual-level self-gratifying corruption among members of the elite ( e.g. self-enrichment, and indulgence of spiteful personal resentments); has combined with the runaway factionalism, to destroy the cohesion of the 2020 worldwide totalitarian takeover.

In other words - although this relative  relief from the tyranny of 2020 is welcome, there is no cause for celebration at Good Triumphant.

There is no positive reason for betterment; the Western trend toward evil has not reversed; and the partial collapse of 2020 global totalitarianism is Not a valid reason for civilizational optimism.

Is it ultimately incoherent when Western Civilization says, in effect: "We are superior because we know we are inferior"?

It must be a bizarrely conflicted life to be one of the Western leadership class who are engaged in geopolitics! 

(Small wonder that they bear the hallmarks of self-damaged/ deleted souls.) 

On the one hand, the "external" rhetoric of Western powers is one of implied superiority... 

The West intervenes everywhere in the world and attempts to destroy other societies +/- remaking them in "our" image; on the basis that other places are morally inferior - because they do not sufficiently adhere to "our" Western ideology, laws, values and morals. 

On the other hand, the "internal" rhetoric is of definite inferiority and self-abasement. 

The West, the people of each and every Western nations, are (by a vast inner propaganda of politics, bureaucracy, mass media, education, academia, corporations...) routinely assumed to be ethically inferior to people from... anywhere/ everywhere else. 

Such that our primary duty (for which we ought to sacrifice almost anything) is to enable any number of people without limit, from anywhere in the world but especially Not the West; to come to Western nations; there to be supported by the native populations (fed, housed, paid, educated, kept healthy...) to the same or higher level than the native population - and at the expense of native Westerners.  

So, there is a massive rhetorical incoherence between the arrogant and violent self-assertion of Western "foreign policy"; and the pervasive self-hatred and strategic self-destruction of the "home affairs" of Western nations. 

It is as if that ideological superiority which makes it our ethical duty to subvert, terrorize and make war on everybody-else; is rooted in the awareness of our moral inferiority to everybody else...* 

What explains and solves this apparent paradox and conflict of interest at the material level is quite simple. 

The answer lies in is that "our" and "us" used in relation to the West - the explanation is the "we" who does all this stuff... 

It is that the Western leadership class (and their agents and clients among the other nations) regard themselves as morally superior to everybody else in the world, and at any point in history.  

Themselves as superior - i.e. the leadership class only - and emphatically not the nations that they lead. 

This conviction of superiority to everybody else is why They strategically aim to destroy and impose Their values on all other civilizations and nations; and simultaneously destroy and impose their values on their home populations. 

This is why They do whatever They want, while subjecting everybody else to ever more invasive laws and regulations. 

This is why They destroy economies, impose "equality" or "diversity", reduce and limit housing and transport etc etc - while reciprocally leading jet-setting lives of international travel, multiple residences, mega-consumerism, colossal and wasteful extravagance of lifestyle - and vastly enriching themselves personally.

From the perspective of the Western rulers; all this is natural, logical and wholly consistent with their own qualitative and separate superiority of nature. "They" are not like Us, and see deeper and further - so of course different rules apply to Them.   

Strategically, They are simply trying to conquer and subdue the entire world, to bring the entire world under Their good ideology; and to create an impenetrable defensive bubble around Themselves.

It justifies itself: Looking-down from their high vantage point and with vast quantities of secret intelligence information, the Western rulers are convinced that they can see farther and deeper than anyone else. And with an touch of compassionate regret (which emphasizes Their moral depth); They nobly accept the necessity of destroying most of the people and nearly-all of the places of the world - because the alternatives would be... well, un-think-able. 

(And therefore they accept the need for coercing and deceiving the masses into doing whatever is required for this goal. After all the mass majority could not be expected to embrace their own messy annihilation if this was honestly explained. Obviously, we must be lied-to.)  

Sad, perhaps; but such a supreme "sacrifice" is required in order to make actual the dream of a good world of superior beings.  

So the Western leadership class regard themselves as superior, and also as hard-nosed realists who are prepared to take (covert) responsibility for sacrificing almost-everybody/everything in order to achieve the kind of world that they regard as Good...

(Hence the snake-eyes.)

And yet they are pawns and dupes and suckers - because the real plan behind "the plan" is not human - but demonic; and the global destruction and sacrifice therefore is intended to include all the humans, including every man jack of the Western leadership class - every last one of them, and all their descendants.  

The demons are motivated by fear and hatred of divine creation in all its aspects; and (as un-incarnated spiritual beings) they do not require the people of this world, except for pleasure, as a gratifying source of "energy"; and demons do not need the planet earth.

In the meanwhile, the demons feed-upon the terror, lust, resentments, and despair of those who serve them, and those whose evil affiliations and acts are un-repented - especially the Western ruling class.

Thus apparent self-contradiction, paradox, and incoherence of aim and action at the human level...

Makes clear and simple sense at the spiritual level. 

NOTE: It may seem that I am blaming everything on Them. But this is not so. Evil must be invited into the human heart; therefore the Western masses (i.e. Not the leadership classes) are deeply complicit in the geopolitical and internal strategies, in enough key ways that the continued spiritual domination of the leadership class is guaranteed. And at the root of this complicity are the materialistic, hedonic, atheistic, and anti-Christian assumptions; that have been embraced by the vast majority of Western masses of all kinds and regardless of whether they call, and believe themselves to be, spiritual, religious, or Christian. 

* This is especially obvious when moral behaviours of other civilizations or nations in their own countries is used to as rationale for destruction or takeover; but allowed and encouraged when the same peoples enter Western nations. Perhaps the most extreme example is slavery (although systemic and lethal violence against women is more common). Allegations of slavery in any other nation is regarded as evidence of their moral inferiority; yet when foreign populations enter Western nations they are allowed to practice slavery - so that slavery has now returned to the West in significant numbers and for many years, with full official connivance.  

Chaotic evil will win, sooner or later: The instability of Rule of Law in the ongoing Totalitarian backlash against Chaos

My understanding of the international scene (which is, in this respect, a macrocosm of what is happening in many individual people); is that most of the populous nations of the world aspire to totalitarianism; but the leadership class of some powerful countries (Western civilization especially) have gone "beyond" totalitarianism - to become dominated by an impulse towards spiteful destruction and the strategic generation of chaos. 

In a nutshell: Chaotic Evil is ascendant, but Lawful Evil is attempting to save the System. 

The System reached its apex in early 2020, with the international Birdemic lockdown - but has been on the defensive ever since. 

Much of this geopolitical backlash focuses upon "Law" - which term here includes all forms of international treaties, contracts, rules, regulations, formal agreements and the like. 

The (Western and "globalist") agents of chaos have abandoned Law and do: whatever they currently want. 

Opportunism, expediency and spiteful-intent are their principles; and the leadership class retrospectively manufacture excuses/ rationales by complexifying/ confusing/ / overwhelming/ boring people. 

Or more often simply ignoring previous agreements and commitments and "changing the subject". 

This is made possible and easy by a combination of the colossal propaganda resources of the Western mass media and social media (long since included in the totalitarian System); operating upon the willing-addiction of the Western populations to mass/ social media. 

Thus in the West; totalitarian structures and processes are used to generate chaos - and to export chaos to the rest of the world.   

  

Against this Chaotic ascendancy (with its inflexion point in summer of 2020) there has been a totalitarian backlash, among the nations and civilizations whose leadership class desire a stable System of population surveillance and control to pursue their various religious-ideological goals. 

These nations are trying to generate a new and international System of Law, plans, treaties, agreements, etc - and these recent Laws are intended to be long-term mutually beneficial (to their leadership classes). 

So - on the face of it, those in favour of Law are pushing-back against the agents of chaos. 

Yet, the gravitational pull is nonetheless towards chaos; because (among such diverse nations and civilizations) there is no coherent basis for these new international Laws except the long-term self interest of the current leadership class, as a whole. 

This "enlightened self-interest" is always under pressure of subversion by internal rivalries within the leadership classes of the nations (encouraged by the external machinations of the agents of chaos and their mass media); and subverted by short-term and individual self-interest - corruption of leaders and factions by immediate temptations such as more-power, opportunities for theft, offers of bribes - and in response to a wide variety of negative threats such as extortion, blackmail, prison, torture, assassination etc.   

Furthermore, the situation of Laws being recent, and the continual revising and adding-to of these Laws - means that there is always the possibility (or likelihood) that todays Laws will sooner or later be superseded by tomorrow's Laws...

And tomorrow's Laws may be made by a different set of people, with different intentions...

We can see this happening already - what what yesterday seemed like solid treaties, agreements, rules; don't actually get implemented today - after circumstances have changed, and obedience has become inconvenient or inexpedient for the currently more powerful side. 

Therefore; the totalitarian backlash attempt to re-impose a stable framework of "Law" seems doomed to fail under present conditions. 

And this failure would be predicted both for international relationships between nations, and also within nations where the interests of bureaucrats and managers come up against the spiteful destructiveness of Chaotic Evil.  

The underlying fact is that Chaotic evil is much easier than Lawful Evil - because destruction is easier than creating. 

And because evil is unstable, and feeds-upon itself...

In a world where the leadership classes and most of the masses have taken the side against God and divine creation; there is consequently an innate tendency towards Chaos - that cannot long be resisted by even the most sincere totalitarian bureaucrats.

The corrupting effect of worldly engagement

It is one of the more obvious lessons of life experience that prolonged engagement with some kind of evil environment almost-always has a corrupting effect on people - and consequently on groups including nations. 

While theoretically avoidable, in practice is seems almost inevitable that dealing with evil and with those who are themselves deeply involved; responding to evil aggressions and temptations, trying to defend against them...

The process of repeatedly trying to seek and pursue the lesser of evils...

Over time, this wears down people and institutions, and they conform to the level of those they engage with - even when they start-out as on-the-side-of Good. 

This wearing-down certainly happened to me whenever (as was common enough) I was often engaged with the activities of those whose motivations I initially tried not to share. 

My principles would become compromised by compromise, my perspective would shift' and the attempt to resist some particular evil, would result in playing people at their own game. 

This can be seen in history; when nations at war progressively become more like those they war with. If World War II began as UK resistance to totalitarian tyranny and population manipulation; the UK very soon began to mirror exactly that which it purported to oppose - especially deliberate mass indiscriminate slaughter of innocents (innocents swiftly being redefined as complicit- and quasi-combatants). 

Total war meant totalitarian - which is intrinsically evil. 

(Although the totality was not uniform - e.g. there remained reciprocity of decent treatment of prisoners of war between the UK and Germany; at the same time as prisoners were slaughtered, starved, enslaved, and worked to death by both sides on the Eastern front.) 

We can see the same in everyday life, when someone somewhat decent takes a managerial job or gets involved in bureaucracy - we can observe the (usually rapid, mostly unconscious) assimilation to totalitarian standards and values. We can observe the assimilation, and this may be extreme.   

I experienced exactly this myself, while working (a couple of days a week, for a couple of years) for the NHS bureaucracy. 

Simply in order to be reasonable friendly - to make the most of a bad situation, and to do my bit effectively - I was quickly drawn into the characteristic habitual thinking of those who participate in the systemic evil of our society.

The has always been some element of this, due to the nature of "human condition". 

But in the past, groups and institutions were sometimes overall-good in terms of their aims and affiliations, and their discourse. And Men we unable to detach from their group-mind - it was simply how human consciousness was. 

And so people got the idea that the fundamental and primary issues of human values were located at the level of groups: that is, our convictions and principles ought to relates to tribes, institutions, religions, nations, ideologies... whatever.  

Whereas nowadays we inhabit a world where all institutions are Systemic; necessarily assimilated to a global ideology that is nameless (because universal), pursues inverted values, and serves a demonic agenda.

So that it is nigh impossible for those who must earn a living and engage with "the world" to avoid the pervasive converging influences that will almost certainly corrupt them - even if they begin by recognizing System-evil and wanting to avoid convergence, and instead adhere to transcendental values of Truth, Beauty and Virtue (which not many do). 

 

The "material" situation for many (most) people is one of being besieged by the world! And this is a war that cannot be won - but shall certainly be lost by trying to win it!

But, God would not place us in a situation where we could not personally achieve spiritual victory; by choosing salvation and learning eternal life lessons. 

Given the fact of global evil and the divine certainty that you and I or anyone can win the spiritual war; The Big Question for each and all is: how?

(i.e. There is, for every person, an effective and attainable answer to our predicament - our job is "merely" to find it! But, while seeking; we should be confident that it is there to be found...) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "AI" Litmus Test Fail: Is it caused by a kind of Stockholm Syndrome? Projection? Managerialism?

I am intrigued by the Litmus Test failure of so many self-identified Christians to discern the grossly net-evil intent driving the current (post November 2022) wave of so-called AI. I want to understand it. 

"It's just a tool" - they say. Yes, and so are all the instruments of mass surveillance and population control "just tools"; from secret police and death squads, to smear campaigns, covert propaganda, and infiltration/ subversion. 

Of course, there are always potentially useful aspects to any tool, bureaucracy, technology - but so what? You can use thumbscrews to hold the door open, or a cosh as a paper weight. You need to ask - what are they designed for, how will they be used.  

The real questions at issue are things like: why did the global Establishment spend trillions of dollars on developing, launching, and implementing these "AI" technologies; what results are they intending to achieve from their investment; and what functions will they actually be deployed for, in the world as it actually is? 

Clearly; it is very important to some people with a lot of power and money, that these AI technologies be adopted and used very widely - whether they work well or not, whether we want them or not. 

Then, from our spiritual and Christian point of view we need to ask - honestly, and by learning from past experience - what will be the overall effect of mass usage of AI-technologies: what will they (on average) do to the way people think, Western society and its institutions, our attitude to the world, our aspirations?

Does the spread of AI technologies lead towards a more spiritual and creative, personal, loving and Christian perspective - or towards ever-more this-worldly manipulative materialism? 

To ask is to answer. 

 

The only honest conclusion from such questions regarding the evil provenance of AI, the fundamentally untruthful propaganda surrounding its emergence and spread (e.g. the word-concept "intelligence!), the coercive and totalitarian implementation - is that this kind of AI is a massive strategy designed to do harm of many kinds. 

Whether you personally believe you are personally exempted from general harm, that you can surf this wave of evil to your own advantage - well this is another matter altogether. 

But even if you can, and even if you actually do make the best of a societal state of waxing corruption (gaining more money, prestige, or power for yourself, perhaps?) - this does not excuse you when you argue in favour of what should recognized as a malign plan.

Otherwise you are no better than a stereotypical war profiteer; one who uses his influence (fasle information, bribery, blackmail etc.) to cause, expand and continue destructive wars - so that you personally can do well out of it. Even if some war is good for you here-and-now, does not mean that war is good in itself - and you ought not to believe or say that it is. 

We cannot defend ourselves against evil unless we recognize evil. Apologists for "AI" are not just harming themselves but others in failing to acknowledge an obvious and major demonic scheme. 

Why, then, do they do this? I think the reasons are psychological - not spiritual. 

There is, I think, a kind of Stockholm Syndrome at work. 

I discern that some of the most vocal advocates of AI themselves actually fear AI; AI makes them afraid - and they respond by trying to make friends with AI - they take the side of AI, defend it against its critics. 

I think this befriending, like the Stockholm Syndrome it so much resembles, is fear induced - a response to a threat they perceive to be potentially deadly, and inescapable. 

(You cannot beat 'em, so you might as well join Them.)  

One reason I think pro-AI advocacy is often fear-induced, is that such people project their fear onto others - inappropriately, wrongly. They taunt that those who do not embrace AI are afraid of AI!

But this is patent nonsense in general and specifically. Fear of AI is far from normal - which is why so much propaganda must be expended on trying to generate fear (via innumerable mass media fictions about evil AIs, and AI dystopias).

In real life the overwhelming response to AI is on a spectrum from moderate irritation and boredom, to mainstream everyday careerist attempts at exploitation of "the latest trendy thing". 

Therefore such an accusation of fear is a dead giveaway, a projection onto others of something within oneself - often emanating from those who really feel, personally, threatened by replacement or oppression with AI technologies. 

For instance those who hope (like generations before them) to escape this fate by vaulting-over the threat into a managerial situation: to position themselves as expert and enthusiastic "AI managers" in their particular field. 

To adopt an accusatory or "therapeutic", stance to those who see the evil motivation behind AI is classic managerialism! 

The managerial way of dealing with dissent is that real world (and spiritual) problem is reframed into emotions... 

The problem is not the global Establishment-driven mandatory AI take-over;  the "real" problem is those who criticize or resist AI, or who decline to engage with it. "They must have something wrong with them". 

AI-resisters are assumed to be ignorant, weak, or frightened - and the managerial answer is they need to be educated, soothed, or mocked and shamed - until they fall in line, and do what is good for them.

If you regard yourself as a Christian, and are currently an advocate of AI - you are Missing The Obvious; and it is time to take a step back. It's never too late to repent, and all spiritual learning from experience is a positive gain. It's what we are here for, after all.     

 

How is it that successful, feted, mainstream Establishment people nonetheless regard themselves as "radicals"?

The phenomenon by which people who (perhaps) began life as cynical radicals or supposed-revolutionaries; later become successful and highly rewarded and decorated bureaucrats, managers, executives, politicians, and committee people - yet still regard themselves as radical - has been noticed (and sometimes mocked) for many decades. 

It was first apparent after those who had engaged in activism (demonstrations, sit-ins, etc) as students; later went on to join the Establishment, to gather prestigious jobs and positions, money, power, awards and medals (and, in the UK, titles such as Sir/ Dame/ Lord/ Lady)  - but often maintained their younger styles of self-presentation (hair, clothes, sexual lifestyle and the like); but always trumpeting their self-image as anti-Establishment, radical, leftist, altruistic, engaged etc. 

This is now so normal and near-universal as to be expected and largely unremarked. 

It is now so usual for Heads of Corporations, Professors and Presidents, doctors, lawyers, teachers, executives and managers express themselves as radical and leftist - that this has become mandatory and monitored; part of job applications and promotion procedures, and compulsory training...

Anyone who is not explicitly radical and anti-Establishment is indeed intentionally excluded from positions of high status, fame, power and wealth. 

As I said, when this is noticed it is usually to mock, or else to point-out the hypocrisy. 

Yet this phenomenon is, in truth, quite extraordinary and historically unprecedented; therefore we are dealing with a fundamental and significant phenomenon which demands a structural explanation.

To be clear: in the past Establishment people supported the Establishment. 

It is very strange indeed that in The West, now and for many decades Establishment people desire - and are indeed required - to subvert, destroy, and invert the Establishment (starting always with whatever is most good, or most functional, about the Establishment)!

This at first seems like a paradox or contradiction, for people to be destroying the basis of their own success; but it can be explained quite simply at a motivational level.  

If you imagine that you are a member of an alien civilization, "an alien", who is motivated by resentment against another civilization "the Establishment". 

Then it makes perfect sense for the alien to both do the best for himself here-and-now, within the Establishment, and also to do so in a way that tends to weaken and destroy the Establishment. 

Personal success is achieved by strategic destruction. 

If you regard yourself as an alien to the civilization that is your "host" which you fear and despise, then the best strategic route through life is to behave as a parasite that feeds-off the host. 

Although successful parasites weaken their host, and tend to destroy their own niche, and kill themselves; but if the parasite can evolve faster than the host and has foresight; then each parasite can be continually seeking new niches to exploit. 

For example, a path to success as a manager is to suck the blood from one organization to ones own advantage, then - just before the institution expires - move-on to vampirise another. 

That is precisely how the modern Establishment operates: both subjectively, in terms of their motivations - and also objectively in terms of the way that society has become structured as ruled by a managerial bureaucracy-mass media. 

(This is what lies behind the so-called "long march through the institutions" of the New Left. It was not achieved by tens of millions of middle class people all over the world following the blueprint of an obscure theoretician; but is the natural and inevitable consequence of implementing the inner motivations of the niche-seeking, parasitic post-1960s Establishment.)   

Such an explanation makes perfect sense of the self-image and actions of the Western ruling class. 

So, in what sense are the Western Establishment actual and conscious parasitic aliens - given that we are talking here about a large segment of the population?

My answer is, in the sense that the Establishment are atheist, materialist and hedonic in their fundamental nature and motivations - which means they are opposed to God, Divine Creation and Jesus Christ in the spiritual war of this world. 

In simple terms: by adopting ultimate assumptions about reality that are materialist/ spirit denying, creation-denying, god-rejecting, utilitarian - almost the entirety of the ruling class have joined the Devil's Party, adopted the world-view of demons, and are therefore quite naturally doing the work of Satan.   

The odd, superficially hypocritical and risible, apparently paradoxical, way in which cynical radicals develop into pillars of the Establishment while retaining their self-image and lifestyle as cynical radicals -- is actually a diagnostic symptom of the takeover of the West by those who are affiliated to the powers of purposive evil.  

It is from understanding things in this way that I conclude these are the most evil times in the history of the world. 

The Absolute stupidity of (totalitarian) bureaucracy

There is an absolute and ineradicable stupidity at the heart of The System: the bureaucracy that controls our totalitarian society. 

This is something that I observed first-hand in the year and a half I worked in the National Health Service administration. What is characteristic of the stupidity is a conviction that because we need it to be so, then it can be so*. 

When The System finds some-thing necessary, then The System will believe that it is possible. 

Indeed, The System cannot comprehend that what it regards as necessary, is actually impossible - because The System only takes regard of itself. 

The System is its own world; and works by assuming that itself is the whole world. 

So that when The System recognizes something as necessary, or even as simply desirable - then The System also automatically-intrinsically regards that something as possible. 

We see this characteristic everywhere - or, at least, we can see it if we stand outwith The System, which apparently not all that many people can or do (or even want to do). 

We see it at the large scale and at the small scale of bureaucratic operations. 

At the large scale there is the colossal socio-economic phenomenon of the Global Climate Warming/ Change Emergency; by which something not-a-problem, and anyway immeasurable (i.e. the temperature of the earth/ocean surface/ atmosphere is not measurable coherently); and which has unknown determinants; is claimed by The System to be understood, predictable, and controllable (by The System) down to fractions of a degree... So The System regards the climate problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

On a smaller scale there is the current wave of AI ("Artificial Intelligence"), which The System believes it needs in order to exert what The System regards as the necessary degree of monitoring and control over the mass population. And the fact that "AI" cannot by its nature possibly work in the real world for such purposes, and therefore it does not work; is unknowable by The System. So The System regards the AI problem as solved and it is all a matter of implementation. 

And implementation of such schemes is also something that The System knows how to do, to its own satisfaction, by the means it has generated internally. 

So that the actually accelerating collapse of social order and capability in the world outside The System, and that this collapse is actually caused by The System, simply does not register; because it is not part of The System.

From inside The System, the only "real" problems are ones of implementation: the problem that "people" simply aren't properly doing... whatever it is that The System currently wants them to do. 

Which means that the only "real" problem for The System is that of monitoring and controlling "people". 

And thus the circle is completed.    

 *The specific instance when this became clear was when I was questioning a government minister in a meeting at the Health Authority. The NHS bureaucracy had set as a numerical-monitored-target, that national suicide rates should and would be reduced. I pointed-out that this was nonsensical, because nobody knew how national suicide rates could be reduced. The minister rather impatiently explained to me that it was necessary that Psychiatric services had a target (or else they would be neglected), and this was the only suitable measurable outcome; so now it was "up to us" to discover how to reach that target - i.e. how to reduce national suicide levels in line with the targets. In practice, The System generated some (totally conjectural) methods that it believed ought to work. These were accepted (eagerly) because something must be done. The hypothetical notion was, basically, prescribing more antidepressant drugs (because that must stop suicides, right?... Ignoring that the SSRI drugs actually increase suicides, which was what happened in the real world). And so drug-pushing was the policy which got implemented. At least until The System changed the targets, for reasons of its own.

Note added: The above is a soft version of the Systems Theory of Niklas Luhmann - which is summarized and developed in the Appendix of my (pre-Christian, and leftist) book The Modernization Imperative.  

Soviet and socialist origins of the British folk music revival

Ewan MacColl (pseudo-Scotsman Jimmy Miller from Lancashire) and Peggy Seeger (pseudo-ethnic WASP). Hard-working, knowledgeable, talented, tyrannical spooks 

I'm reading an oral history of Folk Clubs, called Singing from the Floor, by JP Bean (2014) which institutions were the main manifestation of the British Folk Revival from the middle 1950s until the late 1970s. 

I knew this movement pretty well and participated somewhat, towards the end of this era; and perhaps because I came late to it, I had not previously realized the extent to which the trend was dependent upon the Communist Party (in effect the government of the USSR), and socialist Trades Unions, for planning, funding, publicity and organization.  

This top-down and social engineering aspect of the British Folk Revival is perfectly clear cut, not hidden, and was always openly acknowledged (albeit the fact that the activities of UK communism were primarily as a tool of USSR foreign policy, was never generally recognized). 

Like so much of popular music and popular culture generally, it turns-out that the public face and administrators of Folk Music (aside from the always present actually "folk" musicians, such as farm workers and miners) were the intelligence branches of the Eastern Bloc, and their sympathizers and collaborators within the UK Establishment and Labour movements. 

(All of which is ironic considering, this was supposed to be a grass-roots, bottom-up movement, emanating from "the folk" and representing the ideas and ideals of the "secret people" of Britain - the often nameless working "masses". But I suppose this always has been standard operating procedure for the left, who are always appointing themselves spokesmen on behalf of somebody else.)

In the end, the movement outgrew its roots, and the aspects of folk music that I most liked were either disconnected-from or hostile-to the original Soviet-agent "controllers" such as Ewan MacColl and Peggy Seeger, or AL Lloyd.   

But there is no doubt in my mind that a major aspect of the Folk movement was covert-agenda-driven, was upper and middle class in origin and actuality; and that this strategy was highly successful in its (presumed) political aims of permeating many performers and audience with a particular world view and assumptions. 

And what applied to Folk Music (top-down, organized and funded for strategic political purposes by leftist sources) was analogously true (although probably with less direct Soviet influence, and a more Western Intelligence impulse) for the much larger "pop culture" of Britain. 

Thus were built-into people - at an early and formative stage of life, and especially associated with enjoyment, happy memories and day dreams during the "coming of age" years of teenage and young adulthood - ideas and ideals that have been for many decades a cultural compulsion and obsession in The West. 

And which consequently still exert a near-monopoly in large sectors of the population in the UK.

Job done!

Dirty Work: What about the "necessary evils" of civilization?

Having grown-up in the 1970s (i.e. as a teen), and one who also read a good deal of philosophical/ political stuff from the late 19th, early 20th century onwards; I was familiar with the problem that any civilization entails a good deal of Dirty Work.

My interpretation of Dirty Work is the stuff that needs doing in order for a particular society to sustain itself, but which is the kind of thing that it would be better if nobody did; and therefore it is an ineradicable flaw that somebody has to do it. 

Whatever the society, real or imagined, and no matter how ideal in terms of what is realistically possible - it was pretty generally recognized, including among honest socialists (who used to exist!) and others of the left, that there is always Dirty Work that needed doing. 

That DW might be coal-mining, agricultural drudgery, factory assembly lines - or it might be military and police, prisons and guards, propaganda and incentivizing... But there is always Dirty Work to be done - and it was regarded as a genuine problem how to square this necessity with the ideal society; because it is a problem with all societies. 

Even among those who acknowledged the problem, there were always people who supposed that kicking the can a bit further down the road constituted an answer. 

Replacing labouring people with machines was one instance - because it replaced the problem of doing exhausting physical labour; with instead a vastly complex system of multi-national, multi-personal, economics and trade - including systems of education, training, factory work, transportation etc - all of which was just as systemic, just as mandatory (hence, ultimately coerced), as the toiling peasant.

The same problems apply to any imaginable system of religion that might be integrated with any ideal society. The building and maintenance of churches, the provision of religious professionals (priests, theologians, administrators etc) and the systems needed to provide these (education, training, discipline, monitoring etc), a system of laws and rules for the religion - the problem of Dirty Work in any realistically conceivable religion is indeed very extensive   

So this problem of the necessarily coercive and Dirty nature of every realistically conceivable society, was a constant problem for those who were honest, and who also hoped and intended to improve human life on this earth. 

The key terms above include "realistic" and "honest" - because (starting in the middle sixties, and beginning to become dominant through the 1970s) it became evident that it had become acceptable, indeed mainstream in public and intellectual discourse, to dispose of the problem of Dirty Work by being unrealistic and dishonest. 

For examples; by denying there was a necessary problem, or removing the problem by hand-waving. That is certainly the point we have now reached, and for a long time. 

The discussions of sex and sexuality, or race, are prime instances. The favoured outcomes are merely wish-fulfilment daydreams. Realistic evaluation - e.g. in terms of negative outcomes of policy, inevitable compromises, necessary and unavoidable flaws - is not just neglected but prohibited. 

This began with the denial of adverse personal and social outcomes from a system that allowed, then encouraged, extra-martial sex, promiscuity, normalized cohabitation, and introduced "no-fault" divorce - and went on from there as the sexual revolution expanded without limit.    

Environment is another instance. In the early-mid seventies it was acknowledged that preservation of nature and enhancement of the natural environment would require a lower population, a lower "standard of living", a great simplification of life, fewer and less complex machines - with less consumption and travel and so forth... 

But currently all such Dirty Work inevitabilities are just left-out, blocked from discussion - and boosteristic, vague, wishful thinking reigns unopposed.  

Much the same applies among modern Christians. While it used to be very generally accepted that there is a large Dirty Work aspect to system-integrated Church Christianity (of all denominations, although the main problems differed for each) - that this was an ineradicably very mixed solution to the problem of religion; nowadays such matters are left-out of discussion.

Probably in consequence; the Dirty Work, systemic aspects of the Christian churches have almost-completely taken over; and everything else (the actual religion that is supposed to be "provided" by the apparatus of organization) is so marginalized as to be all-but invisible (or, as in the Birdemic, eliminated until-further-notice). 

Furthermore; those who advocate a return to a society rooted in orthodox traditionalism seem to be living in an unrealistic and dishonest fantasy day-dream; where either there are no Dirty Work aspects of their desired theocratic system - or else these necessary flaws are re-interpreted as Good Things. 

This problem applies to all actual and possible Christian Churches. System always entails Dirty Work. 

What I mean is that stuff which used to be known as "necessary evils", are either no longer regarded as necessary or (more often) no longer regarded as evil!... Usually on the basis that the system advocated is, overall, judged better than the (totalitarian, materialist, evil-motivated) system in place currently - which is a very low bar to leap! 

And this applies pretty much across the board, including among far too many Christians. Dishonesty and unrealism are institutionalized; and not just accepted, but required in public discourse - even among dissenting minorities. 

So I have circled back to my old (well-worn?) point about the necessity of honesty, if anything is to be accomplished from the situation we now inhabit. 

And the further point I wish to make is that - in a world where honesty is neither valued nor permitted - this is a matter for each individual to do for himself. Self-honesty. 

Striving for honesty about everything, with oneself, for oneself (and God). 

Personal responsibility in all (or as many as possible) things - in other words. 

Birmingham, Glasgow and the escalating attention-magnet and motivation-sinkhole of geo-politics

No matter that I have for a decade-plus been cutting-down my consumption of media (and almost eliminating mainstream mass media from my life) - the fact is that the lure continues to escalate. 

Aside from the continually escalating geopolitical crisis of multiple wars, coups, and chaos (in which the UK unerringly joins the most evil side, in a fashion that paints a target over the country); there also the brutal and reckless destructiveness of UK domestic politics to contend with. 

The mask of benignity never come-off entirely; because mass media addiction and a godless aspiritual populace incapable of learning from experience, makes even gratuitously spiteful actions facile to prosecute under the most perfunctory of pragmatic or ethical rationales. 

The UK is being purposively annihilated by multiple strategies, any one of which would do the job on its own. But I can't do anything about it; and most native British people (a very large majority) are apparently so consumed with hedonism  / cowardly/ despairing self-loathing to be either ignorant or approving of the process. 

For instance, the main current national crusade and new legislation, which is widely-approved, is for the right to be painlessly murdered when the totalitarian state deems this moral and beneficial. 

The program of UK annihilation is now openly documented. This week we learned (from mainstream media) that in the past two years - by official figures (which are underestimates) net immigration has been about 1.7 million extra people... Which is an additional load (extra housing, education, health services, doles etc.) of the population of the second and third largest UK cities (Birmingham and Glasgow) combined. The government response is extract more taxes and introduce new laws to cover this crowded island with colossal swathes of cheap housing.

This is just one of the lethal plans - on top of war, anti-environmentalism, crushing farming, breaking transportation, smashing the economy, antiracism/ DIE, pseudo-socialism, omni-surveillance, total-bureaucracy and so on and on - mandated by an alien leadership class on a docile and demotivated populace.    

So the world is being destroyed, my country is being destroyed - and I am confident that nothing effective and significant will be done to oppose either of these killer trends. 

Yet the temptation is to monitor and evaluate the situation; and that monitoring needs to be ever more frequent, and ever more complex - and I have only so much time and energy and motivation. 

If I keep tabs on this stuff, and "do my little bit" to oppose it; then this is not merely futile, but drains finite life force and will-power from what I ought to be doing. 

There is a vast amount of real and important stuff that (given our consent) has a magnetic attraction for attention; and consumes motivation like a bottomless sinkhole... 

There is a great deal of "reality"! 

But the problem is not impossible - because each of us has a destiny, and sufficient divine guidance to enable us to discover what is most important. 

Hence, we need to ignore without denying most of "reality". 

Then, it is up to each of us to do that - and not something else. 

And this is not something to feel guilty about, nor to apologize-for - we should instead reserve our contrition for those things we fail to do that we really ought to be doing. Those "spiritual" things that can really make a difference to everything - not just here and now, but forever.  

Note to commenters: In any response, please try to resist the temptation to be topical and political; don't fall into exactly the trap I am describing! 

What's going-on about the obsession with 2030? Black magic numerology...

We have all heard "by 2030" so many times that the oddness of that date does not surprise us as it should. 

The main focus comes from United Nations Agenda 2030 - originated, endorsed and publicised by the World Economic Foundation gang - which is the plan to bring the world under totalitarian omni-surveillance and micro-control. 

But why that date - or rather, why that number? Because this is about numerology - the magic of numbers.

And I mean literal magic, as with Black Magical ceremonies, designed to make contacts with demons, and thereby to mobilize and serve demonic powers. 

Be clear - numerology is not what I believe is possible or real, but what They believe is possible and real: the kind of things that They do. They believe in the power of numbers, and work in accordance with numbers. 

And 2030? Well, ritually speaking 2030 is two thousand years, two-millennia, after the beginning of the three year ministry of Jesus Christ. 

So 2030 to 2033 (i.e. Jesus's ministry to his crucifixion) is significant; because by Their reasoning this is a "dangerous" time for the agenda of evil; and therefore a time when they want everything under control - and a population for whom everything real is "a thing". 

(That is, a world of the masses where the spiritual is ignored, regarded as not-real - when it isn't being ridiculed.) 

"They" do not ignore or ridicule the spiritual, because that includes the demonic; and They know that the demonic is real - because They serve it. But is the The Agenda that everyone not inside the demonic elite should disbelieve the spiritual.

(When people are convinced that only the material is real, then they can be controlled insofar as the material world can be controlled - which, nowadays, when most choose to inhabit a virtuality, is to a very great extent. By contrast, the world of spirit is not easily controlled. For instance, yours and my relationship with the Holy Ghost is beyond Their control.)  

However... The bureaucratic demons of materialism and totalitarian control are rapidly losing ground to the spiteful demons of destruction and chaos. 

So it seems more and more likely that Agenda 2030 is not going to happen on schedule, or ever. Things are moving away from it overall, and this trend is accelerating.

This does not mean they will give up on the Agenda for 2030; but that their efforts will become more frantic, more urgent, more extreme. 

And Christians should bear in mind that 2030-33 is an opportunity. 

Even if (as I believe) the numerology is nonsense, then frantic totalitarianism may (if the opportunity is grasped) create an accidental self-inflicted self-fulfilment about the danger to Them. 

If, but only insofar as, this opportunity is taken. 

     

Fuzziness about assumptions and aims used to be okay, but now Christians need to be Clear

This is a thing that I assume; but not the kind of thing that can be proven. It is that in the past it was okay for Christians to have all kinds of wrong ideas, but now there are some particular core aspects of Christianity that it is necessary to become clear about. 

I regard this as a consequence of the development of a distinctively hard-edged modern consciousness. 

Whereas in the past, consciousness was more groupish, hence less personal; there was an inevitable fuzziness about concepts and aims because each individual's awareness was significantly subordinated to the groups in which he participated (his church, his clan, his nation...). Much of Cristian life was a matter of (often unconsciously) going along with group practices. 

Now, as I understand it, we Just Are primarily autonomous and isolated consciousness's. Some people can, temporarily and usually partially, re-immerse in a group mind - but only by some kind of temporary depression of consciousness - such as intoxication, trance states, getting carried-away by some crowd event - which might include a religious ceremony...

Or people blitz their own consciousness, with constant and distracting sensory inputs from social and mass media.    

But most of the time we are awake and aware, we experience consciousness as isolated, alienated from the world, and our-selves. 

This being fundamentally "on our own" is, I think, why we now need to be clear about the truth of things, and about our purposes in living. 

This is why, when we are wrong about essential matters; it seems to make a much greater difference than it used to. 

Apparently; we cannot help but follow-through our own ideas to conclusions and outcomes, that necessarily affect us. 

Errors will lead to further errors, lies and other forms of untruthfulness will propagate into consequences. 

There is (in a loose but necessary sense) a "karma" of our choices.   

That, at least, is how I see it. And it is is a very different business from the old theocratic way of defining a single permissible truth and way-of-living - and enforcing this upon the population at large. 

Now, the process of assumptions and consequences plays itself out in a multitude of individual consciousnesses.

Whereas in the past Christianity was a matter of externally mediated and inflicted threats and rewards; nowadays "the game of consequences" happens inside each person - and operates with a kind of determinism.  

In the past each group-immersed person was not fully responsible for his spiritual convictions, therefore neither was he fully responsible for the consequences; but now that responsibility is unavoidable. 

Laeth on the evolution of consciousness and the Final Participation of Jesus

Edited from this post and its comments: 

...‘wrt. the evolution of consciousness’ and "final participation"...  

The first bit that seems important to me is that [modern consciousness] is not a general state, by which I mean, it’s not defined by the age but it depends on the people. Not every human alive during the European middle ages had a medieval mindset, not every human alive during the axial age had an axial age mindset - but rather, specific places and specific peoples influenced by specific individuals varied greatly. 

And similarly, and more importantly, this is still the case, and is yet another challenge and part of the satanic plan to prevent modern consciousness from emerging from its womb: the majority of the world’s current population does not, in fact, have a modern mindset. 

As moderns we have to deal with this, in several different ways; though of course without the recognition of different types of consciousness, past or present, it is impossible to. 

Equally important, from my perspective, is this: I am very much convinced that the greats of the past and present, be they saints or prophets or artists, operated in a more evolved state of consciousness than their surroundings, and thus their work can help to bring our own consciousness forward. 

On the flip side, in every age there are those who, even though they have a more advanced consciousness, try to pull it back: in our case, the traditionalists are precisely that, and whether they are aware of it or not, and most are not, they are doing the bidding of hell. 

As a paramount and primary example of the positive side, I am convinced Jesus was, not only very well advanced in consciousness compared to his milieu, but really the only man to achieve Final Participation while in this life, and the raising of Lazarus is directly related to this. 

Final Participation will be a sort of synthesis of Original Participation, which was very much an embodied experience, and the disembodied experience of Mind that modernity achieved. so basically, we will have a body of flesh, but also the powers of 'the air', so to speak. 

The raising of Lazarus seems to me to be that: Full Mind raised in Full Flesh. that Jesus was able to do it before he himself resurrected tells me that he had already achieved Final Participation in life, but then went through death to open the door for the rest of us, otherwise he would have to do it personally for each one, like he did with Lazarus, which is definitely not the way. 

Why did he do it for Lazarus then? First because he was his friend and he loved him, and second because, speculating here, he had a specific mission for Lazarus.

**

I would only add, by way of explanation, that the evolution of consciousness can be understood as a development, analogous to the development of a human being from childhood through adolescence to maturity (with this scheme mapping onto human history, and the current "modern" consciousness as the adolescent phase". 

As with the development of a human being, such evolution is not a matter of improvement in goodness. Clearly, many (most?) people are "better" as children, especially as young children, than they are as adolescents. 

Yet we can, nonetheless, see that adolescence is a further ("higher" development than childhood, in terms of becoming more self-aware, which is a step towards higher agency and (however abused in practice) the possibility of greater freedom. 

We could say that a young child is immersed in his environment; and if this is a loving and "good" environment, then the child will spontaneously, passively (ie. by outer-influences) be substantially (but not completely) aligned with divine creation.

In other words, a young child originally "participates" in creation - hence this developmental stage of consciousness is called Original Participation. 

The adolescent, by his greater self-awareness, has the potential for greater independence from his environment; and this archetypally goes to the point of ceasing automatically to accept much of that which he absorbed as a child (good, as well as anti-good: that is, evil).

To become an adult in Final Participation of consciousness, the adolescent should voluntarily and consciously affirm the love, goodness, and truths which as a child he knew only unconsciously. He should, in ultimate terms, voluntarily and consciously choose to align himself - commit himself - to love of God, divine creation, following Jesus Christ to resurrection.

Clearly, this desirable state of affairs is not achieved by everybody, and those who achieve it do so only intermittently and partially - except for Jesus Christ, who achieved it completely and permanently (in the three years of ministry, after his baptism, at any rate).  

Unlike the earlier stages of the evolution of consciousness (i.e Original Participation, and "modern consciousness" - also called the Consciousness Soul); to be-achieving Final Participation is therefore understood as an intrinsically good state. 

Final Participation can be achieved in this mortal life only-when - and always-when - we are consciously and voluntarily motivated by Christian love. This happens permanently after death, by resurrection, for those who choose that path.   

Another way of thinking of Final Participation is therefore that it is the divine mode of consciousness; divine in its many and unique forms of each particular Being (unique because shaped and constrained by the attributes of that Being, at any particular point in time, and its development). 

Personality psychology has declined badly since the death of Hans J Eysenck

Many areas of science have declined substantially over the past several decades, and one of these is the field of personality psychology - where we have now given-up on the rigorous and multi-disciplinary approach best exemplified by Hans J Eysenck, and are back to the pre-theoretical indeed medieval - world of "that sounds like a good idea". 

The thing about inventing categories of personality, is that it is trivially easy, because they all have some predictive validity - therefore there is no end to the proliferation of typologies and categorizations. 

For instance: Young children can be classified into two groups by a ten minute test of whether they are able to defer a present reward (e.g. one biscuit) in order to get a greater reward a few minutes later (e.g. two biscuits) - and these groups have statistically different outcomes later in life. 

People can be categorized into groups according to the four humours (phlegm, black bile, yellow bile, and blood), of by Jung's categorization developed as Myers-Briggs, or by the Big Five or any number of others - all with some predictive validity with respect to future behaviour. 

A small research project I did easily showed that those with a tattoo had a significantly self-reported higher rate of drug and alcohol use than those without. 

Another little project showed that those who possessed digital bathrooms scales had a higher rate of reported eating disorders. 

The point is there are innumerable traits that are predictive. 

Almost any characteristic you can think-of has some value of this kind; and when characteristics have multiple components - i.e. when one creates a "syndrome" of characteristics - the correlations will be greater. 

For example; the typologies used in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM of the American Psychiatric Association) used in psychiatry; or for that matter the typical star signs used in astrology, they will usually demonstrate statistical differences in outcome. (e.g. Eysenck reported astrological differences many decades ago). 

The predictive validity of different schemes can be studied comparatively to seek higher statistical correlations, but this process is very sensitive to sample and population selection, and still lacks discriminative power. 

But only Eysenck (and those influenced by him) properly recognized that, in order to make progress, the scientific implication was that personality psychology must go beyond lists of characteristics to include as many as possible cross-correlations drawn from other biological sciences; such as cross-species comparisons, biochemical distinctions (e.g. in brain, or of blood), response to drugs, psychiatric correlates, medical correlates, evolutionary theory - and so forth. 

Eysenck made some progress in testing his categories (extraversion-introversion, neuroticism - and to some extent psychoticism) by such means; and more importantly he provided a programme by which this ought to be done.  

But Eysenck's programme was abandoned; and the predictable outcome has been a proliferation of personality typologies - each of which has its group of "believers", but none of which go beyond the trivial and common sense knowledge that how people behaved in the past may have an influence on how they behave in the future.  

Note: I invite readers to apply the above critique to currently common self- and other-categorizations (including their own favourites) relating to sexual typology and preference, lifestyle, consumer choices, race, ethnicity, residence, political and religious affiliation etc. etc. 

(Real) Diversity is a Good Thing: The variety of human consciousness around the world and through history

Because I believe that all Beings, each Being (including each human being) is unique in terms of its origin as an eternal spirit; the variety of people (and other beings) is not something that needs to be explained or justified. This variety is assumed to be a fact of reality; and, as such, something that God must "deal with". 

So, God doesn't "make" us different, we just-are different - and always have-been (from eternity). 

But that was originally a situation of separate and indifferent difference... What God is "working on" (through the span of creation) is how to create a reality in which all these different Beings work together by love. 

This is why "the family" is the best metaphor or model for reality - not just for human reality, but for divine creation as a whole.

In a good family (an ideal family, the best we can imagine) we neither expect nor seek for uniformity. The ideal family is one in which each member's differences from each other are harmonized and made good by their mutual love and shared "aims". 

I think this understanding is also applicable to the wide variety of types of Men, in the world now and through history. 

It is not so much that "diversity" is good, as that it is a fact. Indeed, the concept diversity - as used now - is an abstract summary of certain kind of group-difference, and either ignores love or else assumes love to be a thing that can be induced, ordered and legislated as required (as when religious leaders instruct their adherents to "love" such-and-such - insofar as they mean anything at all, it is not real love as understood by Christians, by Jesus). 

From God's point of view, there are a wide range of spirits that may benefit from incarnation; and the wide range of types of society that exist around the world, and across what is known of human history, can be seen as ways of grouping types of human beings to provided what (on average, because that is all any society can provide) conditions conductive to salvation of that-kind-of-soul. 

I think this is probably the reason for both the variety of individuals at any one time; and the variety of races, places and nations in God's creation; and the directional changes in human consciousness through history. For instance, the development of consciousness from that of hunter gatherers, through agrarians in larger and larger societies, to the modern consciousness which has emerged preceding and since the industrial revolution. 

God was (I think) trying to provide a wide range of environments for the wide range of human spirits that may benefit from incarnation. 

Different types of men were therefore (on the whole) born into different historical eras, and different places and races of the world...

The process was, of course, primarily individually tailored to the needs of specific individual persons - yet in practice this entailed a variety of societies both "vertically" (through history) and "horizontally" (in any given point in history).  

Of course, working against this ideal are the powers of purposive evil, the demons; and the aspects of evil in every Man. 

These are aimed at wrecking God's best efforts at providing certain broad types of individuals with broadly helpful environments. 

Nowadays, the main efforts are homogenizing - and are directed at destroying these diverse environments; and trying to impose a world where everybody (and eventually every "thing") is regarded as the same, and treated as the same. 

The strategy of evil is that men and women, children and adults, those of different race and nation, the actual environment in which people live, the rules and media under which they live... All of these are to be pressed into the direction of actual global homogeneity, by vast programmes of indoctrination, population movement and coercion.

(This homogenizing - totalitarian - programme is breaking-down rather rapidly; but still in operation; and still used to "justify" the emerging actuality of deliberately chaotic destructive evil, which is superseding it.)

Evil is effective only insofar as it contains some partial good ("good intentions" are so dangerous!) - which is why evil is always untruthful, and disguises its destructive (anti-divine-creation) aims by apparent good. 

So that the global program of reducing the world to a single and uniform environment for all people and peoples, is dishonestly - albeit superficially - disguised as its opposite! As supporting "individuality! As supporting "freedom"!

This kind of inversion of values, supported by subversion then inversion of terms and concepts; is nowadays a pervasive reality of everyday life - especially in The West from which the strategy of evil is administered. 

But I think we need to beware of reacting against that which is truly good, and in accordance with God's intentions; simply because the terminology and concepts have been captured and reversed. 

For instance, the reality of love (the core truth of Christianity) does not itself become evil, when the word has been captured and almost-reversed to mean in practice lust, self-gratification, or suicidal altruism. 

Likewise, diversity in the sense of the uniqueness of every human being, is a reality and part of God's creative endeavour.

Thus is is a serious error to respond to the evil-motivated modern "diversity" by advocating its opposite, by insisting upon the suppression of individual uniqueness by coercion: that is falling into a trap set by The Enemy - it is aiding The Enemy*. 

My understanding is that in Heaven there is great diversity (more than on earth) because every soul is unique (and always has-been) and this is positively valued. I think Heaven works as an ideal family - or rather, many ideal families; lovingly related into something like clans, tribes and a nation; each bound to each by eternal commitment to mutual love - but with that love stronger because more individual and personalized in the smaller dyads and groupings. 

In such a situation, the more differences between individuals, and the more these are developed (in the spirit of love, and so long as the differences derive from real nature) - the better; because the greater will be the potential scope of the whole. 

Every single new soul who enters Heaven then adds to the scope and possibilities. 

The "many mansions" of Heaven mentioned in the Bible, may be taken to refer to the probable situation of Heaven being a perfection of what we can glimpse on earth: large differences in consciousness, and environment; analogous to the differences through history, of races and nations, and between families. 

*Note: An example is the apparently very strong desire to arrange people by categories of personality and type - then for these categories to bleed across into the spiritual realm. I was (professionally) an intelligence and personality psychologist; and so I am aware of the pragmatic value of categories. It is, indeed trivially easy to invent categories that have statistical predictive value. For instance, young children can be divided into two categories by their response to a wide range of one-off and brief psychological tests - and these categories will (even decades later) have measurably different behavioural outcomes. Yet, I am also aware of the pitfalls and limitations of these tests at the level of individuals. And the exceptions may be important - as seen by the biologically-maladaptive (and/or socially negative) personalities of most geniuses. Yet such categorization is/was mainly a feature of an historical era of human consciousness: the medieval mind - with its "humours" linked to elements, its astrology, its castes and guilds - all of which had some level of validity, yet which have become less and less relevant as human consciousness has developed towards individual agency and self-awareness. More importantly, I am sure that what God wants from us - starting from here, and from now - is very different. We need to grasp firmly and with clarity that in an ultimate way (aside from the pragmatic social management (mostly related to efficiency, surveillance and control; which knowledge is now primarily used for evil ends, anyway) we are dealing with very diverse individual Beings; and these ought to be known essentially in terms of Christian values. It is not our Christian duty to assist with the effective administration of a society dedicated (top-dwn and pervasively throughout) towards evil ends. 

The cusp of a New Era? (but Not The Age of Aquarius)

It is very interesting to me that many people could foresee, before it had actually become evident, that the millennium would be the end of one age of the world, and the beginning of another. 

But it is not surprising that everybody who tried to describe what the new era would look like, got it very wrong. Indeed, it was usual to regard the post-millennium world with a diffuse (because dewy-eyed) optimism, as the dawning of an Age of Aquarius - peace and free-love, free drugs, constant rock music, and a great deal of singing and dancing. 

Well... Not exactly. Indeed, sixties style "freedom" is nowadays regarded as evil in the mainstream, and as for dancing... People dance less often (and less joyfully) now than at any time in history (including during the decade of Puritan Commonwealth!) - and far, far less than during the pre-millennial decades.   

Dancing aside; it is evident that we are now deeply, and it seems irrevocably, into the end of the present era of world civilization - and the end, too, of an age of the world. 

I say "irrevocably" because it is primarily an act of self-destruction - a willed destruction. 

Although most of those who will their own civilizational and (almost certainly) personal destruction would strenuously deny it; and will shrilly justify every single destructive policy and action of the vast and interlocking strategy of self-annihilation, by (what seems to them) reasons of values and necessity -- that this is mere shallow feel-good nonsense is almost instantly revealed when any honest attempt at understanding is embarked-upon.  

The leadership class live in a bureaucratic world of untruth, dual-dedicated to careerism while feeling good about themselves. Which combination is why they must be so pervasively dishonest... One can only feel good about deliberately planning and escalating gratuitous wars, by lying to oneself and everybody else - All The Time.

Meanwhile, the masses have chosen deliberately not to understand what is happening; which means not-even-trying to understand - and squashing one's own personal capacity to think and learn from experience; by self-drugging with mass media, addictive socializing, and assorted intoxications - these being perceived as the only alternative to becoming crushed by fear and despair.

The combination of an utterly corrupt leadership class with an utterly self-neutered mind-numbed population has led to the truly astonishing spectacle of a world that is today literally on the threshold of escalating mega-death from international war; with economic and trade collapse and famine - with far less public reaction or response than to a sporting event or celebrity scandal. 

There is, indeed, in England (who is currently closer to experiencing war than any other Western nation) no perceptible social awareness. 

We may hope for someone, somewhere in The West to have the basic common sense and capacity for consecutive thinking to step back and reverse the ongoing trends. But there are a complete absence of any such persons in public life - or indeed anywhere At All.  

Trends that have been advocated and celebrated for decades, driven by unified leadership and all major social institutions, would be very difficult to stop if there was a powerful and cohesive will to stop them - but there is not. 

By my judgment; nobody has any coherent or plausible idea of what is coming after this era; probably because the roots of the coming collapse are so deep and extensive, that it is almost unimaginable what might grow once these root have destroyed themselves. (Which destruction is currently ongoing, and soon will be all-too-obvious.)  

This is why we hear so many cyclical theories of civilizations - people simply can't imagine anything except a return to some previous situation. 

Of course, what this inability to imagine a plausible and coherent future may amount to, is that this could be the end of civilization. 

After all, in this entropic and increasingly-evil world, everything will have an end sooner or later, at some point - maybe this is what it is like to inhabit an end without prospect of a new beginning? 

And this is all covered by the words and actions of Jesus, whose kingdom is Not of this-world, and whose work specifically enables all those who follow him to transcend the end of this world - when (not if) it comes.  

So far as I can tell, this is the only antidote to becoming paralysed by fear and despair. 

We each (I think) need to be able to envisage the end of everything (and I mean every thing) in this mortal world; and yet realize that even this need not be the end for us (unless we choose to make it so) - but a transformation and beginning of something far, far better - and eternal. 

It is on this basis (from this basis) that we should live and "fight": not to save civilization, not even to save "the world" - because these cannot be saved (and our civilization as-it-is either wants nor deserves to be saved). 

But we should live and fight in this world in ways that contribute to everlasting life beyond this mortal life, Heavenly society we may enter after this corrupt civilization, and the for eternal divine creation rather than this world: which derives-from and sustains good, but mixes-in so much of evil and entropy. 

Be careful what you (and me!) complain of!

The major and over-riding complaint is (or should be) that the leadership class of the Western world and multi-national organizations are evil-affiliated and evil-motivated, and all its major social institutions likewise - including politics, big corporations, mass media, law, military, police, medicine, education, science and the arts. 

But/And they - and the nations they control - are also declining... 

Declining in population, military and economic power, intellectual achievement, effectiveness, wealth, confidence, self-respect... declining in all-round competence.  

It is therefore commonplace and accurate to complain both that The West is evil, and that Nothing Works Anymore. 

However! 

If The West and its nations is indeed evil by nature and intent (which it is); then surely we ought not to complain that it is also weaker (which it is)?

After all - do we really want the Empire of Evil to be more powerful? 

Do we really want Britain (or America) to be Great again? Given what these places actually Are, Do, and Want-to-do? 

We Shouldn't! 

So, let's all of us try to be a bit more coherent about our complaining - and try to avoid bemoaning the fact that we cannot pursue our evil plans with greater effectiveness. 

Note: In practice the decline is effectiveness is a symptom of the underlying evil. So we cannot (from where we are now) have greater effectiveness without first becoming more-Good. However, that is in practice, and I am here referencing spiritual matters. To want Western nations to become more effective without first requiring them to become spiritually honest and Good - is to want an evil thing. 

Q: Why can't Western nations "mind their own business?" A: Because they have no business to mind.

Sensible and common-sensical people from places like the USA, UK and France will often wail: "But why can't we just mind our own business?" 

Meaning, why are we intervening/ interfering abroad; when so much needs to be done to sort-out our affairs "at home"?  

This, especially, when it comes to engaging in wars on behalf of nations with which we have no treaties; or intervening to replace the rulers and change the way of life of... anywhere we fancy, anywhere in the world... for as long or as short a period as is convenient to us. 

But the simple answer is that we cannot mind our own business because we have no business to mind. 

For instance; what, exactly, is the business of the UK? 

(I don't mean to ask what our business should be, but what our business actually and currently is?) 

To which we can only say - there isn't anything At All: No actual business... Not so far as the people who run the UK, and their obedient managerial-state minions are concerned.

At least, there is no positive business... 

The fact is that our rulers (e.g. in politics, finance, mega-corps, and the mass media) are already sorting our our affairs "at home" in just the way that they want it sorted. 

That is: they are replacing the native population with immigrants and encouraging hatred between them; they are destroying the economy and the environment; and have already captured and corrupted the military/ legal system/ policing/ education/ health services/ churches.

Their home "business" of civilizational and social destruction is going very well, therefore they are "minding their own business" - i.e. the business of destruction; so (from their perspective) they are free to engage in similarly-destructive foreign adventures to their hearts content!     

Post UK election predictions

The UK election has been "won" by the Ahrimanic totalitarians who will try to push ahead more rapidly with Agenda 2030/ Davos/ WEF plans for a perma-lockdown world.

(Fake-justified by climate, equity, environment, inclusion etc etc.)

But against this, and sabotaging it, is the Sorathic ascendancy at the highest levels of demon-affiliated leadership; subverting the mono-bureaucracy-media with spiteful chaos.

And They will be pushing for full UK participation, indeed leadership, in an expanded WWIII - plus escalation of within-UK civil aggression.

Inter- and intra- national violence, with disease and starvation in its wake...

(The covert aim being the annihilation of the UK and its population. A spiritual war, because They believe the masses have become so corrupt as to choose damnation.)

I predict that short-termist, selfish chaos will beat strategic top-down control.

Because this is an entropic world... Dis-order is just So Much Easier!

**

NOTE ADDED: William Wildblood's take on the UK election is well worth a look.