The age of the Great Apostasy! This-worldly Christianity has failed catastrophically - in All its manifestations

The age of the Great Apostasy - a rapid, wholesale and self-imposed abandonment of Church Christianity worldwide - has-happened; and the results are currently working-through the lives of every remaining serious and real Christian.   

The astonishing and unprecedented global spiritual catastrophe of 2020 has been ignored by the Christian churches as much as by the masses everywhere; yet it marks - or should mark - a decisive change in what it means to be a Christian.

The lesson of 2020 is that All the different Christian denominations failed to discern the world-wide imposition of a totalitarian (that is, necessarily evil) system of governance; and by failing to discern and reject this reality; the Christian Churches joined-themselves with that demonically-led agenda for the corruption and damnation of Men. 

In a nutshell; 2020 was a decisive battle in the spiritual war of this world; and All the major Christian churches failed to recognize that there was a battle, and thereby surrendered (without fighting) to the powers of evil; and therefore now serve those evil powers. 

It seems that All of the major Christian churches (those large churches - with numbers, power, wealth, influence etc) have joined with one or more of the core agenda-drivers of evil: the birdemic-peck, climate-change, antiracism, sexual revolution, socialism generally... And adopting even just one of these goals is evidently sufficient to tie an institution to the agenda of evil; and ensure its incremental corruption unto complete obedience.  

So individual real Christians have been witness to The Great Apostasy - a truly colossal and world-wide, all-denominational abandonment of Christianity, by far the largest set-back of Christianity in two millennia; yet so deep in corruption are the mass of church-dominated self-identified Christians that they have not even noticed! 

What I find striking is that all the different types of Church Christianity have collapsed - and that none of the principles have sufficed to prevent this. 

The Roman Catholic Church - with its emphasis on priestly authority and the sacraments, its tradition of rigorous theology - especially the Mass; immediately aligned with the evil agenda at the top level and has consolidated this, incrementally and bureaucratically. 

The Eastern Orthodox Church, with its emphasis on tradition, the Church Fathers, asceticism and a life permeated by ritual - likewise took the side of the world government; and willingly closed itself down at their pleasure. 

The 'Bible-based' Protestant Churches; who take Scripture as their primary guide to personal conscience - all suddenly found that Scripture was telling them to comply with any and all dictates of secular government and the media; including dictates that put (their definitions of...) health as the primary human value (transcending any and all spiritual considerations). 

Likewise the Mormon (CJCLDS) Church (a large but mostly 'amateur' institution, with very few full-time pastors; that had developed a membership with high personal standards of obedience to commandments and rigorous adherence to strict rules of living); this very-different Christian church, with its very different theology, nonetheless behaved exactly like the traditional-orthodox Christian institutions in 2020; willingly shut its chapels and temples, and explicitly embraced and expounded the new totalitarianism that made primary the principles of 'health' and antiracism.  

(I realize that there have been individual, personal exceptions who recognized what was happening and continue to fight the spiritual war - and that the exceptions, like the rules, are cross-denominational; coming from many of the variants of Christianity. But not from those already 'liberal' - hence converged - churches. The 'liberal Christians' enthusiastically embraced 2020 evil almost to a Man; having already embraced the principles which justified this evil. And I recognize that a more substantial minority of lower level, non-leadership, lay church members of all denominations have remained faithful to Jesus Christ. But the above point remains. There surely has been an unmistakable abandonment of Christianity of a world-historical scale and suddenness - and made all the worse for being invisible, denied or unacknowledged.)

I could go on - but the fact that the leadership class of four such distinct denominations/ churches, each with such extremely different ideas of 'the Christian life', and each with a very different core and focus to that life; all apostatized almost simultaneously and very completely. 

And this apostasy went beyond mere obedience to a power that was regarded as overwhelming; because there is in these churches an official and enthusiastic embrace of the secular, materialist and anti-Christian principles of the New World Order. In these churches the fluctuating dictates of an evil-motivated totalitarianism have all been made - somehow - a Christian duty!

The rulers and officials of these churches do not merely comply with the secular-Left rules; additionally they praise and celebrate the motivations of the secular-Left rules, and the primacy of living by secular-Left rules - and conversely suppress and discipline those who dissent and push-back against the new regime. 

The first step is to acknowledge what has already happened; the second step it is try and understand its implications; only at the third step can people decide what to do about it. 

This is something that - surely? - all Christians need to do, and ought to be-doing? 

And that fact that they are neither being led nor encouraged to do this; is itself a factor in understanding the present situation of a real Christian who finds-himself in a world where (almost certainly) 'his' church has become an apologist for evil; has enthusiastically joined with the legions of Satan. 

What specifically to do about it will - probably - vary according to the Christian's denominational and church background. 

But in the mean time, all real Christians who have taken the side of God, divine creation and Jesus Christ as against The World; can be united in their recognition of the reality of The Great Apostasy - of this catastrophic loss in the spiritual war of this world. 

All Christians can be joined by their realistic recognition of what has (already) happened, and by their discernment that it has been a great evil. 

I think this has-created a genuine (and new) sense of fellowship among many very-different types of Christians; who might, until recently, instead have regarded each other primarily as heretics and threats. Now, they instead see - first and foremost - comrades in the spiritual war.  

So, in deciding what best to do, starting from here - there will surely be many and distinct ideas among the many types of real Christians; because none of us know what is The Best counter-revolutionary strategy; and the best answer may well differ in different parts of the world, and among different individuals each with an unique context.  

But it is possible, and desirable, that those minority of real Christians who remain Christian after this Great Apostasy, may achieve an unprecedented alliance.

Because the two sides in the spiritual war have since 2020 become clear and distinct. It is now very obvious who is fighting on our side; and who is not. 

And the opposed sides of Good and evil do not, it turns-out, map onto specific Christian denominations or churches. 

 

The unexamined Christmas is not worth living...

Christmas is the great 'romantic' season of the year - at least potentially. It is the season when enchantment is nearest the surface, strongest, most likely to cast its spell across the mundane. 

And, of course, Christmas is a Christian celebration. Therefore it ought to be a fine time for the Romantic Christian...

That, at any rate, is the challenge. Because the 'traditional' romanticism of Christmas is generally immersive, un-conscious and passive: Christmas is too-often a time when we try to devise situations where we become overwhelmed by pleasure-inducing situations and stimuli; with an apparent intent to eliminate thinking and live only emotionally, instinctually - in a happy and comfortable present.

Yet this is only truly possible for young children - which is why childhood Christmases are regarded as the best, and why they cannot be recreated later*. 

To know oneself to be un-consciously happy is an impossible paradox; so to the limited extent someone succeeds in achieving immersive Christmas goals (for example with the use of alcohol) then (by definition) he also abolishes his own awareness and memory of having done so. 

To distort Socrates's phrase somewhat, the experience of most adults in these times is that "the unexamined Christmas is not worth living" - yet to 'examine' Christmas while living it is also to ruin it! 

Thus, at best, adult Christmases become little more than shallow self-indulgence; unless a further and different attitude can be achieved.  

What Socrates meant by the 'examined' life was not what the 2021 Romantic Christian means. For Socrates, living at the dawn of the era when the human soul became self-conscious, first able to detach itself from immersion-in the world; Socrates was asserting that it was Man's proper destiny to become more conscious - to step-back and examine life philosophically. 

Socrates could advise this without fear of inducing alienation and despair in his pupils, because in Ancient Greek times it was not possible for a Man to detach himself fully from participation in the world. In other words, Socrates was such a natural romantic (he was a man who experienced living in an alive world, populated by real gods, and conversing regularly with a 'daemon' who guided him) that he could advise Men to be less romantic without disenchantment becoming a problem.  

But we, in these times, find ourselves already detached from the world - the world has lost its sense of reality, seems relativistic, socially-constructed... For us, the mainstream, publicly enforced unromantic life is meaningless; and any 'purpose' applied to life is arbitrary and does not 'involve' us personally. 

Thus to advise a modern Man to step out-from life and 'analyze' it philosophically, is to make an already-bad situations worse! 

A modern Man who looked upon Christmas 'philosophically, or analytically, would miss all the good that the season had to offer. Certainly he would not be a Romantic Christian. 

So, the examined life in 2021 is unavoidable; but if it is to be a good life (i.e. a life of meaning, purpose and one that we personally have a relationship with the world), then 'examined' must have a different meaning from the usage by Socrates. 

That is, the modern era rules-out both unthinking 'pre-Socratic' immersion and 'Socratic' thinking detachment; and implies that we need a third and qualitatively different thing. 

Christmas therefore can be regarded as a test case, an exemplar of life for the Romantic Christian. We want a romantic, a magical Christmas - and we want this romanticism to be real, honest and personal; not a failed pretense at reverting to childhood. 

What should it mean to have an 'examined' Christmas, and an examined Life? What would it mean for any romanticism (of Christmas, or anything else) to be real - for adults, here-and-now? 

This needs to be conscious (not unconscious), actively-chosen (not passively-absorbed); it needs to be thought (else it cannot be willed) - but thought with a kind of inwardly-originating and inwardly-driven thinking (i.e. intuition, heart-thinking, direct-knowing) that also consciously knows itself to be real. 

In other words; for Christmas to be really-real - starting from a position of the actual alienation of modern adult man; we need to reconstruct our thinking on the basis of different and true metaphysical assumptions. 

Instead of having passively absorbed the incoherent assumptions of modernity that thought is an epiphenomenon of the brain with no direct connection with anything outside the body; we need to recognize the truth that our thinking is an essential participant in all possible knowledge of the world and of our-selves. 

There is, indeed, no reality without thinking; and no real reality unless this thinking is 'from' our real and divine selves - rather than merely being absorbed from the materialistic and demonically-dominated world of media, officialdom, law, 'science', etc. 

In the end we come around to agree with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living; because for modern Man the unexamined life is... whatever incoherent value inversions and distortions have been put-into us by the Global Totalitarian Establishment.  

But if we examine our fundamental assumptions and discover coherent and true assumptions - we will reach the Christian reality of romanticism. 

And from this root, we can appreciate the worth of Christmas. 

I am Not suggesting that you start wishing people a "consciously-participative romantic Christmas" or anything similar! 

But we may be helped immediately and materially by awareness that the truths of Christmas are romantic truths; truths in which we are personally-involved, truths which we personally participate in creating. 

And these truths are really-real - even when not as the literalistic summaries forced-upon us by language and the need for brevity; even when, to the world, these truths are 'nothing more' than manipulative cultural fabrications. 

The really-real is wordless, direct knowing - and can be known only for-ourselves, from our-selves. 

The knowing-heart is wiser than (either or both) mind and instinct.  

*Parents of young children may - with the right attitude, and if they come to recognize what they are doing - be re-experiencing the joys of childhood Christmases; and in exactly the Romantic Christian way. For example; a parent can become the real spirit of the real Father Christmas; and also empathically identify with the child's immersive awareness of Father Christmas. But it is vital that this be regarded seriously, un-ironically, known as a deep truth of the real-situation. Mainstream modern cynicism about Christmas is fatal both to enchantment and insight; because cynical materialism is dishonest, hence un-real - thus demonic.   

Sweep, chimney sweep by Steeleye Span -1977

Sweep, chimney sweep, is the common cry I keep 

If you can but rightly understand me 

With my brush, broom and my rake, with my brush, broom and my rake 

See what cleanly work I make 

With my hoe, with my hoe, with my hoe and my hoe 

And it's sweep, chimney sweep for me 

 

Girls came up to my door I looked black as any Moor 

I am constant and true as the day 

With a bunch of ribbons gay, with a bunch of ribbons gay 

Hanging down by my right knee 

And there's no one, and there's no one 

And there's no one and no one 

And there's no one can call me on high 

 

Arise girls, arise, wipe the sleep from off your eyes 

Go and fetch to me some beer that I might swallow 

I can climb up to the top, I can climb up to the top 

Without a ladder or a rope 

And it's there you, and it's there you, and it's there you and there you 

And it's there you will hear me “Hullo” 

 

Now here I do stand with my hoe all in my hand 

Like some soldier that's on the sentery 

I will work for a better sort 

And I'll kindly thank them for it 

I will work, I will work, I will work and I'll work 

And I'll work for none but gentery

*

I saw this sung in what was, I believe, its first public performance; summer 1977, somewhere in deepest Somerset; and done by the Mark 4 line-up of Maddy Prior, Tim Hart, John Kirkpatrick, Rick Kemp and Martin Carthy. (Nigel Pegrum, drums and woodwinds, was probably not singing here.)

It is a wonderfully poignant tune and harmonization, with words expressive of the craft-pride of a 'skilled working man'. For some unidentified reason, this bittersweet song has always evoked in me tears; mixed from joy with sadness at the transience of youth, optimistic vigour, and sheer confidence. 

The unaccompanied singing is strong and direct, open-throated; with open-chords and sudden unisons - somehow spanning the generations and evoking a lost era. It is full of excellences from all - but notably underpinned by the solid, crumhorn-like, bass and lead of the incomparable Martin Carthy. 

 

My special gratitude to Owen Barfield

When I encounter a special author, I will initially hurl myself into trying to understand him - read many books, think a lot, take notes (in a meditative fashion); and often talk and write about these experiences. 

After a while, when I have become surer of what they mean and have a fairly sold grasp on it; I find that what I have learned amounts to some particular things; but I then need to detach these specifics from the whole of the writer's assertions - because I have never found any writer whose views I can endorse or believe fully.

Eventually, I get to a point where I have (more or less) obtained 'what I needed' from a writer; and may (more or less) cease to re-read or explore actively that author's works. 

I have, at this point, built-into my own philosophy of life, some elements from the special author; and from then onwards, these ideas may undergo further development and refinement - and may indeed end-up by being very different from how they are in that author's own work. 

So, the end result is that I retain a special gratitude to the author for insights that I needed; but I have ceased actively to engage with that author, and am then often more aware of my points of disagreement with him, rather than agreement. 

Yet the core debt remains - I have been changed, and for the better, by the encounter. 

I have almost reached this stage with Owen Barfield. I do continue to engage with his writings; in a cyclical fashion - but his importance to me has by-now been fed-into my own philosophy-of-life, and they have interacted with other ideas from elsewhere; have been modified; and have developed in (sometimes) different directions. 

Looking back; what I got from Owen Barfield - in a general sense - was a positive and hopeful attitude to life, deriving from his articulation of Final Participation. 

Until I encountered Final Participation, I could not see any positive direction for human life - here and now. I saw life as a binary choice between the present and the past; a present which was alienated and increasingly evil - and a past which seemed both irrecoverable and harmful to try and recover. 

It was as if an adolescent hated being an adolescent, and yearned for childhood - but knew that childhood could not be recovered - so that this mortal life had no real hope within itself: no real positive purpose. 

But through his concept of Final Participation; Barfield made me realize that there was a third possibility. Barfield terms the 'childhood' state Original Participation and the adolescent state Consciousness Soul; and he analyses how the one derived from the other through a process of unfolding development of consciousness, that stretched across different generations and historical eras. 

The 'original' participation was an immersive, passive, unconscious sense of being part of the world and knowing the spiritual; while the consciousness soul was that active, self-conscious way of thinking that finds itself cut-off - alienated - from the spiritual, and indeed from the world. 

I personally have found (since adolescence) this cut-offness, this being an 'observer' of life, trapped inside one's head - locked into one's thinking; to be appalling. It removed depth and meaning from experience, it dissolved all sense of purpose. 

This was a demotivating and depressing situation - which recurred daily, almost hourly, and needed always to be fought; but where the fighting seemed to provide no more then a subjective and ephemeral amelioration. 

For me alienation was The Problem of my adult life - and I was always seeking solutions; but never found any that were convincing, effective, strategic. 

Barfield convinced me that this development pointed forward to Final Participation which was an active, chosen, conscious state of being part-of the world; and of contributing creatively to the world. 

I realized that many of my best and most hopeful experiences in life could be seen as glimpses of this Final Participation state, but without Barfield's insights I could not make sense of them - could not learn the lessons they had to teach...

Instead I merely treasured these 'moments' (epiphanies', 'peak experiences'. moments of 'joy'); held onto them, and tried to seek them out - but with small and dwindling success... And the treasuring of these moments was itself alienating - given their temporary and very partial nature.     

But now, with Barfield's analysis to help; these moments could be seen in terms of a developmental process, a growing towards a future and better state - and this future and better state could be recognized as resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Having been given certain analytic tools and deep insights by Barfield; I was then starting to use them in a Christian context that I had already in-place, but which was deficient in exactly the areas that Barfield supplied. I began to see - more and more clearly - my path to the Romantic Christianity that I had always implicitly wanted but had not been able to articulate. 

That is; a Christianity that supplied the Romanticism which could cure my alienation, cut-offness, trapped-in-the-headness which had been left almost untouched (or even exacerbated) by mainstream Christianity.  

I found (I find, now) that I was was going beyond Barfield, and into areas where he would very probably not have followed; but I could not have done so without Barfield's help. 

So, now I find myself having integrated Barfield into my own thinking; having changed some of his core ideas in the process - yet I know the Barfieldian provenance of my situation; and that he ranks as one of a handful of vital sources in my own deepest convictions. 

Why mystical experience may be misinterpreted as evidence of oneness

According to most definitions, the mystical vision and experience is about the mystic attaining first a vision of the oneness of everything - that all divisions and distinctions, including time, are illusory; and then attaining a personal unity with that oneness. 

The idea that time is illusory, and that reality is not-time, outside of time, time-less; has no past nor future but Just Is... This idea is, I believe, the crux of the mystical experience. 

And the belief that one has experienced not-time, an 'eternal present', is the root of the mystical interpretation of oneness. It is the basis for the inferences drawn from it.  

My interpretation is that mystics have experienced... something in relation to time; but they have never experienced not-time; because time Just Is, it is a basic metaphysical reality.

At a more 'common sense' level - I find it rather convincing to argue that not-time could not be experienced, because there can be no experience without time, and no memory of that which is not in time without duration. 

But if the mystic did not really experience not-time - what then did he experience? What was the experience that the mystic interpreted as not-time?

My understanding is that the truth of 'not-time' is a very short period of time, averaged. 

When a sufficiently short period of time is experienced, then essentially 'nothing' happens during this time - and this is particularly the case when what-does-happen is averaged into a single 'value'. Then the person feels as if time has ceased; and from this (apparent) stillness he can view every-thing that he can view in a still panorama - all as one picture of 'all' reality. 

Of course he does not actually perceive everything! But the point is that all which he does perceive from his small-and-averaged time-slice is a part of the one still image. 

From this experience, the oneness mystic has an apparent confirmation of the oneness of all things and all times. 

But in fact, the experience itself is merely an artefact of the process of deciding that the shortest possible time-slice, from-which all change has been averaged-out - is 'true' knowledge of reality.  

Analogy: A photograph is not an instant outside of time, it is a slice of time: an average picture of what happened in in the field of vision during a particular time slice (defined by the shutter speed). The real world was moving, but not much over the time-slice. 

Because it was a relatively-small time slice (compared with normal human experience), and provided nothing depicted was moving too fast; the averaged picture on the image is not very blurred, and may appear as if time had been frozen. 

And even when something is moving fast enough to blur (as in almost photographs of a waterfall) what results is a still and sharp picture of a blur.  

A camera has a partial and perspectival view of reality - as does the human mind - neither can perceive everything in existence at once (nothing like!). But if it is assumed that everything-being-seen is every-thing - then the field of view is everything (by definition).

Then the deletion of time (by averaging of the time slice) apparently makes every-thing-one. 

In conclusion; my understanding of the common mystical experiences of oneness, are that they are attained by those who believe in the truth - or at least the coherent possibility* - of oneness - and who are 'looking-for' oneness; and that they are actually a memory of a small slice of time which is being interpreted as a time-less instance; and that the attribution of oneness to every-thing in existence is an artefact of the 'field of vision'.   

*Oneness is Not a coherent belief, because the fact that it is a belief entails that there is Not oneness: we can only 'believe' from a prior position of separateness - which ought not to be possible if everything is one. The common notions of 'ultimate' oneness being concealed by 'illusion'/ maya does not make sense either - because if all is one, illusion should not be possible in the first place. And, anyway, how could we know of oneness if illusion prevailed? It seems to me that although the belief-in ultimate oneness has been common in humanity (e.g. modern Hindus, Buddhists and many New Agers); like many common beliefs it does not cohere, even superficially... unless further assumptions are being smuggled-in unacknowledged, which is, in fact, exactly what happens. 

NOTE: The above is an example of that type of philosophy called metaphysics. My assumption is that fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality are what shape evidence - not the other way around. Thus the 'evidence' of 'oneness' in mystical experience is understood in terms of prior assumptions. If the prior assumption is of oneness, then this type of experience is regarded as evidence of oneness. But if one is a pluralist, like myself - who believes that time is a fundamental; the mystical experience of oneness is interpreted in light of those qualitatively-different assumptions. 

This 'un-disprovability-by-evidence might be assumed to imply that metaphysics is arbitrary, and one set of assumptions is just as good as another; but this is not the case - because different metaphsyical assumptions can be examined in terms of their coherence. Thus I have tried to argue above that the experience of oneness is - in the first place - not a proof of oneness; and in the second place that oneness is an incoherent belief. The incoherence of oneness can be, and is, explained on the basis of further assumptions being introduced - but all of these contradict the prima assumption of oneness - therefore I argue that oneness is incoherent and disproves-itself. 

The same also applies to mainstream/ orthodox/ Athanasian Trinitarian Christianity; which tries to argues simultaneous oneness and plurality. Insofar as the Trinity is taken to be one and every-thing, it is also incoherent and self-refuting; and attempts to cover this by asserting simultaneous plurality are also covert introduction of further unacknowledged assumptions.

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.      

This earthly, mortal life Cannot be everything - and this is a matter of reality, not opinion

As soon as Man emerged from his original state of immersive participation; as soon as he became became capable of conscious independent thinking - which happened (so far as we know) in the time of the ancient Greeks; it was recognized that this earthly, mortal life cannot be everything. 

Cannot be everything - not that it 'should not' be everything; nor that we wish that there would be more - but that It Makes No Sense to assume that there is nothing other than this earthly, mortal life. 

Why? 

Well, in a sense this was so obvious to anyone capable of thinking and understanding that 'why' did not apply. 

But the reason was - in a nutshell - that this world is one of change; of degeneration, decay, disease and eventual death. This is a world dominated by entropy, as we might call it. And such a world as this could not bring itself about. 

To the ancient mind, and to the mind of pretty much all Men up to the past few hundred years - this was an insight of simple truth; and the only reason for someone Not to reach this understanding, was either mental incapacity or idleness: a brutish refusal to consider the nature of Man's life. 

But Modern Man has - for various reasons, not-unconnected-with brutish incapacity and idleness - developed a tremendous capacity for doubting the obvious, including obvious truth. 

There are explanations that explain 'why' it makes no sense to posit entropy without previous creation, to assume a tendency for destruction and death without a prior and more powerful tendency for making and life - but no such explanation can penetrate the idle, delirious, dishonest superficiality that characterizes modern discourse. 

Such is the ludicrous pride of almost all Men, now, that the grossest incapacity of insight, observation and reason are paraded as marks of superiority; just as the inability spontaneously to be appalled or disgusted by gross, calculated lying, pride, greed, even vice and sadism - are all regarded as evidence of a 'higher' more progressive morality!  

'Ancient' Man realized that this ephemeral and always-changing reality makes no sense unless there is another reality. 

All were agreed on that - but disagreed about the specific nature of that 'other and greater reality' - the reality which makes possible the illusions and changes of this reality.   

They disagreed about the nature of the other and Real reality for the simple reason that it was non-obvious; and impossible to articulate clearly, concisely and comprehensibly to all Men. Each attempted answer, each description of ultimate reality, was therefore partial and contextual - and there were many such answers. 

In other words, it was cognitively easy to know that this mortal earthly reality was only a part of a greater reality; but it was difficult to say exactly what was this greater and eternal reality. 

Modern Man is, however, incapable (has rendered-himself incapable) of recognizing that the difficulty of describing the wholeness of reality in a way that everybody can understand and agree-upon does Not invalidate the primary insight that there Must be such a reality. 

Instead, Modern Man has made the baseline assumption that this mortal earthly life dominated by entropy and inevitably terminated by death is every-thing there is; and that (somehow!) We Know this to be a solid fact! 

Based on this assumption of this-life being everything, nothing makes sense; all is incoherence. 

Because all is incoherence, Men have lost the capacity to reason. 

Because Men cannot reason, they cannot make sense of the world - it is just one thing after another - and Men cannot even discern motivated actions, nor discern evil in motivations. 

Because Modern Man can make no sense of life; life has neither meaning nor purpose, but only a cloudy and uncertain present that arises-from nothing-much, and soon disappears into nothing-much. 

Thus Modern Man is always afraid, and cannot be encouraged; his only antidote to spontaneous overwhelming despair is to not-think even harder than already. 

The condition of Man is now very, Very bad - far worse than is recognized even by vehement critics. 

A refusal to know that which is both obvious and deeply true, makes an extreme incapacity to think consecutively on any one subject - meaning that recognition of even the most blatant lying (and all other evils) is become impossible.  

Modern Man is therefore deep in trouble, and a measure of this depth is that his 'solution' is not to eliminate the problem; but instead to eliminate all trace of his own awareness of the problem. 

His answer is to keep digging at his own deficits until he has become completely unable to recognize anything beyond whatever is being fed-into his consciousness at this moment. 

Having written-himself-off as nothing more than an ephemeral accident of blind chance; Man has rendered himself incapable of motivated thought and action; and now (un-consciously, because he will not allow consciousness) seeks to become altogether passive and receptive; to eliminate awareness of even the fact of his own, self-defined-as-futile existence. 

The modern malaise goes very deep; consequently its ramifications are extremely wide. 

We can see that its roots lie in sin, in unacknowledged hence un-repented sin; and this is why it keeps getting worse and worse - because evil feeds-upon evil. 

In theory, the remedy is at-hand: (thanks to Jesus Christ) simply one turn of the mind distant. Graspable in a moment. 

But evil has its layers of defence; its clever-silly rationalizations that reject the obvious and therefore can impose belief in the false; its ingrained and socially-supported habits of distraction and fear-driven resentment. 

Only each Man himself can escape these toils; but he must first desire to escape... 

And therein lies the most intractable problem of all. 

Status is firm for Blake's 7 (BBC TV 1978-81)

  

Doctor Who is undoubtedly, and by a large margin, the number one British SciFi TV programme - but number two is probably Blake's 7. 

The original '7' - in the upper picture - included the supercomputer Orac (perspex box, centre-front); but over the series several members were replaced; and after Gan (big bloke, top left) died, the usual number dropped to six - with Blake 'absent' for nearly-all of the last two series. 

After the impetuously heroic Blake (centre of top picture) left the group; the ultra-competent, and fascinatingly ambiguous, character of Avon (centre of lower picture) became an even more compelling lead. 

In structure; Blake's 7 was a series of 'one hour' self-contained adventures for an ensemble cast, with an overall story arc; ending after four series with the death of all members of the crew. The concept and early episodes came from Terry Nation - creator of the Daleks. 

I enjoyed Blake's 7 from its beginnings, and tried to watch it as often as possible - which was only sporadically, since I was at medical school at the time. Recently, I have returned to the series and set-out to watch all of the episodes, albeit not in order, and am about 3/4 of the way through. 

The reason I am blogging about this show is that I have really enjoyed re-watching it. The acting and the scripts are mostly good, and sometimes excellent - and the general set-up and mix of characters is something I find very appealing. 

But why I should enjoy Blake's 7 so much this time around is something I can't easily explain. 

In case anyone wants to do the same; I must insert a few cautions. 

Like any such series, the quality of individual episodes varies quite widely, due to having different writers. A few are just duds; and in the last series there is a run of episodes when the same villain - the vampishly seductive Servalan - is 'revealed' to be behind the plot time after time - until we are sick of the sight of her, even though she is one of the best things in the show!  

The other (somewhat notorious) problem with Blake's 7 is the props and special effects, which are terrible - even for late 1970s BBC. 

The reason was that the show had the same funding as a normal drama series - i.e. there was zero extra budget for special effects. It shows. But in the bigger scheme of things it adds to the fun, and does not detract from the overall effect. 

But once you have got to know the team, and at its best - Blake's 7 is great. Avon - played with 100% commitment by Paul Darrow - is one of the great original characters of British TV: almost a new archetype. Vila (Michael Keating) is hardly less impressive. And the three extremely different computers - Zen, Orac and Slave (all voiced by Peter Tuddenham) are the best-ever AIs.  

Note: I have also listened to a couple of series of the much more recently produced audio-drama new stories; which came from the remarkable company called Big Finish - who are best known for their many and varied version of Doctor Who. (Big Finish are currently the largest volume UK producers of audio-dramas, after BBC radio.) The Big Finish 'trademark' is to use (as much as possible) the same actors as from the original show. Anyway, these audio versions of Blake's 7 were really excellent, and I recommend them unreservedly. 

Making sense of thanking God

WmJas Tychonievich recently published some interesting discussion of the business of thanking God. In particular the question of what exactly we are thanking God for. 

Here is my take on the question. 

I believe in a pluralist universe of Beings existing in an original state of disorder, or 'chaos'. This was the primordial beginning, until God began his work of creation; since which time, God's creation has been growing; and Men have become 'created-Beings' in relationship, a part of divine creation: 'Sons of God'.

So, in an ultimate sense, it is always right for those who regard divine creation as A Good Thing to thank God for creation - and therefore to thank God for everything meaningful which is possible because of creation. 

This is true regardless of the proximate cause of an event - of who are what caused it - so long as something of divine creation was involved in it.

However, God is not responsible for every-thing that happens everywhere, in the sense that primordial chaos continues to exist; and in this mortal and material world, chaos/ entropy dominates and has the last word. 

God's creation can be imagined as an expanding domain within chaos - with two stages. 

I envisage two coexisting kinds of divine creation: first this mortal world, which must continually be created in order to continually overcome the tendency to revert to chaos. And secondly Heaven, which is the domain of those Beings who have made an eternal commitment to live by love - and who thereby overcome chaos/ entropy wholly and everlastingly.  

It is the work of Jesus Christ to enable Men to make the choice of eternal love, hence eternal life in Heaven.     

(Mortal life and Heaven coexist, because mortal life is where Beings are enabled to make the positive choice for heaven; but Heaven was first created - initially as the domain of God only. The core purpose of creation is to 'people' Heaven with Beings who have chosen to live by love, eternally.) 

In God's creation are two types of Being: Good and evil. Good are defined as those who (sooner or later) endorse divine creation and choose to join-with it (in Heaven). Evil are those who do not endorse divine creation; who reject creation - and reject Heaven. 

Those who reject divine creation ally themselves with primordial chaos (because that is the only alternative to divine creation); and endorse the destruction of creation - of any-thing created. 

Therefore, this desired destruction includes (eventually) willing the destruction of their own status as Sons of God. This is entailed by desiring to delete creation and return to chaos - to the situation where each Being except God subsists in total isolation and minimal consciousness - which is the nearest to annihilation that can actually happen.

Those who oppose creation cannot affect Heaven - Heaven is eternally immune to chaos, has completely excluded it because all Beings in Heaven live by love. Those who oppose creation can only operate outwith Heaven; for instance in this mortal life on earth.

My first conclusion is that only those who endorse divine creation and who wish to dwell in Heaven are in a position from-which they would rationally thank God at all. 

By contrast; those who do not believe in creation, do not believe-in or support the will of God, those who intend to refuse the offer of Jesus Christ to enable us to enter Heaven... all such would Not want to thank God. 

But is it rational for those who endorse divine creation to thank God for everything? The apparent problem arises because in this earthly mortal life there is a class of causes deriving from entropy, hence tending to chaos, and working-against creation. Such causes are not of divine origin. 

It might be supposed that it therefore makes no sense to thank God for events that have not-creation, indeed anti-creation, causes? 

Yet even such events are a part of creation; because all knowledge entails creation. We could not 'thank' at all, were we not created-Beings - parts of divine creation; because uncreated Beings cannot give thanks. 

We could not identify any 'event' for which we might choose to give thanks, were we not already created Beings - because there is no knowledge in chaos, and chaos does not know 'events'. 

My overall conclusion is therefore that it is never wrong for a Christian to give thanks to God, because ultimately all depends on God's creation; but a Christian may err in ascribing some specific event to God's will - since there is evil in this mortal world, and many events come from the creation-destroying will of evil Beings.  

Therefore it must often happen (in this earthly mortal life) that Christians thank God for some-thing which was (in fact, were we able to discern) caused by chaos or by the Beings which reject God. In other words; a Christian may thank God for some evil. 

...Indeed, if public prayers in church are any guide; this happens all-the-time: self-identified Christians thank God for evil - by regarding that evil as Good. 

Whether this matters spiritually or not will depend on the situation and on the consequences. If a Christian ascribed some evil to God, and thanked God for this evil - this would presumably be a sin that needed to be repented. 

God would then ensure that the individual would later be given the experiences and chance to learn that their thanking God for this particular evil had actually been a sin. 

But whether or not that chance of repentance was taken would depend on the individual's discernment and choice - would depend upon his true underlying motivation. If his motivation is for God, creation and the Good - there would be no problem: he would repent his sin. 

But if he doubled-down on the sin of ascribing evil to God, if he refused to learn and repent; then he would have taken the side of the Enemy, against God; and being against God he would presumably, after death, reject salvation and choose damnation.  

With great responsibility comes great power. Or, is this narrow conveyor belt to Hell the only option?

There has for the past century, been an intellectual onslaught on the idea of the world being made of Goodies and Baddies. For instance; to state that a novel, movie, TV series is 'divided into' Gs and Bs is regarded as absolutely damning of any pretentions to High Art suitable for adults. 

Instead, status is given to 'dark' characters, the antihero, moral ambiguity - and in general the idea that everybody is mixed but - underneath the best people are those who most explicitly subvert, transgress, invert (what remains of...) traditional (Christian) values. 

OK. As usual, there is an element of truth in the 'simplistic Goodies and Baddies' critique (else it would gain no traction); and the real problem is the motivation with which the critique is implemented: I mean, that the motivation driving the critique is evil - while the critique itself misrepresents the nature of good and evil.   

Good and Bad refer to the two side in the spiritual war between God and devil, divine creation and chaos. It is these 'sides' that are G and B, and a Goodie is one who takes the side of God; while a Baddie is one who takes the side against God. Individual men and women (organizations and nations) are, of course, mixed and ambiguous - but their Good-ness or Bad-ness come from the side the side they have committed themselves to serve.

In a world without God, rejecting of the reality of God (and the devil); a world that denies the reality of divine creation - naturally, almost everybody is a Baddie. When nearly everybody serves evil, and is a Baddie; it is unsurprising that so much effort has been put into denying the validity of the concept Goodies and Baddies. What better way of pursuing evil undetected?  

Meanwhile, the entire world is convulsed by change in a way never before seen; and the mainstream consensus response is that (just as with the mass media) there are no Goodies and Baddies because Real Life is too complex to yield to such 'simplistic' analyses. 

From this mainstream perspective we are supposed to see everything that happened across the world since 2020 in functional terms - e.g. it is all-about-health. There is, of course, a moral imperative element; but the moral implications of pursuing health are regarded as un-problematically self-evident; to the point that even discussing the implications of self-described health measures is itself a failure of morality.  

Thus - from the mainstream perspective - the worst people (the only truly evil ones) are those who attempt to discern good and evil, who talk in terms of good or evil motivations driving changes - and those who regard their moral analysis as based-upon objective reality. Such are the worst of the worst. 

It is a strange situation. Public morality is supposed to be at the same time self-evident and dictated by self-evident 'goods' such as healthism, antiracism and environmentalism; and yet also morality is asserted to be non-objective, culturally-determined, a product of socialization and ideological manipulation (i.e. propaganda). 

The 'lesson' drawn from this analysis is (something like) that 'therefore' we need to use socialization and propaganda to create and sustain those self-evidently 'good' values that derived from self-evidently 'good' principles such as healthism, antiracism and environmentalism. 

Implicitly the value-judgments used in deciding what exact policies really do promote overall health, antiracism etc also claim to be self-evident - to the point that even discussing (let alone criticizing) the inevitable judgments behind actual policies and actions is itself regarded as crazy or evil ("conspiracy theories!"). 

Somehow judgments about, for example, the result of balancing predicted benefits for one person or group against the harms to another, are supposed to be determined by 'the facts'; to the point that any other view is 'anti-science'. 

 

So, will still live in a world of Goodies and Baddies - and indeed the sanctions against Baddies are being ramped-up on a weekly basis - yet the whole business of discerning between good and evil, and the basis of value judgments behind policies and actions, is implicitly meant to be so clear, obvious and entailed that only a moral monster would even attempt to mention them! 

(And, increasingly, he will not even be permitted to mention them - or will be punished if he does.) 

Our world is one of intense and pervasive moralizing - moralizing is celebrated and indeed mandatory all the time and everywhere, including even previous exempted areas such as mathematics and biology; yet accompanied by a flat denial that moralizing has occurred! So, applying antiracist or feminist moral theories to physics and chemistry is, somehow, Not moralizing; but is itself 'science'! 

A world of ever more, and badder, Baddies; yet a world where evil has no definition and is denied objective reality!... In particular, talking-about genuinely-evil motivations among those who make and implement policies, is absolutely prohibited in mainstream public discourse. 

The maximum critique allowed is that of well-intended incompetence or ignorance; but the idea of real evil motivation (the desire to do evil - for the sake of evil) from leaders (whether leaders of the world, nations, corporations or bureaucracies) is so far off the map as to be literally incomprehensible - the babblings of a madman (i.e. "conspiracy theorist"). 

A century of value-subversion and -inversion has rendered the mass of Men incompetent to make discernments, so wholly incompetent as not to know their own incapacity; and utterly lacking in confidence (hence courage) to cleave to their own evaluations when these contradict the official ones. 

In practice, therefore, most people tacitly support a totalitarian world in which morals and values are devised, dictated and enforced by a small and cohesive 'elite' - and a world in which moral certainty is a direct product of the suppression of moral analysis and evaluation. 

Yet at the same time, a world where individual moral freedom (relativism) is championed in media and the arts. 

**

It is as if the whole world is standing passively on a narrow conveyor-belt, close-penned by the walls sliding past - being told (by 24/7 media and information sources) that they have absolute and individual freedom to go wherever they personally wish... yet always being pushed irresistibly by the moving floor and the press of bodies fore and aft; and unable to move to either side. 

In such a moving mass; any one loudly questioning the nature and value of the unseen destination of trying to go somewhere else, will make life harder and perhaps more dangerous for the majority in the short term. So there is mass support for preventing such questioning, and for eliminating the source of potential disruption. 

Given the inexorability of the conveyor belt in its corridor, and the inevitability of immediate extra suffering of the majority from any dissenting person or group; it seem obvious common sense that it is best for everyone when everyone is maximally cooperative and positive about the state of things. 

It is best for everyone, therefore, if (at any given moment) there is just one source of aspirations, attitudes and knowledge; and if such a source is in harmony with the nature and goals of the conveyor belt. It is better is everyone regards that one source as coherent, and better that any argument that it is not coherent is suppressed.  

As the needs of the system change and the direction of the conveyor belt alters - the one source will inevitable change its message. But it is best for everybody if such changes in direction or destination are immediately forgotten (i.e. not discussed, preferably not thought-about); and if Now is regarded as always - as well as always-coherent. 

So it goes. So it continues... 

Until some of those value-controllers who stand outside of the conveyor belt System decide to 'have a bit of fun' - and start encouraging individuals and groups to despise, resent, enjoy the suffering of those around them. 

The spiteful sadists among the leadership elite like to broadcast messages of 'partial enlightenment', of cynical hedonism, they expose the material nature of the System; they encourage cynicism about the process and destination, they suggest that the life is always and inevitably horrible and ends badly, so we might as well seize whatever pleasures we can, whenever we can...

Here and now the stronger may make a somewhat better life at the expense of the weaker - more space, more pleasure, less suffering - especially the pleasures of imposing oneself and enjoying others' misery. 

Thus sabotage and treachery, riots and lootings are encouraged - from within the leadership elite. The moving conveyor belt continues, the walls are as narrow as ever - but the now cynical-hedonic-resentful masses are manipulated to be at each others throats. 

The floor is littered with dead and dying victims - the winners are encouraged to feel great about the situation... as they continue onward to the exact same destination as always. 

Is there any alternative? Yes, but it is on the spiritual plane. Then, those on the conveyor belt find that they can - in fact - see beyond their situation and regard the whole in a broader context. 

Suddenly, they imaginatively look upon the world from beyond it; look upon mortal life from eternity, look upon the prevalent Hell-bound evil from the perspective of Heaven. 

The realize that the controllers may be able physically to constrain everybody onto a narrow conveyor belt - for a while; but that anyone who chooses can escape the situation in thought and aspiration; and, after a while (after death), can escape physically and forever to a divinely-creative world, ruled by love, in which they can participate to the fullness of their wishes and capacities. 

And then - when they return to the here-and-now of life on the narrow belt, evil in both actuality and destination - everything looks different, everything is different. 

Freed alike from the perspective imposed by 'the one source', and from the spiteful-resentful attitude of cynical hedonism - at every movement, all kind of spiritual possibilities are evident.     

A spiritually-grounded life is therefore better here and now - superior to passive obedience and hedonic cynicism; but more importantly the ultimate destination is better.

From which is it surely obvious why it is vital that the spiritual dimension be regarded as unreal, delusional, wishful-thinking in mainstream public discourse controlled by the Global Establishment. 

The spiritual is our only hope - it is also our best hope. It has the power positively to transform past, present and future; and the power to lend courage to that desire. 

Without the spiritual, there is only cynicism and hedonism and realistic despair. 

We can, must and do choose which we want; and which is real... 

Because the way it works is: what we truly want, is what becomes really-real.   

It works both ways. The conveyor belt to Hell is because That is what people want. And the spiritual path to Heaven is there for those who choose That. We personally have such power; but only when we personally take that responsibility. 

Truth is the opposite of Spiderman's credo: With great responsibility comes great power. 

These are epic times requiring universal heroism - yet nearly everyone is bland

Hero of our times? 

Francis Berger has written recently of the stunningly 'bland' mass acceptance of... whatever latest lying evil is imposed on the world

Yet these are the most epic of times. Every morning I awake and wonder what will be the latest astonishing development. Every morning I am aware that I need to be on my mettle; that I need to be prepared for heroism - for that most heroic heroism which nobody else (in this world) recognizes as such - but is instead interpreted as stupidity, insanity or evil. 

Indeed, the toughest lesson to learn is Not to indulge in 'crystal ball' gazing - nor to expect that things will get-better. But instead patiently to await what life brings; then to discern and know the situation for what it spiritually-is...

Then to respond with what is right (which I can know - clearly - by inner intuitive guidance or by revelation). And therefore not passively, unconsciously, un-thinkingly to do what is socially-expedient or advocated; nor what is supposed to lead to the some (supposedly desirable) anticipated future outcome. 

For most people Life is business as usual; or else they regard the heroism of these times in light of an inverted value system where evil-motivated threats are regarded as the saviors of Mankind.

But that, in itself, is a measure of these epically heroic times; since each Man is truly in the situation of an agent of God who must dwell (until he dies) inside the fortress of the Dark Lord; working for and among his servants and slaves.

Yet this life among evil is not a punishment nor necessarily a test; because we each were placed here for a reason; and each has lessons to learn which our daily experiences in this Black Iron Prison are well designed to teach.   

What these may be, we cannot know in advance - hence the excitement and anticipation of each day... Not only because terrible things might happen (which they might); but also because great things may happen - and we need to be ready. 

Explanatory note: The illustration is a visual pun featuring Beatrix Potter's character Pigling Bland. Of course, Pigling eventually knew and did the right thing. Is Pigling bland? Only by name, not nature. 

Is Aragorn more like King Arthur, or Alfred the Great?

The episode when Aragorn carelessly burns the lembas while sheltering in Lothlorien, and is scolded by an elf maiden 

Is Aragorn more like King Arthur, or Alfred the Great? Of course, he does not have to be like either! 

But there are zillions of people who have drawn a parallel between Aragorn and King Arthur (e.g. 288,000 Google entries pair these names!) - but I can't myself see much resemblance except that they are both Kings - and both Good Kings, at that. 

The main similarity is that both were aided by a wizard - and Gandalf is (obviously) derived from Merlin; as are all modern wizards. But Gandalf and Merlin are not very alike - in particular Gandalf is much more Good than Merlin; whose main intervention was originally (in Geoffrey of Monmouth) to enable Uther to commit adultery. 

And this matter of Goodness is what also distinguishes Aragorn from Arthur; because Arthur is quite flawed as both Man and King (in most versions of the story) - and his only major prowess is generalship (as a single combat fighter he is exceeded by several knights, notably Lancelot). 

By contrast, we know that Aragorn is among the best Men of all time - intelligent, wise, learned, a healer, skilled at tracking, hardy, a great fighter; and possessing a will strong enough to wrest control of the Orthanc palantir from Sauron. We confidently expect he will be the same as a King. 

On this basis, it is probably closer to the mark to consider Alfred the Great as a closer equivalent to Aragorn; since Alfred seems to have been both an exemplary individual; and more of an all-rounder than Arthur. 

Alfred was apparently not only an inspiring leader and excellent general, but also a major administrator and lawyer; scholar and author; and a deep and devout Christian. 

Alfred also has a very roughly analogous trajectory from being reduced almost to a 'ranger', hiding on the 'island' of Athelney in the Somerset boglands, before a 'return of the King' to reclaim his kingdom (about half of what is now England) from The Danes.   

I don't suppose that Tolkien seriously based the character of Aragorn on any particular historical or mythical model - especially considering that Aragorn developed narratively, by increments, from a brown-skinned hobbit-in-clogs called Trotter. 

But, in character, Aragorn seems more like Alfred than anyone else. 

The millennium really was the point of no return. (And I knew it - albeit for different reasons than now.)

I have discussed this before, but in retrospect it is ever more clear to me that the years around the year AD 2000 really were the crossing of a threshold of possibility. 

The strange thing is that I recognized this at the time - despite that I was not a Christian, and indeed my attitudes and beliefs were much closer to the opposite (pro-modernization, pro-specialization, optimistic about the future). 

If you look at my publications in the years before and soon after 2000; you will see that I was very active in public debate concerning the future of medicine, academic generally and science in particular. I was an atheist, broadly libertarian/ anarchist, and had distinctly transhumanist sympathies - which was why my main publications are located on hedweb.com. 

And yet - even from that opposite perspective to now; I could see that what I valued most was on the cusp of being lost - that if the trends were not reversed then there would soon be a world of medicine indifferent to health and happiness, universities and schools without education, science without truth. 

I strongly felt the approaching end of Western Civilization - if serious steps were not rapidly taken to save its distinctive values. 

As the millennium approached; I can remember being psychologically-driven by the conviction that 'this is our last chance'; that if 'we' (that is doctors, academics, scientists) did not act decisively Now, then the balance of power would soon have shifted decisively towards the total-dominance of generic bureaucracy, and no effective action would again be possible.  

At the time, I did not link this to the millennium as such - indeed I was very dismissive of millennium-talk.

Two things I especially disliked. The first was that something special would happen because of the number 2000; and would therefore happen at the exact time when the number 'clicked into place'. The idea that history would be divided by whether it came before or after the arrival of 2000. 

I was also especially dismissive of what I regarded as wishful-thinking in the New Age prophesies of a more-spiritual, more-good, Age of Aquarius. This new and better life would, it seemed, be imposed upon us (without serious need for activity on our part) by high-frequency influences/ forces/ powers beamed-down-upon us from the heavens. 

We would all of us, they seemed to be saying, passively be-made better...

But, on the contrary, I saw no positive impulses incipient; but instead the approach of a doom. A time after which it would be too-late to escape sinking into a swamp of general societal collapse into leftist bureaucracy that would harness fake-medicine, fake-scholarship and fake-science to its parasitic and destructive agenda. 

I now suppose that the demonic powers of evil - or, more exactly, those 'Ahrimanic' demonic powers that have been dominant in recent centuries - do make their plans and schemes in accordance with specific numbers (and that they also deploy symbolism and ritual). 

In particular they strategize around 'decimal' numbers (They, of course, have tried for generations to impose a universal decimal system); and - for Them - certain numbers have special significance.

Another decimal year, 2020, was far more obviously a watershed year than was 2000 (although I suspect that 2020 may have been more of an opportunistic, and perhaps Sorathically motivated, work of spiteful destruction than of coldly-Ahrimanic System building). 

And now the demonic powers are working towards 2030 for the 'completion' of their current phase of global subjugation and corruption.    

Well, it all happened, and worse - just as I feared/ predicted it would.

Although now I perceive the evil to have been deliberate and of supernatural origin; rather than merely a consequence of the innate tendencies of the systemic structure of bureaucracy - combined with the weakness/ demotivation of functional specialist groups such as universities and professions.  

What interests me now, is that I was able to perceive this crossing of a threshold despite having, in so many ways, an opposite belief system. 

Currently, I tend to suppose that the year 2000 was indeed significant - and not as being accidentally clustered around that number; nor as the approximate time when certain adverse features of the industrial revolution era 'just happened' to reach a stage sufficiently advanced in destructiveness. 

Although I was not sensitive to this at the time; I now regard 2000 as primarily a spiritual watershed in terms of the possibility for a large-scale Western Christian - specifically Romantic Christian - revival.  

Having missed this 'deadline'; the possibilities of a genuine and necessary kind of Christian revival became much more limited, much less complete; and this is the reason why it became impossible to save Western Civilization. 

After we failed to grasp our last chance at the millennium; the End Times became inevitable.  

How Jungian psychology became the spirituality of mainstream global Leftism

There is a deep structural similarity between the psychology of CG Jung on the one hand and mainstream New Leftism (post-sixties Leftism) on the other; which has led the two into a symbiotic relationship. Nowadays it is the broadly-Jungian New Age that provides spiritual depth and a therapeutic rationale to the project of Leftism. 

The structural similarity is that Jung and the Left are both therapeutic in structure - they diagnose problems and prescribe solutions to alleviate and remove the problems. Jungian psychology takes its therapeutic stance towards the individual; Leftism to society. 

Thus, both diagnose a negative disharmony and state of disintegration and conflict as baseline. This negative is the situation in which all individuals and all societies are assumed to exist: already and inevitably. 

Then, both Jungian psychology/ spirituality and Leftism both claim to cure this pre-existing negative situation with therapeutic interventions intended to lead to integrated cooperativeness, wholeness, unity... 

Since the 1960s, the 'New' (post-Marxist) Leftism has 'diagnosed' society (all societies) as suffering from various psychological disorders - such as racism, misogyny and 'phobias' - e.g. of sexual identities or religions. 

Modern environmentalism projects this disorder onto the planetary ecosystem - as a sickness of Gaia ultimately caused by wrongness in the minds of Men. Environmental sickness therefore needs to be treated by the same kind of psychological and therapeutic interventions and restructuring as do the disorders of racism, homo/trans-phobias, misogyny etc.  

The recent birdemic-peck phenomenon has also been assimilated to the Jungian therapeutic model; which is why it has been treated primarily by essentially 'psychological' forms of restructuring at the social level - i.e. by changing human attitudes, understandings, relationships and behaviours - all at a global scale.   

  

Thus we get to the basic assumption of all politics today: That all Men and all Societies are sick and in absolute need of urgent therapy. 

Therapy... but from whom? From, implicitly, an elite of Global Healers. 

Hence the 'need' for a World Government with total powers. Anything less than this; dooms the planet and all its people to terminal disorder and death. 

And since early 2020; an elite of all-powerful Global Healers is exactly what we have got.

Left-politics (which, nowadays, is just all of mainstream, global 'politics' - everywhere in the world) presents itself as a societal therapy by which the innate sicknesses - i.e. the irrational prejudices and hatreds, phobias, delusional beliefs (i.e. the sub-types of 'denialism') etc - will all be cured by a kind of social-level 'psychotherapy'.

This Left-therapy starts with therapeutic 'consciousness-raising'; the intent to replace pathological motivations by the encouragement of 'healing' attitudes and beliefs. 

Such 'encouragement' of positivity is what lies behind the enforcement of correct - i.e. therapeutic - attitudes throughout all mass and social media discourse, and in private life. 

Because the whole of society is seen as sick; the Leftist project sees itself as (in effect) transforming our sick society by rebuilding it into a 'therapeutic community'. 

That is, a community which embodies only examples of healing attitudes, beliefs and behaviours; a community which excludes all attitudes/ beliefs/ behaviours that tend to sustain 'sicknesses' such as racism and other irrational hates, phobias and delusions.

This process is not seen as censorship, manipulation or political propaganda; but is regarded as a common-sense 'medical' intervention to cure disease and restore health in all people, groups and places.  

So much for the theory and claims of Leftism. But Leftism is unmasked to serious Christians as a demonic strategy; rooted in lies. Its basic analysis is false, negative and arbitrary. And its supposed cures and therapies lead to not to healing - but to endemic sickness and accelerating dis-integration. 

Leftism's global 'therapeutic community' turns-out to be variants on a literal prison: with more of the same promised. 

Its Global Elite of self-styled healers and harmonizers lead to results indistinguishable from the activities of parasites and wreckers. 

Its 'consciousness raising' has been the conversion of public discourse into a realm of value inversion, honesty and goodness excluded; instead a tissue of lies and the insidious advocacy of sin and evil.  

Such is our situation. The 'facts' are there: the word-wide triumph of Jungian-Leftism; the totalitarian global governance; the convergence of all public discourse in all social systems. 

What is at issue is whether the current and developing situation is a constructive, therapeutic and existentially necessary response to the innate sickness of this planet and global population and the crises that assail it? Or the stepwise, strategic, deliberate destruction of all that is Good; because it is Good? 

Are we on broadly the right lines, and being led by persons of basically good-intent and will? Or are we being led - deliberately - towards a demonic anti-world?

One or the other. 

Jesus is our Good Shepherd - not our King

By Yongsung Kim. Note the lack of crown...

Concentrating on the Fourth Gospel (so called John), where he consistently rejects the title; it is clear that Jesus ought not to be conceptualized as our King - despite that this title is given him so often at this Christmas time of year. 

Instead Jesus is self-described as the Good Shepherd.

Clearly, as The Messiah, many Jews expected Jesus to become a literal King of the nation of Israel. But Jesus states that his 'kingdom' is not 'of this world'; and this is more of a negation of his this-worldly kingship (I am Not what you mean by a King) - than it is an assertion that he will be some other kind of 'a King' in the next world.

Jesus's 'Kingship' of Heaven is not explicitly stated or confirmed elsewhere in the Gospel, yet in the Fourth Gospel, Jesus's core claims and teachings always are repeated; apparently for clarification and to reduce ambiguity. 

At most; only a very qualified form of Heavenly Kingship could be regarded as having been claimed by Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.   

When asked outright by Pilate 'Art thou a King?' - Jesus replies 'thou sayest'; and indeed Pilate is determined that Jesus be conceptualized as one who claimed the Kingship of the Jews - even going so far as to put this title onto his cross. 

But - in the Fourth Gospel - King is not a title claimed or asserted by Jesus; quite the contrary. 

In terming Jesus King, we follow Pilate - not Jesus himself. 

 

This also fits with the extended passage in John 15, where Jesus describes the relationship between himself and the disciples as a friendship - and therefore not like King and Subject. Indeed, throughout the Gospel, family (therefore not Kingdom, nor anything formally analogous) is the consistent 'metaphor' (or model) used to describe the kind of world that Jesus wants and promises.  

Jesus does not claim to be King, but does state that he is the Good Shepherd. 

The difference between King and Shepherd is that a King leads his people on earth; while the Good Shepherd will lead his people to Heaven.

This is important because it makes clear that Jesus's central message was about resurrection to that eternal Heavenly life to which he would lead those who would follow. 

Jesus's message was not primarily about setting-up any new kind of kingdom in this world; not even a new kingdom led by Christ as King.

Instead; the core message of Jesus Christ was about leading those who loved and would follow him to another world - beyond death. 

The future of this world is Not assured - All good (mortal) things Will come to an end

I regard it as a serious spiritual error - despite its being so very common - when it is assumed that the future of this mortal world has been assured by the promises of God and Jesus Christ... 

e.g. The idea that eventually the powers of Good must and will prevail on earth... The conviction that The Church must survive and will ultimately thrive.  

Such ideas seem to me deeply mistaken, in terms of setting aside the central fact of Man's agency, his freedom on the one hand; and the fact that this mortal world and earth are ultimately ruled by 'entropy', by the powers of chaos - such that all which is formed and organized needs to be sustained by constant consumption of energy and effort; and eventually degeneration, destruction and death will supervene. 

This is the nature of this mortal life, and such was recognized by the first Men capable of conceptualizing our basic situation - i.e. the ancient Greeks. 

To believe otherwise seems to be one of the earliest and deepest errors that came into Christianity; due, I suppose, to sidelining of the (first and most important) Gospel - i.e. the 'Fourth' Gospel, of 'John'. 

But the core message of Christianity is (surely?) the the Messiah brought us the possibility of resurrection to eternal Heavenly life; and he did Not (contrary to much Jewish expectation) come to usher in any kind of paradise upon earth. 

Again and again Jesus emphasizes that the things of this world are temporary, but what he brings is - by contrast - permanent (hence necessarily elsewhere).   

The clear and simple inference is (surely?) that our mortal lives, the things of this world, and the earth itself; are all impermanent and will come to an end; but that we shall instead (if we want it deeply, and by following Jesus Christ) receive something much better - because everlasting. 

I therefore find it quite strange to see Christians speaking as if there is some kind of guarantee that eventually 'things' on this world will be sorted-out; as if there was a divine pendulum that would always swing back from the brink of dissolution; or as if history was a wheel that would cycle back and away from disaster.

Such an impulse to reassure oneself seems like clutching at straws; and worse than this, seems to be pushing against the kind of next-world-rooted attitudes which Jesus is often (in all Gospels) reported to have taught as our proper goal. 

Although (ideally) rooted in the next - Christianity acknowledges that the details and sweep of this world - and in particular of our own specific mortal life - is of great and eternal importance; while also being temporary and doomed to destruction. 

So the proper Christian attitude is not indifference or hostility to this-mortal-world. Although destruction will eventually overwhelm creation in this world (potentially including All the churches) - and this needs to be accepted; nonetheless we are placed here by God for Good Reasons - and this is the right kind of world for those-reasons. 

Therefore, here-and-now; we have choices to make, goals to strive-for, work to do - as best we may

Christmas - the season for murdering traditional songs

In my family we have often used the term murdering to describe what most singers do to a well known classic song - and Christmas is the season when such musical homicide becomes wholesale. 

There are various ways of committing this crime - one is to slow the tempo and draw-out the 'deep meanings' in a lyric such as... Jingle Bells. 

Another is when the singer pulls the tempo all over the place - dragging-out some of the phrases and falling behind the beat, then catching-up with the band by gabbling a few words. 

The tune itself is, of course, ripe for killing - by adding decorations to the basic tune that have nothing to do with its meaning, but are supposed to show-off the singer's technique. Howling the highest note is a further mutilation, or adding extra-high notes ("just because I can!"). 

The there is the orchestra - and there are innumerable ways this can destroy a song. The Americans used to be keen on interjections from syrupy, mixed-voice choirs. Jokey little phrases on novelty instruments such as xylophones or sleigh bells. Or just sheer over-production - layering on more and more instruments until the texture turns to mud. 

When it comes to Christmas songs (or carols) - less is more. The plainest arrangements of the most straightforwardly performed songs are the best; and these are often the earliest, or the one's that made a song popular in the first place... 

(And what a superb song! As well as its haunting tune, which subtly builds, mainly by the rhythm enhancements - the arc of the lyrics is absolute perfection.)

But then again, so many of the songs are themselves dire! Including many of the most famous; such as the glutinous White Christmas, or the inept and creepy Happy Holiday - or... well, there are too many to mention...

Except for the one I hate most of all: "I wish it could be Christmas Every Day" by Wizzard - which has it all... an idiotically wrong sentiment and lyrics, a swampy arrangement, a nasty tune that sticks in the mind like a burr - and something that gets repeated ad nauseam every year without fail, on every supermarket PA system.