Diogenes - testing sincerity in an age of lies

I find the (mostly) legendary character of Diogenes very interesting! Perhaps even an example for our times - as a man who was absolutely outside of the System of his era; utterly lacking in wealth, power, status; yet who indirectly - almost paradoxically, and perhaps by spiritual rather than material means - provided a commentary and correction of the hypocritical, self-seeking, hedonic values of 'normal people' and those in authority.

What I see at work in Diogenes' life and antics, is a man who repeatedly tests sincerity - both his own and that of those he encounters - by deliberate acts of self-sabotage.

By living in poverty and squalor, and performing disruptive, provocative, and bestial acts deliberately (so ensure he remains untouchable, out-cast); Diogenes renders himself disgusting; and those who reject him for this reason are revealed as hypocrites... 

...Whose affectations of virtue are so superficial as to be undermined by disgust ...Who are really seeking a comfortable life, rather than Goodness... Who reject truth and virtue when they come in an ungracious form.

Diogenes eschews comfort and safety, and places himself voluntarily at the lowest and most despicable level of his society - as guarantees of his sincerity; yet something about him nonetheless leads to a reputation for wisdom - and therefore the temptation to 'use' his celebrity to attain power, influence, comfort... 

Therefore, when Alexander the Great approached and offered him anything; Diogenes responded brusquely, demanding the Emperor move aside, and stop blocking the sunlight! 

The casualness of rejection was Diogenes rejecting the temptations of riches and prestige. 

The calculated rudeness to the most powerful man in the world, was partly Diogenes overcoming the test of fear in the presence of a man with life and death power; but was also intended to test Alexander - to educate the Emperor. 

If Alexander was offended or angered, he would reveal that his appreciation of the wisdom and example of Diogenes was a superficial affectation, self-interested, and approval-seeking. 

By reacting negatively to Diogenes' rudeness; Alexander would show (himself and others) that in approaching Diogenes he was seeking the endorsement of this dirty hermit. 

Therefore, Alexander was being challenged to see past rudeness and disrespect, and find the wisdom within. 

By quietly complying with Diogenes wish for him to stand aside and cease casting a shadow on the philosopher; Alexander showed that he had understood the lesson - and thereby passed the test.

Changing names is PSYOPS (with reference to the word 'Mormon') - and the possibility of verbal counter-measures

WmJas Tychonievich has written several posts concerning the recent decision by leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to 'ban' the term Mormon being used to refer to the church and its members. 

This has created angst and uncertainty among the church membership (as was inevitable) because 'Mormon' has been used for more than a century and a half by innumerable official church organizations, missionaries, books, documents, and in personal discourse between church members - as well as among outsiders.

The name change came along-with several other changes marking a delayed (compared with other large Christian denominations) but swiftly-accelerating convergence of the CJCLDS with mainstream Establishment Leftism - especially in relation to the birdemic-peck and antiracism-diversity agendas. 

  

Name changing is - like 'reorganizations' - a typical, compulsive, and careerist behaviour of managers in bureaucracies; so much so, that many people seem to assume it is normal and 'natural' for human institutions to be in an almost continual churning of re-naming and re-organizing. 

Because this is self-interested behaviour by bureaucrats, there is a temptation to assume that is the whole story. But there is a much more deeply sinister, and indeed demonic, aspect to re-naming. 

The proper and natural reason for re-naming is that a name is wrong in some significant way: ie. that using the name does harm.   

Re-naming intrinsically therefore includes the assumption that the previous, now abolished, name was indeed wrong - and therefore that the people who used that name were also wrong. 

Re-naming is intrinsically an act of aggression against ancestors: a type of 'year zero' radicalism. 

Furthermore, name change entails that those who continue to use the prohibited word are also wrong. 

Consider the way that political correctness continually introduces and then demonizes words for its chosen victim groups. 

Anyone who uses old/ obsolete/ prohibited terminology is immediately disparaged (or worse) - because by using the older word, they are regarded as having demonstrated their affiliation to what was wrong; they have done a wrong thing in using that name. 

Such people are often, indeed, regarded as if they had performed an aggressive act. 

Therefore, name change introduces an element of anxiety and trepidation about the use of language. To use the new word is regarded as 'a good thing' - an act of obedience and compliance to those who claim moral power; while not to use that word is either a revelation of ignorance/ incompetence; or an act of dissent. 

And when a new name is introduced by a religious leader, use of the old name is tainted with defiance of authority; with heresy, apostasy...

But there is even more to this matter or renaming; because such feelings of angst may be an actual purpose of name change.

In other words, name change can be a type of PSYOPS - or Psychological Warfare; intended (by at least some of those behind the name change) to create psychological distress, uncertainty, demoralization, confusion.. and even a kind of insanity. 

Name changing may, in other words, be a subversive, destructive or value-inversional attempt at psychological manipulation. 

The Mormon name change has this aspect - since the word has been abolished without any possibility of substitution. 

It is not just that "Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" is a grossly clumsy and time-wasting alternative to Mormon; but that there are grammatical uses derived from Mormon that have no other substitute short of a sentence-long paraphrase. As one of many examples: Mormon theology.  

Therefore, forbidding the use of Mormon to the obedient faithful church members will inevitably create a continual and ineradicable sense of exactly that kind of sanity-threatening psychological distress, uncertainty, demoralization, confusion - which is the objective of PSYOPS. 

We have all experienced multiple example in the field of sex, sexuality and race - but the phenomenon is pervasive; and while commoner now, goes back several decades.

For example, back in 1974 (and under a 'conservative' government) there was a reorganization of the counties of Britain - which not only changed administrative boundaries, but abolished ancient names to replace them with invented or repurposed ones.

My county of Somerset (going back to Anglo-Saxon times) was re-named Avon. Ancient and small counties like Rutland and Westmorland were abolished. More egregiously; the old Gaelic named Scottish county of Clackmannanshire was made part of... Central Region. 

This was experienced by many people as an attack on local patriotism and their sense of belonging; and I have no doubt that that was exactly what it was - at root and by genuine intent. 

Of course, most of those who voted and implemented this scheme were shallow materialistic functionaries merely - but behind that was a malicious intelligence that was engaged in psychological warfare against the traditional and local patriotisms within Britain. 

And recognized as part of a centralizing and depersonalizing agenda leading towards the deletion of local autonomy with takeover by central national government; then assimilation into the European Union superstate; and eventually subordination to the (at present covert) world government that arrived in 2020. 

Back in 1974, evil intent was more widely discerned than now; and many of these 1974 name changes were undone and reversed over subsequent years; and indeed led to an increased awareness of the importance of such things; such that unconscious and unconsidered, taken-for-granted tradition became a conscious choice - which was all to the good.

That is how those on the side of Good, who wish to resist evil-motivated PSYOPS, should regard such aggressions: as an opportunity for increased self-awareness and a chance to fight back. 

Names matter, words matter - which is why the Satanically-motivated Global Establishment and its national branches and mass media are continually manipulating language. 

But by engaging in linguistic PSYOPS; the Authorities also create opportunities for verbal counter-measures and tactics. 

These may be negative and defensive: a refusal to comply. 

But verbal counter-measures could also - if they were made component elements of an overall strategy of Romantic Christianity - become positive and creative interventions in the spiritual war: interventions on the side of divine providence.

Inability to love; refusal to repent - two major reasons Not to want Heaven

My understanding is that we are incarnated into this mortal life after a pre-mortal life as (unembodied) spirits. 

This means we are born with dispositions - and sometimes these dispositions may make salvation very unlikely. 

(Unlikely but never impossible, else we would instead have become demons, and not been incarnated at all.) 

In other words, some people are 'born evil' with dispositions that - unless they change during mortal life - will lead to the rejection of Heaven. 

Most obviously evil are those people incapable of love. 

Obviously these would reject Heaven and choose hell: reject Heaven because it is a place based-upon an eternal commitment to love; choose hell because without love there is only selfishness and manipulation. 

But another group of less-obviously evil are those who are capable of love, but who refuse to repent their sins. 

All Men (except Jesus Christ) are sinners, and one who refuses to repent his sins cannot enter Heaven, since that is a place without sin. 

Sin is Not to be aligned with God's will; whereas all in Heaven are wholly in accord with divine creative purpose. So all Men (except Jesus Christ) need to be 'purified' of sin before we can enter Heaven - and this requires repentance. 

T

here are various reasons for not repenting sins. Such as a refusal to admit we are or ever have been wrong. 

Or the wish to blame other people or circumstances for our sins - which is the wish to be regarded (and regard oneself) as an 'innocent' victim. 

Or having made some sin The Most Important Thing in our life; and refusal to give it up...

To refuse to repent is, in effect, the desire to have Heaven (and its inhabitants) re-made around one's sin. 

It is implicitly to assert that 'my sin' is more important than Heaven. 

But Heaven cannot be remade without ceasing to be Heaven - therefore this refusal to repent is to self-exclude from Heaven.

What happens to one who loves but will not repent? My guess is that such include those people who seek the oblivion of ego-less, passive bliss - oneness with God conceptualized as abstract and impersonal love. 

This is perhaps the choice of one who wishes to live eternally 'in' a being-state of pure awareness of love; but who can only achieve this by an annihilation of the self, and choosing the incapacity for action, thought, and agency. 

It is a consequence of the 'all you need is love' attitude, which claims that love dissolves sin, and therefore renders repentance unnecessary. 

In effect; such a person chooses to live-out mortal life without repenting his sins; and then (rather than give up sin) wishes to cease to be a person and become merely a minimally-aware spirit, unaware of time, in a situation of rest/ peace/ silence and pleasant almost-nothingness - which might conveniently be termed Nirvana.     

Therefore some loving people do not want Heaven and prefer Nirvana; and (to recap) I think it will be found that many such people carry with them unrepented sins - which I suggest is the reason behind this preference. 

Whether such people will indeed get Nirvana after depends on whether that is truly what they want. 

If someone genuinely wants Nirvana instead of Heaven I see no reason why God would not be able to grant this experience (whatever the underlying reality of that experience might actually be).

Yet, as of 2022 - at least in The West - it seems that the desire for Nirvana is often insincere; because in-practice those who profess Nirvana often preach sin - and will publicly defend and deny sin in principle - and thereby endanger the salvation of others. 

And this is demonic activity; and demons actually want hell - not Nirvana. 

They're demons! They want destruction of all Good! So, every positive agenda item of the global establishment is just a feint and a fake

An awful lot of time and energy is wasted by Christians in opposing the global establishment, where they try to critique the positive agenda items... for instance details of The Great Reset, the coherence of Critical Race Theory, this week's birdemic-peck plans; or the various policies that purport to control the planetary climate such cycle lanes, enforced 'recycling', wind turbines and solar panels. 

The point to grasp is that all and every such positive plan is just a feint, a misdirection - a fake, a knowingly false statement.

None of these, or similar, 'plans' will ever be implemented because our rulers are not aiming at any social end-point - their aim is 'permanent revolution' in which the revolutionary destruction continues and continues, until there is (literally) nothing left - all is ruin and chaos.

We should not waste our time, energy and resources on critiquing feints and fakes; because that is exactly what They want us to do! 

The biggest fake about the Great Reset or Agenda 2030 is that there is zero intention ever to create a society such as those described. 

Yes - there is intent to 'work towards' that end-point for a while; but just as with socialism/ feminism/ racism etc... the end-point will always recede, the rules will be changed, what is important will become less concrete and attainable - more subjective and nebulous...

Because the ideology of the global totalitarian rulers - call it 'Leftism' - is negative and oppositional, and ultimately is simply evil. 

The hegemonic and dominant world ideology - 'Leftism' is (by now, for sure - and perhaps too from its origins) merely the major social instrument deployed by the side against God (...the side against creation and The Good, the side of purposive evil).

Evil has no goal or end point. It is not trying to build an alternative of better society; it is simply subverting, destroying and (ultimately) inverting all that is divinely created, all that is aligned with God's purposes. 

The aim of Leftist ideology (which since early 2020 rules the world: all nations and institutions) is damnation of human souls - not the construction of an alternative-better society. 

In pursuit of the damnation of Men; the powers that should-not-be will use any tool that may be effective. At present, there is still a remnant of idealistic utopianism, albeit pitifully degraded and reduced, principally among teenagers and young adults (and those who have chosen to have their development arrested at that phase). 

An honest agenda of pure negation; of subversion/ destruction/ inversion - would fail to recruit any support except among self-conscious nihilists (always a small minority) - and would evoke widespread resistance. 

(And anyway the evil are never honest - always manipulative.)

Thus the real agenda of negation is saccharine-coated with a dusting of several (incompatible) versions of 'positive' but vague utopian idealism - vibrant multi-racial, multi-cultural cities of excitement and entertainment; a peaceful 'green' world of gentle vegan bicyclists; a world of masked/ pecked/ distanced universal safety, when each can dwell insulated from the endemic threat that is 'other people'; a world of expanding, proliferating sexual diversity - where life is organized around sexual self-development and gratification. 

Take your pick...   

The function of such scenarios is therefore dishonest, temporary, expedient; to buy-off - for a while - this or that potentially oppositional interest group; to enlist - for a while - this or that idealist... 

That is all their function, which is why Leftism is utterly incoherent and continually changing its objectives and emphases And why the global powers do not care about its incoherence and constant change. 

The level of agendas, strategies, plans and policies is entirely a deception and an intentional distraction.

We should not waste our time, energy and resources on critiquing such feints and fakes.

Because that is exactly what They want us to do!   

(If not, then what? My answer is Romantic Christianity. We each have an agenda called divine providence. This needs to be discerned, repeatedly; and pursued, despite our lapsing repeatedly. We all have more than enough work for a lifetime - the work of theosis.) 

How does creation work? Hierarchies of agents

All things which aren't chaos are Beings or Parts Of Beings. 

We Men are each Beings, and each cell of our body is also a Being - but some categories of bodies are 'parts of Beings' such as 'bits-of-my-body-coloured-a-particular-shade-of-light-brown... That category is not A Being - but instead various parts of various Beings.  

So, with some Beings inside - and making components of, Beings; we seem to arrive at hierarchies of Beings as the way Creation (as a whole) is organized, and created. 

The level above - e.g. my whole organism - organizing ('creating') the level below - e.g. my cells. So, each cell is a Being, with its own life, consciousness - and agency (a degree of free will). 

But each cell is also (maybe unknown to itself?) a part of my body; which is continually monitoring and controlling it, by means of rewarding incentives and aversive punishments.  

And sometimes cells escape this organizing influence - and this can lead to cancer, uncontrolled growth; when the cell (in effect) acts independently of the needs of the body. 

Presumably - something like this is analogous to what God does in creating all of the other Beings, as well as with Men. 

The analogy would be that God is to Men, somewhat like each Man is to the cells of his organism - with one big difference of God being eternal while mortal Men are temporary. 

God's creation can be pictured as a continuously organizing and purpose-directing of a multitude of hierarchically-organized Beings - each with agency. 

God is the apex of the hierarchy of Beings; and origin of the purpose of creation-as-a-whole. 

In other words, it is God that organizes pre-existent Beings into coherence, and with direction. 

...Or; God provides a purpose for Beings, and is continually working to enable cooperation of Beings towards that purpose. 

Such a way of thinking about creation solves some of the traditional deep problems that beset Christian theology - such as how free will is possible, and the origins of evil. 

I think this way of conceptualizing also points towards a way of understanding genuine creativity of Beings, and how individual Beings (including, but not restricted to, Men) can potentially contribute to the work of creation. 

Note: Relevant to this are recent posts by WmJas Tychonievich and Francis Berger.

The birdemic certainly exploded the pretensions of humanism...

Humanism is implicitly the belief system of mainstream modernity; being derived from the 'commonsense' idea that by putting humans first, people will treat one-another better. 

Humanism grew among atheists-agnostics in opposition to Christianity, from the observation that it was a partial morality that distinguished-between people. 

Humanists particularly strongly rejected the idea of any life beyond death - which they regarded as merely a rationalization for neglecting the living, and an excuse for the Church manipulation of people in this earthly mortal life.

Meanwhile, it was obvious to humanists; that this mortal life was in fact, actually, the only life. The after-life was a lie, propagated by priests; so that by promising rewards or threatening punishment in the 'next' (but non-existent) life, they could control people in this (the only) life.   

Humanism saw itself as superior to religion because it was rooted-in science and focused on actual and real life; and because was universal and non-judgmental without regard to 'creed' and rejecting many of the traditional distinctions that were rooted in religion. 

Humanism's concern was with every person - not just Christians, or the family; and it was rationally focused on the observable well-being of people (not on invisible and unreal things like 'souls'). As such, humanism was, of course, intrinsically a part of the Leftist project. 

'Humanitarians' grew from humanism, and the concept was promoted as a term of approbation ('great humanitarian' was the sort of title given to winners of the Nobel Peace Prize and similar 'accolades') - meaning in theory someone who regarded humankind as the priority and every human as having equal priority; but in practice a humanitarian was someone whose priorities were not his family, and were other nations or creeds. 

(For instance, an English non-Christian leftist 'humanitarian' might make Palestinian Muslims his priority - the point being that the focused-upon representatives of humanity should not be Christian, should be unrelated, and elsewhere. This gratuitousness of concern being offered and taken as 'evidence' of pure altruism.)  

Some humanists were zealous in their dislike of religion generally, and Christianity specifically; and argued that religion was an obstacle in the path of human progress. Remove religion and there would be a better world...

Well, humanists got what they wanted, and religion was eliminated from the significant discourse of all the major social functions - so that not even churches let religion interfere with the secular (left) projects that were their primary concern (poverty, foreign aid, environmentalism, sexual 'equality' etc.).

In theory, this secularization would increase 'humanity' - because with religion out of the way, mankind was freed to focus properly on its own well-being. Now humans could display concern and provide help regardless of religious barriers and restrictions. 

Without religion, this would become a kinder, more compassionate, mutually helpful and humane world.   

And with religion - and its irrational superstitions and restrictions - out for the way; science and reason could come to the fore; and public policy could effectively and efficiently be focused upon its proper objectives - better actual-lives for all people...  

The humanist perspective won! Religion (i.e. Christianity) was destroyed or assimilated. And physical human beings in this mortal life were made the official focus of concern - disregarding the soul and other transcendental aspects. 

So how did this work-out in the birdemic? 

Having got rid of the irrational superstitions and distorted emphases of religion - was there then a more human and human-focused response to the stress of the birdemic (or, more accurately, the stress of the officially-endorsed response to the birdemic). 

Was it a fact that in this 'pandemic' people were more humane and humanitarian? 

Were people this time kinder, more compassionate, more mutually helpful and empathic than in the past when religion ruled? 

Was science and reason now able to act fully and comprehensively; could pure disinterested truth now become the guide to social policy? Truth freed from blind faith in the non-existent and blind terror of the imaginary?  

Or was there, perhaps, instead -- rampant selfish cowardice; cruel neglect of the old, sick and children; callous indifference to the fate of others - including family, friends and those to whom duty was owed; and irrational, labile incoherence of lying discourse, to a degree unmatched in human history? 

To ask these questions is to answer them. 

Humanism, and the theory that people would be more humane after God and the soul were deleted from belief; ranks as among the grossest of error - and has the status of an exploded fraud.

It turns-out that without God, and having eliminated the soul and life beyond death; instead of regarding other-humans as all-important - people-in-general now regard other-humans as merely things. 

It turns-out that without God; instead of allowing pure truth to become the rational determinant of policy; nothing stood in the path of the grossest, most nonsensical and blatant dishonesty to be deployed in service to temporary expediency, or to manipulate the population in accordance with the desires of power.

 

Humanists and humanitarians will no doubt continue to boast of their inclusivity and universalism. But the birdemic showed-up secular humanism for what it truly is: utterly indifferent to the human, and slavishly obedient in service to the machine of the global System of bureaucracies and mass media:

Humanists are revealed as apologists for a System that at best regards humans as 'human resources' - and always regards humans as things: things to be manipulated or eliminated as convenient to System requirements. 

And having eliminated God out from the world of power; they have cleared the way for Satan; who now controls The System; and the humanists have ensured that - by assumption - Satan can never be detected or resisted.

Worst of all; so thoroughly has humanism destroyed the capacity for coherent thought and principled reasoning; that it has become impossible for its adherents even to recognize that their own convictions and predictions are refuted and shown to be ridiculous. 

They are so very wrong, that even the possibility of knowing and repenting their error has been eliminated!  

Great work chaps!

Note: The above is an ex-insider perspective; because for several decades I regarded myself as a humanist, and revered the architects of humanism. 

Meditation as panacea - from what basis does this idea originate?

There have-ben and are plenty of religions, spiritualties and people in the world who regard meditation as a panacea - that is, a single cure for all ills, always good for everyone. 

...Whatever ails you, whatever kind of personality; meditation will help if you do it right - and the more meditation you can manage (building up by steps), the better. 

I think it likely that this idea arises from a particular metaphysical conception of deity and the world. Someone who regards deity as always the same - changeless; 'pantheistic', everywhere immanent, to be found in all things. 

This is seen among self-identified Christians of an esoteric and mystical type; as well among Hindus, Buddhists, and New Agers. 

As, for instance, the conception of Jesus in the famous saying from the ('Gnostic') Coptic Gospel of Thomas: Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there.    

If this is the case, and if only we could perceive it, we will never be closer to God than we are now - we are living in Heaven already... 

Also from the Thomas Gospel: The kingdom of the father is spread out over the earth, and men do not see it.  

But if we are already in God's presence because God is everywhere, and God is good; then why don't we know it: why aren't we always blissful? 

Why do we perceive change, decay and death; if reality is unchanging perfection; and we are always immersed in that reality? 

Something must be blocking our capacity to perceive this; and the answers given are usually twofold: we are blocked by the self-centered ego, and by the body. 

Meditation is regarded as a panacea that is good for everybody and works for everybody; because from the above perspective all men suffer the same problem: all Men have an ego and a body. 

Meditation is regarded a universal solution because it treats a universal problem. That is its theoretical and experiential basis.  

When God is Not regarded as a personal being - there can be no personal relationship with God - and there is no need (or possibility) for any personally-specific solution to the problems of life. 

In meditation - with sufficient effort, training and the right kind of personality - the 'ego' can be eliminated temporarily; and a vision achieved of how reality looks to one who has the assumptions of a changeless, timeless and all-pervadingly divine impersonal reality. 

This is always 'a good thing' because it shows the meditator what he could have later, permanently. 

Such meditators then often yearn for the time after physical death when they can discard the body - with its many distractions and localized vision - and can become pure spirit. 

The great, and unfixable, flaw in such a perspective is to explain why an all pervading and good deity would create, or allow, a situation to arise in which ego and body was permitted to prevent understanding and delay the advent of a purely spiritual existence. 

Especially when considering that egos and bodies are wholly dysfunctional - why bother inventing and implementing them in the first place? 

There can be no satisfactory answer - nonetheless so strong is the desire, in some souls, for a bodiless life of changeless and wholly-receptive bliss, of passive (action-less) awareness of the all-pervading presence abstract divinity; an existence of peace, stillness, serenity...

Such that such rational, logical, commonsensical quibbles are set-aside in anticipation of the bliss to come, which - meanwhile - can be sampled by learning effective meditation.

This, I think, is how it comes about that so many people, for so long, have recommended meditation as a panacea.    

The peck is a spiritual issue (ultimately and primarily) - because by Not imposing it universally, consent to pecking has been made into a spiritually decisive affiliation to evil

Francis Berger has highlighted a crucial negative fact, easily missed: that the peck has not been imposed on everybody in the world.  

Since early 2020 (and under the blanket excuse of the birdemic) there is a global System of totalitarian governance that has shown itself capable of rapidly (by mere diktat) imposing and enforcing international economic closures, house arrest of vast majorities, all manner of blocks to travel and basic human contact... 

Furthermore, it is able to impose ludicrously incoherent and labile 'narratives' that disguise and justify its own activities - by a monolithic control of all mainstream news and social media sources. 

In other words; we can observe here-and-now an orders-of-magnitude greater accumulation and concentration of both physical and psychological power than ever before in the history of the world. 

Therefore, and given that opposition to this centralized and totalitarian power has been rare and feeble, it is quite reliably possible to infer the intentions behind those who wield this power. It is possible, in other words, to infer what the powers are trying to do from what they have done - and in particular from what they have Not done. 

The peck has Not been forcibly imposed. 

The world population has been compelled to do, and not to do, a zillion things since 2020. 

Yet, people have not been forced to take the peck, despite that it certainly seems to be the number one agenda item for the global powers. 

I assume that the peck is physically harmful and the ultimate (top level) motivation behind its introduction and promotion includes the intent to harm billions of people in various possible ways, including death.

Includes this intent - but the intent to harm physically is not the ultimate intent. 

The ultimate intent is spiritual, not physical, harm - in other words the intent of the peck is damnation, not disease or death. 

As Francis Berger has explained lucidly; the peck could have been imposed on everybody in the world, everywhere in the world, but it was not. 

Many, many things have been imposed - but not the peck. 

The powers clearly desperately want all the masses to agree to take the peck. 

Propaganda to this effect is extreme, pervasive, unscrupulous, grossly dishonest, and relentless. 

Vast and elaborate systems of incentives have been put into place - so that people are rewarded for asking to be pecked; while those who refuse the peck have been punished with multiple and severe sanctions. 

Yet, the peck has not been imposed. 

From this can be inferred that it is of vital importance to the powers that each person (as many as possible) makes a personal choice to take the peck. 

Even the propaganda has been tailored in a personal way. It has been made a cause for celebration, an act of personal and moral development, of altruism and social solidarity. It is an officially-validated advertisement of virtue to take the peck. 

Conversely, the peck-refusers are depicted as selfish, dumb, cowardly, psychopathic - evil. 

All this makes clear (to spiritual discernment) that the peck is ultimately, but decisively, a spiritual choice - which in official materialist discourse translates as a choice of values. 

The peck is presented officially as a spiritual choice, and it is seen as a spiritual choice by many serious Christian - indeed, by serious Christians of all denominations. 

Therefor the choice about the peck is a choice of value-systems - which, for Christians, means a proxy for the choice between the two sides of God and Satan the spiritual war. 

The dispute is  about the nature of the two sides pro- and anti-peck. Which side is Good and which is evil? 

The peck is a product of The System, and is being advocated and implemented by essentially-all major institutions, corporations, governments and media - everywhere in the world with unprecedented sustained aggression. 

Therefore, one side in this spiritual war of values is clearly the side of The System. 

Therefore, our choice about the peck is necessarily a decision either for, or against, The System; because compliance with the peck is a choice in favour of System values and goals. 

Agreeing to the peck is a spiritual act of affiliation to The System, its values and spiritual intent. 

Therefore, every Christian in the world needs to decide for himself whether The System is Good or evil; in service to God or Satan.

Every Christian needs to decide whether The System is motivated towards our salvation or damnation; our help or our harm.

Such choices always are personal, never can be compelled. 

The System could have removed the peck from the arena of choice and forced it upon the world. But then it would not have been a spiritual choice. 

Instead The System decided to leave the peck unenforced,  exactly so that our choice of yes becomes a spiritual choice, a decision of affiliation to The System.

Because when The System is ultimately demonic; then to choose system values is also to choose our own damnation.    

Note: It is, of course, possible for a Christian to repent any sin - any choice of affiliation to the side of evil - and thus attain salvation. But repentance has to be chosen -and that requires acknowledgement of having-sinned. 

Evil must, like a vampire, be invited-in. The greater the degree of choice, the less the degree of compulsion - the less likely is repentance. 

The peck strategy tries to present itself as-if mandatory, to provide an untrue excuse for peck-choosers; while ensuring that in reality consent has been chosen. 

The peck-complier may say that he 'had to' take the peck, that he had 'no choice'; which rationalization conceals his own decisive act of consent, his own sin. 

This insidious combination makes repentance less likely. 

Divine revelation includes 'built in' knowledge (innate, initially unconscious)

Because God is our creator and Heavenly Father - he has placed us in this mortal life on earth with a good deal of inborn knowledge. 

This knowledge - essential for our spiritual survival and salvation - is built-in. 

In other words, a vital part of divine revelation - indeed the foundation of all divine revelation - is innate; and because we begin as babies, this knowledge is initially unconscious. 

Therefore, Men have a natural set of assumptions - and these (for many human generations) formed the universal and inevitable basis of any chosen assumptions. 

This situation was universal and inevitable, because unconscious.  

As we grow older, some of this built-in revelation becomes conscious. 

But there have been times in past ages where, it seems, not much of inbuilt revelation became conscious - the further back, the less conscious (it seems) Men were of this innate basis. 

Much of divine revelation was therefore accepted passively, without any awareness; and therefore such knowledge was also built-into all the spiritualties and religions of the world, and it was the common property of all Men of ancient times. 

(This is what CS Lewis called the tao, in his lecture series The Abolition of Man )

This innate, natural revelation was also a fundamental part of all traditional (pre-modern) forms of Christianity.

Other forms of revelation such as The Bible and the inner guidance of the Holy Ghost were built-upon this built-in revelation. 

Thus, for instance, Scripture does not explicitly contain all that we need to know - because The Bible takes-for-granted a great deal of the common inheritance of all Men of 2000 years ago. 

Scripture requires assumptions - but the necessary assumptions used to be very common, were unconscious; probably universal. 

Therefore; Christian revelation (pretty much) 'just' adds-to (but in doing so, sometimes supersedes) the traditional revelations of the religions of the Ancient Hebrews, Greeks and and Romans. 

(In different words: Christian Law is built-on Natural Law.)

It is sometimes said, for instance, that the Virtues are essentially common to all religions; except for Faith, Hope and Charity - which are the new and distinctively Christian virtues. 

My point is that without our already built-in divine revelation; Christianity becomes not just arbitrary - but almost incomprehensible. Christianity becomes a house without foundations - which is exactly how mainstream modern Men regard it. 

What has happened through the modern era is that Men have become increasingly conscious of innate revelations. These have come to general awareness and thus have ceased to be unconscious, spontaneous and natural. 

The process of becoming conscious of our innate revelations was, of itself, an advance in human consciousness - it made us more grown-up in our divinity, and more free. 

What God intended and hoped-for was that - having become aware of the nature of our built-in divine revelation - we would then consciously choose (from our new freedom to do so) to live in accordance with this foundational basis of all values. 

But what instead happened was extremely different; and in accordance with Satanic and demonic intentions - rather than divine. 

Modern Man became aware of one after another of the inbuilt revelations; but on observing that they were primary and not derived from this world; re-interpreted revelations as arbitrary and unjust prejudices. 

And this has led to the rejection of more and more of innate divine revelation - its relabeling as unjust prejudice - and the attempted eradication of that which is built-into Men. 

Instead there is the (stunningly successful) demonic project of the New Assumptions - which are intended to replace (now, supposedly discredited) built-in divine revelation. 

Consider 'traditional' sexual knowledge, attitudes, values and morality. Over the past c250 years these have emerged into more and more general human consciousness. Men have become increasingly aware that they are assumptions - and in becoming aware have inevitably needed to make the choice of whether to accept them, or not. 

Modern Men have become conscious of many details of their own sexual assumptions (mainstream modern culture points these out, repeatedly), and that these are innate assumptions - common to almost all Men.

But modern mainstream culture interprets these traditional assumptions as nasty, because they can be argued to lead to bad consequences. 

In particular, traditional assumptions about sex/ sexuality often lead to reduced possibilities of short-term selfish pleasure. This meant that there was a ready audience for any attempt to discredit them - and a willingness to accept almost any rationalization that allowed individuals to think and do things that they wanted, but which went against innate revelation. 

The (demonic) consequence is to regard (in principle) all that is an inbuilt, spontaneous, natural basis for our lives as being 'evil'; and we are in the midst of a vast (global) program to subvert, discredit and ultimately delete our built-in divine revelations. 

The divinely built-in foundations of all knowledge are then - sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly in the process of being replaced by a new, modern, Leftist system of values that has zero foundation and no natural or spontaneous basis - indeed, quite the opposite! 

The New Assumptions' unnaturalness and conflict with 'common sense' and common decency and whatever is universal and innate is regarded as evidence of their superiority!  

The New Assumptions must therefore be imposed top-down by propaganda and coercion - as we see all around us.    

The above analysis explains why we cannot 'reset' culture to the traditional assumptions based upon built-in divine revelations; because these are now conscious. 

Because they are conscious, and because our consciousness shows them to be assumptions; the built-in knowledge with which God provided us must be chosen. 

Never again can we live in spontaneous unconscious accord with innate divine revelations; never again can we regard the natural as necessary. 

Instead, the path out from our current demonic system of imposed anti-divine assumptions is for us consciously to choose to base our lives, and our religion, on the inbuilt assumptions of divine revelation. 

Christianity cannot be strong without foundations; and the foundations have been destroyed and replaced with evil, anti-divine, demonic assumptions. 

It is our task (the task of each person reading this, for himself or herself) to rebuild the foundations provided by built-in divinely-revealed knowledge; through understanding what has happened, and then choosing to have God's revelations as our foundations. 

And only on such a solid base - which we our-selves must participate in constructing - can future Christian Faith, Hope and Charity be built. 

Only on such a base can Scriptural revelation again be effective, and the guidance of the Holy Ghost be known for what it is. 

The choice is all or nothing - no nuance is possible

It is understandable but grossly mistaken to want to take a reforming, rather than rejecting, view when it comes to the dominant evil ideologies of our world - such as the litmus test issues. After all, these are all cunning misrepresentations such that 'good intentions', bits of truth, are woven into the Big Lies. 

The usual idea is to keep the good and reject the extremism of evil; 'not to throw the baby out with the bathwater'. 

But this will not do - not when an evil lie has been elaborated and permeated the entirety of social institutions. 

If we are not to be destroyed spiritually and physically, by the birdemic, antiracism, climate change and the sexual revolution (for instance) then hey must be denied and extirpated from our hearts. 

There can be no moderation in this, because these are evil by intent, and used to justify and implement evil on an unprecedented scale and degree - I mean the top-down and global evil that reaches the extreme of actual inversion of values: inversion of truth, beauty and virtue. 

These must explicitly be repented and eradicated. 

And the same applies to the social institutions that have become corrupted and inverted - to the institutions of science, law, religion, medicine, the arts, the police and military etc. These institutions are beyond reform, and are weaponized for evil - therefore the is simply no alternative to their removal and substitution as a definite goal.

I do not for a moment suppose that this will happen! But if it does not, then even when these systemic evils are rolled-back; they will simply regrow - and very rapidly too. Each evil sustains and rationalizes  the others - so that and restraint or reform will simply be bypassed. 

The world is an a much worse situation than is recognized, even by Christians. Minuscule triumphs are seen as harbingers of victory - yet again and again they turn out to be utterly insignificant - like Brexit or Trump, or the current feeble stirrings of resistance to the birdemic-peck agenda, and tiny retreats. 

Of course, I am pleased to see any resistance, and pleased with any easing of the totalitarian iron prison - but it is ridiculous to imagine that these are anything but temporary and localized blips in the unrolling global agenda of evil - unless there is a much greater, more decisive, and more complete clarity of understanding coming around the corner. 

   

Satan's scheme

Maybe the goal is to convince all people that they are things. 

(Once that's done, the work of damnation has been achieved - and the rest is just Satan having fun.)

To do this by making the world one that treats all-of-reality as things - only things are really-real.

And to make all things inter-convertible (e.g. by money and bureaucracy). 

Then to make all the inter-convertible things into 'equal' units.

Then to do whatever-is-fun with the things - including exploiting, tormenting or eliminating them...

Because - Hey! - it doesn't really matter, does it? 

Because they admit they are just things; and things don't mind. 

(How could they mind? They are just things, after all!).

And there's always plenty more (equal) things, where those came from.  

"Training the mind" - double-edged effect at best, and preventive of Final Participation

The Romantic will always come-up against the fact that for most of the time he is mundane. Of course, life and (especially) surrounding people are often a real drag upon any aspirations to Higher Consciousness. 

After all, our world is built upon assumptions of anti-God, anti-spirit materialism - and when we are engaged with the world, our minds are entrained to this pervasive mundanity. 

Yet, even with as near a perfect 'environment' as this mortal world offers; the Higher Consciousness of intuition/ heart-thinking- mysticism that is desired sought by Romanticism; is always an intermittent state - and often disappointingly infrequent.

Indeed, some Romantics have ended-up being more distressed by the evanescence of Higher Consciousness, than encouraged by the occurrence of such states. 

Especially; if one is aiming at Final Participation as the goal of consciousness - the destined and necessary stage in human evolutionary development - then there are neither methods nor training to achieve it. 

It is tempting, indeed usual, for serious Romantics to try and escape this - apparently - unsatisfactory situation of endemic failure, by some or another method of 'training the mind'. 

This is what lies behind the grades of initiation beloved by some esoteric societies, the prolonged and daily practice of meditation; and external aids such as ritual, script, music, architecture.  

There seems little doubt that these are at least somewhat effective in training the mind; the question is: what is the effect of such training? 

My distinct impression is that all methods of training the mind that are aimed at Higher Consciousness will fail. 

Either they will just 'not work', will fail to achieve anything sufficiently powerful and lasting to make a significant different to the problem of mortal life; or else (more insidiously) they will succeed in imposing a System upon thinking. 

And this System will either become unconscious and habitual, thereby subjecting thinking to uncontrolled lower consciousness (while terming this state 'higher'). This would apply to Jungian-derived methods; based on lucid dreamlike trances; and also to meditation practices that aims to eradicate 'the self' or 'ego' or discard 'thinking' itself. 

Or else, it will subject thinking to the conscious will, yet this conscious will is merely ordinary mundane consciousness - and subject to the external influences of mundane consciousness. This would apply to the types of meditation that focus on training concentration, imagination and 'visualization' - such as those of ritual magic societies and Steiner's Anthroposophical 'exercises'. 

The apparent 'success' of training may generate increased gratification in life (make people 'feel better' in some way) - but do not achieve the objective of Final Participation.

Both the System and the training in 'concentration' may be effective in producing change - but they are not effective in encouraging Final Participation. And, in failing, they lead to that contamination of genuine insight and achievement with confident error and vast delusion which has been so characteristic of those who aim at Higher Consciousness. 

The limitation is a consequence of Final Participation being a participation in divine creation; which can (for obvious reasons) only happen when a Man is fully aligned with divine purposes of creation. 

This alignment with God happens seldom and briefly, is easily blocked or reversed; which limits the frequency of this state of consciousness. 

But when a Man is fully aligned with God's creation - what a man is following his destiny and that of providence; then Final Participation will happen - spontaneously, without effort or intent. 

Our main job is to recognize when this is-happening and recall when it has-happened. 

And for the Romantic Christian these are the key moments of our mortal life - vital life lessons from which we ought to learn. 

So; these Final Participation experiences will not happen often, and we cannot 'make' them happen by training.

Attempts at training and beliefs that training is efficacious are, indeed, counter-productive. 

But we can notice Final Participation states, value them, learn from them.

No such thing as "chaotic good" - those who oppose The System yet are Not for-God, are therefore on the side of evil

This is the end of an era for many more reasons than are usually comprehended. It has become a standard view that 2020 marked an inflexion point: things have changed, permanently. 

Almost everybody who has thought about it agrees on that - but there is a near-total divergence as to whether this social transformation is a good thing, or a bad thing. 

Ultimately, this is a spiritual war between those whose affiliation is to God/ divine creation/ The Good; and those who oppose God/ creation/ Good. 

Everybody has taken a side and there are no other sides. 

For-God or anti-God is the fundamental division; and for-the-System versus for-God is another way of describing the mainstream conflict. 

But... What about those who are against-the-System - who hate surveillance, control, bureaucracy, censorship etc... But who are not on the side of God and divine creation?

Does an 'agnostic', or 'anarchistic' position of being simultaneously anti The-System but Not For-God really exist? 

Well, yes such a position does exist. It is the Sorathic evil position; when evil has become its own end, has discarded plans and schemes, and become short-termist and self-centred; destructive rather than constructive; seeking as-soon-as-possible dissolution of all that is created. 

So 'universal opposition' is a type of evil. 

Because there is no way of being against both God and The System - and yet being Good. 

Because Good just-is the creative agenda of God, our Heavenly Father - that is the source and origin of Good, without which there is no Good.

Because, to be against both The System and also God is to be pro-chaos; and chaos = anti-creation. Divine creation was divinely imposed-upon pre-existent chaos, by the 'organization' of what was chaotic: thus chaos is the opposite of divine creation. 

Beyond The System (which is only partly evil, and serves as a temporary means to a proximate and partially evil end); the ultimate goal of Satan is negative and destructive; it is to to reduce all of God's creation to a state of meaningless, purposeless chaos - ultimately including the devil himself.  

In terms of the alignment system of Dungeons and Dragons ; in reality there is no such thing as chaotic good - because chaos just-is ultimate evil. 

Post-mortal life - What would suffice?

For me, this mortal life does not suffice. But what would?

Not reincarnation - because if one mortal life is not enough; then why should several suffice?

Not an endless continuation of this mortal life - because if this mortal life does not suffice, then why should its perpetuation?

...Even in paradise; because although 'the world' is a problem solved by eternal paradise, and so is mortality, the problem of myself remains. Me, even in paradise, would soon be hell. 

But if what survives into post-mortal life is not me, then it is a substitution for me - so this is just a kind of death 

(I myself would die, and be replaced by... someone/ some-thing else). 

(This also applies to 'transhumanism' - if my humanity could transcended technologically, then it would not be me - I would not be there to 'enjoy' it.) 

So... if post-mortal life is just me, perpetuated it would not suffice; yet if it is not me - then it amounts to death (which does not suffice).

Therefore; to suffice, what survives post-mortally needs to be a transformed continuation of me. For example, resurrection.

(Thus a partial definition of Heaven = a transformed continuation of me, living in paradise, among transformed continuations of other Men.)

The weight of tradition - our task

These extraordinary times are made the more so by the stunning inability to see what is plain. We are living through the end of a great tradition and long history of Western Civilization; rooted in Greek and Rome, and, for some 1700 years, the Christian church - in its various forms. 

Insofar as this reality is known at all; it is experienced as a weight; and that weight can be felt either as an astonishing (but intimidating!) litany of unsurpassed achievements in human endeavor - or as, just, an oppression. 

On the one hand, such a long and astonishing tradition is stunningly impressive; yet on the other hand it has been overcome. 

Has been... This overcoming of Western Christian Civilization has already happened, and we stand at a point when the implications are being worked-out. Our world has moved from a long phase of collapsing, into its current phase of active destruction. 

Western civilization has-been overcome; yet the ideology that overcame it, which hates that heritage (of Classicism, but even more so of Christianity) does not acknowledge this fact - and indeed, with the right hand, presents itself as both steward and patron of exactly that civilization which, with its left hand, it is destroying as fast as possible.  

If there is a dominant ideological mode by 2022; that mode is untruthfulness, dishonesty, misrepresentation, lies - our world is built from lies, and by lies. 

The spirit of negation has triumphed over the spirit of creation; and (such is this mortal life) negation has the purer and clearer motivation, feels itself the more justified. 

The long history of Western civilization has greatness of creative achievement; and also greatness of horror - its motives always mixed, its triumphs always disputed. (Such is mortal life.)

But the spirit of negation which has, as a matter of fact, brought-down Western civilization, operates from a baseline assumption of absolute purity and coherence of motive; it demands nothing less than absolute perfection - and when it fails to find this, it destroys. 

Such is the ideology of negation - it is able to be and demand purity and perfection exactly because its sanction is destruction. 

The world has changed sides; everybody with power, status, influence is (more-or-less so, but always) of the party of negation*; hence (most of the time) nobody is questioning where this is going, what the destruction is supposed to achieve. 

Recent attempts to describe the goal of the party of destruction - the nature of the world being-aimed-at - are risible, and largely ignored. Nobody asks the ultimate purpose, everybody is engaged in the proximate work of 'clearing the ground' under the (vague) assumption that something not just better but perfect will spontaneously grow to occupy the ruins of The West; will (presumably) grow from the pure seeds of motivation possessed by the destroyers...  

When such 'where?' questions are being-asked; the right hand briefly brings-forward and points-at some goal of the Old West - like science, education, art - and the powers of negation briefly masquerade as steward and patron, guardian and sustainers of all that is good. 

They have, after all, long since taken-over all institutions (bureaucracies, corporations, organizations), all the social functions. Whatever remains of the long tradition of Western Christian Civilization is in their 'care'...

Yet as soon as the discourse moves-on, the directionless work of destruction recommences.

The world now stands-within this ideology of negation. 

Looking outwards from it at the collapsing ruins of tradition; it sees nothing but oppression, hypocrisy, failure. Against such a litany of injustice and disaster, their task is obvious - the necessity of destruction is clear. 

And no matter how much has been destroyed, there is (so far) always more yet to do; the spirits of negation feel that little or no progress has been made, since so much of Western Civilization, of tradition, still stands.

Hence the raging impatience, the urgency that characterizes those on the side of negation!  

So this is the shape of our times. A defeated civilization, the achieved triumph of negation, the zeal of destruction. 

Our choice would seem to be a broken tradition versus nihilism. 

But neither will do. The one is terminally ill and living in a hospice administered by those who would murder it; the other, the mass majority, are destroyers - fuelled by a morality of opposition and inversion. 

Against such a world, each of us can bring the alliance of our-selves with God. 

We can oppose both senility of civilization and the nihilism of negation by taking the side of divine creation, and a providence that works from individual souls rather than from the crumbling sweep of history or the accumulations of negative, oppositional, destructive power.

This can happen only if the base of activity is withdrawn from the arena, and if the mode of operation is lifted above the material. 

Its 'effectiveness', as a life-strategy, depends on our capacity to align with the divine, which depends on our motivation to do so. 

Success (or failure) we must discern and evaluate for our-selves - mindful that this-world is on the one hand 'only' the means to an end; yet on the other hand, so long as we personally remain alive, we have something of potentially eternal value to achieve. 

Since God is the creator - maker of this world, and our loving Father; we need not seek for this personal task:

Life will bring our work to-us. 

Our job (yours, mine) is 'merely' to recognize that task; then to choose well.

*Note - 'The party of negation' is more commonly known as Leftism - but it must be understood that as of 2022 all parties are Leftist; including not just all socialist, liberal, progressive parties, but all centre, moderate, right-wing, libertarian and officially-religious (including 'Christian' church) parties. This because Leftism is rooted in the anti-spiritual/ anti-Christian metaphysics of materialism/ positivism/ scientism and reductionism - which assumptions pervade and dominate the entirety of public discourse. 

Atheism, taken seriously and/or under external evil pressure, makes people become worse

This is adapted from a comment I wrote at William Wildblood's blog in answer to his question - Are Atheists Bad People? 

From my perspective, of having been atheist most of my life; the badness was in what I wanted rather than what I did (and in many ways, most people would probably regard me as more good - certainly more likeable and friendly - when I was an atheist than after). 

But in retrospect what I wanted was the problem, and I was often trying to overcome my 'natural' and spontaneous ('pagan') goodness so as to be able to be more expedient, experience more pleasure, cease to feel guilty or inhibited about things that I didn't want to do or think - stuff like that. 

I was/am since childhood naturally rather puritanical and easily shocked, and this got in the way of fun. So from early adulthood I was pushing against this; trying to persuade myself that life would me more enjoyable if I was more relaxed about things that felt wrong; trying to desensitize myself against that which shocked me. 

Also, in a 'cosmic' sense, I tended to assume that there was a purpose to life, that something survived death, that truth was real and important. But my atheist metaphysical assumptions told me that there was no purpose to life and I should forget about everything except This Life - and being truthful was an obstacle to this. 

The fact that I just couldn't convince myself that truth was unreal was maybe the factor that broke my atheism - as I observed the whole of science becoming untruthful and corrupting all around me. 

In sum; I think that is the worst thing about atheism from the perspective of people 'being good' is that taken seriously it tends to encourage people to get worse, and not to be worried about this. 

And if atheism is not taken seriously, not thought-about (as is more common) - it makes people cowardly and compliant to external influences because Why Not? - as we see all around us today. 

The de-facto-atheist world (The Global System) now is worse than ever before in recorded history in terms of what it wants; because what the world regards as good and evil are already-and-increasingly inverted; so that we actively seek evil but call it Good. 

Bach, Gould - the A-flat major prelude from Well-Tempered Clavier Volume 1

Bach's Preludes and Fugues from the Well-Tempered (i.e. equally-divided-octave tuning) Clavier (keyboard instrument) comprise two volumes (each of 24 pieces) of a prelude and a fugue in each of the twelve major and minor keys. 

The first volume of WTC is generally fresher, more varied in style and substance, and more spontaneously-fluent than the second - and I prefer it. 

The above prelude is an example of why I love WTC Volume 1. It is a short, simple, two-part 'invention'; making considerable use of 'perpetual motion' semi-quavers in the bass, to drive a melodic line that transcends its typically baroque-era use of sequences to combine (or alternate) joy and yearning-pathos in a deliciously bittersweet fashion. 

It also represents very lucidly what is special about Glenn Gould, because this two-part texture lets the listener hear everything that is going-on; in terms of the crisply-detached separation yet subtle phrasing of each individual note - even the decorative flourishes; and the over-arching shape and mood that Gould creates. 

In other hands, this tiny piece can seem merely pleasant - even trite; but Gould's musical concentration and insight raises it to a level that has given me repeated happiness for the past 44 years, and counting. 

Paradise is Hell... in experience, in practice

A religion might offer some version of Paradise to its faithful adherents, it might give them exactly the experience they have asked for - and yet this may also be a demonic bargain. 

If paradise is considered as an experience (that is, a 'subjective' experience) then there is the fact that getting 'what you asked' for can in practice be an appalling outcome - as can be seen from the sexual revolution over the past 60 years. 

Western people (in one country after another) asked-for and were given no-fault divorce, unlimited promiscuity, same sex and any perverted 'sexuality', the recognition of changed sex... Asked that these be not only tolerated but praised and rewarded... 

And now these people have exactly what they asked for. They have been given Paradise. 

But do people like what they have been given? Has Paradise made them happy? Seemingly not. 

Yet will they admit their error and give it up? Seemingly not. 

To refuse to give-up that which makes you miserable, is to be addicted to sin. 

And that is Hell, in microcosm. 

I suspect almost any "Paradise" would have exactly this Hellish quality, in practice. Yet people are, after all, being-given what they have asked for... It is 'just' that when they get what they have asked-for, actually have the experience they wanted; they find it is not what they expected.  

And people are even given the chance to repent and be saved from their self-chosen Hell... Yet they choose not to acknowledge their error, their sin... (This refusal is sometimes called Pride.)

Instead, they assume they are miserable because they do not have enough of what they asked for; they just want more of what they want. 

This can be seen all around, as a matter of daily observation; and it is more than an analogy of what induces Men to choose Hell rather than Heaven, and to keep making that choice. It is the actual mechanism of self-damnation.

And it explains why any religion that offers Paradise without the self-transformation, purification by love, and divination of Resurrection; is offering a kind of Hell - even-though/ exactly-because it delivers on its promises. 

It is indeed by delivering on the promise of Paradise-experience for un-resurrected Man that Hell is made. 

Who would choose reincarnation in preference to Heaven?

I am not sure how many people in the modern world really believe in reincarnation; because so much reincarnation talk seems to operate at a superficial and 'lifestyle' level... Something to chat-about and speculate-on - or a stick with-which to beat mainstream Christians. 

But presumably some people at least have reincarnation as a deeply-motivating kind of belief, that might sustain courage in the face of adversity? 

But I must admit that I find it hard to imagine why a Christian who believed in Heaven (at least, who believed in heaven as I understand it to be) could want to be reincarnated after their biological-death,  instead of being resurrected.   

To my way of thinking, reincarnation is a natural and spontaneous way of thinking in childhood and during human history - and therefore I suppose it to be true: I suppose that Men (or at least some Men) were reincarnated after death, through much of human history. Reincarnation is therefore true, or a real possibility - or, at least, it was. 

Although I also note that beyond the mere fact of reincarnation there are many and very different 'schemes' of reincarnation. Perhaps there were different reincarnations in different types of human society? I tend to think this is likely.  

But what I do find difficult to understand about reincarnation for a modern Man (although here I will make an attempt to understand it) is why someone who knew of the reality of Heaven and the possibility of his own resurrection - and who also desired resurrection into Heaven... 

...Why such a Christian would instead want to defer resurrection, and be reincarnated, and live another life in this world (in which this current life would not be remembered)? 

When Heaven is both within one's grasp, and is wanted as an ultimate destination (and a situation in which the real business of living can begin, full-time) - it seems like a strange choice to defer entry. 

I know-of, and greatly esteem (overall), several real Christians who also believe-in reincarnation, and apparently want to be reincarnated - who believe in reincarnation as both true and good: examples include Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield, and William Arkle - who are among my spiritual mentors.

This is find it hard to understand - because at best it seems like merely delaying - putting-off an achievable perfect outcome available Now - in order to engage in yet-more preparatory stuff. 

But at worst it risks that my next incarnation might choose damnation and reject Heaven altogether - which would be the ultimate disaster. 

However it may have been in the past; the hope of reincarnation nowadays strikes me as akin to kicking-the-can; as if just wanting to delay and defer the unavoidable and final decision.

And that strikes me as rather uncomfortably close to that delayed repentance, that refusal to repent Now; which is actually just a disguised refusal to repent. 

The plea of Augustine of Hippo "Lord, make me chaste - but not yet" has often been misunderstood as a viable life-option for Christians. Of course, it merely means that Augustine was not yet a Christian when he said that (and meant it). 

Analogously, when thought-through to its implications; for a modern Christian to desire reincarnation after death seems close to asking God for "Salvation - but not yet!" - which may well be functionally identical with rejecting salvation. 

Note: It may be that some Christians regard reincarnation as something that just happens, that God 'does to us' (for our own good) whether we want and choose it, or not. Something that we need in order eventually to be allowed into Heaven and to assume the place God desires for us. If so, then this would surely be a cause for sadness and an attitude of resignation to God's will? Yet, many of those who argue for reincarnation clearly do not see it as a sad thing thus to be compelled to delay our admission to Heaven - on the contrary, they apparently have a positive and enthusiastic interest in the subject. This seems to me to display an implicit positive preference for reincarnation as their personal destination post-mortem - which I what I am criticizing here. 

Heaven - bliss or creating?

Some (many?) people seem to want Heaven to be a place of bliss, in which all is euphoric; and there is nothing unpleasant, nothing 'dysphoric'. 

A place and state in which all the possible modes of being are absolutely happy; and unhappiness is impossible.

But I regard Heaven as essentially a place of eternal commitment to love, in which our 'work' is to participate with God in creating. 

To be motivated to love and create seems to entail that we must be able to suffer considerably less-than-blissful states of being; we must Not be continually euphoric but must also experience (in some sense, albeit not exactly the same as in mortal life) the unpleasant, the unhappy; else we would not be motivated to create. 

Even love (the pre-requisite of Heaven) is something that is dynamic, happens through-time, moves through modes of being including the less-than-blissful. Heaven is like an ideal family; and even the best family at its best necessarily contains many emotions of sub-optimal happiness.

This is obvious and necessary, in that if happiness is optimized; then creation cannot be optimal - and vice versa. If we really do regard Heaven as the place where we work with God, with Jesus Christ, in the eternal and joyous task of creation - then we would not want to be blissfully happy at all times. 

I am not saying that in Heaven the nature of suffering is the same as earth, because that is not true. Much of our earthly suffering is due to sins such as fear, despair, resentment, guilt and so forth. These are absent from Heaven. 

Yet Heaven will include the good, divine passions, and the passions may make us sorrow and weep; even as Jesus sorrowed and wept - but in a context of absolute faith, hope and love. 

We should learn from earthly mortal life that times of the highest creation - whether that be the raising of young children, or works of art; or crafts, building, making... 

These states are not characterized but continuous unremitting bliss - even though they yield the deepest and most lasting satisfactions. 

In other words; the common idea of Heaven as nothing-but-bliss-forever... is something that needs to be set-aside and superseded if we are really to want what Jesus Christ is actually offering. 

As of 2022 - group destiny and 'the side of history' can only be evil

A great deal of the appeal of Old Left Socialism/ Communism/ Marxism in the early 20th century, was the idea that to become a part of it was to be "on the side of history". 

The 1960s New Left took-over this idea but applied it to 'identity' and 'lifestyle' rather than economics; in that they propagated the principle that to favour the sexual revolution, feminist and antiracist identity politics, 'environmentalism', diversity and suchlike; was to be riding an inevitably-triumphant wave.

To oppose the inevitability of 'history' was (and is, commonly) regarded as not just futile, but also wicked. Even as late as a decade ago, BH Obama used repeatedly and explicitly to assert this - and was apparently believed by many. 

Opposition to the Left agenda has dissolved under this acid of 'historical destiny', said to be driving the Left agenda. 

In more general terms, there is a long tradition of ideas that destiny-for-the-good operates at a group level. At first this was the tribe (the ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament, for instance), later the nation or empire. 

Such group destinies can be seem as having more recently been extrapolated to an idealization of the 'global' perspective' and 'humanity' about-which we hear so much from the mainstream officialdom and media. 

In 2022; to be less than global and universal is regarded - among the ruling Establishment - as atavistic, morally-limited, dangerously partial, reactionary - and futile.  

In the past, when Man's consciousness was not individualized as it is now but Men were (more or less) spontaneously immersed in a group identity; the idea of group identity was natural, not avoidable - and therefore right and proper for such times and places. 

But nowadays, I would assert that ideas of group destiny can only lead toward evil. 

This, indeed, is exactly why such ideas have been pushed and propagated so hard by The Left. 

This is a tough lesson for many Christians (and other religions) who have come to regard the group destiny of their church or denomination as necessarily, unavoidably, the 'unit' of divine destiny. 

Yet, ideas of group destiny include (covertly, when not explicitly) the ultimately anti-Christian idea that individual agency, free will - the choice of salvation - ought-be-be overridden and swept-up into the group! 

Ideas of the church's eventual inevitable triumph cannot avoid containing the assumption that Men Will choose this path - and therefore these choices are absolutely predictable, therefore un-free, and therefore coercible. 

I think many Christians are as prone to fantasies about being on the side of history, being a part of an irresistibly powerful rising tide: a tsunami of destiny that crushes all opposition - as are Leftists. 

The fantasy that God will intervene directly, and will overwhelm the world with his infinite majesty and splendour so that Men will recognize He cannot be opposed and will flock to his cause.  

   

My conviction is quite different, and opposed; and indeed I regard such ideas as actively preventing the progression of Men (individual Men) to love and wish for the promises of Christianity. 

I regard the group-history/ destiny idea as a version of the evil wish to abrogate personal responsibility for salvation - and instead to adopt a passive, reactive attitude to live; the desire to reject grown-up consciousness and its individual destiny of freedom and responsibility; and instead to become unconscious again like childhood and the early ages of Man - to return to unconsciousness by immersion in a great and absorbing movement. 

With such ideas; Men seek to predict and pick the eventual 'winning side' in the great conflicts of the world; and obediently to serve the masters of this side. 

In our totalitarian world - it may readily be seen how easy it has been for those with worldly-power to gather-up all fantasies of backing the winning horse - whether secular or religious - into submission to The System. 

This is why I regard Romantic Christianity - based upon the individual and his personal relation to the divine; based upon the absolute requirement for individual understanding and choice - to be the only form of true Christianity; with all group-ish and church-based forms having already-been, or in  process of being, assimilated to the agenda of evil. 

As of 2022, historical inevitability and group-destiny are become integral ideals of the side of evil. If we choose to be on the side of history, that path will lead us to damnation. 

By believing in historical inevitability - we make it so; but only for evil. 

Instead of believing that the individual destiny is encompassed by the group; Christians-now need to believe that the individual sets the agenda-for Good (for God) - and a Good-motivated group is 'merely' an abstraction of many individuals.   

Taking personal responsibility for one's destiny does not - of itself - lead to salvation' but it has become a necessary step towards that goal.