"The poor always ye have with you" - Jesus's harsh rejection of double-negative theology

John: 12: 3-8. Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment. Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor? This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein. Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this. For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.

Jesus is both impatient and decisive in his rejection of Judas Iscariot's attempt to impose the deadly trap of double-negative theology on Jesus's message. 

The danger of this demonic lure is evident. 

If Christianity becomes primarily a matter of dealing with the sufferings of this-world, there will be no end or limit to such activities, such a mind-set. 

To live for "compassion" is un-Christian and spiritually lethal; because it excludes the ultimate life-purpose of salvation*. 

"The Poor" of one sort or another (including our poor-selves, our own sufferings and needs!) will always be with us, their needs will always be present and, unless a higher and positive life-purpose is in place and dominant, will always usurp the purpose of salvation  - as the present self-identified-Christian churches exemplify with such horrible clarity. 

Only from the primacy of a commitment to following Jesus Christ through death to Heavenly resurrection; is it spiritually virtuous to consider the endless, boundless, intractable problems of this mortal life and world. 

And then only from personal love - because abstract, universal, unconditional love is another net to catch the devil's prey**. 

Make no mistake about it: we are talking about a Satanic snare! 

To live double-negatively in order to alleviate the ills of this mortal life is evil - even-more evil is to advocate this, to push an "altruistic" ideology.

Jesus's harsh, aggressive, repulsion of Judas's concern for The Poor should help make this evident. 

+++

* That it was not just Judas's hypocritical motivation for helping the poor that Jesus was rejecting, is evidenced by the larger scope of Jesus's explanation. 

** That promiscuous altruism and alleviation of the ills of this world is indeed a devilish trap, lure and snare; is indirectly suggested by the way in which not-Christians and anti-Christians are so addicted to making accusations of an un-Christian attitude; if or when any Christian person or institution fails to lend public support to a socio-political scheme that presents-itself as intended to alleviate some species of suffering. 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat...

 

Instead of a Dark Lord, you would have A Cat! 

Beautiful and terrible as the dawn! Tempestuous as the sea, and stronger than the foundations of the earth! 

All shall love me... and despair!

H/T - My wife; for the idea. 

The spiritual failure of All objective Systems (including institutions and corporations, including churches)

What we have witnessed over the past century is the failure of each and all Systems to be sufficiently spiritual that they can avoid the gravitational pull of corruption by totalitarianism (which is intrinsically evil). 

In other words, all Systems - which include all churches, and every other kind of spiritual organization (such as Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophical Society) have become detached from the individual and personal sources which were their only link with the spiritual. 

In making religion or spirituality into a System - the essence has been made objective, social, public - and therefore they have been corrupted. 

This did not necessarily happen in the more remote past, because individual humans who operated within Systems were spontaneously (often unconsciously) spiritual Beings - that is, people just-were in-touch-with the world of spirit, gods, the dead - the supernatural, the magical etc. This inevitably had a spiritually-leavening effect upon even the most rational, mathematical, objective kind of System. 

Another aspect was that people were spontaneously and necessarily group-ish in their consciousness and behaviour. 

But as people became more fully "modern" - which is to say alienated, cut-off from the world of spirit, and from human groups; they ceased to leaven the objective structures of institutions with an unconscious spirituality - and the institutions became "objective" - on the surface, public, bureaucratic - in their essence. 

The individual human had to conform to the System, subordinate to it, obey it; in a one-way fashion - and thus totalitarianism was born.

Now, from here-and-now, there is no hope in Systems; including no hope in any possible or conceivable Church or spiritual organization - because these are now objective social structures in their essence. 

Detached, alienated, cut-off from the spiritual. Their structure and processes exclude the spiritual. 

That is why all Systems/ Institutions/ Organizations etc have become assimilated to totalitarianism. It is impossible that they would not be, because they cannot be anything else.  

To put it another way: As of 2025, there is no System that can - of itself - lead to positive spiritual results; and the stronger and more comprehensive is the System - the more spiritual harm it will be doing. 

**

Note added: If you are one of those who manage to convince yourself that Yes, this is true! All Systems are indeed assimilated to totalitarianism for everyone... But not for my church...

Then I would say - think again just how much discernment, evaluation and selectivity you have to apply to your church in order to be able to deny that it is fundamentally corrupted... just how much of your church you must in fact ignore in order to regard it as essentially true. 

And consider that the amount of discernment, evaluation, selectivity and ignoring that you must apply is continually increasing. 

Commenting suspended for a while

As I like to do from time to time, I'm taking a break from monitoring and moderating comments. Old comments are hidden but not lost, and will be restored when my current laziness has diminished. 

The weird delusions of geopolitics (to which we are nearly-all prone, nearly-all of the time)

If you can imagine yourself to be a human from another planet who had arrived to observe the denizens of the "Western" civilization on earth; I think you would be amazed at the amount of mental time and effort that we expend on having (strong!) opinions on geopolitical matters. 

So much of our public discourse is occupied by political and social issues, national and international - which are remote, second-hand (to put it kindly), and over which we can have no conceivable influence. 

It is a spell cast over almost all of us; and from which we only seldom and briefly awake to be astonished at ourselves... Before lapsing back into the bizarre world view in which "my opinion" on something geopolitical is supposed to be crucially important - both to the world and to my own identity and moral status. 

What is strangest of all, is the inbuilt expectation that - not only must we all have the "right" understanding of... everything; but also we are each supposed to have some sort of plan or blueprint for "fixing" the world! 

Indeed, the expectation is that we are not really entitled to an opinion unless we also have a plan to fix it: not only are we required to consider all the questions, but we are expected to know all the answers...

Not only should we have a plan to fix everything; but we ought to be doing something about fixing it. That "something" may, objectively, be of ludicrously trivial - like participating in an election every few years - but it is nonetheless believed to be morally mandatory, and causally linked to all that happens in the world! 

We are defined by that microscopic act - defined, I mean, in our own minds. 

More exactly, we must subscribe to, subordinate ourselves to, be loyal to; some kind of ideology (if not religion) that claims to be coherent and comprehensive: to have all the answers to all the questions - because any gap in the Qs or As is supposed be be a fatal deficit! 

That loyalty is (supposedly) what makes us a responsible human being.  

And if our ideology doesn't have a viewpoint on everything that happens to be in the news today - then it's no good, and we ought to change it!

 

I do not exempt myself from membership of this obviously-delusory way of living - it's just that very occasionally, such as the past few minutes; my mind clears of the smoke, I come-to-my-senses, and realize my insanity. 

Before lapsing back into the morass. 

"AI" and Schadenfreude

One of the multi-pronged and actively-corrupting effects of the current global establishment push of so-called text and image-generating "AI" is its encouragement (if encouragement were needed!) of that besetting sin of this time: Schadenfreude.  

I have come across many online binges of spiteful (almost erotic) glee, when people imagine the devastating effect that AI will supposedly have on destroying the livelihoods of journalists, illustrators, script-writers, novelists - and in general those involved in the visual and verbal aspects of mainstream media and public relations...

Nearly-all of whom enthusiastically put their talents in service to the agenda of value-corruption, and who appear to be 101% on-board with the demonic program of totalitarianism. 

The orgies of delight at what is hoped will be the deserved sufferings of these myrmidons of Satan is a certain evil in its own right... Which evil has nothing to do with the fact that these most of these people are apparently on the wrong side in the spiritual war of this world.

The idea that those destroyed deserve their sufferings, and that therefore it is right to take pleasure in their misery; is just one of those deadly rationalizations that prevent sin from being repented.

Therefore; the evil I describe comes from  resentment - not repented but instead actively celebrated, and rhetorically-intended to induce celebration in others. 

Of course; this is only a small aspect of the many evils that AI is planned to wreak upon the human spirit; yet it is a calculated consequence of the strategy of implementation, and deserves at least cursory acknowledgement. 

Jesus Christ and the ongoing Second Creation - reason for a personal relationship with Jesus during this mortal life

I have been blogging recently about the idea that Jesus's "cosmic" role was the Second Creation that is Heaven - Jesus made possible resurrected eternal life, and therefore Heaven. 

But, in addition, Jesus has a role as the Good Shepherd, who will lead each of us to Heaven, if we choose to follow him from love. 

One part of this leading, is for Jesus to show the way and make possible our transformation from mortal to immortal that is resurrection. 

Another aspect is that Jesus - who is the Holy Ghost - can (if voluntarily sought) provide guidance, comfort and positive encouragement, on a moment-by-moment basis, during this mortal life on earth. 

This guidance/ comfort/ encouragement from the Holy Ghost may come via prayer - in other words, by prayers addressed to Jesus. Or it may come by any other manifestation of a loving friendship with Jesus; such as in meditation, or by directing our thoughts and attention to Jesus at any time or place or situation.   

(It's not that I regard prayers and thoughts directed at God the Primary Creator as a wrong thing to do - but it seems to me that these are not specifically Christian. A Christian should, surely, be focused on Christ? And that includes prayer, meditation, and our best kind of thinking.)  

The purpose of this mortal life can be conceptualized negatively and positively. 

Negatively, there is the matter of learning from problems and mistakes, from disease and death, repenting sins... and the like. 

But a positive and strongly-motivating life goal is essential in these adverse times; and this motivation (because of the corruption of churches, along with other institutions, to the-side-of-evil) must be something that arises-from and works-at the individual personal level. 

In the first place it seems evident (from our own set-up and the way the world now is) that this motivating-purpose is something we need to work-out for ourselves, consciously and by active choice. 

This needs to come primarily from our intuition - which means from our real and eternal self. 

But this inner source is, of course, prone to error and self-deception; and that leads to the special role of the Holy Ghost. 

I think that, in general (there are exceptions), the role of the Holy Ghost is Not to provide primary guidance: Not to "tell us what to do". 

But instead the Holy Ghost is meant to serve as a check and confirmation on what we have personally discerned and worked-out. 

As a mega-simplification (!): First we decide what we ought to do; then we consult with the Holy Ghost that we have got-it-right; that this is, indeed, what we ought to do. 

So far; we are still in the double-negative territory... 

However; the positive role of the Holy Ghost is then in the comfort and encouragement, the energizing and enthusing, deriving from "knowing" that we are indeed personally and in these exact circumstances: doing the right thing.    

Destroying "enchantment" in the arts

Ever since I became self-aware in my mid teens, I have valued "enchantment" - that magical quality of what I might now call "participation" - which is depth and breadth, significance and beauty. Enchantment is the same thing that CS Lewis called Joy, and Novalis called Sehnsucht - and was something of an obsession for the Romantic Movement.  

I found it first in Tolkien - and realized quickly how rare it was, and how it was altogether absent from most of what most people valued and praised. Furthermore, there didn't seem to be anybody else who valued it as I did - rather, more exactly, there were differences of opinion as to where it might be found, even among those who did value it. 

Finding it was therefore something of a personal quest; and I began to realize that even when I located a source of enchantment, the trend of our times was working against it. 

I found enchantment in the work of the electric folk group Steeleye Span, especially in their supernatural and magical ballads. But after seven LPs of reliably enchanting music - I noticed that in 1975 "All around my hat" was a considerable step down in this respect. It was something to do with a feeling of "overproduction" in the music - which was apparently intended to make it more "commercial", more instantly appealing to a mass audience; and this being achieved by what seemed like excessive messing around with sound and arrangements and (presumably) performance; excessive production-control - such that the delicate bloom of the songs was somewhat rubbed-off. The following album - Rocket Cottage - was poor, and then the band broke up. 

The thing about enchantment is that it isn't usually a conscious goal, but happens as a by-product, as a part of a larger and spontaneously integrated activity. Indeed, it is not possible to get enchantment by making it primary - as CS Lewis describes and explain in Surprised by Joy.

But enchantment can be prevented or destroyed by any focus on almost any specific - it can be pulled-down, but also killed by breaking-up.

So, whereas I quite often found an almost accidental enchantment in many amateur plays and music; I only seldom found it in the work of professionals - especially when they were required to repeat performances, and these became routine. I have never seen a play with enchantment in the West End London theatre, for instance - where actors do long runs of the same play. 

Routine is a killer of enchantment; as is management, "mugging" (exaggeration for effect, as when performers show-off); more generally a striving for entertainment, shocks, horror, laughs. 

A political agenda dominating is maybe the commonest cause of deadly disenchantment. Politics is one of the most disenchanted of all domains. 

Any priority, that is, which arises from outside, and imposes onto the creative process and interaction.

The death of enchantment is a product of separation... Modernity takes an original unity, analyses it into components, treats it as a collection of attributes - and then pursues these singly, perhaps in sequence - or emphasizes on or a few at the expense of the whole.

I have even come across modern attempts - some genuine, others probably insincere - to make enchantment itself an externally imposed priority, to layer it onto works or an intrinsically anti-enchantment aspect of life (such as politics, bureaucracy, mass media, or corporate life) - as if it was some kind of sauce! This never works, but achieves the opposite. 

Enchantment is either integral to the creative process, to Life; or else it is absent   

Now, although enchantment is still discerned and valued by a few people, and can still be found and still arises (but almost exclusively outwith professional and official sources); our civilization lies on the far side from it - the nature and trend of our whole world is systematically and pervasively hostile to enchantment.  

This is apparently what I sensed fifty years ago, back in 1975; although I didn't realize how far the process had yet to go. 

And, as usual, we can't go back. The future of enchantment in the arts, or anywhere, must be something essentially unprecedented; because it can only arise from the large perspective of a lived enchanted life - more exactly from that part or aspect of a Man's life which is enchanted. 

Note: Exactly the same problem of disenchantment happens in churches, and over much the same timescale. There is near zero enchantment in church services, or in any aspect of church life - even when the Christianity is sincere, the atmosphere is as mundane as an office. And probably a majority of serious modern Christians have set their face against many of the manifestations of enchantment - which they reject vehemently as demonic. The truth his the opposite: enchantment is a manifestation of the divine, is indeed Heavenly, and the hope of resurrection. Whatever its intent; mundane Christianity does the work of Satan, quite literally.  

The Beings of this world are neither wholly-evil, nor wholly deluded - but always these are mixed with good

The entities of this world (excepting demonic spirits or resurrected angels) are mixed Beings, including illusion and evil as well as good. 

But it is important that they have good in them. It is impossible for a Being to survive in this world without some good - by which I mean, some-thing that is aligned with the purposes and nature of divine creation. 

If there was any such Being that wholly excluded good - it would die, and presumably become a demon.

Likewise, all Beings in the world are subject to illusion (which is the partial but wrong insight of "Maya" that this world is of-its-nature and wholly a delusion: that is to say absolutely false, and we convinced that falsity is true) -- because this world is, in many respects, deceptive; and we are limited and flawed Beings. 

However, no Being is wholly deluded else he would not survive more than a few moments. 

The assumption that this is a mixed world, includes that all Beings are mixed Beings; which is a hopeful reality; because it means that there is some good, and some apprehension of reality, in every Being. 

This doesn't really have any implications for our everyday conduct - since we must deal with the realities of evil and error, despite their ultimate self-curability. 

But it does mean that there is always grounds for hope with respect to any Being, any person, in an ultimate sense. 

We can't ever be sure that anyone has irrevocably chosen self-damnation - that necessary goodness which is mixed into them; means they have the potential to make that choice for God, divine creation, The Good - and to follow Jesus Christ to Heaven. 

Mystical experience in 2025

Claims of mystical experience are not popular in our culture! 

There are bad and good reasons for this: 

A bad reason is that (in a world without God, purpose or meaning) mystical experiences are always and necessarily false (e.g. insane, dumb or dishonest); because there is No Such Thing. 

A good reason is that those who claim mystical experiences often claim that it has given them knowledge and authority - such that "we" ought to  believe and do... whatever the mystic tells us. 

However, when all is said and done; it seems to me that nothing is more important in life than real mystical experiences. Even when (as usual) these are infrequent and pretty mild or incomplete; nonetheless, they are "what it's all about". 

On the other hand, there does seem to be a strong tendency for many people to deal with their mystical experiences in mistaken and adverse ways - for instance, by trying to persuade other people and convince them that a mystical experience was really-real, and true, and really-happened...

Or to get hung-up on explaining the experience in terms of causes, meanings, implications etc. - explanations that tend to get more and more complicated. 

Yet it is surely valid to seek an understanding of any mystical experience. 

But for understanding ourselves, primarily. And not in relation to other people, and the world. 

And in seeking understanding, it seems likely that the real answer is neither complex nor abstract; but some-thing very simple - easy enough for a child to grasp. 

Cosmic significance and "will power"

There is a recurrent spiritual problem in relation to what might be termed will-power. A vast amount of spirituality has been, and is, about study, training, practice, knowledge, technique... all manner of relatively arduous things that need to be acquired as a matter of habit. 

In sum: the spiritual path is seen as one that requires will-power... with the proviso that in some traditions the will-power is supposed to come from the divine; and this divine-will merely be "channelled" by an individual human being. 

(This may be paradoxical in practice; as a self-less, ego-less person is somehow supposed to overcome other temptations and idleness; and instead strive continuously at years of arduous spiritual exercises - which are themselves dedicated to expunging his personal will!) 

 

It seems natural and inevitable - and is indeed true! - that our spiritual cosmic significance will have effects on material this-worldly affairs. In other words, insofar as we have spiritual experience, and attain spiritual learning; this will benefit "the world". 

But! This effect of the spiritual on the material, the effect of the cosmic on the earthly, does not happen in accordance with our personal will!

A Big Mistake (it seems to me) - and one that recurs often - is that spiritual people explicitly strive to change the world in accordance with their spiritual insights. What specifically they do varies greatly; but the general point is that the individual spiritual person tries to change the world in accordance with a pre-decided goal. 

Attainment of this goal then becomes an index against-which spiritual power is calibrated.

Another way into this matter is via "power". Most people want power in some sense, for some reason; but it is pretty foolish to supposes that it would be a good idea if a person's spiritual power was equated with his ability to achieve (pre-decided, explicit) worldly plans. 

On the flip-side, it is equally absurd to adopt a view that spiritual power can lead to absolutely anything in this world, including catastrophic outcomes for those we most love and value. 

Yet the question of what counts as spiritually-catastrophic, rather than materially-catastrophic, is a necessary one to consider. After all; the powers of spiritual evil dominate this world, especially in The West; and these demons may engineer materially bad outcomes for spiritually good-motivated actions; just as they often engineer worldly success, status, wealth and influence for those who serve demonic interests. 

My conclusion is rather one of understanding than of advice. 

We (and especially men) inhabit and intellectual environment that grossly overvalues a caricatured Nietzschian version of will-power; we tend to hero-worship and wish to emulate examples of people who set ambitious (worldly) goals, and go on to achieve then - by sustained and long-term endeavour against temptation and difficulties.   

But a closer examination of these persons will reveal that almost all or then are pervasively corrupted, and spiritually malign - such that it seems their efforts have in fact been in an opposite direction to good.  

Spiritually good persons are rare indeed, but they seem quite different; and much more concerned with learning and experiencing and developing creatively; than with imposing their will upon other people and the world. 

Cosmic significance versus personal worldly significance

The reality-based sense of cosmic significance needs to be distinguished from this-worldly, here-and-now importance - especially in this world where cosmic significance is not just denied but regarded as a literal impossibility. 

There is a corrupting snare for anyone who discovers the reality of his own spiritual significance; which is in becoming convinced that he can promote the same insights in others "if only" he had more influence, wealth, status or whatever. The vision arises are parlaying worldly- into spiritual-success.   

This is also a problem for genuine feelings of cosmic significance - in that they seem often to lead to worldly grandiosity - such as when the spiritual becomes worldly, when the spiritual leader develops a business, a following, formal disciples, a "cult", or even a religion. 

This was not always a wrong turn; because in the past there was not such a strong distinction between institutional and spiritual reality - but now the institutional is inexorably mundane, and powerfully corrupting; as may be observed in all of the Western churches. 

 

The innate sense of "cosmic significance"

Young children have an innate sense of the "cosmic significance" of what they do - and what they think. At such an age, our selves and our minds are part of a larger group. 

We may not be exactly aware of it, and we certainly don't know the exact scope of it (it often seems to include not just people, but other animals, nature, gods, spirits ghosts...), but we know that we are connected. 

This immersion in a group mind is for both good and ill, and is just a fact of life,

There is an in-between phase or stage, in which the inner contact is no longer a spontaneous, direct, quasi-telepathic thing; but instead is sought via symbols, language, image, stories - meand to an end; methods by which people get back (partially, temporarily) that childhood state.    

At this time and place of history; this is mostly or entirely lost. If people do feel connected and part of a large group, then it is not even at secondhand - via symbolic communications. The recent and current addiction to mass and social media is not about symbolic contact with a group mind, but about emotions; excitement, distraction, triggering of feelings. 

The experience is apparently of isolated selves observing a display of phenomena, hoping to be stimulated. 

But not entirely thus. I think there is always a sense of cosmic significance, of connection of "just being" part of something much larger - at back of people's minds, even though not-believed-in, even in these here-and-now conditions. 

Such "cosmic" intuitions are nowadays publicly mocked and pitied as necessarily immature, deluded, wishful, self-aggrandizing, sad, psychotic - in a word anyone who harbours or expresses them is insane. 

And, of course, they may be - especially when somebody tries to persuade and argue others into objectively accepting "his" special importance on a large, even cosmic, scale!

Yet, this typically-modern way of explaining-away anything that might serve as a basis for purpose and meaning in life is altogether typical of our civilization - where is it a core element of the demonic "Project Despair".

This nihilism encompasses the whole of science (when science is taken to be a complete picture of life) as well as the workings of The System, its laws, bureaucracy, media and the rest of it. 

All public and official aspects of modern life are predicated on their being no "cosmic" purpose or meaning in our personal existence.   

The insanity slur is a typical modern value-inversion. 

The opposite is true: 

The reality is that anyone who does Not have a sense of cosmic significance is insane. That is; their thinking is necessarily incoherent. Their behaviour can be of personal and immediate significance merely - adding-up to nothing whatsoever.   

I think we should regard intuitive assumptions of cosmic significance as one of those aspects of innate knowledge that were built-into us by The Creator; to serve as a necessary basis for... everything else. 

What is "reality", and "real life"?

We all agree that this isn't reality - but what is? 

There is a deep confusion as to the nature of reality. 

People are, much of the time, engaged in distinguishing "real life" from something else - whether that be virtual (online) life, the memo-interactions of bureaucracy; or contrasted with media such as novels, movies or TV. 

But the "reality" that is supposed to be contrasted with these un-realities, is unclear. 

For some people reality means politics; whether international, national or local.

Yet politics is very much second-hand; with its facts, concepts and meanings all learned from secondary sources. 

"Political reality" is thus a highly theoretical thing. What's more politics is a miserable, dishonest, manipulative and destructive business. 

So if politics is real life... Well, for most people: "You can keep it!" It has near zero appeal. 

For other people, reality is the social life involving the people around them; with all the expectations and duties, the complications of sex and love for themselves and friends, the activities of their workplace, the functional business of living... These are what they mean by "real life". 

Yet this is - in a different way - a mundane business. It has pleasures and pains in various mixtures, but of-itself, our social life has neither purpose nor meaning. Social living is just something that happens, won't go away, cannot be avoided. 

Social life is also experienced (by most people, most of the time) as earthbound and ephemeral, without depth or resonance - "Just one damned thing after another" - and always ending badly. 

Other examples could be given of the basic, bottom-line unsatisfactoriness of what modern people regard as Real Life. 

My point here is that - as most people actually envisage it - reality is much less appealing, much less enjoyable, than the various forms of unreality on-offer. 

However, it is unsatisfactory to know that one is avoiding reality, and pretending that unreality is real. 

Indeed, this just does not work as a life strategy. We cannot voluntarily become pleasantly-deluded and live by those lies we calculatingly tell-ourselves. 

We cannot just believe what we want, just because it makes us feel better. It doesn't work. So those who try to make the choice of unreality, are caught up by the failure of trying to convince themselves of untruth. 

To live "as if" simply isn't strong enough to make a basis for existence.    

Consequently, when Real Life is hopelessly miserable and unappealing; and when both options of reality and virtuality/ unreality are equally hope-less - then despair seems unavoidable. 

The question of what is real, what is real life - what is really-real... Such matters are vitally important here-and-now - because this is something we really Need To Know. 

It seems paradoxical; but the most "realistic" thing that the archetypical modern Man can do, is to focus his best attention onto "metaphysics". 

That is, we need to make the basic nature of reality into the main subject of our primary effort. 

Like it or not; for us modern Westerners; right living depends on our right thinking. We don't do it; but we need to do it. 

Spiritual effects of World War Two - totalitarianism and dishonesty

Huge subject - but I've been reading memoirs and histories of WWII in the past couple of years, and pondering the spiritual effect this six year conflict had on the British people, especially. 

I have known for a while that WWI was the last time there was a significant Christian revival in the UK, in terms of a great increase in interest in "higher things" as well as full churches and more participation in public activities. 

This is confirmed by comments by CS Lewis and his circle, who noticed the revival and specualted about its meaning and direction. 

But I have become more aware of the negative effects of the war on British spiritual life. The obvious thing was recorded by Orwell - the qualitative acceleration of totalitarian bureaucracy, which is intrinsically evil - by which I mean, the totalitarian systematization and directing of Mankind is evil, and corrupts men; no matter what purpose it is used for. 

As part of this totalitarianism; the war brought a tremendous increase in systemic dishonesty. It seems that - from top to bottom - the attitude became focused on the predicted behavioural effect of statements - to which an understanding of actual reality would routinely (and indeed compulsorily) be subordinated.

   

I suspect that a great deal of the Christian revival was atavistic, backward looking, and attempt to recover an irrecoverable earlier stage of human religious consciousness. 

The revival mostly took the form of a (doomed to fail) attempt to revive the church-rooted ("medieval-premodern) form of top-down and mediated Christianity - and Christian spirituality was linked to this earlier, traditional, social form. 

After the war, the nation moved forward from its totalitarian (hence atheistic) wartime basis; and this was extended by the merger, bureaucratisation, and nationalization of many major industries and social activities. This created a secular public discourse, hence excluded Christianity, and the wartime revival rapidly collapsed. 

It appears that, in this era of human consciousness, war is always totalitarian, therefore innately hostile to the kind of spirituality that is necessary to Christianity. 

The sense of a nation or people in unity, self-sacrificing and cooperating on communal projects, working together for a common cause -- these are no longer net-benefits, but mostly mass psychological manipulations with evil intent behind them. 

I suspect that it would now be mistaken to expect any large scale spiritual benefits from war - which may be why so much high-level geopolitical activity is currently focused an escalating and spreading wars. 

In other words, mass Christianity used to be a benefit of war; but I think that mass Christianity is no longer possible - and the attempt to revive it will instead feed into the evil of totalitarianism. 

Of course, any individual person may choose to take personal spiritual responsibility, and learn spiritually from whatever his situation - including war. 

But modern war is extremely hostile to this situation of "ultimate beingness". 

For proof, we need look no further than the sin of dishonesty - and the extent to which systemic misrepresentation (untruthfulness of all kinds: hype, spin, selectivity, distortion, lies; i.e. a focus on shaping mass behavioural responses to "information") - has become integral to societal functioning. 

Once you become aware of this lethal defect, and begin to look for it; you will find manipulative dishonesty to be pervasive - not just at the political-institutional-corporate level, but almost everywhere and continuous among those who contribute to public discourse (including bloggers!). 

Of course, everyone who is part of the systemic dishonesty will publicly justify himself by claiming that it is in a good cause. But unless he recognizes and repents (privately, at least) the innate evil of dishonesty; then he is lost - spiritually speaking.  

When puppets "fight"

 

We know for sure that all the Western leaders are puppets*.

So when the puppets of the USA "fight" the puppets of European nations, then both puppets are being controlled by the same entity. 

When the puppeteer makes the puppets fight each other, this is because a fight is a necessary part of the plot, part of the driving narrative. 

*I don't know exactly who is the puppeteer-entity, the covert strategic intelligence/s controlling the puppets from outwith the public gaze. 

I don't know, and am not going to waste my time guessing -- because I do know who controls the puppeteer - and that is sufficient. 

"Cannot" end well, or "will not"

When somebody says "it cannot end well" they are usually making a pessimistic prognosis that is probabilistic. They are saying that it is too risky, that the strong likelihood is an adverse outcome. 

But when it is asserted that something will not end well, this relates to the underlying motivation. If the motivations behind a change are bad or wrong, then whatever happens (which may not be predicted) "will not" be good, because whatever happens will be expressive of that wrong motivation.  

That will not end well expressed my interpretation of the past six weeks. Whatever bad outcomes ensue are not probabilistic, but a consequence of being built upon wrong motivations.

 

Schadenfreude derangement syndrome

The current orgy of Schadenfreude continues to escalate - energized a few days ago by a staged, acted and broadcast PR pseudo-spat over the Fire Nation war; a news-event which has been uncritically accepted at face value, and thereby ecstatically celebrated, by (apparently) hordes of people; individuals who, just a few weeks ago, expressed deep scepticism over the machinations of mainstream politics and the mass media. 

Yet another Litmus Test massively failed! 

It is becoming clear that the double-negative agenda is alive and well, dominating and sweeping-aside what has thereby been revealed as a shallow, feeble, self-gratifying, and this-worldly Christianity.   

Double-negative values are a hallmark of The Left - which is united only by its opposition to (ultimately) God and divine creation. 

The self-identified political "Right", including advocates of an imaginary and impossible "nationalism", have recently come-out as crypto-leftists - which, indeed, is the inevitable convergence of all primarily this-worldly and double-negative ideals.

In sum: The Right is united only by its rejection of The Left (i.e. particular-labelled individuals and institutions) - such that the only powerful source of Right triumphalism is when their Left-identified enemies appear to be getting humiliated and destroyed. 

(Note: In our world, all is of-the-left - except where religion is put first - and where that religion is motivationally-rooted beyond this world). 

There is a strong lure in religion that seems to combine success and status, power and prestige, pride and self-esteem, progress and historical inevitability, with aspects of real Christianity that is "not of this world". 

The proposed syncresis of this and next-world benefits appears in many guises through history - and dominates much of online Christian discourse; which is the reason behind current ecstasies of virtual Schadenfreude. 

The "prosperity Gospel" is indeed much more widespread than its crudest evangelists: the idea that the path to economic, or sexual, success lies via Christianity is a very popular and influential one online. 

Of course, Christianity must and should be-of-this-world as well as the next: not least because the incarnation and mortal life of Jesus Christ is evidence of this. 

In other words our mortal lives have purpose for as long as they are sustained by God. So a retreat from The World is not even a theoretical option for Christians - we must and should engage. 

But... in a civilization and society so completely built upon materialism and the denial of the spirit; in a world dominated by corrupt, and demonic-allied, institutions; it ought to be perfectly clear and evident that goodness cannot, therefore will not, emanate from, nor be gifted top-down by, those with institutional and official power/ wealth/ social status.  

It ought to be evident that politico-media-events intended to demonstrate the humiliation or destruction of people, organizations, nations - are not going to be evidence of, nor harbingers of, goodness. 

Indeed, the likely reality behind the façade of apparent destruction is not even difficult to discern for those with a bit of accurate knowledge who stand-back from the contrived frenzy - even when these people have no religious basis. 

(In a geopolitical world of puppet leaders; the spectacle of one puppet berating another for the cameras, should be obvious as what it is: a puppet-show.)  

The spiritual war of this world is essentially about "hearts and minds" - and the great aim of the various factions of evil is not to impose physical/material slavery or misery; but to induce individuals to choose to commit themselves (hearts and minds) to one or another of the agendas of evil. 

Evil is only spiritually effective when it has been freely embraced. That is why our enthusiasm, support, and hope; are so assiduously cultivated by The Establishment. 

And that embrace of evil is precisely what we are observing, in real time, on a day-by-day basis. People who were, until recently, apparently Christian; are changing sides; abandoning salvation as their primary goal -- 

And instead they are committing more and more of their support, energies, enthusiasm, efforts (and, worst of all, hopes) on what is at root a negative, destructive, demon-motivated agenda. 

Like Son, unlike Father: King Henry the Eighth, versus Henry the Seventh

Henry VII and VIII - These two portraits express well their differences

It is a sad reflection on the English that Henry VIII continues to get continual attention, and a kind of sneaking admiration, for his (unsurpassed except by except by William I) rapacious brutality in the Dissolution of the Monasteries; together with his "achievement"of having six wives. 

Yet Henry the Eighth left England far weaker, poorer and more internally conflicted than he found the nation. 

By contrast, Henry the Eighth's father, Henry Tudor, was one of the best of English Monarchs, the last King of Merrie England. 

This is not recognized for various reasons. Henry Tudor's character was shrewd and compassionate - he was not "larger than life" like his son. 

Also, English people have forgotten the colossal destructiveness of "the Wars of the Roses", decades of selfish and self-destructive civil war between Lancastrian and Yorkist aristocrats; to which Henry VII put an end. 

As a measure of destructiveness; when the English population was only about 2-3 million, the Roses wars were a terrible drain on the fittest and most productive of the national population. For instance, the Battle of Towton (hardly known by anyone, nowadays) probably killed something like 4% or more of the military-age and physically able men (ie. something like 25,000) in a single horrific day of mutual slaughter.  

But the saddest reflection on our national memory is related to the marriage question. 

While Henry VIII married six times (plus mistresses, and illegitimate children) of which he killed two, and "divorced" (technically had-annulled) another two - in contrast, his father Henry Tudor had what has been described as perhaps the most genuinely loving Royal Marriage in English history. 

This, despite that the marriage was originally a "political" alliance between the houses of Lancaster (Henry) and York (his wife Elizabeth). 

Henry seems, indeed, to have been that most unusual thing among monarchs - a loving husband and father. The husband and wife were devastated by the premature death of his first son and heir Arthur, Prince of Wales at age 15; and then Henry was even more affected by the death of his wife - after which he was never the same again. 

Nonetheless, and despite the fault of a somewhat miserly greed in his final widowed years; Henry VII left England a stronger, richer, more peaceful, unified and powerful nation; and the English monarch probably the most secure and dominant leader in Europe. 

Most of which achievement (except domestic power) his son then exploited and dissipated for personal gratification - with adverse consequences that extended for several generations.   

If nations usually get the monarchs they deserve; then the relative English reputations of these two Henrys may partly explain how this happens. 

Are explanations really necessary? Must we personally seek understanding?

It's often been recommended that we should cease to seek explanations (which are, anyway, always wrong by ultimate standards); and should instead just accept what is. 

It is said: We should acknowledge that we cannot know, and strop striving for something unattainable, and very probably misleading. 

Indeed, it is often asserted, that searching for explanations is just a waste of time, because it will fail to find anything with which we can be contented.

Sooner or later; we will give-up the quest - so why not do it sooner?  

Another way of saying the same thing is that it is the activity and process of seeking which justifies the exercise. For instance, this is a common New Age-y suggestion - the ideal of being be a perpetual "spiritual seeker". However, on examination this advice reduces to meaning that seeking explanations - discovering, trying-out, then dropping one after the other -  is justified merely because it passes the time before death fairly-pleasantly, and relatively-harmlessly. It reduces spirituality from a matter of primary human concern, to the level of a hobby.  

Even since I became a Christian; I have often tried to stop myself seeking explanations; tried to be contented with some kind of simple faith. 

I have tried this with more than one Christian denomination/church. Tried to stop myself questioning and trying to understand - on the basis that such activity was futile at best, destructive of faith at worst - because it never seemed to reach an end point. 

Yet - especially - the events of 2020 hammered-home why - in a world such as that we inhabit; which is a world where public discourse is near-monopolistically dominated by evil-affiliated powers - the seeking of explanations and personal understanding is now almost essential for Christians --- if Christians are not to be led away from salvation and into voluntarily embracing damnation. 

I have noticed again and again that the attempt (here and now I mean - and I note that it was not always and everywhere thus) to be "content without explanations", to seek to "rest upon "the mystery" of existence", are attitudes that have long-since been weaponised as a tool of Satan. 

It seems to be a psycho-social fact that the only matters upon which people Actually Do cease to seek understanding, and are contented without explanation, on which they rest-comfortably as if upon the ultimate mysteriousness of existence... 

In practice, the only much matters are those where knowledge/ ideas/theories/facts are supported by the civilizational, media, official, bureaucratic, institutional consensus. 

In practice, therefore; the advice to cease seeking personal understanding is equivalent to recommending that we live in accordance with the dominant social consensus. 

There are many theoretical possibilities for conducting our spiritual lives, but in practice it seems that the only alternative to accepting social consensus, is personally to keep seeking understanding and a satisfactory explanation. 

So, I would remind myself - and suggest to others - that in the situation of a Modern Man of 2025 it is a snare to cease striving for understanding.

And that we ought instead to discover for ourselves, and to our personal satisfaction, explanations for every aspect of existence that we regard as important. 

Of course (as always) such a search must strive to be completely honest, and must Christianly-motivated; because if we seek (whether consciously or unconsciously) any this-worldly and hedonic outcome such as comfort or convenience, therapy or thrills - then our "explanations" will be expedient merely, and we shall not achieve solid understanding. 

The only real alternative to a personal quest for explaining and understanding the essentials of our faith; is to accept spiritually lethal rule by consensus external values -- which is embrace the side of damnation in the spiritual war of this world. 

*

(Note added: The relationship between understanding and explanation is synergistic. We must first understand, then try to explain - primarily to our-selves, and to our own satisfaction. Difficulties with explaining may reveal lack of understanding; or the attempt to be clear in our explanation may reveal problems with that understanding. Therefore explanation is a check, a test; and one that may lead back to searching for better understanding.) 

For the record: I Was Wrong, with my recent geopolitical prediction

Just to note that my recent geopolitical prediction that there would, before March, be a massive Fake Pennant atrocity to justify massive Western intervention in the Middle East - was wrong.