Why was Jesus killed, and by crucifixion - a Fourth Gospel perspective

Why was Jesus killed? 

This was, it seems, a big issue for the first Christians - I mean, to explain why Jesus Christ, who claimed to be divine and was regarded as the Messiah, nonetheless died... Very shortly after making this claim; and apparently powerlessly - indeed agonizingly and ignominiously. 

Surely, if He had really been divine, He would not have allowed this? If He had been Messiah he would have led his nation to victory and worldly-bliss?

This is a matter that we modern Christians find it hard to understand - not least, because Jesus's death on the cross is just about the first thing we ever learned about Him; so we see things the other way around from contemporaries. 

Furthermore, it is not clear to us what the Messiah meant to Jews before Jesus - because we see the business from the opposite end, and as Christians. 

But it recently dawned on me, with an unprecedented clarity; how exactly Jesus's death and mode of death reinforced the next-worldly core message of the Fourth Gospel: which is Jesus's offer of resurrected eternal life in Heaven to those who follow Him.

By allowing Himself to die in accordance with the unpredictable contingencies of This World; and yet to return resurrected and ascend to Heaven - Jesus showed that this world cannot affect the salvation He offers. 

It is a teaching by example. By this understanding, the specific mode of Jesus's death is not essential - He might have died in any fashion - the point was that Jesus demonstrated in His own person the ways in which Mortal Man is 'helpless' before the overwhelming influences of human society and The World more generally - yet, ultimately, this does not matter. 

We as individuals cannot stop our fellow Men lying about us, unjustly convicting us; cannot prevent them inflicting horrible torments or killing us - and yet, we can still be resurrected if we choose it; and can still live eternally in Heaven. 

It's not that this-world is un-important - Jesus takes the events of His Mortal life with great seriousness - but that eternal life beyond death is far more important. 

Jesus is asking us to regard as secondary such considerations as a political Messiah setting-up a new, best-ever, religious state. And to recognize that Jesus - using 'divine superpowers' to escape the injustice of his crucifixion, would merely be to delay the inevitable death that awaits us all (i.e. in the absence of Christ's salvation). 

One of the things that Jesus is teaching, via His crucifixion, is something like that: "Even a death as bad as mine - which I did not seek, but patiently endured - neither prevents nor refutes the Good News of salvation I bring to you".  

Christianity is in essence a next-worldly business; and Jesus is showing us how to take a post-mortal, resurrected perspective. 

Yet, at the same time, and especially by his teachings on love and friendship with the disciples - Jesus is making clear that this life matters, and vitally.   

It is still very difficult for people to grasp both aspects of this teaching. In its mainstream public functioning; the modern world is 100% this-worldly and excludes and life beyond life. 

But the 'oneness' spiritualties that some behaviourally-this-worldly Westerners nowadays adopt; goes the the opposite, and equally false, extreme of denying the importance of this life, and regarding it as an illusion (or a 'simulation', in more recent variants). 

Jesus's way is Not any kind of 'middle ground' - but is instead both this-worldly and next-worldly; with this-world as an essential yet temporary phase - en route to the eternal.

I hate QR codes

That's it - really. 

QR codes are ugly, dehumanizing, and of evil nature and intent.

Therefore, naturally, they have become a mandatory element in many aspects of modern functioning.

What about the Filioque? - The (changing) nature of understanding the Holy Ghost

Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; 

From the Nicene Creed, In Latin and the Book of Common Prayer translation

The Latin word Filioque was added to the description of the origin of the Holy Ghost in the Nicene Creed by theologians of the Latin speaking, Rome-based, Western division of the pre-Great-Schism Catholic Church - which is now the Roman Catholic Church.

The Filioque is regarded as one of the major causes of the Great Schism (happening gradually around the year 1000AD) between Western Catholicism, based in Rome and led by the Pope who appointed Archbishops of all nations; and Eastern Catholicism, which was then based in Constantinople and led (largely independently) by the Patriarchs of each nation - with that of Constantinople being senior. 

These divisions now continue as the Western Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox* divisions of Catholicism. 

[*Eastern Orthodoxy having also a large, administratively separate, subdivision of the Oriental Orthodox (e.g. Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian etc) - which broke off much earlier in relation to the Monophysite controversy.] 

The reason why adding the Filioque was such a decisively divisive issue has several aspects; some of which may not be understandable to modern Men. 

Perhaps most fundamental was that the Eastern church believed that authoritative church decisions ought to be permanent; and therefore the Nicene Creed should never be changed. While the Western church believed that the truth was something that emerged over time - and that, for example, theology might discover incompleteness or errors in liturgy, creeds, scripture etc. that ought to be corrected. 

But there also seems to have been a difference between West and East over what was the true nature of the relationship within the Holy Trinity; in particular, between the Holy Ghost on the one hand, and the Father and Son on the other hand. 

And this difference - in turn - reflected upon the role of the individual Man in Christian life. 

The original Nicene understanding and formulation was that the Holy Ghost derived only from the Father - and therefore had no reference to Jesus Christ. This fits with the idea that the Christian life was a thing of God, not of Man, and that individual Men had little role in determining the Christian life, but ought primarily to obey the church. 

But it was more than 'obedience'. Orthodox Christianity (with its Father-derived Holy Ghost) is more communal, less individual. Orthodoxy has very little official role for any specific Man - whether by theological study, personal revelation, or through creativity - to make any fundamental or significant effect on the church as a whole. 

The guidance of the Holy Ghost is perhaps envisaged as upon the church as-a-whole; not on individual Men. 

With the addition of the Filioque; the Western church can be seen as creating a larger and essential role for individual Men - because the Holy Ghost now derived from the incarnated Man Jesus Christ, as well as from the immaterial Father. 

This could be seen in terms of a balance between individual Men and the Church; such that both were required for the Christian life. 

In general terms - the church was seen as an harmonious unity of individuals; but individual Men could and sometimes should have a decisive effect on the church as-a-whole. 

Perhaps this is most obvious in the person of that individual Man who is the Pope of Rome; who has had a special place in the church, as having personal (albeit conceptualized as divinely inspired) authority and capacity to make significant changes - that are regarded as clarifications of original and eternal truth. 

But many other individual Men, such as Thomas Aquinas, most notably, have made decisive contributions and wrought church-wide changes. 

The Protestants have continued this trend, with a greater role for the individual (e.g. Martin Luther) - but rooted in the same conception of the Holy Ghost deriving from both Father and Son - divinity and Man. 

My own understanding of the Holy Ghost can, from this narrative, be seen as continuing this historical trend, by advocating a pure Filioque. That is, I believe that the Holy Ghost is not only derived-from Jesus Christ - but actually is the ascended Jesus Christ. 

This seems to me quite clearly stated in the Fourth Gospel (usually called the Book of John) - which I regarded as by far the primary and most authoritative source we have on Jesus's teachings and life.

Also in-line with this narrative direction is that I believe that individual men are now primary in the Christian life; and not "the church" (not any church). 

In other words; primary authority and discernment lies in the hearts of individual Men, each for himself; and the churches role is now secondary, and inessential. 

Thus the direction of change through the past 2000 years would be (something like) at first regarding the church as primary and essential and Man's duty to obey (proceeding from the Father); then moving-through the intermediate stage when both church and Man are required (proceeding from the Father and the Son); and arriving at my current understanding that the Holy Ghost 'proceeds from', or rather actually-is, the spiritual manifestation-of, The Son, Jesus Christ - a Man*.

*Note: I suppose I should perhaps add, for anyone unfamiliar with this blog; that I regard Jesus as fully-divine - as well as a Man. 

The end of the UK planned for 2023

It looks very much as if the UK is currently being prepped for annihilation as a nation. 

In other words, it seems as if we are to be deployed (by a monolithic coalition of our puppet-leadership class) in the suicide mission of spearheading all-out war against the Fire Nation. 

In other words; the relentless escalation of WWIII has chosen my country as the next, and biggest, fall-guys. 

Since this will almost-certainly lead to the rapid killing of millions of people by direct destruction - as well as larger number from the more prolonged causes of disease, starvation and chaos - it seems that They have decided that the British masses are sufficiently corrupted that - when sudden death comes; we will mostly choose to reject Jesus's offer of resurrection into Heaven and instead take the path of self-damnation. 

As Adam Piggott wisely wrote yesterday (emphasis added by me):

As I have said before, a sickness that will lead to death is a blessing; it enables the sufferer time to get his spiritual house in order. Satan is without a doubt a very big fan of died suddenly. Died suddenly leaves the unfortunate recipient with no opportunity to repent. Real deathbed confessions must upset Satan and his lowly minions a great deal. Imagine being a demon and doing all that work on a soul over his lifetime and then right at the death he embraces God’s grace. You’d be one pissed off demon in hell’s cafeteria that lunchtime.

Make no mistake - the Global/ Western leadership class are operating as agents of Satan; and the Godless and spirit-denying masses of England, Wales, Northern Ireland - and (especially!) Scotland; are so fundamentally deranged in our deepest metaphysical assumptions about reality, as to be unable and unwilling even to recognize - let alone reject - what is so very-obviously afoot. 

This is not an excuse for living-in-fear - let alone panicking. Fear is a sin. But, because all of our leadership-class and mass media are solidly in favour of this plan - and all potential sources of organized resistance are either destroyed or converged - there is nothing material that can be done to prevent this because not enough people with power even want to prevent it. 

  

It is an urgent call to spiritual awakening; to discernment, clear thinking, and decisive spiritual rejection. 

Such an action (by me, by you) is not only imperative from the salvific perspective and to learn what we must in this mortal life; it is the essential basis of any-and-all-possible positive and net-beneficial responses in the material realm.

Notes added: 

The leadership-media having (over the past year) painted a target over the nation; all of the above means that the UK is now a prime location for the kind of false flag event that might be spun to precipitate a stampede into immediate hostile military action. 

These times are something of an up-spiraling crash course in understanding the obvious by the method of reductio ad absurdum. When it becomes clear that the logic of our assumptions has led inexorably to a gratuitous war and mass death; it will be clear to the essentially uncorrupted that these assumptions Must Be false; and that is a vital step in spiritual awakening. 

One temptation is to ask for 'peace'. But peace is not on the agenda; the 'peace movement' is a tool of evil leftism (as can be seen from their 'crickets' response to the war so far) - and anyway a demand for peace cannot possibly succeed (it never has in the past) and therefore will do more harm than good (as it always has done in the past). 

A drive for Satanic destruction can only be beaten by a stronger drive for loving creation. 

Supposing that you wanted to sing a very difficult song as well as possible, and did not suffer from embarrassment about how it might look to other people...

I find this video both endearing and funny (she's also a very good singer!):

Note: I know nothing about the personality or lifestyle of the lady in question; but one of the first strong impressions I got from this video was (as they said in When Harry Met Sally): High Maintenance.

What's the (metaphysical) difference between Good and true intuition, and the mainstream evil nonsense?

Everybody's belief is ultimately rooted in intuition. 

What, then, is the difference between Good intuition that leads to a Romantic Christian commitment (if Jesus's promises are what the person most deeply desires); and the kind of evil-affiliated, totalitarian-believing stuff that the mass majority of the West have chosen?

The difference is that: most people's intuition is rooted in some-thing that denies the validity of the intuition itself. 

For instance; many people (it seems) have an intuition that the universe is purely material, happened entirely 'by physics', has no purpose, and that my own life arose through the blind algorithmic processes of natural selection and therefore has no objective or eternal meaning. 

Thus my thoughts, my deepest and surest convictions, can have no possible objective connection with reality. Intuition is just a temporary, subjective, meaningless emotional response.  

In other words, the intuition is rendered meaningless by its own conviction: because my intuition is that intuition is meaningless! 

But this self-refuting incoherence is obscured by a somewhat roundabout argument, with several steps - and few people choose to think for long enough or sticking to the subject such that they realize that their beliefs are self-contradicting. 

Good intuition is different because Good intuition is coherent. 

Good intuition is in-place when there is an intuitive belief in a scheme of understanding - i.e. a metaphysics - that itself explains why the first intuition is valid.

So the first intuition is that the nature of reality itself explains how it is I personally (here and now) can intuitively understand reality. 

In other words, the first Good intuition if of a metaphysical scheme that itself explains how true personal intuition is possible. 

The confirmation of this first intuition comes when this metaphysical scheme that explains the validity of intuition is itself intuitively affirmed. 

Thus, in Good and true intuition - we have coherence of many mutually-supporting intuitions, and of the scheme-itself of mutually-supporting intuitions as-a-whole. 

Candlemas season - harbinger of spring

It isn't spring yet; but this is a great time of year for observing the change of the seasons. 

Snowdrops are at their peak; these being the first of the new year's flowers:

And now we are seeing the first of the crocuses (or croci, as I prefer to call them) - which are the first ground flowers giving a splash of - rather lurid - colours:

Up in the trees - which remain completely bare of leaves - are the birch, hazel and alder catkins:

Then there are the songbirds, which have suddenly ramped-up their volume and frequency; generating an irresistible excitement. 

Yesterday, I heard one of the loudest blackbirds ever! - but it is mostly the small birds, with their high pitched twittering, that are evident.

In sum; although February is often the coldest, and sometimes a snowy, month here - we are in no doubt as to the change of season. After several weeks of what feels like biological inactivity from around the winter solstice; this season of Candlemas (or Imbolc) is one of stirring life; as well as growing light. 

Note: I did Not take the above photos - but the first two are from where I live in Newcastle upon Tyne. 

Into the New Age - a summary of what did happen, and what should have happened

There was a great deal of speculation in The West of the late Twentieth Century concerning a New Age of consciousness that was approaching around the millennium. 

In a sense other that its advocates intended; this was in the event correct - and now the New Age is here, and we are now living in it.

Men here-and-now believe what they want to believe, but it is probably clearer to think of this in terms of Men choose the reality they inhabit. 

And it is the nature of Men's choices that determines the reality they inhabit. 

The characteristic is that in this New Age, Men choose their own reality. 

Everybody is doing it - whether they know it or not; but with differences. The differences lies in whether the chosen reality is true or false; and whether the choosing is conscious or unconscious, active or passive, inner or outer, personal or groupish. 

Most people have unconsciously absorbed an externally-devised false reality - and do so, apparently, in order to have a feeling of being members of a group. 

This choice is of the totalitarian-made and officially endorsed and imposed virtuality. 

Some accept and embrace this false reality as real - these are the mainstream leftist-materialists. 

Others choose some other non-mainstream but external, groupish and partly-fake reality; which is converged-with (although not - yet - fully absorbed-into) mainstream secular leftism: these are those who get their world view secondhand from churches, or other social institutions. 

In a world where all groups are (more, or less) participants in the totalitarian fake-world; the only way of choosing to believe and inhabit the real-and-true world is by choosing actively, consciously, for oneself - and from oneself.

And surely this is what God wants from us? 

Surely this is precisely what Jesus asks from us in the Fourth Gospel? 

What is The worst thing in the world? The devil or the human ego?

I am surprised that so many self-identified Christians disbelieve in the devil; not only because there are so many biblical references, but also because a devil makes strong sense both metaphysically (in terms of an explanation for the world as a whole) and empirically (as an coherent way of explaining and predicting the specific occurrences of this world). 

I commented some time ago that a Christian who was as scholarly, influential and respected as Charles Williams; nonetheless didn't believe that the devil was real. 

I found this confirmed in my current re-read of his novel The Greater Trumps, where the character Sybil (who is clearly intended to be the depiction of a very-near Saint - although not convincingly to my mind) says this in her internal monologue:

She did not, in the ordinary sense, "pray for" Nancy; she did not presume to suggest to the Omniscience that it would be a thoroughly good thing if It did; she merely held her own thought of Nancy stable in the midst of Omniscience. She hoped Nancy wouldn't mind, if she knew it. If, she thought, as, the prayer over, she put on her other shoe - if she had believed in a Devil, it would have been awkward to know whether or not it would have been permissible to offer the Devil to Love in that way. Because the Devil might dislike it very much, and then... However, she didn't believe in the Devil...   

Elsewhere in the novel in several places, it is clear that Williams regards the most evil thing to be the Ego, the Self; because the characters who are depicted as doing Good are expunging their sense of self of agency, of separateness. 

This is a common trope, indeed, among many self-identified Christians through the past 2000 years - I mean that being a "Good Christian" entails a destruction of any recognition of oneself as a separate being from God - the goal is to merge with God, or at least allow God and Goodness to flow through oneself. The self is ideally to become transparent, immaterial - the self standing aside and - eventually - being discarded. 

In other words; I am suggesting that among those who regard themselves as Christian but who do not believe in the devil; it seems usual to believe that - in effect - The Ego is the devil. 

Sometimes this is even stated explicitly; but even when unstated it seems to be implicit in analysis and discussions of evil; because the attribution of evil tend to converge upon the separate and strong ego of a person - often the separated selfhood of the Christian himself is regarded as the primary evil in the world.  

This substitution of the devil by the ego in a context of the primary desire for oneness is, I think, one path by which someone who regards himself as Christian can come to deny the reality of the devil.

This fits with a metaphysical theology that all Good comes from God, and (therefore) for Men to become Good, requires that they cease to offer any obstacle to the shining forth of God's Goodness. 

When God is regarded as omniscient and omnipotent, it seems logical that Men can add - from themselves - nothing to Goodness; which is (by definition) already complete and perfect. 

Since Men can add nothing to Goodness but only obstruct Goodness by their innate evil; Men should, ideally, therefore become empty, become like conduits for the expression of divine Goodness.  

What I am getting-at here is that this is another version of my old bugbear "oneness spirituality" - the only officially- and totalitarian-approved modern spirituality - once again confusing people and masquerading as Christianity. 

I tend to think that oneness spirituality is a point of convergence both of Christians who really-believe in in a mono-omni-God with whom the Christian ought to assimilate; and those adherents of 'Eastern religions' (Hinduism, Buddhism) who believe in a more pantheistic and abstract non-personal deity - that is 'everything'. 

The conceptual gap is bridged by the soaring abstractions and infinitudes of 'Classical' Christian theology (i.e. using concepts from pre-Christian Greek and Roman philosophy - especially Platonism and Neo-Platonism). In other words; abstractions and infinites applied to God conceptually-merge the person of God into a de facto impersonal deity. 

I mean the "mainstream Christian" theology that has, as fundamental, assertions of the Oneness of The Trinity; God's supposed attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.; and an infinite gulf posited between creator and created.   

What I am saying is that someone who takes seriously, and rigorously pursues the implications of, Classical Christian theology; will find that - one the one hand - he is converging towards a oneness spirituality (and the stance of 'perennial philosophy'); and on the other hand will disbelieve in the devil specifically and the operations of purposive spiritual evil more generally - and will regard Man's self/ego as the biggest spiritual problem in the world. 

Firstly, both of these are harmful in the context of the spiritual challenges for Christians in 2023. Because the Western Christian churches have been corrupted and enlisted on the side of evil; this implies that such a fact will be invisible to one who disbelieves that there is a 'side of evil'.

Furthermore, when the churches are corrupt, the individual Christian must operate from that which is Good in his own self/ ego - as the basis for discernment and seeking spiritual guidance. Unless there is the possibility of recognizing and committing to the Good within us, we cannot discern God's guidance from without-our-selves. 

If, instead, we are trying to dissolve our selves into the Omni-God, or into the divine-which-is-everything (it makes little practical difference which); then we are trying to destroy the only thing that might save us in an institutionally-evil world. 

 

Addendum: I make further speculations about what Charles Williams may have been up-to in this passage, in an Note to the mirror copy of this post, published at The Notion Club Papers blog. 

What does it mean to Cope?

Many words are spent and much ink is spilt on discussing how to cope with this or that event or stress in life. 

But what does coping really mean? 

People use coping to mean something like 'maintaining functionality'; implicitly functionality in the world as-is - continuing to work, keep house, or perhaps basic self-care. 

Some people regard 'keeping cheerful' as the hallmark of coping. At the limit, coping may mean simply 'staying alive' and 'not killing oneself'. 

Indeed, coping seems often to mean little more than mere-survival. 

(Coping, as commonly used, does not even amount to biological viability - since it does not require the desire, willingness or even capacity to reproduce and care for offspring. Quite the reverse, in recent years - when human reproduction is treated as more like a pathology or sin.)  

But this-world is ultimately spiritual; and coping therefore ought to consist in more than animal survival - especially when that is conceptualized as analogous to the survival of a farm or zoo animal. 

And that spiritual reality is Christian. So, what does 'coping' mean for a Christian? 

Coping with the vicissitudes of life ought to mean maintaining the commitment to salvation, despite whatever. 

In sum; coping with a situation or event should refer to a person's capacity to retain faith in God and hope of resurrection to Heaven. 

In extremis - this may mean losing a great deal else of this-world: functionality, livelihood, health... even life. 

A martyr copes by accepting death. 

All of which is a long way from the mainstream ways that people talk about coping...

Immiseration, disease, disability and death are only means to an end for the evil rulers of this world

The non-Christian dissenters reliably get their basic conspiracy theory wrong, by imputing the wrong motivation to the globalist totalitarian rulers. 

The secular thinkers believe that They want to immiserate the masses, cause vast swathes of diseases and disabilities, and reduce the world population down to less than 10% of its current levels. 

The secular conspiracy thinkers believe that the Establishment seek power and wealth, in order to live lives of perverted pleasure by exploiting everybody and everything else...

All of this is true - but these are not the ultimate goal of the ruling conspiracy; merely a means to the end of damnation. 

Think about it: if They primarily wanted to destroy living and life, then They would just have gone ahead and done it already. 

After all They command vast destructive power, in innumerable potential modalities - far too many to be stopped, and it is trivially easy to harm human beings en masse if that is your major goal. 

But; although there are plenty of mid-level operatives who desire nothing more than to wreak terror, torment, and termination upon their 'fellow' Men; this is not the overarching goal of those in ultimate command of the ruling Establishment. 

The ultimate rulers are either demons or those humans who are utterly in thrall to the demonic agenda; and the demonic agenda is the damnation of souls, and Not the destruction of bodies and minds. 

Of course, the demonic very much want destruction of all kinds; but only when it leads to Men choosing damnation; and in-a-nutshell this means persuading the masses to consent-to and desire their own immiseration, disease, disability and death. 

That's what the vast apparatus of the mass (and social) media are all about, the take-over of officialdom and bureaucracy, the corruption of education... All of this is to try and ensure that the masses agree-to, and indeed ask-for, their own destruction. 

That is the basis of the vast Litmus Test strategies - the sexual revolution, birdemic-peck, CO2 global warming, antiracism and the Fire Nation war... Leftism/ atheism/ materialism in its most general sense. 

All of these are ways of making Men invite evil into their hearts, to invert true values, to desire their own destruction. 

The ideal scenario of is of the mass of human beings willing their own misery (as with lockdowns, social distancing, masking, antiracism, feminism etc.); asking-for their own disease (as with the peck, climate policies); and seeking their own deaths (as with the self-inflicted economic annihilation of The West from the birdemic, climate change, affirmative action; and now its wished-for military annihilation by world war). 

A topical example is the large numbers of the Western intellectual classes who - in the name of preventing an imaginary CO2-caused Climate Emergency - desire Men to cease reproducing; to live static lives of maximum hunger, poverty and slavery; and then die ASAP in order to cease consuming, breathing and metabolizing. 

This is not how Men naturally see things, but how demons see things. 

The bottom-line for demons (which, after all, are evil spirits, and do not have bodies) is not power or wealth; but instead the spiteful lust and sadism of inducing human souls to choose lives of fear and resentment, to die in despair and with hatred of God; to reject Jesus's gifts of salvation, resurrection and Heaven; and to choose Hellish damnation as their eternal situation. 

That is (more-or-less) what the conspiracy aims-at primarily and ultimately: spiritual, not physical, mass suicide. 

AI (Artificial Intelligence) is worse than what it will replace: but it will happen anyway (assuming we let it)

I am bemused by the deluge of credulous drivel being written about self-styled AI (Artificial Intelligence) across the blogosphere. 

But, unfortunately it confirms what I wrote five years ago, and which now seems worth revisiting. 

AI will be worse than whatever it replaces - but it will happen anyway; this because AI is an extension of bureaucracy, and bureaucracy was worse than what it replaced (Much worse); but bureaucracy happened anyway. 

For so long as this world is ruled via bureaucracy, for so long will AI be imposed not only despite its being worse, but also because of the way that it is worse.

Which is that AI is dehumanizing - entraining Men to 'process' like computers - thus destructive of thinking; is anti-spiritual, and a short-cut to self-damnation.

Put like that; it's obvious why AI is irresistible to the demonic global totalitarians rulers, their deluded minions, and the corrupted masses over whom they rule.

How to refute and filter-out the "outlandish and bizarre" content from Rudolf Steiner - using a method that Steiner himself fundamentally-approved and recommended

Of all the important thinkers of the twentieth century, Rudolf Steiner is perhaps the most difficult to come to grips with. For the unprepared reader, his work presents a series of daunting obstacles. 

To begin with, there is the style, which is formidably abstract, and as unappetizing as dry toast. But a determined reader could learn to put up with that.

The real problem lies with the content, which is often so outlandish and bizarre that the reader suspects either a hoax or a confidence trick. 

Books like Cosmic Memory, with its account of Atlantis and Lemuria, seem to belong on the same shelf as titles like Our Hollow Earth, or My trip to Venus in a Flying Saucer. 

The resulting sense of frustration is likely to cause even the most open-minded reader to give up in disgust.

The first paragraph of Rudolf Steiner, by Colin Wilson, 1985.

*

The Big Problem with Rudolf Steiner (as I have said many times) is that most of what he said and wrote was wrong; but some of what he wrote is sufficient to establish him as one of a handful of the most vital thinkers of the past couple of centuries. 

But because most of Steiner (a very high percentage!) is wrong; on the one hand, most people reject his work outright; while on the other hand, Steiner's disciples and followers (mostly in the Anthroposophical Society, which he founded) are mostly wrong in what they believe - to the point that they miss the significance and importance of what he was right about.  

What Steiner needs, therefore, is scholars who will take was is good and leave aside what is not; and the closest we have to this is Owen Barfield who, in addition, added much of value to what he took from Steiner. 

But even Barfield seems to have been unable to be clear about the nature of Steiner's work, and respected him to the point that he never (that I have seen) denied anything that Steiner ever said. What Barfield instead did was - in his writings - focus on the aspects of Steiner about which he was most sure; and said little or nothing about the colossal number of claims that Steiner made about... everything under the sun, and indeed from many ages before the sun. 

Barfield always recommended Steiner's earliest philosophical books; but did not make clear to the putative reader that most of Steiner's later books will strike most people as simply absurd, and obviously false. 

My understanding is that the major problem for those who regard Steiner as important, and who accept his core analysis and teachings; cannot find grounds from within this teachings for rejecting anything that Steiner ever said or wrote. 

Steiner purports do be doing a spiritual science; and repeatedly emphasizes that anyone can test his claims for themselves by spiritual investigation - yet, in practice, it seems that nobody ever feels able to do this, and must therefore treat all of Steiner's claims as if they constituted inerrant scripture.  

This seems to be because Steiner was able (at will) to produce in himself - while awake and alert and with full reasoning and memory capacities - a kind of consciousness that perceived the occult world - from which he reported back his observations and interpretations; and nobody else has since been able to do this. Certainly not in the vast volume that Steiner did in his lectures after about 1897, and accelerating until near his death in 1925. 

Because Steiner's followers cannot do what Steiner did to generate his claims, they feel unable to check his claims; and therefore simply take them on trust - regarding them as true because Steiner said them. Steiner discourse is therefore closely analogous to 'fundamentalist' Protestants in terms of Anthroposophists citing their scripture, and argument proceeds by proof-texting - by trading quotes and citations. 

For reasons that I set out in the post earlier today; I believe there is another and practical way of checking Steiner's claims; which can be done by anyone serious about understanding what is valid in Steiner, and using methods that Steiner recommended as the best and himself practiced. 

And that 'method' is simply by reading Steiner in the spirit of direct-knowing, of heart-thinking. 

Instead of trying to replicate Steiner's method of observing the hidden spirit world by inner perception; the reader tests Steiner's claims by intuitive means. 

Whenever a claim of Steiner's fails to be sustained by heart-thinking, whenever his premises or a line of argument is unsupported by the direct-knowing of our deepest thinking - then it is rejected as untrue. 

In other words; we accept from Steiner only that which is specifically sustained and confirmed by our own deepest-possible intuitive responses. 

This, I repeat, is exactly what Steiner recommended in those works of his that he regarded as his most important (specifically The Philosophy of Freedom, which he repeated many times was his fundamental publication). 

Therefore, we can - and in a viable and valid fashion - refute the mass of Steiner, and filter-out from the nonsense that which we most need and could benefit from. 

How can we know the hidden, super-sensible, spiritual world that is 'behind' the perceptible world? (concerning Rudolf Steiner)

I am re-reading Colin Wilson's excellent book about Rudolf Steiner: the man and his vision (1985) - which he opens by saying that Steiner's core assumption is twofold: that there is a super-sensible, spiritual world hidden 'behind' the everyday world of the senses - and from-which the perceived world is derived. And secondly; that thus world is knowable by those who choose to develop their latent abilities. 

So far, this is hardly distinctive; except that the way in which the hidden ('occult') world was discovered was not by trance, dream or other 'hallucinatory'-state but by an intensification of the alert, awake, clear thinking that Steiner regarded as characteristic of science.

Steiner therefore called his practice a Spiritual Science (and the specific type of spiritual science he recommended, he termed Anthroposophy).

But when we are told of a spiritual world behind the perceptual world; this naturally seems to evoke a picture in our minds of two perceptual worlds. 

In other words, we often imagine the surface everyday world of solid-things, then - separated from it by a barrier - another world of spirit-things. 

When we imagine ourselves knowing the spiritual world, therefore we imagine seeing/ hearing/ touching the spiritual world by something like of an extra set of new senses.  

At times, especially in his later career as a leader in the Theosophical Society then originator of Anthroposophy; Steiner writes exactly like that about his own experiences. 

He describes observing, in an inward fashion, the activities of spiritual beings such as the so-called-dead or angels, on planes of reality not perceptible to the senses. 

Steiner describes (what seems like) observing events of the life of Jesus, or the evolution - and re-incarnation - of the earth; and/or the history of reality in 'Akashic' records that sound like scrolls recording everything that ever happened, but which can be seen and read by inner sight.  

This seems exactly like traditional religious experiences of a 'hallucinatory type'; seeing visions, hearing voices, perceiving other times and places... But with the difference that Steiner had these experiences - not in the context of a trance or dream or religious ecstasy, but in everyday waking consciousness.    

But at other times, Steiner seems to be clear that the understanding of supersensible reality comes by direct understanding, into the realm of thinking; and therefore Not by means of observing inner perceptions with new inner senses. 

(This is the message of his early books Science and Knowledge, and The Philosophy of Freedom.) 

This is what I have variously termed primary thinking, heart-thinking, or direct-knowing; and is a type of intuition. 

It is envisaged as learning without the intermediary of first perceiving some kind of representation like a picture, and then needing to understand what one has perceived. But with direct-knowing, instead the understanding comes into our thinking without mediation - the subjective experience is that knowledge simply 'arises' in our thinking.  

Such a mode of direct and unmediated knowing, is a much rarer and historically more distinctive way of penetrating to the hidden world of the spirit. 

My conclusion is that Steiner did both: Sometimes he perceived the hidden world of spirit with inner vision: Other times he knew the hidden world directly, in thinking. 

But he failed always to be clear about which he had done, and about which was the better mode of knowing.  

Of these; direct-knowing is the more fundamental and potentially valid way of understanding the hidden spiritual world; because any form of inner vision must entail the further step of interpreting its meaning. 

Whereas (by my understanding - not Steiner's) the perceiving mode provides a very high volume of potentially very specific information - but its validity is much less than direct knowing. 

Because this kind of perceptual information can be 'manufactured' by learnable techniques of meditation, and produced almost at will by those with aptitude. Yet, at the level of specific detail, each such 'visionary' will produce his or her own unique and unreplicable description from observing the hidden world - as can be seen from comparing (say) Swedenborg, Blavatsky and Steiner; or the various New Age channelers of the late 20th century.

(Although Steiner seems to have copied then modified a great deal of Blavatsky's general descriptive scheme of metaphysics and history.)    

To avoid confusion; we would need to avoid talking about the super-sensible world in ways that conjure up an inner world of pictures, stories, observed beings. 

We would need to cease talking about experiences such as watching the work of angels, reading the Akashic records, hearing the words of spiritual guides and the like, feeling our hands driven to engage in automatic writing - and other similar things.  

In sum: There is a hidden spiritual world, and it can be known; but it is ultimately known-by-knowing, therefore not known by (yet another) layer of perceiving. 

Information from known liars - what to do with it?

Dishonesty is a sin. And perhaps the commonest, least acknowledged, least-repented, hence most damaging sin of the modern world. Habitual liars are unrepentant sinners.  

Information from known liars should be ignored, if possible. 

Such information should be regarded as false; but it is usually impossible (and not worth the effort when it is possible) to discover the truth behind the lies. 

But information from known liars cannot always be ignored. 

When the known liars have an agenda and enough power to advocate or enforce it, then they cannot be ignored; and because dishonesty is a sin, the agenda of known liars will be evil.* 

A decision must be made; and then whatever they are advocating or enforcing should be resisted. 

The point is (again) not to check the truth of information, because even when the presented information does happen to be factually correct; the interpretation of what it 'means', and the supposed-implications for action, will be dishonest - and in-line-with the liars manipulative agenda. 

This is, or used to be, simple common sense and normal human nature. After all, Mankind has always been troubled by liars and psychopathic manipulators at all levels of society. Men have developed ways of dealing with this, by instinct. 

But common sense and human nature have been subverted and confused over many decades; not least by the overwhelming prevalence of strangers, and very large and bureaucratic institutions such as governments, corporations and the mass media. 

At the end of which; the mass of people seem to have adopted a standard behaviour pattern of credulous obedience to all information from large bureaucracies - even when experience teaches (or, ought to teach) that these produce only dishonest and manipulative information.

Thus, in the modern world; information and guidance from the biggest known liars in the world is nonetheless assumed to be truthful and motivated by concern for our benefit; unless proven otherwise (and how could this ever be proven, when the biggest known liars control the availability of information, dictate permissible interpretations, and officially decide upon its 'authority').  

What could possibly go wrong? 

*Before I became a Christian, in early 2008; I experienced a politically-correct international media firestorm directed against me. 

What I noticed is that, although I had broken a leftist taboo and written of a 'hate fact' (i.e. that on average those of lower social class are significantly less intelligent than those of high social class); this was not enough for the media; who in addition lied that I had written other things I had not, even fabricating entire "quotes" that I had never said, nor anything like them; and were, as it happened, almost the opposite of what I had written. 

I did not understand the reason for this at the time; but now recognize that such gratuitous lying (i.e. lying without need) is absolutely typical of those who have committed to the side of evil in the spiritual war. 

This, I presume, is the sense in which Jesus said of the devil: "there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it". Such lying is a hallmark of evil. 

"More than Memory" - the felt-desire for Heaven, described in the Fourth Gospel

Behold! we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world, and beyond them is more than memory, Farewell!

Words spoken at the death of Aragorn, in Lord of the Rings. 

My strong conviction is that I must have "more than memory for my life as-a-whole to be worthwhile, positive, a joy.

Before I became a Christian, the meaning of life depended - ultimately - upon memory; and memory is partial, lacks immersive reality, corruptible by time and disease, gets distorted with use and fades from disuse; and is sooner-or-later lost completely. 

Thus; if memory is the most we can hope-for; then life is ultimately meaning-less. 

And this is the case even for Tolkien's elves; whose memories are imagined as being as vivid and as immersive as real-life; and far more robust and accurate than a Man's could be. If memory provides the meaning of life; then life must become (as for the high elves) tragic and retrospective, a walking backwards into the future; contemplating visions of that which was good but is no more. 

For me: memory is not enough, and never could be enough. 

What my heart demands for satisfaction (that life may, even in principle, have personal purpose and meaning) is more than memory: and that is creation. 

Memory is a representation of reality, a copy of what has-happened; but what is needed is that whatever is valuable of reality never be lost from reality; that the past continue to be inhabitable - not just a picture that we contemplate. 

And this is exactly what Jesus seems to be promising in the Fourth Gospel; when he compares the evanescence of this mortal world, with what He has to offer us via death and resurrection.

 

Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. 

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you. 

We find here an opposition of the perishability of this world, including memory; and the heart's desire of that which is everlasting; but which is attainable only via the transformation of biological-death and resurrection:

And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 

One who insists on clinging to the things of this mortal life - even the best things - can never have more than memory (at best). 

But one who is willing, in faith, to die and follow Jesus Christ; can receive the gift of dwelling in the eternal reality of that which is only contemplated by memory:

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

For we are not bound for ever to the circles of the world!

Rabbit or Man in-the-Moon - waxing or waning gibbous

Is there a Man in the Moon, or a Rabbit? 

It's partly a question of moon phase - and I have a theory as to how the two ideas arose.

The Rabbit is associated with Easter (Easter Bunny...), and is best seen when the moon is in the waxing gibbous phase - leading up to full moon; and this phase of moon is best seen in the evenings. 

My theory is that the people who were watching the moon wax towards full, in order to know when Easter was to arrive (with Easter day coming on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox... approximately). 

Easter spotters will have been observing the moon during the evenings of the waxing gibbous phase - when the Rabbit is the most obvious appearance; and the Man's face is not visible at all. 

By contrast, the waning gibbous moon is best visible early in the mornings.

 

Those who were outdoors and saw the moon at this time of day were probably on their way to start work, maybe a bit down-hearted; and in a mood to appreciate the cock-eyes, ironic grin of the old moon; affectionately regarded as an old Man...

That is all a bit tenuous, I agree - but the Easter rabbit idea works quite neatly. 

Note: The above photos do not illustrate the Rabbit or Man at all obviously, compared with what I see with the naked eye - indeed I cannot find any decent photos online. It is apparently one of those things you just need to See For Yourself. 

The appearances are most evident when the moon is nearest the horizon - the rabbit when nearest moon-rise and the man nearish moon-set. This is due to the (at my latitude) c1/3 clockwise rotation of the moon from rising to setting. 

Thus the rabbit begins with ears horizontal, but by moon-set the rabbit is on his side, with ears pointing down - and not obviously a rabbit. 

Similarly, for the Man's face to have eyes at the top is most evident getting towards moonset.

Every change for the worse

It was in the 1990s that I first noticed - working for the National Health Service, active as a scientist, and teaching in a University - that every single change that was actually implemented always made things worse. 

It took me a while to notice; because I was pretty heavily involved in policy discussions - through academic papers, journalism, and talking on radio and TV. 

And at that time, the discussions were still quite interesting and wide-ranging; and it was possible to be honest and to have clear debates about most things. 

But, after a while, I realized that these discussions made no difference at all. No matter if proper motivations, good sense and practicality had more evidence to support them, the better arguments and won the debates; nonetheless the policies that emanated from government and via central management of large organizations and got implemented, were always bad.  

It soon emerged that whatever the central administration of the NHS, science policy, or university did, whatever changes they actually made; was always for the worse. 

A particular proposed-badness might lead to opposition and be stopped - but there would soon be something-else bad that did happen. 

Deleterious changes soon began to accumulate - badness building-upon badness, badness permeating the institution, badness taking-over all functions. 

Always bad, never good; always change for the worse - never for better. 

This is so obvious nowadays, that it is hard to remember that it was not always the case; and that at first people simply would not believe it. Especially in the universities; there was a very strong desire to 'give the benefit of the doubt' to leaders and bosses, to assume that policies were well-meaning and might be good. 

(Doctors were more skeptical, in those days.) 

It was regarded as nasty and cynical for me to assume that whatever it was that They wanted to do, and whatever Their reasons and arguments in its favour; it was sure to be harmful in practice.

Conversely; if an idea was good, and would make things better; then you could be equally-sure that it would not happen.   

But nowadays there are not even good discussions, real debates or positive ideas - the whole discourse has been corrupted so that 'controversy' consists only of competing bad ideas. 

Or else any good-ish ideas permitted into the discourse are so insignificantly minor as to be guaranteed to be disregarded and ineffectual in face of the trends of the larger systems. 

When only bad ideas are permitted into discourse and when bad policies are the only ones that happen; one might suppose that the inference would be obvious - undeniable! - that The System was purposively bad, that the leadership class was motivated to do harm. 

I would have thought it obvious that any other cause than deliberate evil would sometimes lead to good outcomes. Surely; when the change is always in the same direction; the causes cannot be random; and an only-adverse trend cannot be due to accidental errors or incompetence. 

Randomness and incompetence would err in both directions: only a powerful, indeed dominating, controlling-purpose can ensure that, over time, change is always for the worse.  

Yet there are still plenty of people, and a clear majority of the intellectual middle classes, who would deny that every change is for the worse, and every high level policy is designed to harm. 

Even among those of a skeptical mindset, the idea that the leadership class are deliberately imposing harm is something that is resisted very strongly indeed, regardless of the evidence. 

What confuses such people is that, while change is always for the worse; that worseness can be of various and contradictory types. While bad change always benefits somebody, that somebody seems to vary - and changes benefits first group A, then group B, and then harms both groups A and B... 

A great deal of words are expended on trying to discover a single group of human beings who always benefits from all of the always-worse changes; but there is no clear and simple answer. Such a group can only be argued on the basis of highly-complex and hyper-flexible, un-disproveable, theories that do not advance understanding or prediction.

The clear and simple answer is that the single group that always benefit from all of the always-worse changes is not human but demonic; and therefore operating on the basis of a negative agenda directed against divine creation, and against the salvation of Men. 

This group manipulates and plays-off various groups of human beings; favouring sometimes one and sometimes another - with no consistency or coherence...

Because there is no need for consistency and coherence so long as creation is being destroyed and Men are being damned. 

So, my retrospective understanding of the 1990s was that this was when the demonic over-rulers began to dominate global, national and institutional change throughout most of the world. 

And this was why the only change permitted to happen was adverse. 

And it was the beginning of the present era when all large scale policies and discourse are always designed to harm that which is Good. 

An example of specific divine guidance in my life

I do not like blogging about my own spiritual experiences; partly from reticence and partly because spiritual guidance is designed for the benefit of the recipient not as general teaching. 

Furthermore, each experience of personal miracles, or of the guidance of the Holy Ghost, has been so different in its specifics; that the major lesson for me has been that there is no method for such matters. 

(Indeed, to teach or assume generic methods for the Christian life, or to convert personal mystical experiences into advice, seem likely to do more harm than good.) 

On the other hand; it may somewhat encouraging for other people to know that a long-term and deep personal question for which I sought a response for some years did, in the end, receive an answer - albeit slowly and by a very indirect and not-replicable route.

I am not going to discuss the answer I was given; but I will describe something of the strange and unexpected way that an answer was communicated to me - in such a way that the process got past my fundamental misunderstandings and false pre-conceptions, and convinced me intuitively of its validity. 

I have often observed that when a question does not get an answer from divine sources; this is almost always because the question is ill-formed, and contains fundamentally wrong assumptions. These are why God cannot answer us - despite His vast resources. 

Furthermore; we are (nearly always) looking for the wrong kind of answer - and often something which is self-gratifying, or perhaps fits with false ideas of our own nature and destiny. 

This may explain why I was not able to get an answer of value or validity to the question oft what I ought to be doing in my life. I had too many fantasies and day-dreams that blocked my understanding. 

So, God's problem, in trying to help me, was to work past a great mass of such preconceptions, false understandings, wrong notions of the kind of thing I sought; and the tendency to ignore the true answer if given me straightforwardly, because the simple truth 'wasn't what I wanted to hear'... 

The only positive thing I was able to do to assist the process was to maintain my intent to find an answer over a period of years. I didn't give up. 

Admittedly I wasted considerable time, money and effort on dozens of false leads; but I kept plugging away - and followed hunches. 

What proved essential in the end; I let myself pursue lines of enquiry that had some kind of here-and-now interest to me; even when these appeared 'rationally' to be dead-ends, or trivial. 

Thus I have recently been re-reading around the subject of Christian 'ceremonial magic' - in particular the books of Gareth Knight and Dion Fortune, who I regard as admirable people. But I had already read these authors in the past couple of years, and had become clear in my mind that such a ritual and symbol, organized, approach to Christian living was now obsolete: it simply does not work anymore. 

I have also been re-reading Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, and focused on the episode when Childermass uses his 'Cards of Marseilles' (i.e. Tarot cards) to tell the fortune of Vinculus, and later to discern dishonesty and theft by Lascelles. 

Such reading led me to re-watch some DVDs of a nostalgic children's TV series from the early 1970s called Ace of Wands; which featured the hero 'Tarot' - a professional stage magician who also had some psychic powers such as telepathy, remote visualization and telekinesis. 

Having enjoyed this; I then got-out my Rider-Waite Tarot Card pack, which had featured in the TV programme; and looked-through some of its pictures.

Having replaced the cards, I absent-mindedly attempted to place it on a table; when the pack accidentally fell to the ground, and two cards jumped-out - and lay face down on the floor.  

It then came to my mind that these two cards would answer my question about what to do in my life.

I immediately thought that this was stupid, because (no matter how valid the process) I would always read-into the cards whatever answer I wanted: in other words, I would fool myself, and therefore the exercise would be useless. 

I don't believe in fortune telling; I don't believe that divination works (nowadays - although it did work in ancient times - up to the early years of the Roman Empire); and I certainly was not seeking 'guidance from the cards'.  

Nonetheless, I picked-up the cards one by one; and immediately recognized that the first card depicted myself and my condition: not as I fondly imagined myself, but as I actually was. 

This came as a shock, and I turned over the second card with some curiosity. 

The second card was one of the Greater Trumps, and I did not know its (supposed) meaning; so I looked it up in the leaflet provided - all the while thinking that it would be futile, because the descriptions are (like newspaper horoscopes) always so vague and ambiguous that they cannot possibly be sufficiently specific to serve as clear guidance for life...  

I read the sentence describing what the card meant, then - after a couple of seconds of dawning recognition - I realized that this was exactly the answer I needed and it was true. 

The generic phrases each and all had specific relevance to my condition.

The answer was obvious, banal, simple - and it was clearly the truth; yet I had missed it and missed it, for a very long time. 

I had to be set-up for this knowledge, in the right frame of mind and expectation; and I had to be surprised by the answer. 

What I think can be learned from the above is that if we persist in seeking an answer to an important question; then God can and will find a way to get that answer to us; and will prepare us to receive that answer. 

And God can do this even when we are (as I was) asking almost exactly the opposite question to the one we needed to ask; and when the mind is clouded and confused by innumerable wrong notions and hopes. 

Therefore; don't give up, and be prepared to follow where inner promptings indicate - even when these are pointing in apparently trivial or useless directions. 

And I think it is worthwhile to recall that the answer will be personal, very exactly tailored to you as an individual and your circumstances.

Also; the method by which God works to deliver the answer will be... Whatever does the job - and that method, too, will be one-off, unique - hence completely unpredictable.  

Which is exactly what is necessary. 

The significance of "Never Apologize"; and the Martyr of Repentance

The totalitarian rulers of the Western world are extremely powerful - especially in destruction. 

As well as having control of armies, police, and weapons; they have immense resources of surveillance and propaganda/ 'education'. 

Such a combination of capability and cover; means that people, organizations and things can be eliminated with impunity - since even great evils can be ignored, explained-away, or memory-holed. 

And yet... There are many evil but expedient eliminations that They do Not do.

They do not simply kill-off all their opponents; despite the continual hysterical clamour that They should eliminate such things; coming from mid-level functionaries-of-evil such as managers, journalists, bureaucrats and others of the almost-wholly-corrupted intellectual middle class. 

Why don't They just eliminate their enemies? 

The answer is one that the functionaries-of-evil do not understand; which is that from the top-level of global (Western) leadership this is a spiritual war - ultimately. 

Therefore; what is sought is not the physical elimination of enemies of evil, but instead their spiritual corruption. 

It is often said that They do not kill someone because They do not want to create a martyr. And this is true; but literally not 'metaphorically' true as is usually meant. 

When modern people talk of not making a martyr, they mean that a martyr might become a figurehead which could inspire resistance from others. In other words; the level of explanation is this-worldly, and materialist, and to do with social interactions. 

But this fear of material-martyrs is probably untrue nowadays; since - apparently - the masses are so demotivated that no thing, no conceivable person or event, will inspire resistance against Them! 

No, the problem with The System killing someone Good; is that when a Man accepts death rather than abandon Good when he could have saved himself by succumbing to evil: a literal martyr, a 'spiritual martyr', is the result. 

In other words; such a Man 'certainly' attains salvation after biological death: A spiritual martyr chooses salvation and rejects damnation as certainly as we can know about such things, this side of death. 

Such an outcome constitutes a disaster for the powers of demonic evil. 

From Their perspective this is not just a soul lost to Them; but an enhancement of the power of Goodness; and this is a power that is available (by direct, intuitive apprehension; and through prayer) to inspire and sustain mortal Men on this earth in their own resistance to evil and commitment to Good. 

Therefore, when an enemy of The System is identified... When any person resists (in any way) plans of the totalitarian global leadership... The objective is that he should be corrupted, not killed. 

This is the deep reason why anyone who tells the truth in a situation when lies are mandatory, or who does the right thing when public compliance with the agenda of evil, is always pressurized to 'apologize'.

And, conversely, the reason why he should Never Apologize. 

Because when someone apologizes for saying the truth, or for doing the right thing, or for resisting public displays of support for that which is motivated by evil intent... then that person has been corrupted into taking the side of evil. 

When anyone lies publicly, in some way that is expedient for him rather than truthful - that person is corrupted. 

When a public figure caves-in to pressure (which may, of course, be immense) - but does not admit he has caved-in, and instead dishonestly rationalizes his behaviour as the right thing to do - he is corrupted. 

And, in more general terms; anyone who sins and does not repent it - especially if he denies the sin or defends his compliance rather than repenting - then that person has been corrupted.

It is the prevention of repentance that lies at the heart of all these corruptions. 

If a public figure caved-in to pressure and behaved without courage, if he also apologized for true things he said and went-along with public displays of support of the Litmus Test agenda items; and if he then lied to cover-up and rationalize all this...

But then repented all of this sequence of sins; for instance stating that this and this was wrong and evil, and that he should not have done them and in doing them had sinned...

Then - by the infinite saving power of repentance - even such a recidivist sinner would be forgiven and washed clean of the stains of sin There-And-Then. 

And if such a Man was then killed for having repented: he would become a real martyr, a spiritual martyr.

It seems important for Christians to be clearer about this. There may be heroic martyrs of great personal Goodness and courage; but these are not the only kind of martyr because repentance may also be the cause of martyrdom. 

Repentance requires courage, and may lead to martyrdom; and a martyrdom all the more admirable because it is less likely to be recognized publicly - and may be unknown. 

A Martyr of Repentance is - nowadays - probably choosing to do the right thing despite very little possibility of recognition or reward on earth; and without any realistic likelihood of inspiring others into resistance to evil. 

I suspect that such a martyr of repentance might - for exactly these reasons - be even more spiritually-powerful than a martyr who might reasonably expect to inspire veneration after his death. 

Such are the deep spiritual realities behind Vox Day's pragmatically-orientated slogan Never Apologize. 

To apologize for thinking, speaking or doing The-Right-Thing, for speaking truth, for offending against the agenda of evil... such is the opposite of repentance. 

We are all sinners; and sin over and again all through our lives - because sin is whatever is Not aligned-with God's creation. 

Most people in this world are weak in face of social pressure to sin, and are so afraid of the powers of evil that they will not repent - not even in their thoughts (so far as I can tell). 

It is this refusal to repent which keeps them in thrall to evil. 

Yet if there is one thing that Men may do, which the demonic rulers fear more than anything else in this mortal world; it is surely to accept martyrdom. 

"They" will go to vast lengths Not to make martyrs - and will patiently lay siege to virtue with intent to corrupt it to the extent of denying that Good is Good (and instead apologizing for it); to sin while denying the sin and calling it virtue; to induce men to do all this and then not to repent. 

We are all sinners; and yet every single one of us possesses the ability to deploy this deadliest anti-evil weapon of repentance; this most feared of outcomes by the demons. 

A martyr must be prepared to accept whatever happens, including death, rather than fail to do the right thing. 

But, the demons will not willingly create a martyr; will go to great lengths to avoid such an outcome. 

Thus faith is indeed a kind of armour - even in this-world; so long as that faith truly is directed at eternal salvation.

It is by our investment in achieving expedient outcomes in this mortal life and world, that the powers of evil corrupt and control us; and lead us to self-chosen damnation through refusal to repent.  

Yet, no matter how deep in corruption and no matter the societal pressure towards evil; if a Man can recognize, acknowledge, and repent his sins and accept whatever the consequences - then, at that moment (and for eternity, if martyrdom is his fate), he becomes a light to dazzle The Enemy and push-back the darkness in this world.

Spiritual corruption and the peck: Joining the side of evil is just the Beginning of the matter

I have seen some people reporting that the peck seemed to result in startling spiritual deterioration or corruption in some people. 

The further speculation was sometimes that this was due to some mysterious or hi-tech ingredient included in the peck.

I do not doubt that taking the peck was followed by marked spiritual deterioration and corruption in some people. 

But it is missing the point badly, and indeed falling-into exactly the gross materialism which is being imposed and encouraged by the global totalitarians, to attribute spiritual change to the physical actions of a physical agent that - by unknown mechanism - makes people unspiritual. 

Taking the peck willingly was a decision to join the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world. 

And in such a war, as we may see in he world today; the choice of sides has consequences. Joining the side of evil is just the beginning of the matter. 

One who has chosen to affiliate with evil will be led into more and greater evils - and this will continue without limit, for as so long as he desires to remain on that side. 

It follows naturally and inevitably that one who makes such an evil-affiliating decision as willingly to embrace the peck; will exhibit spiritual deterioration, which may be severe in some instances; and will tend to worsen with time*.

*Unless there is subsequent repentance; and, as Francis Berger writes: regret is not repentance.