Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gang. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query gang. Sort by date Show all posts

Wednesday, 13 March 2019

Wanna be in my gang? Individualism and modern Man


As infants in school; we sometimes used to make a gang by the simple expedient of going around the playground and asking other boys if they wanted to be in our gang. Most would say yes, simply because they wanted to be inside the new gang; not outside.

The standard threat to some other boy who displeased was to say 'I'm going to get a gang on you'. Typically nothing was done; but the idea was that the threatener would form a gang against the threatened. It could be done, quite easily, because plenty of kids could be found to go along with it - on the side of any random kid who asked, and against any other random kid... at least for a while.

And a great deal of adult life depends upon the innate desire to join gangs and to avoid being ganged-up-on. This is the primary social basis of tribal society and probably of our ancestors.


Yet this gang-forming propensity is very weak among modern Westerners. In a sense, we want to be gang members a lot more than we want actually to be In a gang. We want protection and a share in the power of a gang; but will not, we cannot accept the necessary group standards of behaviour, leadership, loyalty.

The key thing is 'cannot'. Modern Man just-is an individualist. He cannot form groups.


This is just a fact - but the problem is that he is a weak individualist. He is enough of an individualist not be be able to form groups, even when he wants to. But he is not enough of an individualist to take responsibility for his beliefs, for his thinking.

Indeed, modern Man does not take his individuality seriously enough to find out what it is. He accepts what he is told about his real nature, his true self. He expects to find his real true self outside himself, in the culture! So nearly everybody simply goes-along-with making a choice of self, a selection from prevalent mainstream notions of how 'we' are - all of which happen to be false, incoherent, and demotivating.

In effect: Modern culture gives us a finite, approved, checklist of characteristics; and we are invited to tick-off which apply. The uniqueness of that selection is supposed to be our individuality. The checklist's limitation is what makes us 'belong'. 


Genuine individuality of thinking is a glorious and optimistic thing; but the individualism of the large majority of modern Men is a pathetic and grovelling sham; with most of the disadvantages of group membership and very few of the advantages.

If modern man is regarded as being stuck in spiritual adolescence; then we can see that the problem of adolescence is that it is a transitional state between child and adulthood. When what should be a transition becomes permanent, then we get our situation.

The adolescent is individualist enough to be rebellious against parents and tradition; but groupish-enough that he is slavishly conformist to the fashion driven whims of peers - and these adolescent fashions are imposed top-down and with an exploitative and corrupting agenda. That is the permanent state of modern Man.

In sum the adolescent is primarily negative: knowing what he does not want, but unsure and labile; changeable about what he does want. And that is precisely the nature of the mainstream, modern, secular, Leftist socio-politics. It is essentially negative, defined by what it opposes (here and now) - but without any stable or coherent notion of what it wants and aims-for in the future.


It is understandable that the solution for the self-destructiveness of modern Man is seen in a restoration of traditional forms of groupishness - ie. individual conformity to churches. Traditional groupishness is vastly superior to the arrested-half-rebellion of modernity. If that was the choice, the choice would be straightforward.

But it is not the choice. It is not possible. Once adolescence has been reached we cannot return to spiritual childhood, not genuinely nor honestly. Childhood is not an option. Our actual choice is between arrested adolescence and growing up.

In spiritual Christian, and cultural, terms: we began as individuals subordinated and loyal to the group-church of our environment. We entered a semi-individualist adolescent phase of rejecting the church; and ideologically self-subordinating to the partial, expedient individualism of a rebellious teen gang mentality. We need to continue through adolescence, and out the other side, to become fully individual.

As spiritually grown-up individuals, we may choose to work with traditional groups, with churches - but the relationship is then conscious, voluntary, and contingent upon the behaviour of the church. Since we have become adult individuals, we no longer regard loyalty to the church as the primary value.


Much of the desire for a strong church; and to be in a church, of a church - is an unrealistic and impossible yearning for that lost playground security of being 'in a gang'; and not having the gang set against you. Modern Man finds he is not, and cannot be, truly in a gang; yet the fact scares him - it scares him at an existential level, a pervasive and intolerable angst - from which he escapes into distraction and intoxication and Not Thinking.

Having a developed sense of self-consciousness - being rooted in this; we cannot help but evaluate and judge the 'external' church against our personal standards. Internal standards, personal intuition, is the only evidence we will accept - yet modernity undercuts all personal intuition as arbitrary, epiphenomenal, self-deceptive, lacking any objective validity.

This is why we need, more than anything else perhaps, to understand how and when intuition has objective validity; to develop confidence in genuine intuition - as being a form of direct knowledge of the divine: the divine within that makes us Sons of God, and the divine without: the Holy Ghost, which is the living Jesus Christ.

Thursday, 25 May 2023

What are those who call for 'action, not words' really asking?

Dissident Christian websites, are usually inhabited by pseudonymous identities (or writing as 'anonymous'), who pour scorn on useless talk, and call instead for 'action', for doing something: organizing, confronting the problem etc. 

And with the implicit, when not explicit, assertion that those who 'just' try to understand, discuss or engage in spiritual activity (and don't fantasize about organizing militia) are not real men; are shirking responsibility; are (because they 'must be') lazy, cowardly, quietistic, pacifistic, self-pitying, miserable, terminally despairing... 


What is going on here? 

First, I always notice the absurdity of those who urge real, physical and manly action (danger, risk?) while sheltering behind pseudonyms. 

Second, some of these pseudonyms will surely be agents, provocateurs, Establishment snoops, trolls - and the like. 

But what of those who are serious - who sincerely desire to embark on well-directed and direct action in pursuit of Christian goals? 

What exactly are they asking-for, when they demand to be told what to do.   


My impression is that many are craving a well-motivated and strong group which they can join. 

Or, perhaps they believe that there already-is such a group, a particular church - for instance, and are seeking for it, or recruiting for it?

Or they may be asking that somebody (i.e. somebody-else - not the asker himself) get-on-with the task of forming and organizing some such group (i.e. the kind of group the asker feels that he would like to join); so that the asker can then join it, and join-in with its work. 

In sum - a lot of people (understandably!) want a tough gang that they can join, who will provide guidance of what-to-do, and strong backup for doing it. 


An understandable desire  - and one we have surely all felt at some time!

So why are such 'calls' so-often heard, for so many years - and yet, and yet... It never happens!

There are many reasons why it never happens, or else it would have happened. 

But the main reason is that things are much worse than those who demand action realize. 

Our society is much-more profoundly corrupted and demotivated than believed by those who believe that things can be turned-around merely by some sarcastic or scornful online cheerleader who is trying to discover a suitable gang he can to join. Much worse than one who vaguely hopes that (acting in response to his pseudonymous scorn) that somebody-else, somewhere, will be stimulated to form such a gang. 


In essence all the powerful 'gangs' are already-corrupted.

That is the powerful gangs are overall (and usually explicitly in several respects) anti-Christian, pro-leftist, and operate in accordance with the agenda of totalitarian materialism. 

In sum: the big, strong and thriving gangs are on the side of Satan and against God. 


What about organizing a bigger, stronger and more deeply-motivated gang in service to Jesus, to fight totalitarianism, leftism, and other forms of evil - and instead to impose Good? 

The first and deepest problem is finding enough and suitable personnel: enough who are properly-motivated, strongly-motivated, tough... 

Such people must also be willing to accept here-and-now significant disadvantage and harm - in pursuit of long-term good.

Ultimately what is needed is sufficient people who will be motivated to suffer (for sure), and (maybe) die, for that Good which they strive to bring-about. 

And that is exactly what cannot be found. 


To my mind; a pseudonymous commenter or blogger asking for 'action' has - by sheltering behind a pseudonym - probably already shown himself personally unwilling to take risk or suffer disadvantage; in pursuit of long-term goals -- no matter how sincere his inner desire for a better world. 

Therefore, the high prevalence and affected-tough attitudes of 'pseudonymous chicken-hawks' illustrates one important reason why it has (apparently) not been possible to recruit enough sufficiently-motivated people to form a new and strong movement against the left/ materialist/ totalitarians - and in favour of a Christian society. 


But there is usually more than one reason why some-thing good and desirable has-not-happened; and a further reason is that - here-and-now, as society is presently structured - organizations of sufficient size to be strong are bureaucracies. 

Bureaucracies are intrinsically leftist-tending, materialist in the procedures - and therefore have a continual tendency to become short-termist and expedient (hence weak).

Also, to recruit and sustain themselves and grow - and here-and-now organization must do-so in an environment in which personnel management, employment, workplace, accounting, loans and penalties... and a multitude of other constraints have built-in pro-Leftist and anti-Christian rules and laws. 

(This is probably a major reason why the largest and most potentially-powerful churches, have by-now all been tamed and conformed to the anti-Christian core agenda items - the Litmus Tests. Of course; many people are self-blinded to this reality; but that does not stop it from being reality.)

Thus, any strong organization will be bureaucratic, and any bureaucratic organization itself will be (to a significant and increasing degree) de facto leftist in its workings...

And to the extent it is Not conforming to the left-agenda; the organization will be diminished in its power to propagate and impose its views.   

A double-bind. 


In practice, therefore, either we are willing to start taking action on our own, in a situation where this will mean we suffer immediate disadvantage and increased risk, and without back-up...

Or else we will continue to wait - hoping to find a suitable and ready-made group that doesn't exist.

Or, waiting for 'somebody-else' to create such a group in a societal situation aggressively designed to prevent any such group arising and retaining significant power or influence. 


In sum; those who want to join an already-existing tough gang on the side of Good before taking any action themselves, are disappointed to find they don't exist. 

And those who want somebody else to organize such a gang for them to join, are likely to be waiting a long time...   

This means if we want action to be taken, we our-selves must take action essentially alone - without back-up, with our particular gifts and disadvantages, and from the exact situation in which we find-ourselves here-and-now. 


Because each who acts positively will be acting alone in an unique situation, there can be no generic good advice about 'what to do'. So - don't ask for it!

And because he is working essentially alone and with no back-up; anyone who is genuinely engaged in serious 'material' action to change modern society positively would be stupid to reveal his plans publicly! 

And here we come to another crux: the material versus the spiritual. 

Those who ask for action mean 'action in the material realm' - and they do not regard spiritual action as real. They regard spiritual activity as just an excuse for sheltering and hiding; for doing-nothing. 


However, given the realities; spiritual action must be primary, must come first, must be done before any realistic change that material action can possibly succeed. 

This is because personal action must genuinely be positive, must truly favour the Christian goals; and this means that Christian action absolutely-must be properly-motivated. 

Wrongly-motivated action will work against Good, and for evil - no matter what that action may be. 


Furthermore, well-motivated individual action must be strongly motivated, because otherwise it will rapidly fail due to the adverse worldly incentives; and this motivation must be 'from-within' because it cannot depend on institutional or social support. 

This world has-been structured so that we (as individuals) must be prepared to suffer and risk in the short-term, in order to have even a chance of betterment in the long-term.   

This means strong faith; which means a faith which looks beyond this material mortal world...

Which means spiritual strength must come first - or else no action will be taken, or the individual's good-intentions will fold and collapse at the first significant obstacle.


In sum: if you are Christian and want action, don't wait for other people to prepare your ground: do it yourself; working from your own unique nature and situation. 

But don't talk about it!

And don't forget that effective material activity for Good comes-from, and is fuelled-by, spiritual strength - deriving-from strong love-for and faith-in God, and with loving motivations dominated by our living hope of resurrection. 

 

Wednesday, 7 August 2019

The corruption of England Test cricket - the nation in a nutshell

England were horribly thrashed by Australia in the first test - and at England's 'fortress' of the Edgbaston ground in Birmingham. But - in a way - I was glad, because the selection of the England team was so horrible, that they did not deserve anything else.

England's Test selection in the 1990s was horrible, in the sense of choosing dozens of players, many debutants; often playing them just once, and without any idea whether they would have gone on to become good. (Not many players thrive at the highest level without undergoing a period of acclimatisation and learning.) And, naturally, poor results eventuated from poor selection.

Over the past few years, we have gone to a ridiculous opposite extreme, when players who have been performing terribly for more than a year still don't get replaced; while, by contrast, others who have played very well are dropped. When batters are played as bowlers and vice versa, when 'all rounders' are defined as those who are all-round inadequate at the basic disciplines of batting, bowling and wicket-keeping (especially the last). Meanwhile, the results have dropped back to the level of the 1990s; in particular (cushioned somewhat by the presence of one of the all time greatest bowlers: James Anderson.)


The explanation is that the Test team (and its coach and selectors) has become a gang; and players who fit-into the gang are retained no matter how badly they play for long periods; while those who (apparently) don't fit-in are ejected at the first excuse, or no excuse at all, to make way for the gang members to return.

The blame lies with the coach, selectors and captain; and I don't see much hope until these are replaced. After every further, routine, truly appalling, batting collapse - the reprise is always on the lines of: "We won't panic; there will be no knee-jerk reactions" - which decodes as "We will continue to select 'the gang', and to exclude the capable."

Consequently I find that I dislike most of the current England Test players; either because they are part of the gang, or sometimes merely because they are undeserving beneficiaries of the anti-meritocratic policies.


Cricket (like baseball) is a very statistical game; and we live in an era when the use of  statistical analysis (the 'Moneyball' approach, so called from the superb baseball book) has reached new levels of sophistication. Yet - for the past few years - England selection doesn't just ignore, but actively contradicts what is known from statistics. The word for this is corruption; because corruption can be detected with confidence when personal factors outweigh merit, functionality, performance, and excellence.

As recently as a generation ago, England used-to-be one of the least corrupt of nations; a nation that exported integrity. This integrity came from the the middling people - the skilled working class and middling middle classes (the Nonconformists, in general).

But since the middle 90s (under the generic influence of Christian apostasy and Political Correctness) we have been corrupting as fast as our (always corrupt) Upper Class have been able to lead us, with the pervasive excuse of pandering to the underclass and the mass influx of recent immigrants (both of which the leadership encourage and sustain).

This has been enabled by the insignificant yet utterly 'converged' trainwreck that is current anti-Christian Nonconformism, and the sexualised and intoxicated hedonic materialism of British people generally. The middling people (in short, the Brexit supporters) remain the most decent of us; but they are gutless, gullible and distractable; as de facto atheists inevitably will be. 

Since Test cricket is a microcosm of Life; it is inevitable - as well as depressing - that the general tenor of national Life manifests in the way that the Test cricket team is managed. 
  
  

Friday, 20 April 2018

Joining gangs

It is a temptation to want to join a gang - and it is a temptation felt by Christians as much as anybody. Some gangs of the past were good, overall (e.g. some churches at some times and in some places; some guilds, some professions...).

But the time has come when all the main gangs are bad.

We still feel the urge to join a gang, usually because we are more afraid than ever (whether for ourselves, or our loved ones) - yet any gang we might join that has the power to protect us will actually make us worse, will make us more afraid (of the gang itself); and will not protect us: in this world our loyalty will count for precisely nothing.

This is the existential crisis of this era - the end of all gangs.

We are being forced into a stark choice; and maybe that is no accident.


Friday, 4 June 2010

Anti-denialism - The return of Lysenkoism?

Real science was built on a search for truth that was cooperative and competitive at the same time. Popper emphasized the mixture of hypothesis and testing, conjecture and refutation, testing for consistence and predictive ability and discarding of error.

Bronowski emphasized the need for tolerance of honest error, and that contributors to the scientific process should be respected even after their views have been refuted. Otherwise, scientists would not risk being accused/ convicted of being wrong and so would never challenge consensus; and consensus would never yield to refutation. (Which is precisely the situation in mainstream medical research.)

So we still respect Isaac Newton despite him having been superseded by Einstein; and Newton is not usually mocked or derided for having not been correct for all time.

But this balance has been difficult for many scientists, and even more difficult for those outside of science. Lamarck ranks all-time third in importance as a biologist according to Charles Murray's method in Human Accomplishment - behind Darwin and Aristotle - but Lamarck’s views on evolution are often (it seems to me) treated as a joke.

Of course, ignorant disrespect is part of growing-up. But although it has to be tolerated in teenagers, it is not an admirable trait; being a result of pride and aggression fuelled by insecurity.

Adolescents love to hate, and there are an awful lot of adolescents interested in science and working in and around science and is journalism and as pundits - many of them adolescents of advanced middle age.

Adolescents also form gangs, and gangs assert their status by seeking and beating-up victims (the victims of course ‘deserve’ this – for being who they are).

There is an awful lot of ignorant disrespect in science nowadays, and an awful lot of gangsterism. Real science used to be all about individuals – it really did! – but now science is all about gangs.

The reason for so much ignorant disrespect in science is mostly that there is so much ignorance, due to the abundance of low quality people and their micro-specialized perspective. Such have no concept of excellence higher than the standard, prevailing technical practices of their micro-discipline; anyone who does not adhere to these prevailing practices is regarded as either incompetent or wicked - hence despicable hence deserving of punishment. They deserve ‘what is coming to them’ – in gang parlance.

There is always disagreement in science, but the basis of real science was that scientific disagreement was conducted by scientific means. What is *not* acceptable to real science is that scientific disputes should be settled by non scientific methods.

Scientists must be allowed to make mistakes, to be wrong, or science cannot function.

This is necessary because in the first place they may not really have made a mistake and they may be right (or partly right) – but this may not be apparent for a while. Mainstream science may be in error, but this situation may be recoverable if dissent is tolerated.

However, in a system of real science, mistakes are tolerated only when they are *honest* mistakes – lying and deceptions are absolutely forbidden in real science; and will lead to exclusion from the community of real scientists. And incompetent errors are simply a waste of everybody’s time. So dishonesty and incompetence are rightly sanctioned by leading to a scientist’s work being disregarded by others in the field as probably unreliable or unsound.

This is why the dishonest thugs of modern pseudo-science always try to portray dissent and disagreement as always a result of incompetence or dishonesty.

The gangsters of pseudo-science cannot acknowledge even the *possibility* of an honest and competent scientist reaching a different conclusion from the one they themselves support. This is because the gangsters are transparently looking for an excuse to attack and to coerce; after all, gangsters need to make public displays of their power, or else they would soon lose it.

Gang-leaders need to beat-up dissenters, and they need people to know that this is happening, and they need these dissenters to be portrayed as deserving victims of attack.

Consequently the whole concept of honest and competent disagreement has been banished from modern bureaucratic pseudo-science.

In the world of bureaucratic pseudo-science there are only two kinds of view – the correct view which is defined and enforced by the peer review cartel; and wrong views which are held by those either too stupid to understand, or those corrupted by evil.

Lysenko was a scientific gangster in the Soviet Union – Stalin’s henchman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko. His scientific sin was to suppress scientific opposition using non-scientific means; up to and including jail and death for his opponents. The justification for Lysenko’s use of coercion to suppress and silence dissent was that the opponents’ opposition was harmful to people, caused millions of death etc.

Modern science is just a couple of small steps away from full-blown Lysenkoism. Scientific opposition is suppressed using non-scientific means ranging from defunding, exclusion of publications and other blocks on dissemination, public humiliation, sacking and other legal threats. In many areas of science gangsterism is rife, with intimidation and threats and the administration of media ‘beatings’.

What does it mean? Many would regard the situation as regrettable – but it is much worse than regrettable. It is conclusive evidence of non-science.

A field in which the use of non-scientific modes of argument are rife is simply *not a science*. Not a science at all. It does not work. Gangsterism is incompatible with science.

For example, ‘climate science’ is not a science *at all*; as a field it does not function as a real science, it uses intimidation and coercion as a matter of routine. Therefore nothing in it can be trusted, the good and bad cannot be discriminated.

To clarify - because in general terms climate science does not settle disputes using scientific methods, but by using extra-scientific methods, therefore it is not a real science, but actually is whatever the main influence on its content happens to be: politics, mostly.

The main innovation of ‘climate science’ has been to legitimate the mass use of the hate-term ‘denialism’ to signal who ‘deserves’ a punishment-beating from the gang.

Let us call the phenomenon of labeling and beating up ‘denialists’ by the name of ‘anti-denialism’.

Anti-denialism is no accident, nor is it eradicable without massive reform because anti-denialism is functionally necessary for the cohesion of modern bureaucratic pseudo-science. Without victims to gang-up on, the gangs would fall apart into warring sects. They would fight each other because these gangs are composed of ignorant, egotistical, power-worshipping adolescents. What best holds such people together is pure hatred, and pure hatred needs victims.

With the phenomenon of anti-denialism rife in mainstream discourse, we are just a couple of small steps away from full blown Lysenkoism. We already have systematic intimidation of scientific opposition at every level short of the physical. But I have seen demands from the gangsters of science that the sanctions against denialists be escalated. Destroying livelihoods is no longer enough. Soon, perhaps very soon, unless the tide turns, we may be seeing scientists jailed for their views.

Since honest and competent dissent is not recognized, anyone who disagrees with the peer review cartel is either labeled as too stupid to understand or as competent but wicked. It is the competent dissenters who are most at risk under Lysenkoism, since disagreement with the mainstream coming from a competent scientist marks them out as evil and deserving of punishment.

Anti-denialism needs high profile victims. Lysenkoism needed to punish top scientists like Vavilov, who died following three years in prison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov.

On present trends we may expect to see prominent denialists and dissenters jailed for being ‘wrong’ (as judged by peer review), jailed for the public good, jailed ‘to save ‘millions of lives’ – but in reality jailed for opposition to the ruling gangsters of bureaucratic pseudo-science, and because anti-denialists absolutely require a continuous supply of victims to beat-up on.

Saturday, 30 November 2024

"Poor little me!" "I need to join a gang!" - Induction of a craving for groupism is (nowadays) a demonic strategy

I think that it has been a deliberate and long-term demonic strategy to encourage people of The West to crave the kind of "groupism" or group-identity that was normal (and indeed unavoidable) in past eras - but is now impossible. 

The fact is that modern Western people aren't (as a strong generalization) capable of groupism: we cannot immerse in the group mind (except very briefly and superficially, as when the member of an audience). 

We are, in other words, individualized, "alienated" - but this also means that we are (like it or not) free - much free-er, much more autonomous as agents, than past generations. 


The faithful Christian response to this fact would be to assume that - since it is a fact - then our task in this mortal life is to deal with it, learn from it, consciously choose to operate from the state of agency and freedom that we find ourselves inhabiting. 


The demonic strategy, however, is to make this fact into a disaster - in various ways.

One way is to induce people to adopt a "poor little me" attitude: to feel sorry for their own isolation (an isolation induced by denial of God, the spirit, the living universe etc) -- such that the lack of people of the kind we feel a right to, lack of the immersive and spontaneous consciousness of childhood; lack of a group and to whom we can virtuously subordinate our will, is felt as an existential disaster. 

The futile and harmful response is then to seek, indeed insist upon, a group to join, to obey, to which we  subordinate our values. A group that we will choose to regard as "our infallible conscience". 


This often bound-up with a felt-need for protection. People want to feel part of a "gang" that - in response for obedient service - will protect us against what is certainly a Big Bad World. 

Such protection is more of a delusion than a fact; because of course the power of the totalitarian world we inhabit is so unprecedentedly vast and pervasive, that no subgroup could, even in principle, protect us against it.   

But this demonically-encouraged craving for protection is turned against the Christian by the fact that all groups powerful enough to provide any psychologically-plausible protection (i.e. all large, resource-rich, organized churches), are here-and-now actually part of the System of totalitarian evil. 


The lesson I draw from all this is to beware of any grouping, any person, any source; that is trying to induce that "poor little me" feeling of helplessness and desire for protection. 

This is an indirect soft-sell of materialism. Because, insofar as it is indeed true that we are (whether as isolated individuals, or obedient group-members) helpless "atoms" in a materialistic sense - the lesson we ought to learn from this fact is a lesson of faith. 

In a spiritual domain, we are completely "safe" in the deepest existential sense - because we are free agents in God's creation; backed with the secure promise of salvation to all those who follow Jesus Christ.  


We have no need for anything else beyond what we actually can get by our free choices and capacity to learn; and should beware being manipulated into believing that we are helpless, miserable, worthless creatures when we are without a gang, church or any other grouping. 


Saturday, 16 July 2011

What is the bottom line level of social organization?

*

When genetic relatedness is reduced to small nuclear families (no tribes); when there is no effective cohesive ideology (e.g. religion, nationalism).

The predatory teenage male gang spontaneously forms and dominates, by sheer force.

(This situation prevails in some parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.) 

When all else is stripped away the teenage male gang may dominate society.

*

The next step-up is organized crime - endemic gangsterism, piracy, robbery, extortion, blackmail etc.

Lacking extended families, tribes, clans - and lacking a cohesive ideology - this is the highest level of social organization that can be reached - the Big Man, mobster state.

My concern is that when the West collapses, this will be the level of society which will be dropped-down-to among the politically-correct, post-Christian indigenes - since Leftism has systematically subverted or destroyed all higher levels of social organization.

*

Tuesday, 2 August 2016

Robin Hood versus King Arthur


Richard Greene as my definitive Robin Hood

An early post in this blog described my childhood love of the idea of Robin Hood and his Merry Men, contrasted with much less greater enthusiasm for King Arthur and Round Table:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/robin-hood-what-is-appeal.html

Indeed, although I have written a fair bit about the Arthurian legends over the years, I am not really much interested by the King or his knights, but mostly by Merlin. The appeal of Robin has also faded - I think a lot of it was related to the boyhood ideal of a gang or club; especially one in which each person has a special ability and role.

For this reason I disliked the beautiful and feminine Maid Marian - My basic idea was that girls were fine, but not in a gang - unless they were tomboys.

In fact my best friend aged about 7-9 was a tomboy - not from shortage of available boys, but because I liked her best. The ultimate accolade was that she was 'as good as a boy' - she looked somewhat like a boy (short hair), could climb trees, run fast, and when playing football she was usually 'picked' as one of the earliest choices.

Anyway, the appeal of Robin Hood is simple enough - especially on a beautiful summer's day like today, when The Greenwood is clearly the place to be...


The famous (US-accented) play-out theme song from the English-made Robin Hood TV series 

Wednesday, 31 July 2024

The instinctual roots of "Leftism" are more like resentment of anyone-else having more than me, than any positive desire for equality

Since Leftism is the dominant ideology in the world today, and Leftism often appeals to some principle of "equality" (however vague or incoherent) as the rationale for its actions; the instinctual basis for "equality" is a subject that warrants closer examination. 


This examination is something I attempted, from the perspective of evolution by natural selection, in an oft-cited theoretical paper I wrote many years ago.

[The inequity of inequality: egalitarian instincts and evolutionary psychology. BG Charlton Journal of Health Psychology. 1997; 2: 413-425.] 

My conclusion was that evidence from anthropological studies of "simple", nomadic hunter-gatherer societies - i.e. the most economically-equal societies ever known - was that their culture of equal-sharing (among those of equivalent sex and age) is not due to a positive valuation of "equality". 

Instead, the sharing was a consequence of what I would now term a double-negative ethical reasoning - for which I used the term "counter-dominance":  


...Equal sharing is enforced upon high status individuals by spontaneously-arising counter-dominant coalitions of lower status individuals (Boehm, 1991; Erdal & Whiten, 1994). Sharing may be a way of encouraging co-operation and preventing conflict (Franks, 1988); it would compensate low status males for their reduced access to females of high reproductive potential and can be seen as a way of "buying off" potentially hostile rivals who might otherwise refuse to cooperate or take hostile action...

"Counter-dominant" instincts (Erdal and Whiten, 1994 and in the press) operate in two ways: firstly to enforce equal sharing of resources, and secondly to be satisfied with an equal distribution of resources. 

In support of this idea, primatologists such as Byrne (1995), Kummer (1995) and De Waal (1996) have traced the evolutionary history of food sharing (and of other counter-dominant - and proto-moral - behaviours) through monkeys and apes to reach the highest (non-human) intensity and sophistication among the chimpanzees. 

Egalitarian human societies are therefore not without their social conflicts: their harmony is of the nature of a dynamic equilibrium between dominance and counter-dominance, both of which sets of instincts continue to operate, the equilibrium between which can be altered by a change of circumstance. 

In all human societies, even in egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, the persistence of dominance instincts leads to recurrent attempts by high status individuals to dominate, take more than an equal share of resources, or hoard (Knauft, 1991; Erdal & Whiten, in the press). 

However, in immediate-return economies attempts by high status individuals to breach the egalitarian distribution and attain coercive power will readily be detected, and can be met by counter-dominant community alliances of lower status individuals (Woodburn, 1982; Boehm, 1993). 

Counter-dominant alliances may employ a wide range of tactics for mobilizing concerted opposition from the rest of the community in such forms as public complaint, ridicule, threat, ignoring the would-be dominant individual"s orders, or actual group violence against dominant individuals. 

Homicide is not uncommon (and difficult to prevent) in hunter-gatherer societies. Other alternatives include expulsion of recalcitrant individuals, or mass emigration to another band to escape domination. 

Such strategies are possible due to the lack of sustained power differentials underwritten by resource differentials - in immediate-return economies no one person can become so powerful as to be immune to counter-dominant strategies. 

But when - as in delayed-return economies - high status individuals can appropriate a greater than equal share of resources, they are able to sustain this inequality by building alliances among high status individuals; and by enlisting supporters (eg. a "gang" or "bodyguard") to create larger and more powerful alliances, trading the stored resources as payment for cooperation (Barkow, 1992; Gellner, 1988).


In sum - the distribution of valued resources, such as food, tends to be equal, not because equality-of-everybody is positively valued; but instead because me-having-less than anyone-else is negatively valued. And those who have less, immediately gang-up on anyone who has more then them; and compel him to share it out.  


If counter-dominance is an approximately-correct explanation of the instinctual basis for "equality"; then it readily explains the observed structure and behaviour of modern Leftist ideology.

A close synonym for counter-dominance could be a spontaneous resentment at others having more than oneself; coupled with a tendency to form alliances with others having similar grievances against those who have more. 

Insofar as this is instinctual, it operates on people and situations in a person's perceived environment - which nowadays includes (and is perhaps dominated by) the "virtual" environment of mass and social media - reinforced by the "real life" social world of gossip and interaction, that so often takes up and amplifies themes from mass/ social media. 


For me, this idea of a double-negative, and resentment-based instinct helps explain the incoherence of Leftism - in that "The Left" is a collection of people with a collection of grievances, each rooted in the belief that anyone else having anything more of what I want is an "unjust" state of affairs. 

It is this instinct which leads to the supposed ethical principle of "egalitarianism" - that is manipulated by political leaders, in order to control (and weaken) the masses. 

Because, in a mass modern society, with multiple valued resources, there are many overlapping (hence incompatible) demands for equal sharing among many overlapping groups. There is never any greater equality in modern societies, and indeed this state is logically impossible because incoherent; but a there is instead a continual state of resentful complaint about inequality - as predicted by counter-dominance being at the root of it. 

And this continual state of resentful complaint is positively encouraged and reinforced by (and as) the value-system of Leftism.  


From a Christian perspective, we can see that resentment is a sin, indeed the master sin of modernity; and therefore that (insofar as the basis of equality really is counter-dominance) Leftism is rooted in evil motivation.

An evil motivation that is spontaneous and instinctive, hence powerful... 

Nonetheless, no matter how natural it may be (all sins are "natural", after all!); resentment is an evil that ought to be repented and minimized - not celebrated and encouraged. 

  

Tuesday, 12 March 2024

Blacksmith slave to an evil Lord: a parable for here-and-now

Assume you are a blacksmith and slave to an evil Lord...

(If it helps, you might imagine yourself a Saxon under the Norman yoke.) 


The Lord is evil in the sense that he organizes his entire estate to provide-for a gang dedicated to theft, arson, rape, torture and (just plain) murder. 

(Pretty much your standard Norman, in other words.) 


As a slave you are dispensable to the Lord, and your two options in life are therefore: 

1. To do what you are told - or 

2. Be killed. 


In other words, your freedom of moral action is restricted to refusing an order and getting killed for it. 

It can further be understood that if you do not do what you are told, there will be another who shall take your place and do it instead. So your refusal to do an evil act is purely moral (i.e between you and God) - it does not have any material effect. 

And let us further assume that you have a beloved wife and children, and if you are killed then they will die of starvation. 


The above scenario is not terribly far fetched, and there must have been many millions of people throughout history who lived in a way that approximates to the above. 

Furthermore, to anticipate; I would like you to draw out the moral analogies between the above situation; and the conditions under which you and I live. 


As a blacksmith, much of what you do is of general value: you make ploughs and sickles and the like. 

Yet anything and everything you make is ultimately (even if indirectly) used to sustain the evil Lord and his purpose. Much of the food grown goes to sustain his murderous gang, and so forth. 

But let's say, you feel morally OK so long as you are making ploughs and household goods, because they have at least a dual usage - good as well as evil... 


Then the Lord instructs you to make nothing but weapons - swords, halberds, spears... These are only going to be used for intimidation and violence. 

(But they also have some kind of defensive role - keeping away the other evil Lords who would slaughter you, and your family.) 


Then the Lord says that you must make iron instruments of torture, of various types. 

(These devices have no use but to inflict pain: they are for evil and evil only.) 


Then the Lord requires you to use your expertise in metals to assist in the process of torture - you will in fact become the Lord's expert torturer. 

(Now you are personally required to take an active role in the evil Lord's evil work.) 


The question is: at what point in this escalation, if any, is it right and necessary to refuse, and to be-killed, and your family also be-killed?


And, however you answer this; the moral point of this parable I ask you to grasp; is that these are all points on a quantitative scale - because whatever you do, you are materially assisting the work of evil. 

To close the loop: in this global totalitarian world that you and I inhabit; although the situation is less extreme and clear-cut: we are all the blacksmith slave. 

And I suggest we all ought, at some level, to acknowledge the moral facts and take personal responsibility; not in order to change the world for the better - but in order that we may repent.  


Thursday, 26 April 2018

The curse of agriculture

The Indian in his Solitude by NC Wyeth - this is more like the kind of thing...

Since the invention of farming, modern life has become a state of siege, a small gang of family and allies against a mass of hostile strangers, an island of order surrounded by overwhelming forces of chaos - planning is essential, yet most plans will fail. The world is not an unconditionally nurturing parent but must be coerced into producing the necessities of life, survival is a hard bargain, failure an ever present threat. For the farmer, the natural world is neither unchangeable nor ‘giving’ - it is raw material for the production of food and other necessities and luxuries. Production entails prolonged, dull, repetitive tasks to force nature into new and different shapes.

The conditions of [the] archetypal farm are harsh. This is not Eden but the curse of exile: only by the sweat of his brow does the man provide food for his family. Not only the man, of course; the woman, too, must work all and every day. The children are the labourers who will ease the burden of the cursed land.

The same forest that is a nurturing parent for the hunter-gatherer, becomes for the farmer a perpetual threat of savage encroachment. The world consist of objects to be manipulated:

The trees are felled, their root are hauled from the ground, stones are picked from the earth, invading wild plants and shrubs are rooted out again and again.. the soil will grow grass and vegetables only if a great deal else is “kept under control”, which means excluded or destroyed. Not only rival plant life, but also wild creatures that harm seeds, seedlings, buds or fruits, or eat the domestic animals… Weeds and vermin. These are the agents of wild nature that have to be walled out, scared off or killed.

And ‘the farmer’ stands for the modern human condition - the life of modern man is ‘farming’ the whole world. The serious business of survival now depends absolutely on a shift to objectification, control, imposed order. Animism must be denigrated, written-over and suppressed.

The distinction between respect and control is of immense importance to an understanding of how agriculturalists approach hunter-gatherers. The skills of farmers are centred not on their inner relationship to the world but their ability to change it. Technical and intellectual systems are developed to achieve and maintain this as completely as possible. Farmers carry with them systems of control as well as crucial seeds and livestock. These systems constitute ways of thinking as well as bodies of information. .. the achievement of abstraction and the project of control are related.

...The above is from an article I wrote about 15 years ago (and before I was a Christian).

I still feel much the same! And in consequence, I regard the historical situation, language and symbolism as sub-optimal to the degree that it assumes an agricultural (or industrial) society. Agriculture is intrinsically a sub-optimal way of life... 

I think we humans are 'meant' (by our natures) to live much less 'planned' lives than we do: less civilized and more natural; less institutional and more familial; less dependent on literacy and science and more spontaneously creative.

In sum, I believe that we are intended/ destined to return to living much more like hunter gatherers - but this time with a full awareness of our situation and from choice (rather than knowing nothing any different, or from necessity)... And if not in this world, then the next.


Thursday, 20 September 2012

The goodies are un-cool

*

One of the ways in which the Harry Potter novels, although traditional in their deep structure, were representative of the modern world, is that the goodies were not 'cool'.

In the modern world, pretty much everybody who is 'popular', cool, beautiful, smart, witty, successful, admired and fun is a baddie: that is, a servant of evil.

And the people on the right side are by comparison square, dumb, plain, lame, nuts, nerdy and boring.

Harry's school gang is a bunch of 'losers' that includes a swotty 'mudblood', a seedy and impoverished blood traitor, the clumsiest and least-talented kid in the school, and a loony.

(Admittedly, on the periphery there are also a beautiful redhead and some anarchical trickster twins.)

The lesson is a Christian one, as also seen in Narnia and Lord of the Rings - if Good is to prevail over evil (eventually) it will only be by love, courage and self-sacrifice - and the assistance of divine providence.

In the modern world, Good will never win due to its superior power - or because people on-the-side-of-Good (remembering there are no 'good people') are more cool and popular - the servants of Good are a bunch of despised losers who can only win with the intervention of divine providence - covertly apparent in the form of 'luck'.

But as chance favours the prepared mind, good fortune will favour only a loving heart.

*

Tuesday, 31 March 2026

The sunk cost fallacy in religion

This is: 

Because "we" (the group with whom I identify) have, over many past generations, sunk so much effort, resources, sufferings into such-and-such aspects of the religion;

"Therefore" I/Now cannot possibly conclude that such activities and actions are here-and-now now useless, or harmful. 

(Poor little me all alone; versus all-so-many, so great Them...) 


If I did; then I (little me, all by myself) would be saying that all-that effort/ resources/ suffering was a mistake. 

I would be rejecting and cutting-myself-off from the (justly great and venerable) ancestors who made and sustained my religion.

I would be putting my poor little self above all Them great and good... 


And thus people paint themselves into a corner of despair, hopelessness, and apostasy. 


Because the religion of the ancestors does not work anymore. 

Indeed, the poor-little "I" secretly (secret from itself, mostly) regards the religion of the ancestors and of the strong-majority as, in some important respects... well, flawed... Badly flawed. 

The secret heart cries-out against it, against some of the things some of my ancestors believed and did - so sincerely, so earnestly, for such sustained periods)...


But, anyway, whatever They thought/said/did - fact is: it doesn't work anymore.

It doesn't work they don't really believe it - but they are painted into a corner of That Or Nothing.  

Thus "Christianity" is weakened, and thus people reject "Christianity". 


It is their own fault. 

If we find ourselves painted into a corner, trapped by convictions into hope-less-ness - the first step towards escape is to recognize that we are actively doing this to ourselves.

By our own timidity: our fear, and lack of courage, and mental laziness...


And fundamental, ultimate, irresponsibility: The deep propensity (so common nowadays) to want to blame others for our predicament. 


Nobody can compel anyone else to give up this existential persecutory delusion; because it is consoling in the short-term; even as it is spiritually lethal in the longer-term. 

And vast swathes of people in the world (whole nations, races, ethnicities, ideologies) are in the grip of chosen-resentment and other-blame; including many powerful, rich and prestigious people (and groups) - people who we (poor little me!) would really like to have on our side! 

People think: "My life would be So Much easier and pleasanter and more secure; if I was part of a strong gang!


People are trapped by their own self-imposed and self-interested assumptions - and by their own fear, resentment, and despair. 

They reject any help that requires them to be courageous, active, and spiritually-autonomous. 

Which is why such people cannot be helped: if they do not help themselves first. 


Monday, 3 November 2025

"AI" is the reductio ad absurdum and revenge of "Truth is Out There"

There is a fundamental, integral, by-assumption incoherence of Western thinking; that was described by Rudolf Steiner in The Philosophy of Freedom (1894); then further elucidated by Owen Barfield in Saving the Appearances (1957). 

These deep errors have not been acknowledged so could neither be analysed* nor be reformed, therefore have remained; and now are wreaking their revenge in the strategically destructive nonsense that is the post-November 2022 totalitarian global project of "AI". 


Such metaphysical assumptions have led Western civilization to the apparently-inevitable conclusion that, since truth has nothing to do with the active thinking of living, conscious, purposive beings (such as human beings); "therefore" truth can be more efficiently and impartially "discovered and done" by computers.

For the AI-dolaters; Truth is something that can be built-into a logical system; and it is the job of rational humans to submit to... whatever that logical system tells us is true. 

For AI-dolaters - "AI" is just a mechanical tool for discovering, and perhaps implementing, those self-explaining and objective truths - "truths" which are implicitly regarded as floating around "out there", waiting to be discovered and used...

For the Truth Out There gang; Truths are like pre-cut diamonds mixed into a vast heap of useless rubble - and they regard AI as merely a machine for sifting through trash and extracting the valuable elements.  


There is widespread acceptance (among the managerial and intellectual class) of the false mantra of "Truth is Out There", objective, independent of what we think about it; with its implication that rational men therefore ought to submit to that external truth...

And because this nonsensical assumption is integral to the functioning of bureaucracy and functional discourse; the demon-serving powers-that-should-not-be - most of the middling people of Western society have ended-up supporting (by word and deed, even when there are vague mental reservations) an insanely-dysfunctional but mandatory project to "replace" human consciousness with machine algorithms in as many kinds of socio-economic activity as possible. 

This happens because it is lazily assumed that the only alternative to the fake reasonableness of Truth is Out There is the solipsism of Truth is in My Mind.*


Such vague ideas of the subjectivity of truth have been floating around the counter-culture for many decades, indeed a few centuries: e.g. "my truth" notions such that ultimate truth is wholly-subjective, is whatever I currently assert it to be. 

Such subjectivist "relativism" is just as incoherent as "Truth is Out There" - but in addition it is upfront socially subversive and destructive. 

So it seems that mainstream "responsible" opinion - which cannot/will-not reject the exclusive dichotomy of conception; it has doubled-down on Truth is Out There. 

Consequently; it is routinely pretended (but aggressively!) that real truths are objective, independent of minds and consciousness; and have nothing to do with what humans (or anyone else) thinks...


It is important to recognize that "external truth" assumptions, are shared across the divide between mainstream materialist-atheism and mainstream-church-Christianity.

Therefore; the totalitarian assumption that it is the duty of individuals to submit to external truth - is also shared by totalitarians of secular and Christian types. 

This, I suggest, is why the "Truth is Out There" Christians have so often embraced and celebrated the totalitarian AI Project. 


Church-rooted, or "systemic", Christianity on the one hand, and materialist-secular-atheism on the other hand; are in this respect two sides of the same coin of "Truth is Out There"-ism. 

And this explains their analogous failure to discern the fraudulent and evil-motivated nature of current "AI". 

The main difference between church-Christian and secular AI-dolaters, seems to be that the Christians want their AI systems to be "trained" on a somewhat different data set. 


Other than that; church-Christians seem to be eagerly anticipating a system of AI-religion - a fusion of bureaucracy and computers - that they hope will become objectively valid, and to which they believe we ought then to submit obediently.   


*Note added: the reason for the apparently exclusive dichotomy of truth as either wholly subjective or wholly objective; is that Western philosophy has assumed this separation and division into place - then finds that it cannot be bridged. Most who realize that the result is a choice of two incoherent possibilities then assert some version of Oneness spirituality - which also does not make sense, since it provides no basis for creation or human existence; and there is no basis in it for any distinction or discernment of life. The only coherent basis I have found is to assume that the fundamental reality is of pre-existent/ eternal living beings, and this is the basis of true distinction and discernment. We start with Beings. And divine creation is a matter of developing relationships and creating cooperation between such Beings. This means that the baseline is that all knowledge is a product of the relationships between conscious Beings - so that detached subjectivity and objectivity are alike meaningless. 

Sunday, 5 May 2024

Ahem - The Empire (in Star Wars) Was evil... Obviously!

Seriously guys: these are The Goodies in Star Wars? 

Over the years and recently, I've seen several "revisionist" arguments that The Empire in the original Star Wars trilogy of movies, was actually good. 

This is the conclusion of evaluating Luke Skywalker and his gang of rebels to be the real baddies; broadly on the basis that they are, at root, just the usual leftist-fantasy revolutionaries, as imagined by the 1960s US counterculture.


But this is nuts! Regardless of the nature of the rebels; The Empire was clearly depicted as a totalitarian regime, ruled by "demonic" (Dark Side) affiliated and control-motivated types. 


This specific error of discernment is worth noting, because it is one instance of a general phenomenon that is an increasingly frequent and powerful: defending Ahrimanic evil, on the pragmatic basis that it is not-so-bad as the changes being proposed; to the point of actively supporting that evil.

In this instance of Original Star Wars, which is from some fifty years ago when Luciferic evil had been strong for the last time in the form of the sixties version of hedonic "freedom" - the idea is that we ought to take the side of communitarian order against the chaos ensuring from individualistic self-expression. 

Nowadays; the Ahrimanic System is mostly defended against the spitefully-destructive Sorathic spirit of encouraging war, famine and disease. 


The snare is that it is natural and good up-to-a-point to defend that which is traditional, culturally-significant, and functional - which will include much that is virtuous, beautiful and true - against that which would remove it.

But only good up-to-a-point; because these are ultimately - from an eternal and spiritual perspective - secondary matters; and we therefore must be prepared to abandon them when resistance does more harm than good.

(I should be clear. To defend any-particular-thing which is good can itself become evil - when it leads towards affiliation to evil hence rejection of salvation. No matter how specifically good some-thing may be, there may come a point that it must be set-aside. Such is the nature of our life, task, and challenge in this mortal life.)  

The snare is that we are - in practice - offered a package-deal; in which the package is the net-evil Ahrimanic System, and we can only retain the many specific "goods" by sustaining net evil totalitarianism - and when such arguments from practicality become internalized and personalized into a spiritual affiliation to the side of evil.   


For Christians; this happens with their churches. 

There are always powerfully destructive forces at work against anything that is noble, beautiful and meaningful in the churches. 

These attacks are (almost invariably for the past few generations) evil-motivated; whether the Luciferic evil of desiring permission and endorsement for one's own (often sex-related or sexual - sometimes materialist/ careerist) sins. Sometimes the attacks are motivated by sheerly spiteful pleasure of destroying that which is regarded as a source of Good. 

Yet (beyond a certain point) to pour time, energy and effort into resisting these many-pronged attacks sooner-or-later actually entails supporting an already net-evil social institution that is deeply integrated into the global totalitarian bureaucracy. 


In other words; to defend the church tends strongly to slide-into defending The Empire - which is exactly what we see with the revisionist interpretations of Star Wars. 

Because all large, powerful, ancient, mainstream Christian churches depend-upon The System for their survival; as well as because the churches are under continual attack from Luciferic and (increasingly) Sorathic forces...

Then we get the very familiar phenomenon of loyal and devout Christian church members who implicitly, covertly but decisively have abandoned their Christianity; and affiliated with Ahrimanic totalitarianism. 


"The rebels" usually are wrong and would make matters worse; however, The Empire is - by nature and intent - a machine designed for the damnation of Men; and we Must Not forget that massive fact! 

 

Monday, 22 January 2024

Be a spiritual warrior, not an "information warrior" - an essay by Francis Berger

Francis Berger has written a masterly essay that deserves serious attention. 


It begins by observing how the globalist totalitarians; such as those of the Davos/ WEF gang - or indeed essentially-all multi-national organization, Western governments, the mass media and large social institutions generally - have in recent months been "trailing their coats" (i.e. looking for a fight) on the subject of what they call "disinformation" - by which they mean facts inconvenient to Their strategies. 

As Berger describes; it seems natural for Christians to take up this challenge to The Truth by becoming - more or less - "Information Warriors": and thereby entering the globalists arena to content the nature of "factual truth". 

It seems natural... but it is a strategic mistake for Romantic Christians; because by accepting these terms of engagement, we have given ultimate victory to those who are asserting that Reality is merely the passively-imposed sum of our perceptions, of what we believe to be "true facts". 


This is the metaphysics of Information War: a world in which human beings are externally manipulated either into believing the truth, or lies - and where Christians ought to take-up-arms on the side of truth. 

However; by this metaphysics of Man's passivity; whatever the specific outcome of any particular battle over true facts might be; the world picture being accepted is one in which whoever controls public discourse, necessarily controls the minds of Men. 

Consequently, by such reasoning; to be an active Christian should mean to become some kind of Information Warrior, fighting the Information War. 


But the Information War is not the Spiritual War!

Thus; Berger goes on to re-locate discussion at the metaphysical level of our ultimate underlying assumptions concerning the nature of reality: which is the level from-which what counts as "true facts", versus what counts as "disinformation", is actually generated. 

(Because all "evidence" depends on assumptions as to what-counts-as evidence, and what-counts-as strong evidence, and what-counts-as winning an argument.)

Such an examination leads us to recognize that information is Not ultimate; but instead what is ultimate is "direct-knowing". 


Only from a basis in direct-knowing can there be information. Information - words, images, audio and every other kind - is "symbolic"; and symbols are intermediate in communication, standing between the communicator and communicatee. 

Information is mediated communication, and all symbols requires decoding - yet that decoding is into yet more symbols! - and so, unless direct-knowing is acknowledged as possible, there can be no escape from symbols! 

One who believes in the primacy of information is confronted by an infinite regress of interpretations, where "truth" dissolves into whatever people can be manipulated to believe.


Berger concludes that the implied invitation to Information War is designed to lure us into a spiritual trap; which is a version of "relativistic" or "subjectivist" metaphysics. 

We are being asked spiritually to endorse a world where everybody chooses to believe that Information is the primary reality; a world in which our minds, attitudes, beliefs, behaviours etc. are playthings and tools of those who control public discourse.  

Ultimately, Information War is conceptually fought between rival totalitarian tyrants; and Christians are being asked to support (that oxymoron) Christian totalitarianism*; as the alternative to Satanic totalitarianism. 

(*In reality; totalitarianism is always because intrinsically evil; that is, intrinsically opposed to Man's proper task in divine creation -- Because the assumption of freedom, of agency - and therefore the possibility and primacy of individual spiritual choice - is foundational to Christianity.)    


Therefore; Berger advises us to decline the implied "invitation" to become Information Warriors ("or else" accept the fate we have devised for you!); and instead to take our own thinking down to a level deeper than wrangling over "facts".


Saturday, 30 August 2025

Dealing with fear by personal thoughts of faith and love; not via groupism, nor with optimism, pride, or safety-seeking

People always want to know "what to do" - and this need is used to manipulate us.

Because all the standard available notions of "doing good" and improving-the-world are long since captured and put to work for strategic evil...

But, of course, we really do need to know what to do! 


There's always a lot of the sin of fear about; it is infectious and people also have a tendency to seek it (a misplaced sense of "duty" to face the "reality" of "the worst" (in practice, "the worst" as interpreted and presented by the mass media) and overcome it. 

Chronic, existential fear isn't something that can be avoided or eradicated (at least, not for those capable of the experience). 

Yet we do genuinely need to overcome; we need to deal with fear; so we need to consider how to deal with it.


Typical wrong ways of dealing with fear include optimism - adopting a belief that the feared thing cannot or will not happen; or pride - that if it does happen, I personally (and my gang) can overcome it. 

Another wrong way is to seek safety from the feared - to flee it, or defend against it. 

These are bad ways of dealing with fear; because they are negative, they try to use one sin to fight another. 

Thus - optimism is dishonest, pride is this-worldly, safety is impossible in this mortal earthly life... 


Others fight fear by trying to build protective alliances, "groups" - with the implication that fear is something we collectively intend to defeat, sometime in the future, so long as we can persuade or coerce other people to join un in the fight...

But fear needs to be fought immediately - not in the future, and this means fought by each person as-he-now-is, and individually. 

We must take personal responsibility to do what is needed, without delaying for conditions to improve.  


The first faith required is that God would not leave us without the necessary resources. So anybody and everywhere can do what is needed - it's a matter of knowing what. 

Also, the answer will be (must be) for individuals and not dependent on social factors, will be immediate, can be consciously adopted - and is a matter of free action. 

The answer is therefore going to be neither hard nor abstract - and shall be within anyone's grasp who chooses it. 


Since we know that the answer must be possible to happen individually, immediately, and therefore directly. 

It's pretty well-known among Christians that we should fight fear with love and faith (a loving kind of faith, faith in the ultimate power of love).

But people get hung-up on exactly what such action means in practice, here-and-now...


For instance; faith is usually weak, and often weak because external in source, self-contradicting, and neither grasped nor inwardly endorsed. 

Faith will not overcome fear unless is real and strong to us personally, which means experientially. 

And of course Christian faith needs to be in God the creator, known as personal, parental, and good (not, therefore, faith another kind of God with other characteristics) 


Love is the basis of divine creation; and love cannot be dictated - therefore to be effective for good, love must be genuine. 

We can only make a positive difference for that which we really love. 

And as for action - the false assumption of our materialist civilization is that action must be physical to be effective; whereas if action is to be individual and immediate - then such action needs to be known as spiritual not physical; and thinking recognized as (potentially) an action that affects divine creation. 


So it is possible for any person to do positive good for whatever and whoever he really loves, and almost instantly; by thinking upon the subject on the above lines. 

But the needful will probably only click, and happen, pretty briefly...

Because the conditions necessary are rather delicate. And what it is that happens is known primarily by direct apprehension; rather than indirectly via images, words, concepts and the like...

Description and communication come after the needful has happened, and will be approximate at best - that should be expected, and not regarded as a weakness or refutation of what has happened. 


All of which also needs a kind of faith in the way that "things work" in divine creation  - by love and spiritually - also, faith that God will take notice and incorporate what brief yet significant good we may accomplish in such ways. 

 

Wednesday, 5 August 2026

Christian conversion as a loyalty-test initiation

One of the reasons that so many deeply-dissatisfied atheist-materialists are repelled from Christianity; is that Christianity means picking a church or denomination and then obeying it. 

As with a gang or cult; the prime demand is for loyalty to the institution; and this is enforced by initiation through loyalty tests. 

Typically, the covert is required to believe and affirm some things he regards as false; and (which is probably worse) must state that some bad things are good.  

There is often a honeymoon period after conversion when everything seems easy - but the loyalty tests will soon arrive!


One classic is Abraham being ordered - as a test of obedience to divine will - to sacrifice his son Isaac; so that he is faced with a choice of disobedience to God and ritual murder of his child. 

The test is that we must agree and believe that the Right Answer was to kill Isaac: that the goodness of God is axiomatic whatever God asks of us; and obedience to the incomprehensible divine will is essential, while eschewing gross evil and doing what we personally believe to be good is irrelevant. 


Well, that is the Old Testament - but there are also some stark loyalty tests in the New; such as the story of Ananias in Acts of the Apostles*. First Ananias, and then his wife, are struck dead by divine will for some combination of withholding tithes from Peter, and then lying to cover the sin. 

The episode seems to be presented as an exemplary punishment - as a warning and deterrent to others not to do this kind of thing. 

No doubt it would have been very effective at ensuring tithes got paid; but... Well, this kind of justice is more like the Forest Laws of the Normans, than the behaviour of a wholly good God whose children we are. 


What such loyalties resemble is a kind of bait and switch con practiced on the convert - who hopes and intends to buy one thing, but being induced to accepts another, and much less desirable thing. 

Or the Christian feels like a Man induced to sign a contract; who then finds himself bound by all kinds of things written in the "small print" of which he had been unaware, and would not wanted to agree-to.

Each church has its reasons for such practice; and claims that the requirements are all logically entailed and/or absolutely necessary for the integrity of the whole. Such tests are seen as a part of the process of learning what it really means to be a Christian. 


However; I have come to see these loyalty-tests as corrupting of Christians, in a process that continues and worsens. 

This process is one I regard as corrupting, because it always seems to push converts towards a conceptualization of God rooted in power not love; and a conceptualization of Christianity as derived-from the group and enforced by authority via rules and tests and practices.

It is this effect of Christian conversion (or devout practice) that is so repellent to non-Christians; and is worsened by Christians who assert that there is no alternative. 

And indeed, there is no institutional or this-worldly alternative; since the attempts at "liberalization" all lead out from Christianity and into conformist left-secularism.  


The only real alternative I can imagine is to recognize Christianity is primarily and essentially a matter between Jesus Christ and each Man individually - not bound-up vitally with any institution; and concerned primarily with what happens to each of us after death, rather than what happens during this mortal life.

Of course institutions are essential and anyway unavoidable; and of course post-mortal expectations can and should influence this moral life...

But it is a matter of what is primary, essential, and mandatory; from which the rest grows and develops. 

It is a matter of the true and necessary root of Christianity.   



* Acts. 5 [1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, [2] And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. [3] But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? [4] Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. [5] And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. [6] And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. [7] And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. [8] And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. [9] Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. [10] Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.  

Friday, 28 March 2014

The key to understanding the modern Left

*

The key to understanding the modern Left is that it is 95% destructive, and its positive 5% is continually rotating between (for example) the primacy of equality, anti-sexism, anti-racism, promotion of sexual inversion, liberty, the environment... and others.

Which means that, in practice, the Left is 100% destructive - because its positive agendas conflict and destroy one another, as they rotate.

The modern Left is thus, over the long term, a means of wholesale destruction.

*

The Old Left (Marxists, Communists, Socialists) was essentially about promoting economic equality - and this took priority over everything else - including the abolition of poverty, which was done much better by 'Capitalism'.

But economic equality was (at first, anyway) sincerely-pursued by the Old Left - even when it led to economic collapse, famine, racism, sexism, and wholesale environmental destruction.

*

Post the mid-1960s the Left transformed into an ever-expanding 'rainbow coalition' of interest groups - feminists, assorted economically-unsuccessful minority races and ethnicities, environmentalists, Human Rights activists, promoters of first sexual liberation then inversion of traditional sexual values, criminals, illegal immigrants, the permanently-economically-dependent, and so on.

Thus the Left become democratically-overwhelming; while at the same time it became ideologically-incoherent - indeed utterly self-contradictory.

The actually-existing New Left is a loose grouping of asset-stripping interest groups, whose alliance is merely a tactical agreement to gang-up-on and exploit (or simply destroy) the diminishing minority of non-Left.

*

So the modern Left has no overall, cohesive, explicit strategy because all its claimed positive strategies cancel-out - its true underlying strategy is therefore implicit and denied.

Anyone who really cares about any one of the Left's supposed priorities - whether that be economic inequality, the sociopolitical situation of women, or of a particular race - can see that the New Left damages all of these groups in real terms.

*

The New Left actually, really, overall and significantly promotes inequality, damages the interests of women and racial minorities, damages the environment - over a timescale of decades, the Left damages everything for everybody.

All winners are temporary - today's winners (e.g. the Proletariat - the native male working class labourers) are tomorrow's demonized losers - in rotation.

Why is this not more obvious? Two words: the Mass Media - to which the population is ever-increasingly addicted, and which defines reality as whatever is expedient for Mass Media purposes. 

*

The Left is misunderstood.

The New Left, the modern Left of Political Correctness, is not a conspiracy of Men, it is NOT about promoting the interests of any particular group - overall and in the long term.

The Politically Correct Left is NOT about pursuing equality, fighting sexism or racism, saving the environment or anything else positive - these are merely tactical excuses.

*

The long-term reality is that the Left is negative, destructive; wholesale, all-round, and strategically.

And this is impossible to human agency: strategic universal destructiveness is only attributable to non-human, purposive evil.

*

This is why there is a fundamental and ineradicable conflict - indeed there is a war - between Christianity and the Left.

Good people, even real Christians, may for various reasons find themselves fighting on the wrong side in this war; but that does not affect the fact that they are objectively fighting on the wrong side.

At this point in history, where we are now; a Christian Leftist or a Leftist Christian is an oxymoron.

In war, everyone necessarily fights on one side, or the other: God or Satan.    

*

Friday, 5 June 2026

Can Christianity escape from the authority of "History"?

The question of "History" - that there is an objectively-true, evidenced account of the past: of how things came to be the way they are now - is one that has been very strong since the subject of History began to emerge as a distinctive discipline, detached (supposedly!) from religious (later ideological) justifications and dishonesties. 

But the idea that true history emerges from "the evidence" turns-out to be as false as the analogous argument for the natural sciences; in both cases coherence and proof is provided by theory, and theory must come prior to evidence.

...Because without a prior theory; how would anyone decide what (from infinite perceptions etc) counted as evidence, its relative value compared with other evidence, or what a piece or collection of evidence meant? 


In mainstream culture this has left us with two false and incoherent alternatives. 

On the one hand, multiple rival blustering and categorical assertions* that This is The Truth about history - assertions that ignore the dependence on prior theory. 

And on the other side the supposedly radical "relativist" subversion that states "everything is ideology" so that objective truth has no meaning, so that truth cannot be known and is just a consequence of power - assertions that ignore their blatant self-subversion. 

For these folk; History is just a story made-up by the winners, and the discipline of History something created to reach the conclusions they have already-decided - and any other story can have equal validity.  


And that is pretty much how things stand. 

The traditionalist, orthodox, religious reactionary side wrongly assert that the evidence for their assertions is objective; and the radical, liberal, "reforming" side of religion asserts that their own take on the world is better than that of the conservatives; despite that they have previously asserted that "better" has no objective meaning and is merely a consequence of power.

Usually, people "pick a side" because they can see no alternative, and in order to join a gang; and stoutly continue to ignore the fatal weakness, the non-objectivity of their own position, its dependence on theoretical assumptions; by relentlessly focusing on the fatal weakness and non-objectivity of their opponents position. 

The choice that culture forces upon us is between "truth is what I say" and "there is no truth" - both based on circular and incoherent arguments!


What should we do when faced with two false alternatives? 

Should we do what most people do when confronted by mainstream electoral politics, or rival sports teams located in your home city: just pick a side then support it fanatically - while demonizing the opposition.

Is that really the best we can do when confronted by the most fundamental problems of our human existence? 

  

People need to recognize that the dilemma is one of our own creation, and rooted in an unexamined assumption that the truth about reality is and must-be a public consensus.

The false modern dilemma of choosing between two falsehoods, arises from our own built-in assumption that truth is either a consensus located externally and communally and with nothing to do with me - my job being only to choose to submit to it or deny it... 

Or else "truth" is nothing-but inside my head... whatever my brain happens to be telling me at this instant. 

What we need is obvious enough - we need to understand how truth both depends on me and my assumptions and thinking; and truth also is about reality, about things (entities) other than myself.


I think the distinction we need is between things existing, and knowledge about them. We must assume - and indeed are born assuming - that other entities exist. 

Doubts about the existence of reality emerge later, and indeed are large distinctive to relatively modern times (the past few centuries). 

These doubts are reinforced by the impossibility of finding "evidence" that other entities exist outside of our own thoughts about them. 

Solipsism (the belief that nothing exists outside myself) cannot be refuted in its own terms, cannot be refuted by "evidence". Solipsism is thus a pathology caused by the choice to deny what we innately know; a choice to explain everything by constructing and entering a circle of subjectivity.  


On the other side; the blustering assertions of the reality of reality, are nearly-always actually assertions about our knowledge of reality. 

For instance, religious people are not content to assume the innate understanding in the objective reality of God as another entity from "me"; but combine the innate with asserting the objectivity of their own claim for knowledge of God's (many and complex!) attributes. 

They conflate the innately understood reality of God, with knowledge of the "theological-God". Thereby re-entering the false-dilemma debate that undermines all such claims...

After which the conservative religious will usually bluster and shout his knowledge-assertions while pouring scorn on those who do not share them...

While the radical-liberal religious will usually adopt a passive aggressive strategy of undermining the possibility of any objective and universal knowledge about reality - to distract from the fact he is making his own assertions concerning reality, and is assuming these assertions are more-true than the conservative's. 



To loop back - how can we take account of History in such a situation; when we assume that there was a real history that led up to the present, but all our specific knowledge of that history is undermined by the subjective-objective distinction!

When History has become Impossible!

Especially this is a problem; in that Christianity is located in History; and happened at a particular past time and place. 


When History has become impossible in the mainstream of public discourse - this must (and does) have a profoundly subversive effect on Christianity.     

Christians can neither depend on "objective History" nor can they allow History to be wholly personal and subjective. 

When it comes to History; there is the choice of two sides for the Christian, yet both sides are lethal to Christianity. 


The answer? Well; because the insoluble problem is located in the domain of public discourse, and the phenomenon of consensus; then the Christian cannot root his religion in public discourse. 


And "cannot" means cannot - because insofar as a Christian does root religion in public discourse, his religion Will Be subverted - as we see all around us**. 

And "public discourse" includes all churches. 


My conclusion is that the historical religion of Christianity now cannot be rooted-in churches, cannot derive-from churches, cannot be "what a church says". 

And that "cannot" means cannot. 


Notes: 

*The blustering and aggressive tone characteristic of many trads is not universal; but the attempt to avoid it with an attitude of personal humility directed at the authority of the chosen-church is undermined by the fact that the church has been personally chosen, as has the attitude adopted to that church. The much more proximate bribes and threats of (for example) mainstream political, bureaucratic and media institutions will easily overcome the scruples of a would-be humble-trad Christian; by interpreting his stance of obedience as instead a personal choice - which indeed it is. The self-identified humbly-obedient therefore gets depicted as an arrogantly individual wilfully-rejecting the consensus of decent people: the social-psychological pressure from such a framing is typically way too much for a self-identified humble-trad to resist, without ceasing to be humble! The choice to obey a chosen church rather than to obey the law or corporate rules, genuinely is ultimately a personal choice - no matter how humbly chosen.   

**There is a strong and chronic and continuing tendency of Christians (as well as other religions and grouping) to assimilate-into the core agenda of atheist-materialist-totalitarianism. And the direction of this tendency - although not the speed by which it operates - applies across the board, to Christians of all denominations and churches, to traditionalists as well as liberals. Liberal Christians have no compelling reason to resist the authority of the secular Western leadership class, and typically embrace all the major totalitarian strategies - since they explicitly share a core ideology. Traditionalists also converge with mainstream atheism over time, having the role of "controlled opposition". This assimilation happens because they strive for socio-political institutional Establishment in actual context of The System; and this project intrinsically entails working-within System constraints, -from System assumptions, and -with System evidence/ facts/ procedures.