The fake nature of geopolitical discourse - All things to all men, hence an instrument of the devil

Everybody loves geopolitical explanations! - at least, everybody in the mass media, and most people else where. 

And yet, using geopolitical analysis, which sounds hard-nosed, and (sort-of) objective... Everybody reaches a different conclusion!

This should serve as a warning, a Red Flag; that we are dealing with some-thing that is evil; and evil not by its usage but by its very nature. 

In other words; we engage in evil when we use and believe geopolitical discourse to discuss and analyze 'world events'. 

Geopolitics is wrong for two main reasons - or classes of reason. 

The first and most fundamental wrongness is that geopolitics is materialistic in its assumptions: geopolitics excludes the reality of God, creation and all that is of the spirit. 

Because these are excluded, and yet these are real and primary; geopolitical discourse misses-out most of what is most important. 

Secondly geopolitics is wrong because it has too many, too subjective, too imprecise, variables.

For a start; geopolitical analysis is based upon evaluating "interest" - in the sense of benefit. In other words, asking who benefits-overall from options X versus Y or Z. 

Yet this matter of what interest means, or what benefit is overall most important, is utterly vague and conjectural. 

Because we cannot perceive another's motivations, all such imputations are - at bottom - little more than guesswork and assumption; that can neither be confirmed nor refuted, because in practice all possible outcomes are compatible with all imputations of interest. 

Any person - and more so any institution, corporation, ethnic group or nation - has many things that might be called interests, many possible ways in which (we suppose) they might benefit (money, power, fame, sex...); and many more ways in which they might wish to avoid harms and suffering (poverty, humiliation, pain, confinement...). 

We can't ever be validly-confident concerning which interest is actually important, or most important, or how the various interests might interact? 

And there will surely be other genuine interests we do not know, have not thought about, or which we under-rate. 

This fundamental and fatal imprecision in geopolitics is compounded by further variables; two in particular - time-scale, and interest-group-boundaries.

Timescale

What is best in the short-term of here-and-now, is almost never the best possibility in the longer-term. Conversely, the best long term possibilities are nearly-always associated with immediate disadvantage or serious risk. 

So, geopolitical analysis has vast - and fatal - wriggle room in identifying self-interest and other kinds of interest; since almost any timescale can be used to 'explain' things - from the immediate and tactically useful, to many and various longer term and 'strategic' advantages... 

Ultimate long term benefit can be assumed for anything from days, weeks and months ahead, to years or even decades ahead; and such assumed benefit  can therefore explain almost any activity leading to almost any outcome.  

Interest-group-boundary

On top of all this, there is the question of who exactly is supposed to be benefitting? Such benefit comes at every level between extremes of the individual, and the entirety of the human population. 

Some specific individual (such as a monarch, president, or dictator); or also their family and minions? Or should it be assumed that some rival person or faction stands to benefit. 

Are we talking about a class (like Marxists)? or are we talking about a race or religion? 

Or maybe it is a corporation or some other social institution like a profession of a branch of government like the military?

At a larger scale - are we talking about a whole nation's interest; or maybe some larger alliance of nations? Or it is the globalist perspective that is being promoted - with multinational organizations?  

Or maybe the interest being sought is that of a secret cabal or conspiracy? 

I hope it is, by now, sufficiently clear that geopolitics is so imprecise and slippery a discourse that it can  explain anything in any number of ways; can blame anyone (or nobody) with equal pseudo-validity! It can impute almost any kind of motivations and intentions, across almost any time-frame.

And, in sum, I hope it is clear that geopolitical analysis is a fake!

So, why do we all so easily and often fall into it (I do not exempt myself). 

The reason is that geopolitical discourse is ultimately a demonic temptation; and (as Jesus told us) we are all sinners! Many of us will fall tpo the temptations of geopolitics - especially when so many other people are doing it, all the time. 

Geopolitics is inescapable, because geopolitical discourse functions - at high levels of power, where people take such matter seriously, to justify anything to anyone. 

Consider a war, as an example. 

Geopolitics can appeal to the interests of people on opposite sides of wars, to all kinds of rival factions within those sides and crossing those side - and reference interest across all timescales*... 

Such that every-body and every-group (at least all with power) may simultaneously believe that he is pursuing his interests by starting a war, escalating a war, pursuing that war!  

Now; imagine that - behind all the geopolitical discourse was some person or group - call him Satan! - who wanted war, or societal destruction - starvation, torment, disease... Wanted these for their own sake, from sheer spitefulness, because they made him feel good... because that is his nature.  

"Satan" could pursue his destructive goals via geopolitics; by identifying powerful individuals and groups, and encouraging them all to pursue particular kinds of self-interest... different groups, different benefits, different timescales...  

So - in the end - lots of people and groups were following Satan's agenda of destruction; but each and all of them were under the impression that each was pursuing his own self-interest! (Various kinds of interest, over some various time-frames). 

Such is the nature our world - and increasingly so. 

We cannot cease to sin altogether; but we can recognize and repent our sins - and that is what we ought to do in relation to geopolitics. 

We can recognize that geopolitics is a fake discipline, that provides fake explanations to-order; and is therefore used to manipulate people towards underlying goals of which they may all be unaware. 

Because behind geopolitics lies the spiritual war of this world; and that (not geopolitics) is where we should be looking for explanations and guidance. 

*To clarify: those who desire to trigger, sustain or escalate the destructiveness of war; will typically try to work using individuals and groups on both sides of the conflict; agents who - using geopolitical arguments - can both simultaneously be convinced that war will be in their own interests - of one sort or another (power, money, religious), in one timescale or another (but - in war - usually short-medium term). 

Geopolitics and national interest: pervasive, seductive - but not a real thing

Geopolitics is everywhere, you can't get away from it, and it is nigh impossible to escape falling into engaging in it. 

People do geopolitical analyses and offer geopolitical explanations, every day many times a day; in politics, media, academia, and conversations; relating to all kinds of things from wars to other types of inter-national conflict. 

Yet, I have said elsewhere, geopolitics is intrinsically evil; but I would add here that it is gratuitously evil. It is not necessary: we don't need to do it. 

I have come to the conclusion that geopolitics isn't a real thing; and probably never has been a real thing.

Geopolitics is an artificial abstraction that treats nations as agents - as purposive "beings" that interact, inter-relate, cooperate or compete - and the like. 

But everything I have discovered on these subjects, or at least everything about which I am confident, goes against this way of reasoning.

To be more exact, I don't think that things ever happen because such a course of action is "good for the national interests" of a country. 

There may be a lot of other possible reasons why things happen - but not the "good for national interest" reason: this seems always to be a false (and usually incoherent) excuse for something much smaller scale and specific than the nation - something personal, clannish or tribal.

**

Furthermore, "promoting the national interest" is a positive motivation - something intended to improve. 

But I have come to believe that the real reasons of inter-national events and policies are nearly always negative. 

In other words; the real reason for actions, policies, and wars is not to promote positive benefit, but instead to cause negative harm. 

What I mean is that the primary motivation in geopolitics is almost-always something like hatred, disgust, or resentment, a desire to cause suffering, destruction, death - rather than any genuine and strong idea of "doing good".  

And these negative motivations are best understood as operating at a level much closer to the personal (e.g. individual, clan, tribe) than to the national. 

Such negative motivations seem to be almost invisible to analysis (certainly on "our side"), partly because positive motivations are much more positively regarded; but also because the possibility of primarily negative motivation is seldom entertained*. 

We deny the strength and dominance of negative motivations inter-nationally, ultimately because we deny this in our-selves.  

There is a genuine reluctance to interpret international affairs in terms of hatred, disgust, resentment, and the desire to harm - yet such motivations may be openly-acknowledged, or expressed frequently in casual speech and writing, inter-personally or inside groups, and off-the-official-record. 

We may do, we almost certainly do, exactly this ourselves! 

But furthermore, aside from open admissions; primarily negative motivations may easily be inferred from consistent long-term patterns - so long as we actually look at these.   

Of course; negative motivations are operative in many inter-personal and intra-national affairs as well  as globally - fuelling all sorts of conflicts and violence from that between sexes, classes, jobs, regions, races, religions, ideologies... 

Indeed, anything about which people have strong preferences and convictions is potential ground for the operation of negative motivations - the desire to harm; being masked by false explanations and excuses concerning an alleged desire to protect or promote some larger values and entities. 

In a nutshell; I am saying that spitefulness - which I regarded as the worst of all sins - is a much bigger influence on life in this mortal world than is commonly acknowledged. 

And furthermore; the frequency and strength of that extreme evil of the sin of spite needs first to be recognized in ourselves; before it can be recognized, and taken account of, in others.  

We need to be honest about the microcosm that we know from primary personal experience, before we can understand the macrocosm that we know by inference from secondhand reports and reasoning. 

*NOTE ADDED: Because of this reluctance to consider the primacy of negative motivations; the way that negations usually operate in current Western geopolitics, is by the most powerful people and groups successfully convincing the less powerful that policies and strategies which are in truth motivated by hatred, revenge and sheer spitefulness; are instead going to benefit those persons and groups whose cooperation is needed. This pattern of negative masquearding as positive is transparently evident in the current warmongering - if one can entertain the possibility: evident from the incoherence and inconsistency of positive "national interest" justifications. But it can also be observed in the oppositional nature of all modern politics. Since positive intent became inconceivable (due to the denial of God and cosmic personal purpose) and opposition by default became core to public discourse, negative evil has had open season.   

Parasitic destruction - Increasing local order, by increasing total entropy? The Neo-Darwinian assumption of Western geopolitics

Deep theorists of biological evolution since Schrodinger, have (by ignoring his speculations on negentropy) mostly assumed that it is a parasitic process; which exploits already-existing order. 

This is inevitable in an atheistic context, where divine creation is rejected. 

In effect; because entropic change (and death) is unavoidable; modern secular societies must theoretically derive order from chaos - because nothing else is conceivable, must derive adaptive evolution from a tendency towards random disorder combined with zero-sum competition, positive from negative, good from evil.

In a nutshell; local creation is seen as only possible by net-destruction.   

What happens (in ultimate terms) from this mainstream secular "Neo-Darwinian" point-of-view is that an organism maintains or increases its own functional order by increasing total entropy.

(When the existence of a positively creative force/ tendency/ purpose has been ruled-out by assumption, and only negative/ destructive/ entropic tendencies are allowed for consideration - then some version of this "getting positive outcomes from from negative inputs" must be the case. Neo-Darwinian evolution is the best known version of such reasoning; Adam Smith-type "free market economics" is another.)   

For instance; the functionality of an animal depends upon them consuming (using-up) the energy and organization of plants; and plants use-up inputs of solar energy to construct high energy molecules that are used by animals to remain functional. 

All the time; no matter the level or organization achieved by organisms and their social structures; overall entropy is increasing, net energy is being used-up by the existence of organisms - and societies.

This model has, over the past century and a half, become the basis for the fundamental value-system of first Western, then global, society. 

To put it differently; all that is "good" (i.e. functional) in a society - effectiveness, prosperity, capability, law and order, consumer goods, entertainment... All this necessarily and ultimately derives from a parasitic exploitation - by a process of extraction. 

Such parasitic exploitation typically including other societies. 

Because every such transformation of order is always less than 100 percent efficient (usually much less) then every time there is extraction there is loss of order, i.e. increase of entropy. So that the more finance, industry, trade, exchange, complexity of organization is generated and sustained; the greater must be the increase in disorder which is its price.

Indeed, such processes are not zero-sum (whereby the positive/ good/ creative is merely a re-arrangement of what went before); but less-than-zero-sum - because we always end-up with less of the good stuff than we began-with.  

Such a less-than-zero-sum world view is (I infer) explicit among the leadership classes - it is (I think) a "dirty secret" about geopolitics; something shared among the social strategists in private; and a secret by which they are initiated-into the power club.

And because this class of people have either excluded the divine and creative as unreal, or else (at the highest levels) explicitly joined with the demonic alliance against God; these people "know" that they "themselves" can only thrive - can only be prosperous, powerful, comfortable, and have pleasurable lives -  by destruction of others. 

The conviction is that - in an ultimate and absolute sense; "their" well-being (both physical and psychological, and indeed spiritual) is only achievable via actual destruction of the well-being of others. 

They "understand" that to generate what "they" desire, necessarily entails a greater volume of destruction of what "other people" desire. 

This is the dirty secret by which they operate. 

And this is what is happening, all the time and all over the place - it is the world-view that drives Western strategic policies of all kinds - although this is covert, except among the higher human leadership class (i.e. many national "leaders" and CEOs of big corporations are ignorant of this reality - believing in ideological nonsense and serving only as manipulated puppets).  

Western Geopolitics is a combination of the (Ahrimanic) totalitarian desire for control and social order as primary goal; with the recognition that this can only be achieved for a small and shrinking minority and by means of (Sorathic) destructive-exploitation of the majority. 

The driving belief is that the greater the destruction of the mass majority, the more "order" and "energy" will be liberated for exploitation...

The greater the scale of mass collapse into social dysfunctionality - the greater the scope there shall be for generating small islands of order and purpose; by transmutation of the energies and potentialities of a collapsing world, into that which they desire for themselves. 

At the highest level of anti-God, anti-creation evil, the demons understand that this vastness of destruction consumes itself, and the number of those who "benefit" from parasitic destruction will necessarily always be shrinking, and as matters proceed that shrinkage will be more rapid; and that the end can only be a kind of universal death. 

But meanwhile, they derive vast satisfaction from covertly engineering the process of exploitation - and especially that the masses who are destined (if plans go right) to be consumed and annihilated, in order to extract their positive energies are consenting to this. 

In sum - there is a duality to the current nature of global evil; by which those whose desire is to maintain order and functionality - i.e. the Ahrimanic totalitarians, bureaucrats, managers etc - operate on the basis that this is only possible by social destruction elsewhere. 

The basis of current geopolitics is that the survival and thriving of The System (and "my" place in that system) is achievable only by increasing overall chaos - because order must consume order, always at the cost of increasing total entropy. 

Because they believe that parasitic destruction is fundamental to reality; the Western leadership class is therefore purposively creating chaos all over the world, as well as within their "home" societies - as the "fuel" they need to maintain their position - for a while, anyway. 

And this is done with a clear conscience, and indeed a sense of virtue; since "they" regard parasitic destruction as an unavoidable reality - and themselves as superior by knowledge of this tragic reality - hence most deserving to be the "winners" in the inevitable process. 

And they also recognize that this process must of its nature accelerate, as the negentropy of the masses is consumed; and recognize too that the membership of the parasitic ruling class must shrink - which is why there is so much, and accelerating, "civil war" among them. 

Is all this true and inevitable? It parasitic destruction that nature of ultimate reality?

Of course not! 

This demonic world view of the necessity and desirability of parasitic destruction; is a product of fundamental assumptions, of personal commitments to the metaphysical principle that there is no God and no divine creation...

Or, at a more advanced level of evil; the personal conviction that God and Creation are evils that should be opposed; and joining the side of those who oppose these. 

The way out (the only way out) from the "imperatives" of this mainstream, global geopolitical alliance - which regards destructive evil as necessary and "good" - is to know the reality of God as personal, good, loving, the creator - and to join our-selves to the side of the divine. 

Note added: To put it another way... Because our society and civilization has no belief in the reality and primacy of God and divine creation - it cannot be motivated by any concept of positive good. Any and all apparent public examples of generally accepted good; turn-out to be double-negative in form. this means that "doing good" is ultimately, bottom-line, a matter of destroying (or otherwise eliminating) "evil" - so destruction is baked-into modern ethics, that is all there is. Furthermore; all evil is defined in negative psychological terms; in terms of pain, misery, suffering... To a remarkable extent, therefore, ethical behaviour, "doing good" is a matter of eliminating whatever makes "me" and "us" happier or less unhappy. Doing good on a global scale, therefore becomes the business of weakening and destroying any nation or groups by which we personally (and those of whom we approve) feel threatened. And this is what we find.  

Bomber Command, World War II (1939-45); and the lies and corruptions of Geopolitics

Regular readers will know that I have fairly recently become very interested in the aircraft of World Wars I and II - which is the re-ignition of a similar "craze" when I was aged about 11-13. 

I have never known or understood much about WWI except that both sides had dubious motivations; but I did think that I broadly understood WWII - especially since I remember and had read a fair bit of historical material from before the massive distortions of the 1960s began to bite. 

But this re-visitation has been one major eye-opener after another; at the end of which my main conclusion is that my previous understanding of WWII was very defective and that I am not-at-all-sure my present understanding is correct either!

What is clear is that HUGE facts about the war - which were often once widely known (some, in a sense, that I did know but misinterpreted), really ought to have been either obvious, or were easy to ascertain - have made an equally-huge different to... well, if not my understanding, then to my confidence in my understanding. 

Naturally, given my starting point, most of these revisions have been at the expense of a previous stance of confidently regarding the British (and allied) side as clearly "superior" in some general sense. This has not reversed, but neither is it secure. 

There have been many surprises - but I will just outline one here. A particular aspect has been the strategic bombing of Germany - by Bomber Command. In a sense I was familiar with the criticisms of the strategy of bombing German cities - both the idea that it was not very effective, and that it was morally... dubious. 

What I had not realized until recently was that strategic bombing was By Far the major British war effort and expenditure - dominating all RAF policy, consuming most of RAF expenditure, and using more resources than the entire British Army and Royal Navy put together! 

Think about that for a moment... 

The major and (literally) overwhelming British strategy to win WWII was - for most of the war - quite simple: that Britain could destroy the German capacity to wage war solely by means of heavy bombing - after which the Army could essentially just stroll-in, and take-over.  

This was the extraordinary conviction of the RAF, and of Churchill. I say "conviction" but it had more of the attributes of a delusion - in the sense that the doctrine was not true, there was no actual evidence to support it (and never had been anywhere or at any time); And Yet belief in the doctrine held with absolute conviction and was immune to the evidence of experience. 

Britain crippled her war effort overall, almost lost the war at least three times* and bankrupted herself for decades afterwards, in pursuit of a delusion! 

This doctrine of The Bomber as a war-winner dated back to pre-war times, and its strength came from the fact that it was the major military justification for maintaining then expanding the RAF into by-far the most resourced UK military service. 

The delusory nature of the Bomber strategy was perfectly obvious at the time to empirically-minded people who studied the accumulating and consistent evidence of gross inefficiency and lack of effectiveness of bombing at its task destroying the German "war machine" such that Germany would collapse. 

In the early years of the war, there inaccuracy of bombing (and the inadequacy of the aircraft and bombs) meant that precision bombing of military targets was impossible - and night bombing meant that even hitting particular cities was not reliably achieved. 

After moral objections to the mass slaughter of (overwhelmingly) civilian non-combatants - a major breach of the rules of war - led to arguments that (what we would now call) genocide of the Germans was a valid goal of bombing. This was increasingly achieved as the war progressed and equipment and improved technologies and techniques (such as using radar-guided pathfinders to mark targets, and creating firestorms by phased types of bombs).

However, the fact is that - by the time the ability to annihilate cities was perfected (especially by the USAAF in Japan - where the building were flimsy and wooden) - it was too late significantly to affect the course of the war in Europe.  

The above discovery (or perhaps fuller realization) about Britain and strategic bombing in WWII - which seem to have the status of objective fact attested by multiple credible authorities - by-itself makes a big difference to my attitude to that war; and there have been several other equally major discoveries of a broadly similar nature. 

My take-home message from this is not that I now know the truth whereas previously I was in error; but that I have concluded that the truth about such matters is not something I can be sure of. 

Geopolitics - including war - at the scale of modernity; is by its nature almost-always a domain of dishonesty, and of insufficient and misleading information; whose morality is therefore nearly-always a choice of lesser evils.

This, despite that war is also a domain in which great courage, hope, endurance, comradeship, patriotism, and other human "goods" are probably commoner and more highly achieved.  

But - looking around at a world in which WWIII has apparently begun, I hope to keep these lessons in mind - and (despite the encouragements and temptations) to refrain from making Geopolitics a central feature of my system of values and hopes.  

*First was the Battle of Britain - where the RAF resisted almost until too late the provision of enough fighters to defend Britain - believing that fighters were almost unnecessary, and that the airforce ought to be about attack not defense. And two times more (1940-41, again in 43) when Britain almost ran out of essential supplies due to the U-Boat campaign; while the RAF deliberately starved the highly-effective Coastal Command of adequate resources (CC was a kept-small branch of the RAF that provided aircraft to protect shipping - especially the Atlantic sea lanes) - again on the excuse that nothing could be spared from the task of bombing Germany. The telling point was this happened twice - apparently nothing was learned from the first near disaster. The strong conviction/ prejudice of RAF high command, and crucially of Churchill; was that Coastal Command was an unnecessary and defensive diversion of scarce resources, that ought to go into the vital and war-winning activity of bombing Germany.) 

Building imaginary castles in the air, from fake straws

A while ago, I wrote a post about the determined optimists of "the Right" (especially people who still, falsely, believe there is such a thing as "the Right") - who busily build their optimism from "fake straws" they have clutched from the maelstrom of a collapsing civilization. 

Following the US election results, I can hardly believe the extent to which people are using fake straws to build grandiose but wholly imaginary castle in the air; that are supposed to represent their hopes of the kind of society that they want.

(Straw castles are bad enough, daydream castles are bad enough - but to daydream a castle made of fake straws! Well...)

Meanwhile... nothing has happened except words and emotions and speculations; and, by now, we ought to realize that (as of 2024) these do not amount to any good thing. nothing is cheaper than "words" in the West, in 2024 - being the most untruthful/ anti-truthful society in the history of the world. 

It should, however, be remembered that thoughts are real, even air castles made of straw - but not necessarily real in the ways intended; and certainly not necessarily real in A Good Way. 

What is apparently real, is that (perhaps) surprisingly large numbers of those who purport to oppose the totalitarian Leftist project; apparently believe (and are saying it) that decades of cumulative civilizational decline can be stopped and reversed by a mainstream election, leading to a new selection of mainstream political figures, being put in charge of an unchanged bureaucracy and media...! 

They are saying that! (Although maybe they don't really believe it.)

What is also apparently real, is the thoroughgoing mundane materialism of what such people want: they want so very, very little - just these politicians instead of those, these laws instead of those... just common sense instead of institutionalized insanity. 

The fake-straw optimists are therefore eminently reasonable - hence they cannot possibly succeed; because if almost-everything stays the same, then we will have the same, or worse.  

They accept geopolitics, but want a different arrangement of nations and distribution of power. They want "business as usual" - but without the weird excesses of the post-millennial era. They want people to be sensible - and "sensible" in a normal, mainstream, hard-headed context.  

They merely want, in other words; a different flavour of Leftism*. 

And Leftism is oppositional and necessarily destructive, because Leftism is fundamentally a-theistic and a-spiritual.  

"The art of the possible" is in actuality asserting the im-possible. 

It will never happen, it can never happen. It ignores and suppresses the need for motivation, and that motivation requires purpose, and that purpose requires the context of a purposive creation. 

And for creation to motivate us, requires that creation be of-God; and for God to motivate us we must have a relationship with God. 

And for our relationship with God to have implications of truth, virtue and beauty; that relationship must be one of Love. 

If we don't have that - we have no positive purpose, and insufficient motivation to do anything Good. 

Which is exactly our situation. 

And election enthusiasm is not merely irrelevant, but actively and powerfully hostile to what is absolutely necessary.  

*Note: there is a Left, but no "Right"; because Leftism is oppositional to religion-in-general, Christianity in particular - and the spiritual and next-worldly nature of Christianity, to be exact (Christianity - not churches, who are all of-the-Left). The only valid options in the West are therefore various flavours of Leftism - or Christianity. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Before lapsing back into the morass. 

Fake nationalism: "Nationalism" in 2025 is just a disguise of the totalitarian backlash

Genuine political Nationalism was the first "ideology", it came after the collapse of religion as the primary organizing principle of societies - and it was a basis for national coherence and motivation... 

But this phase was always brief (a few decades at most), and nationalism has been feeble everywhere for many decades - and in most places for a century or more. 

And nationalism cannot be revived. 

The "collective" way of thinking and behaving upon which genuine nationalism depends; was part of an earlier phase of human consciousness - a phase which is now all-but gone, and shall not return.

Mankind has changed, so that real (strong in coherence and motivation) Nationalism is not just absent currently, but just not possible from here onwards. 

Of course there are plenty of theoretical nationalists (one can espouse theoretical anything); but that means nothing in practice; when people will not (and cannot) sink their individuality into the collective consciousness. 

What we actually have in geopolitics, which is significant and influential in some nations; is various types of fake nationalism. 

Fake nationalism is an Establishment project, that has arisen in the context of the civil war among the global leadership class. 

The two sides in this war are the bureaucratic totalitarians, and the agents of chaos (i.e. the servants of Ahrimanic versus Sorathic evil). 

The totalitarians reached their peak of international power in early 2020 with the global lockdowns; but since then the agents of chaos have been waxing strong. 

At present, the agents of chaos - who are located mainly in the West; are trying to unleash all kinds of destruction such as international war, civil wars and general violence, famines (by destruction of agriculture and trade), and many kinds of disease and toxicity, economic and environmental collapse - and so forth. 

(Because destruction is easier, quicker, cheaper than construction - the agents of chaos can pursue multiple simultaneous lines of attack.)  

The official forms of nationalism that we see pitted against the agents of destruction is therefore to be understood as a fake nationalism. 

Fake nationalism is a backlash; an attempt by totalitarians to reverse the increasing policy dominance of the agents of chaos. 

It is a fake nationalism because it is not derived from the group mind of the nation; and is not motivated by promoting the well-being of the communal or collective entity that is the people of a nation. 

Fake nationalism is instead a top-down manipulative strategy from the bureaucracy, directed at a substantially individualized (indeed atomized) populace; intended and designed to strengthen the 2020-style Establishment project of omni-surveillance and total-control.

But this time, instead of the proximate goal of world totalitarianism, as argued by Trotsky (and Trotsky's descendants are now among the premier agents of chaos - having moved from world revolution to global destruction); we are getting "totalitarianism in one nation" analogous to Stalin's strategy of securing communist power and influence within the USSR. 

That is all that modern "nationalism" really amounts to: it is "Totalitarianism in one nation". 

The problem is that when confronted by the agents of chaos who are, for example, trying to continue and expand and escalate WWIII - the bureaucratic totalitarians seem to be (and perhaps are) so much less evil than the agents of chaos, as to appear almost "good"!  

It is therefore very tempting to be induced to lend our support (our "hearts and minds") to one or another of the Fake Nationalists - in our own nation, or some other. 

Therefore; when confronted by the lesser-evil of Fake Nationalists; we need to remember and hold in mind that they are not good; that their motivations, methods and aims are all evil - simply because totalitarianism is intrinsically and necessarily evil. 

And I mean spiritually evil: because the highest-level and implicit goal of totalitarianism is the damnation of Men.  

Is a real (or feigned) resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics, en route to the needful spiritual awakening?

There is, for a month, what superficially appears to be a resurgence of Secular Right "common sense" politics from the USA (i.e. a politics rhetorically rooted in national economic and societal self-interest); and this is depicted, by some of its supporters, as being the first step in a rebuilding of Christendom; - therefore a stage en route to the much-needed spiritual awakening. 

Putting aside that this Secular Right revival is, I believe, feigned not real - and that this will soon become evident - even if we were to accept it at face value, then is it "a good thing" spiritually?

We cannot expect any answer to this question from studying individual policies, e.g. by trying to infer an implicit coherent net-strategy behind the flurry of apparent contradictions*. 

As always we need to infer underlying intentions, motivations etc - which are rooted in the nature and affiliations of those persons and groups making the statements and policies.

If, however, we assume for the sake of argument that we are witnessing a genuine attempt to build a stronger secular society - a society that is clearing the ground of the self-hating and self-destroying post-sixties New Leftism; and if we assume that this is being done in order to promote the material well-being of nations - we can then ask from a Christian perspective whether, if it is intended and could happen, this would be A Good Thing?   

Would it be A Good Thing if the USA could become a stronger nation, characterized by enhanced military power; secure borders; enforcement of law and order; a more efficient, more meritocratic, more genuinely productive, and more home-grown economy etc...

Would this kind of material improvement actually be A Good Thing for the spiritual status of its people (and of the world)?  

On the surface, the answer seems obvious - that such a society would be preferable to what has been the case for the past several decades. 

But on the other side, we also need to look ahead: we need to ask whether a stronger and more cohesive, but still fundamentally materialist, God-less, acquisitive, consumerist, comfortable, better-entertained, techno-totalitarian society would really be A Good Thing? 

We need to ask whether this is what is most needed - here, now? 

Whether the vast human effort and attention, bribery and compulsion, involved in striving for such change to such a society, is not very badly misplaced? 

And most fundamentally to ask whether this is possible At All? Given all that we should have learned by-now, about the innate self-destructiveness and evil-tendencies of any and all such societies? 

After all, the strong, increasingly-Godless, rapidly-growing USA of the 1950s was exactly this sort of success story. 

Yet, even at that time, in the mid 20th century; it was clear to thoughtful and observant Christians and secular people alike, that it just would-not-do, and was inevitably doomed to go (more or less) exactly where it actually went.

There are many examples of such analysis, but one will suffice: Nihilism by Eugene Rose, later Father Seraphim.  

People here-and-now need to step-back from immediate, and substantially manipulated, emotionality; and instead consider such long-term, strategic, spiritual matters; because we can be sure that those who practice the dark arts of Geopolitics are already doing so. 

 

*Note: Those with memories that extend back more than a few months, ought to have learned that having some public figure speaking some or several specific factual truths, or refuting one or a few of the innumerable lies of mainstream Leftism; does Not amount to anything At All, in terms of indicating a trend towards a truthful, honest, more-Good society. When underlying metaphysical assumptions are poisonous, then debates over particular assertions are always utterly ineffectual. 

Faces in the fire - our tendency to see patterns (even when the purposive destruction of patterns is afoot!)

The idea that humans have a tendency to see patterns where there is (supposedly) only randomness - like seeing faces appearing briefly in a fire - is used to argue that therefore we ought to discount as self-deluding, the meaningfulness of the world around us. 

This is one of those ridiculously over-influential, very selectively applied, reductionist pseudo-explanations upon which a great deal of Western materialist modernity is based. 

The "argument" is also used (selectively) to rubbish any attempt to unravel and expose the evil-motivated lies and manipulations of the ruling classes - but it gets completely ignored when it comes to the vast and absurd, smoke and mirror, elaborations of mainstream ideology; such as the birdemic, CO2 climate change or antiracism.

As a general rule, the real patterns are not abstract processes, but derive from Beings and their motivations. 

What we may call a "pattern" is therefore the consequence of the nature, desires, intentions etc of living Beings (including Beings of various kinds - divine, human, animal, plant, mineral, spiritual, and so forth). 

But, as well as positive patterns, there is always the possibility of negative anti-pattern. 

A real pattern is some kind of positive "order", and the only ultimate order is that of divine creation (all other order is derived from, or contributing to, that order). 

But an anti-pattern is the destruction of order; the negation of order. 

And it is important to recognize this negative, destructive motivation when present, because it is common. It is, indeed, an especially advanced type of evil (that I have often termed "Sorathic"). 

This needs to be borne in mind as we contemplate the world, and try to make sense of what is going-on in geopolitics, national politics, and within social institutions such as the workplace. 

In a world of advanced evil, where it seems that the demons of destruction are waxing dominant; then a policy of chaotic destruction may be pursued by the simple means of an accumulation of multiple incoherent changes - of many kinds, in many places, and at many levels.

The "faces in the fire" tendency tries to make overall sense of the by discovering some Master Plan. Or a clash of several Master Plans, Or else an all encompassing but non-purposing (non-) explanation such as insanity or incompetence. 

Yet we ought to bear in mind that chaotic destruction is not always a by-product; and negation may be a thing deliberately pursued. 

In which case; pattern-making explanations of lesser wickednesses (such selfish Master Plans as pursuit of money, power, fame etc. and their interactions) can serve as a convenient disguise or excuse, for what is actually the most advanced form of evil.  

This discernment, this recognition of negative-destructive (Sorathic) evil; will only be possible if we allow for its possibility. 

**

Note added: 

Self-conscious purposive destructive evil is rare and evanescent among humans, because it tends rapidly to lead to self destruction. Sorathic evil in this world is best understood as a purpose of the ruling demonic spirits, who are themselves immune to material destruction, while benefitting from it in the short-term. 

We can imagine that the Sorathic demons modus operandi is usually to set different selfish and exploitative motivations (of individuals and groupings) against each other - with mutually destructive intent. 

Also to encourage (and indeed spiritually "feed" upon) the spiteful, hating, resentment-driven and despairing destructive motivations of the humans involved. 

In sum, it is the net effect that is destructive of pattern, of order - and ultimately destructive of divine creation. And this applies even when there are indeed patterns to the individual component motivations among Men and groups, that leading to overall destructiveness.

There may be faces in the fire, but the fire itself is an agent of destruction. 

Why deterrence doesn't work anymore

For most of recorded civilized human history; mankind has been living in A System - but these Systems, like the organisms of biology, were overall orientated towards survival, growth, spread. This is why there is a degree of cyclical nature to history - despite that time is linear, and history never repeats because human nature/ human consciousness is changing and developing. 

But for the past few generations The System has become - for the first time ever - a self-consuming, self-destroying thing. Not, therefore, like a biological organism; but like a host that has been purposively and motivationally hijacked by a parasite without foresight: a parasite that will seek its own thriving until the host is killed.  

The partially-cyclical nature of history is broken in a world of Systemic value-inversion; and thus a world where self-hatred and suicide are baked-in. A world where the "bourgeois" and the "rebels" are two sides of the same coin - and where the "rebels" have indeed been created, shaped, controlled, and promoted to rulership by those who control The System.

All of this means that common sense is no longer operative; including such common sense motivations as deterrence* - or even expedience. Even the idea of "enlightened self-interest" - of medium- long-term selfishness as a prime motivator, is no longer operative - either at the individual or at the national level. 

This applies almost totally in The West; where leaders and the masses alike operate under a combination of extreme short-termism that - in practice - reflects primarily socially-manipulated and malleable attitudes; with a pseudo-long-termism that consists of Total Lies.  

Because the effectiveness of deterrence requires both sides to operate under the same motivational-system; then when the West is orientated against Systemic self-preservation; then the "common sense2 and historical power of deterrence is gone.  

As may be seen in the actuality and trends of geopolitics over the past couple of years. 

There is a still-escalating global conflict between the domination of various old-style self-preserving and traditional organism-like societies; versus the parasite-controlled and self/other destruction-orientated Western civilization. 

And, at present, it is unclear who will win this conflict - although it is much easier and quicker to destroy than it is to preserve and sustain.   

It is biologically difficult and rare to reproduce and raise a healthy organism to maturity, then to maintain it alive - and only a narrow range of options for achieving this; but it is simple and easy to organisms, and by innumerable effective methods.

*By deterrence I mean not only the military doctrine between nations or power blocs; but also the ordinary inter-personal deterrence that (in both types) tends to prevent initiation and escalation of hostilities, aggression and violence. As a relevant aside; deterrence is more-or-less effective - at least in the short-term - among almost all normal humans of the past - except for the genuinely psychotic. Which confirms that mainstream modern Man is literally insane.  

The Stark Dichotomy. Not-Christians who pass the Litmus Tests and negatively-discern validly, where Christians are failing en masse

In my readings and explorings, I come across people who understand the totalitarian reality of the West (and Geopolitics, generally) and who pass the Litmus Tests; and are not Christian. 

Indeed, such people may be anti-"Christian" - especially when they define Christianity as a compulsory package necessarily administered by an institutional church - a package that it is not possible or allowable to un-pick and discern-among; but a package that must be swallowed whole...

Or else rejected, which is what they do with it. 

On the flip-side; most self-identified Christians fail one or more of the major Litmus Tests and are substantively on-board-with the globalist totalitarian (hence necessarily leftist-materialist-atheist) socio-political agenda.

This indicates to me that - at least as of 2025 - it is possible to be negatively-correct about the nature of evil in this world; while rejecting Christianity. 

Indeed; some not-Christians are better at the negative-task of discerning evil, than are Christians.

How could this be?

I think the answer is quite simple: which is that both the non-Christian discerners and the church-Christians accept a stark dichotomy. 

The stark dichotomy is as follows: 

Most Christians are first-and-foremost institutionally-led; and they therefore (following institutional teaching and rules) agree with the "not-Christians Litmus Test passers" in assuming and asserting that Christianity really is A Package. 

Therefore it is regarded as a stark choice between either affiliating to a Christian church and supporting totalitarian evil, or else rejecting totalitarian evil and therefore rejecting "Christianity". 

I, of course, do not regard Christianity as a package; and I do not regard churches as the ultimate authority on what it is to follow Jesus; so I reject the stark dichotomy. 

But the above analysis seems to explain how Christians have, in such large numbers, ended-up on the side of evil; and how anti-Christians have been able consistently to reject this dominant source of evil - albeit they do not support positive Good. 

  

Review of The Occult Battle of Britain - by Paul Weston (2019)

For the last couple of weeks, I have been reading a fascinating book called The Occult Battle of Britain - History, Magic, Mythology from the 19th century to 1946, by Paul Weston and originally published in 2019. 

The book can be considered as an extensive background to the similarly titled The Magical Battle of Britain, by Dion Fortune and edited by Gareth Knight, which I've previously mentioned. 

Dion Fortune (a woman I both like and admire, and who I regard as a genius) is perhaps the central character. 

The climax is the magical activity in which she was engaged before and during the Battle of Britain - and the timeline ends with her death in 1946. In broad terms the book is about the intersection of occult thinking with the rise of National Socialism in Germany, and its opposition from within Britain - culminating in the Battle of Britain and its aftermath. 

The method is chronological. Starting in the late 19th century, with the international spread of spiritualism; then HP Blavatsky and the (extraordinarily influential) rise of Theosophy; and the Golden Dawn and similar revivals of ritual magic (magic both white and black in nature) - Weston notes some of the main characters involved, and what was happening in Germany and in England - but especially in relation to Glastonbury and its "Avalonians". 

As well as Fortune; Avalonians Wellesley Tudor Pole and Ronald Heaver are followed; since they had a complementary role to play in the occult side of events of 1940. Also; both TP and Heaver were long-term involved in military intelligence; as were many others from both sides of that apparent divide. 

Heaver was heavily involved in the (seemingly) utterly bizarre British Israelite movement - about which I previously knew almost nothing - and it has now disappeared from public consciousness. Yet, although the assumptions and goals of the BIs strike me as almost incomprehensibly strange and misguided; this was clearly a strong movement within the British ruling class - including intelligence services - up to a high level, and had a role to play in global geopolitics.   

With the notable (and noble!) exception of Dion Fortune herself; it seems that the occult-military nexus was so common as to be normal. On the "darker side" of things; Aleister Crowley and Dennis Wheatley were also spooks. 

But some of the most significant British military people were also occultists - most notably Air Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, head of Fighter Command up to and during the Battle of Britain, the architect of the integrated home defence radar system - and very plausibly the saviour of his nation. 

Dowding was heavily involved with spiritualism (publishing articles and a major book on the subject) and other esoteric subjects - e.g. he regarded fairies as a real and important influence on human life. 

The other side of the book charts the development of the spiritual side of national Socialism from its 19th century origins, and which reached a formalization with Himmler and the SS, and their cathedral like castle of Wewelsburg. But much of this requires to be disentangled from the distortions and fictions that have been widely propagated by early books such as The Morning of the Magicians (1960), and The Spear of Destiny (1972). 

Nonetheless, after the falsehoods have been set aside there seems little doubt of the fact and significance of occultism in National Socialism - and that there was indeed a Battle of Britain which operated purposively at this occult level - whether this phenomenon is interpreted spiritually or materialistically in terms of psychology. 

What is, for me, an open question - is the nature of the military-occult synthesis that Weston describes; not just for WWII, but extending back to encompass aspects of the First World War. 

There was surely a large element of intentional PSYOPS about the manipulations of public opinion (some very successful, both for good and ill) of British intelligence - yet there were also many instances of (apparently) sincere occult belief and activity among a surprisingly high number of very important personnel of both sides. 

The 21st century mind (from its assumption of innate moral superiority and greater insight) is spontaneously inclined to explain-away all this; as merely a mixture of cynical manipulation with the stupidity (and evil) of those unenlightened (sexist, racist etc) people of the past. 

And if this attitude is taken, there is nothing more to be said! But it is all based on assumptions about "our" modern superiority to every previous generation: assumptions that are arbitrary and without any coherent objective basis.  

Much of the fascination of this book is in the range of information provided, including aspects either neglected or passed-over by conventional histories. 

I was especially interested by the accounts of the Phoney War period from September 1939-May 1940 - and the ways that the British people were "prepared" for war. From Weston's account; the mood of the nation at this time (officially partly-feared, partly-seeded and encouraged) was very different in some respects from how it is usually portrayed - with a rampant paranoia concerning spies (leading to executions of the innocent), and wholly-imaginary fifth columnist activities by saboteurs, paratroopers, and sleeper agents. 

I was also impressed by Weston's discernments in relation to the side of the Allies. He is scrupulous about taking into account alternative interpretations - e.g. of the role of Winston Churchill, and the significance of the Battle of Britain. The he makes his decision among possibilities and explains his own assumptions. 

Therefore, Weston regards the "mythology" of the Battle of Britain as basically true, and that it was indeed a battle - spiritual as well as military - between good and evil. Consequently, after the Battle was won, there was a recognition of spiritual growth and commitment to the side of Good; and sincere hopes for a better world - spiritually better that is - to follow the war. 

Yet, Weston also feels that the purity of motive that Britain achieved in 1940, was significantly dissipated and corrupted throughout the course of the war. The alliance with the USSR was a significant downward step (Churchill explicitly likened it to a Faustian pact with the devil, yet embraced it nonetheless). 

The scale, priorities, purposes, and methods of Bomber Command (under the genuinely-delusional Arthur "Bomber" Harris) was another massive military error (a colossal misapplication of resources, causing gross neglect of more necessary and effective strategies); the whole increasingly fuelled by dark, sometimes evil, motives. 

Weston also notes that the strategic destruction of British and European geopolitical power was a sub-theme of US involvement. As was the in-practice building-up of the USSR as a world power, including by open-ended and unconditional "free gift" provision of materiel (in contrast to the sales and loans to the UK, with the consequential crippling war debt entailed). 

In some respects; by the end of the war there was a change of sides by the Allies - so that as the war progressed, not just Britain but also the real victors (ie the USSR and the USA) were spiritually, overall, also on the wrong side. 

And Dion Fortune's hoped-for beneficial spiritual outcomes of the Magical Battle of Britain... therefore didn't happen.    

The Occult Battle of Britain is not an easy read, and I spent many hours reading it; but this was mainly because I found I didn't want to miss anything. I found it to be original, gripping, and very stimulating - with implications that I need to think about much further. 

Some maxims for current geopolitics

Not so much preferring "the lesser of evils" - because how could we really know which was lesser? More like recognizing that one side actively seeks to destroy good wherever possible (at home, and abroad) - and at whatever cost to itself. 

Not so much wanting one side to win and the other to lose; as it being overwhelmingly important that one of the sides does not win. 

The Arrakis war has galvanized Leftist radicalism and channeled it back into the mainstream

As I feared; it seems that the Arrakis war has been successfully used to enthuse and inspire the "idealistic" and self-identified radicals of the left, has provoked a resurgence of the evil error of pacifism; and through support for the Fremen has channeled this "youthful enthusiasm" safely into Establishment control. 

People who were perhaps "in danger of" awakening to the demonic evils of the Global Totalitarian Agenda, are now enthusiastically enlisted in a multitude of Establishment-controlled "protest" and "charitable" activities - just like the (Good Old...) 1960s - Yay!

Thus, the easily-awakening desire of Westerners (and others) to Do Something To Help (to help, that is, a situation of which they are aware only very indirectly and via the major mass media); has inevitably led to working-through and thereby re-validating already-existing Establishment-controlled channels - such as the UN. 

People who, three months ago, would have had nothing but disdain for the totalitarian globalist puppet-masters of the UN, are now pouring all hopes into it, and following its machinations with avidity. 

Geopolitics is sexy again! Pseudo-edgy, covertly-officially-approved Leftist radical protest is back in the mass media spotlight. 

Yet again; the desire to influence this world on a large scale - for whatever reason - is readily subverted and redirected into strategic support for the totalitarian agenda of evil. 

Yet again; Christians are being given a lesson that Christ's Kingdom is "not of this world"; and we are yet again being shown that we absolutely need to fix our hopes beyond mortal life and this earth, and gain a perspective that sees life from a context of eternity. 

Yet again; we are being shown what is our business in this world, and what is not our business: What we ought to be placing as our personal and real priority - and what we should not be misled into thinking we understand, can affect, and ought to be working to change.  

The current intra-left civil war is top-down created and manipulated - both "sides" being manifestations of one will; such that whichever side we "support" in this fight, we shall be supporting the overall totalitarian strategy: the agenda of evil. 

And people have fallen for it yet again.   

How to deal with the "infinite and expanding" quantity of disinformation

Disinformation is deliberately-wrong information; and it is a far more significant problem (here-and-now) than either censorship or information deliberately designed to manipulate in a particular direction.

The phenomenon has been growing for several generations to a vast size. But the post-November 2022 "AI" phenomenon is a case in point. "AI" is now not only the source of a qualitatively-increased volume of disinformation; but "AI" (its nature and scope) is itself the subject of a massive and sustained campaign of disinformation. 

How should we deal with the fact that nearly of of what is said by and about everything significant (such as "AI", climate, geopolitics, race, health...) is deliberately wrong, and that there is such an incredible quantity of this wrongness?

From an individual's perspective; disinformation is already "infinite" and still increasing!

It is nonsense to say we should trust only trustworthy sources; because in the ocean of disinformation we cannot discern these - and even honest and competent sources are themselves fed by a great deal of disinformation. Therefore, so far as we can know: there are zero trustworthy sources. 

The answer is that we first need to accept the reality of the situation.

We need to by-pass the whole ever-expanding edifice of deliberate falseness; and decide what is what for ourselves and from our direct knowledge and intuition.

And we, therefore, need to accept that our own judgment on things cannot be publicly justified by arguing from a basis of common evidential ground, we cannot argue using publicly-available information information of accepted validity. 

We must, therefore, be contented with our own judgment, for our own purposes. 

This does not mean we need to keep our judgment private; but that in making our inferences explicit we should not expect to succeed in persuading those others who are accepting the truth of (one or another set of) deliberate lies. 

If we are atheist materialists - this is a counsel of despair: it is a "black-pill". 

But if we are a Romantic Christian, who believes in the primacy of the spiritual and God as creator; then we are convinced that our own personal knowledge-of and adherence-to truth has a direct and positive effect on total reality - by its incorporation into ongoing divine creation.

And that ought to be enough.

Is BRICS the backlash of Lawful Evil?

As The West continues its path of (in Dungeons and Dragons terms) Chaotic Evil  - or what I would term spite-driven Sorathic self-and-other destruction; it seems to me that Lawful Evil (i.e. the Ahrimanic - control-motivated, hence totalitarian and bureaucratic type of evil) is making an attempt at comeback via the now world-dominant BRICS grouping. 

In other words The System ("the Matrix") is doomed to inwardly-driven (and actively-desired) self-destruction, and is already collapsing, in The West; therefore the powers of evil whose strategy is to impose a material mechanism for spiritual damnation, are shifting attention from The West to The Rest. 

Geopolitics is always evil, no matter its explicit purpose. 

While, from the POV of the dominant countries of the Fire Nation and the Earth Kingdom, BRICS seems to be a means towards the end of national sovereignty and the cultural autonomy in face of a monolithic globalism; the very facts and necessities of any multi-national compromise coalition, continue to push the existing and emerging alliance towards the nature of Lawful Evil. 

This is evidenced by several of the many recent statements of BRICS policy and strategy; which favour UN-type organizations to formulate and enforce "international regulation". 

It therefore seem like the demons of Lawful Evil have abandoned "The West" to the ministrations of Chaotic Evil, and are increasingly directing their main efforts towards "The Rest". 

From a Christian perspective, we are dealing with greater versus lesser evils (at best); therefore there is again the pitfall opening of inducing people actively to support that which is actually-evil, on the basis that it is a different, and maybe less extreme, kind of evil than that which preceded it.  

The danger is that Christians are actively supporting Lawful Evil on the basis that it is possible to be optimistic about its prospects in this-world, here-and-now. 

I suggest that Christians need to be much clearer than they currently seem to be, about the necessity actively to support only that which is Good by motivation and methods - no matter how weak that Good may be in this-worldly terms; and no matter how pessimistic the prospects of Good seem, with things as they currently are.

On the material and earthly level, Christians will inevitably lose - sooner or later; and it is on the spiritual level that are there solid grounds for realistic optimism. 

The grounds of our hope are sure, but Not Of This World. 

Once we have grasped this; then (but only then) can we see and know how such a spiritual and next-worldly expectation, can and will improve things in this mortal life. 

In D&D terms we should eschew not just evil, but the categories of lawful and chaotic, and pursue that which is creative. 

1. Destruction really is much easier than creation. 2. Destruction is what "They" are aiming at.

I know, I know - I've said it all before; but people really need to grasp what is going-on in the world of Geopolitics and Global Strategy... 

People need to grasp what is the core aim of the top-level leadership of those who control the major Western nations and the international/ multinational groups such as the UN (WHO etc), EU, and NATO. 

That aim is destruction. 

But that isn't enough: People need to grasp that destruction is easy - much, much easier than positive creation. 

I regard this as a profound insight into our reality. 

As mortal Men; we live in a material world where entropy is at work everywhere, and death has the last word. In this world, order must be continually rebuilt against the tendency towards chaos; creation is continually being dismantled, even while it is being created. 

Those who seek to destroy have innumerable options; while those who wish to create do not. 

Only a minority of trained and competent people, with much time and effort, can make a piece of complex machinery - but any destructive-fool can wreck it.

Indeed, the destructive-fool can (and does) use complex and intricate technical creations to wreck each other - thereby increasing the rate of destruction - as happens in war.

Actually, because entropy never sleeps; complex and functional stuff (including humans, animals, plants) - needs constant and appropriate maintenance; so that creation can be destroyed without effort - simply by neglect.   

So when we analyse the two sides in war, or politics, or anywhere... 

And when these two sides correspond to good and evil: to creative and destructive strategies...

Then we will find that the good side wil move relatively slowly and is often forced into a reactive stance, across a wide range. In contrast, the side of evil has so many options and such an easy job because They are working-with entropy and chaos.

The people (the "beings" I should say) who are trying to destroy England; are have scores of lines of simultaneous attack, that are pursued 24/7 - and via multi-national and national politics, the mass media, and all the major institutions. 

Internationally, wars are provoked, sustained and escalated by bribing and blackmailing the leadership class - meanwhile these same nations are being internally destroyed.

Because destruction is the aim and destruction is easy; They are (in effect) simultaneously crippling and poisoning the people of the world - while getting them to fight each other to the death.   

OK - but it should be asked - if evil is aimed-at and easy then why hasn't the world already collapsed and everybody died?

The short is that until recently the ruling classes were Not aiming at destruction. They were aiming at various things - some relatively few had good and creative aims. Others wanted evil - yet not primarily destructive - things; such as conquest, wealth, personal power and so forth. 

Until recently those with most power and wealth were not intending generalized destruction. 

But they are now...  

If not all of them - but mainly those in the West and multi-national institutions - yet given the relative easiness of destruction; They will "win".

If only because for them everyone losing is what They regard as "winning".  

Therefore; even though led by the one genius among the global leadership class, and with a far more strongly motivated - because genuinely Christian - country; the Fire Nation cannot truly win the current war so long as the Sorathic Western Leadership class ("They") remain in power. For Them; every defeat of anybody is a victory, all destruction is a triumph. 

And They can and will keep-it-going for as long as they are in a position to do so; which is, until they are physically removed, and the epidemic spiritual infection of totalitarian-secular-leftism that They have released and promoted - has been decisively rejected.   

Since They are so powerful, dedicated to destruction, and destruction is easy; the only way they can be held-back and defeated (temporarily), would be if their evil-destructiveness was opposed by sufficient positive-creation; such that They were substantially removed from power. 

I see no sign of this At All. The masses are not as bad as their Leadership class; but the mass of Men utterly lack the motivations needed for positive creative Good. 

Therefore, as things stand, as the odds are stacked: the powers of destruction will prevail in this mortal world. 

 

To recapitulate: 1. Those with greatest power in the world, now, have the aim of destruction; 2. Destruction is easy. 

Hence; I regard these as the End Times; a qualitative end to this era of the world, of civilization, happening already and unrolling every year/ month, week - even despite local (and hard won) roll-backs of the power of destructive evil and beginnings of new creation.

Destructive evil can only be held back by constructive (creative) Good; and there just isn't enough of it, or strongly-enough of it, to overcome the advantages of destruction - at the large scale.  

As usual (as always?) we are thrown-back onto The Personal and The Spiritual: which is not only the best option, but increasingly the only realistic option. 

How are things going, on the whole?

A couple of observations... 

In geopolitics, it is clear that the Western world is increasingly dominated in its major policies by agents of Sorathic destruction. They have set-up the global situation such that a full-on third world war is little more than a hairsbreadth away. 

On the flip-side: at the time of writing it has not happened. While the world has been poised and teetering ever closer to the edge of a precipice for the past 21 months or so - the nations have not yet thrown themselves off it (despite quite extraordinary provocations). 

This must (I think) mean that there are powerful agents who do not want all-in world war. 

What I am unsure about is whether these agents of 'restraint' are positively motivated by Good in any shape or form; or whether they merely favour the less violent evil of international totalitarianism - with its omni-surveillance and complete mind-control; and that they recognize that achieving this goal would be disrupted by major wars, and so are holding-back the destruction merchants from irreversible escalation. 

Another possibility is that plans of any kind are constantly being subverted by the selfish short-termism of those tasked with their implementation. e.g. instead of following the strategy of making war, the agents are tempted and distracted into making money.  

Still, what we are seeing is at least consistent-with the operation of covert Good motivations that (to an extent) counteract the much-more-obvious and explicit evil for the major leadership class. 

Further: When it comes to individuals, my impression (and that is all it can be) is that "the side of Good" continues to lose people. 

As The System continues to bring forward more and more Litmus Test issues - it seems that each new wave of challenges is 'failed' by a significant proportion of those Christians who had previously been stalwart*. 

Indeed, claims of an exclusive, church-based Christianity has now itself become a Litmus Test. To believe that Christianity must be institutional - is to fall into the hands of totalitarianism; since They now control the entire institutional framework of The West. 

For instance; whereas I hoped that the post-2020 situation might lead to an alliance of serious Christians of all denominations (and none); this has not happened. 

Way too many Christians still expend far too much energy denigrating other types of Christian, and denying (what they call "proving") that those outwith their chosen-church/ denomination are Christians at all. 

Religious definitions and rules have often become more strict, literal and communally-defined and -enforced; as a way of trying to prevent liberalizing slippage. Thus these stalwart church-Christians become focused on institutional survival and thriving in an increasingly hostile environment, instead of engaging in the spiritual war.    

Those who respond to the triumphant evil of this-world by putting all their faith into obedience to any this-world institution (including any church) have become captives to this-world; and have made an advance vow to follow this-world where it may lead, insofar as this-world control the institution. 

In effect; each self-identified Christian church asserts a formula for maintaining its faithfulness to God's wishes. But, because the church is an institution that exists at the social level, the formula takes some publicly observable, publicly enforceable form. And that is how The System is able to penetrate and corrupts all institutions. 

Only our consciousness and chosen personal relationships stand outside The System; all institutions are inside it.

There is no doubt that the modern world, especially in The West, is a harsh examination; and there is no formula for success - because formulae are exactly the mechanism by which corruption is operative. 

*This is a problem of any essentially defensive strategy. If it succeeds then things stay the same, if it loses then they get worse. People may default from defence, but defence can never be victorious. On the other hand, any positive attitude that depends on institutions, any materially-positive strategy, will sooner or later be corrupted by The System. The answer is to be individually and spiritually positive - and to find a way of doing this that does not ultimately depend on other people. 

Afghanistan - Arhimanic mistake or Sorathic strategy? And so what?

The recent business in Afghanistan is something most of us know only via the mass media; which means that the meaning of the events has been distorted in order to manipulate us, and key facts are also certain to have been changed or omitted. 

In what follows I am therefore making the assumption that it is true that the Western powers recently withdrew from Afghanistan in something like the disastrous manner reported (i.e. with extremely rapid collapse of the West funded/ trained state military, uncontrollably overrun by the insurgents, leaving behind significant numbers of US citizens, with colossal capture of US (at least) military materiel, and with a mass population transfer of Afghans (mostly men of military age and experience) into The West.

This has been almost universally regarded as a disaster for the Leadership of the Western Powers, a sudden and catastrophic loss of status as a global power, evidence of a collapse in military effectiveness etc. And ushering in a new period of global 'instability'.

The assumption seems to be that all this happened (assuming it did) against the wishes of the Global Establishment. On those grounds, some Christians regard it as A Good Thing. 

This is what I doubt. Good is not an 'emergent property' from evil motivations!

I see the events as further evidence for the ascendancy of a Sorathic tendency of deliberate destruction, of encouraging chaos; and that this 'strategy' is rapidly taking-over from the Ahrimanic strategy of making the whole world into a 'high-tech', Matrix-like, atheist-leftist-totalitarian media-bureaucratic super-state; where the masses are maintained under close and continual surveillance, and subjected to detailed behavioural control. 

I see this as a further step in the breakdown of the high point of global coordination and consensus which was reached early in 2020, and an increase in the evilness of evil from the domination of 'lawful evil' to more and more 'chaotic' evil of the escalating war of each against all.  

In sum; this 'catastrophe' may indeed both be a genuine catastrophe (i.e. an increase in the domination of evil), and yet it may also be a intended outcome of decisions from within the Western powers to whom the events are 'a catastrophe'. 

As always; even this is (for Christians) no reason at all for increased fear - because fear is a sin, and very obviously what They (the demonic powers) want from us. Nor is it a reason for despair; because Christian hope is indestructible and lies beyond this world and mortal life - and is eternal. 

They also want us to 'think globally', to be deeply interested-in and concerned-by 'foreign policy' and geopolitics; to identify-with nations, large abstract 'humanitarian' causes and commit to ideologies. All these are traps for a Christian. 

Our business is (primarily) with our salvation and theosis, with the love of God then our 'neighbour' which means actual humans beings to whom we have a genuine personal commitment. 

In practice, we cannot help but 'have an opinion' on these mass media 'talking points'; but we need to keep reminding ourselves that all of these (and everything we think we know about them) are primarily attempts to manipulate us in ways that benefit the agendas of one or other of the factions among the evil-serving leadership.   

So - although the above is my interpretation of what has happened, I am not wedded to these conclusions, and my main effort is not to 'care' about matters which I can only be concerned with be falling-into ways of thinking that are specifically designed to corrupt me onto the side of Satan and against God.

My faith should be that God - as the creator - can and will always ensure that I can know from personal experience, by my own discernment and the direct guidance of the Holy Ghost, what I need to know for my task in this mortal life.  

When our faith is solid, we need not deny or defend ourselves against pessimistic projections about what might happen if. 

(Those 'might-happens' picked-out and pushed at us from among the boundless and incalculable possibilities of 'might-happens.)

Our task is with what does happen - All this kind of stuff - as it impinges-upon-us is a challenge from which it is intended we may learn. 

But this learning should be directed at eternal resurrected life; and if it is Not in that context, then we will indeed live in fear and despair, and at the mercies of the worldly-powers. 

Is it ultimately incoherent when Western Civilization says, in effect: "We are superior because we know we are inferior"?

It must be a bizarrely conflicted life to be one of the Western leadership class who are engaged in geopolitics! 

(Small wonder that they bear the hallmarks of self-damaged/ deleted souls.) 

On the one hand, the "external" rhetoric of Western powers is one of implied superiority... 

The West intervenes everywhere in the world and attempts to destroy other societies +/- remaking them in "our" image; on the basis that other places are morally inferior - because they do not sufficiently adhere to "our" Western ideology, laws, values and morals. 

On the other hand, the "internal" rhetoric is of definite inferiority and self-abasement. 

The West, the people of each and every Western nations, are (by a vast inner propaganda of politics, bureaucracy, mass media, education, academia, corporations...) routinely assumed to be ethically inferior to people from... anywhere/ everywhere else. 

Such that our primary duty (for which we ought to sacrifice almost anything) is to enable any number of people without limit, from anywhere in the world but especially Not the West; to come to Western nations; there to be supported by the native populations (fed, housed, paid, educated, kept healthy...) to the same or higher level than the native population - and at the expense of native Westerners.  

So, there is a massive rhetorical incoherence between the arrogant and violent self-assertion of Western "foreign policy"; and the pervasive self-hatred and strategic self-destruction of the "home affairs" of Western nations. 

It is as if that ideological superiority which makes it our ethical duty to subvert, terrorize and make war on everybody-else; is rooted in the awareness of our moral inferiority to everybody else...* 

What explains and solves this apparent paradox and conflict of interest at the material level is quite simple. 

The answer lies in is that "our" and "us" used in relation to the West - the explanation is the "we" who does all this stuff... 

It is that the Western leadership class (and their agents and clients among the other nations) regard themselves as morally superior to everybody else in the world, and at any point in history.  

Themselves as superior - i.e. the leadership class only - and emphatically not the nations that they lead. 

This conviction of superiority to everybody else is why They strategically aim to destroy and impose Their values on all other civilizations and nations; and simultaneously destroy and impose their values on their home populations. 

This is why They do whatever They want, while subjecting everybody else to ever more invasive laws and regulations. 

This is why They destroy economies, impose "equality" or "diversity", reduce and limit housing and transport etc etc - while reciprocally leading jet-setting lives of international travel, multiple residences, mega-consumerism, colossal and wasteful extravagance of lifestyle - and vastly enriching themselves personally.

From the perspective of the Western rulers; all this is natural, logical and wholly consistent with their own qualitative and separate superiority of nature. "They" are not like Us, and see deeper and further - so of course different rules apply to Them.   

Strategically, They are simply trying to conquer and subdue the entire world, to bring the entire world under Their good ideology; and to create an impenetrable defensive bubble around Themselves.

It justifies itself: Looking-down from their high vantage point and with vast quantities of secret intelligence information, the Western rulers are convinced that they can see farther and deeper than anyone else. And with an touch of compassionate regret (which emphasizes Their moral depth); They nobly accept the necessity of destroying most of the people and nearly-all of the places of the world - because the alternatives would be... well, un-think-able. 

(And therefore they accept the need for coercing and deceiving the masses into doing whatever is required for this goal. After all the mass majority could not be expected to embrace their own messy annihilation if this was honestly explained. Obviously, we must be lied-to.)  

Sad, perhaps; but such a supreme "sacrifice" is required in order to make actual the dream of a good world of superior beings.  

So the Western leadership class regard themselves as superior, and also as hard-nosed realists who are prepared to take (covert) responsibility for sacrificing almost-everybody/everything in order to achieve the kind of world that they regard as Good...

(Hence the snake-eyes.)

And yet they are pawns and dupes and suckers - because the real plan behind "the plan" is not human - but demonic; and the global destruction and sacrifice therefore is intended to include all the humans, including every man jack of the Western leadership class - every last one of them, and all their descendants.  

The demons are motivated by fear and hatred of divine creation in all its aspects; and (as un-incarnated spiritual beings) they do not require the people of this world, except for pleasure, as a gratifying source of "energy"; and demons do not need the planet earth.

In the meanwhile, the demons feed-upon the terror, lust, resentments, and despair of those who serve them, and those whose evil affiliations and acts are un-repented - especially the Western ruling class.

Thus apparent self-contradiction, paradox, and incoherence of aim and action at the human level...

Makes clear and simple sense at the spiritual level. 

NOTE: It may seem that I am blaming everything on Them. But this is not so. Evil must be invited into the human heart; therefore the Western masses (i.e. Not the leadership classes) are deeply complicit in the geopolitical and internal strategies, in enough key ways that the continued spiritual domination of the leadership class is guaranteed. And at the root of this complicity are the materialistic, hedonic, atheistic, and anti-Christian assumptions; that have been embraced by the vast majority of Western masses of all kinds and regardless of whether they call, and believe themselves to be, spiritual, religious, or Christian. 

* This is especially obvious when moral behaviours of other civilizations or nations in their own countries is used to as rationale for destruction or takeover; but allowed and encouraged when the same peoples enter Western nations. Perhaps the most extreme example is slavery (although systemic and lethal violence against women is more common). Allegations of slavery in any other nation is regarded as evidence of their moral inferiority; yet when foreign populations enter Western nations they are allowed to practice slavery - so that slavery has now returned to the West in significant numbers and for many years, with full official connivance.