SDI - Subvert-Destroy-Invert - The spectrum of evil

People get confused about the nature, and even the existence, of evil - but if one recognises the reality of Good, then evil is straightforward: evil is the strategic destruction of Good.

(Good may itself be operationally-defined as Truth, Beauty and Virtue in Unity - TBV in U - with TB&V being regarded as real and objective values.)

Strategic means purposive, deliberate; that evil works over time with the objective of destroying Good.

(Note: It is not necessary that evil is self-aware that it is aiming to destroy Good - indeed most evil is done by the self-deceived; dupes and servants of only a small - but necessary - minority who know what is Good and know that they are aiming to destroy it.)

*

But destruction of good can be done in different ways, and at different extremes. So actual destruction of the Good is a middle term in a spectrum. That spectrum is Subversion, Destruction and Inversion - or SDI.

Think of marriage, as an example of Virtue - a Good institution. Evil first works by subversion of marriage - for example by propaganda (including works of art - novels, dramas, movies...) focused on the miseries and injustices of bad marriages, constraints of marriage, the joys and excitements of un-married and extra-marital relationships etc.; and by laws for 'no fault', quick, sanction-free divorce to encourage the breakdown of marriages. Marriage is weakened by subversion, to the point that strong marriage becomes statsitically rare and the 'normal' or average marriage is seen as a feeble, evanescent, faddish kind of thing.

At a greater extremity; evil may try to destroy the institution of marriage, to eliminate it altogether. This could be done incrementally, by making it acceptable, then fashionable, then positively valued to cohabit without marriage - and removing any social differences between cohabitation and marriage. It could be done by discouraging marriage through taxation, and unjust arbitration - favouring spouses who are the most selfish and short-termist etc. At the ultimate, marriage could be abolished.

Inversion, however, is actually a greater extremity of evil than destruction. This is important to understand - because it is a fundamental insight into the nature and motivation of evil without which it may be difficult to detect and to resist. The greatest extremity of evil is to invert the meaning while having people assume that nothing important has been changed.

So, beyond the evil of destroying marriage is the greater evil of inverting the nature, content, meaning and purpose of marriage, while maintaining that what results is real marriage. Inversion of marriage is a greater triumph and provides a greater satisfaction to evil than would the deletion of marriage from human society.

Or consider the virtue of Beauty as a different type of Good, from the perspective of SDI. Evil might subvert beauty - for example by inducing people to judge the quality of art in accordance with the sex, class or race of its producer, or the nature of the society which produced the work. Or beautiful art may be attacked and destroyed, or looted - as has happened in various times and places under the excuse of religious iconoclasm. But at the extreme is inversion of Beauty - especially ugliness praised for its beauty: examples include praise, prestige and professional prizes given to objectively-ugly art, architecture, novels, music and poetry (this is, of course, standard mainstream practise).

If Truth is the focus, as in science, the Inversion has been almost-completed. The social structure of science (funding, personnel, buildings, machines...) has been vastly expanded; but inside this structure the value of Truth has been removed and replaced. Science is now almost-wholly a generic managerial bureaucracy. The Truth has been hollowed-out and replaced by values such as career, public relations, money, and political values. Science has been inverted, yet people have not noticed - and still praise and support science as if it had something to do with the Truth.

*

My main point here is that inversion of Good is a greater evil than destruction of Good.

To have the Good denigrated as evil, to have evil persons and institutions lauded as exemplars of Good - such is the ultimate triumph of evil; and such is quite normal and usual in modern society.

The reason why inversion is a greater evil than destruction is that the war between Good and evil takes place in the spiritual realm; and the ultimate aim of evil is to create a situation where people - that is human souls, the true inner self - actively choose to reject the Good because it is Good, and instead actively to choose evil as their personal Good.

And for this purpose, inversion is far more effective than destruction.

The fact is insufficiently appreciated, hence the suggestion of an SDI abbreviation for the spectrum of evil from Subversion to Destruction to Inversion, as a way of remembering it.


Note: Probably the greatest and most crucial victim of SDI has been sexual identity - sexuality itself: man and woman as the differentiated, complementary, binary-basis of the eternal divine human soul. As an exercise, I leave the reader to work-out just how sex has been subverted, destroyed and inverted for apparently a majority of the Western peoples. This must surely count as the most remarkable and improbable - therefore deadly - triumph of evil over fundamental values thus far in recorded history.

Power and corruption - Is the evil of power an amplification, a temptation, or the fundamental nature of things?

In ancient times, it seems that power was regarded as A Good Thing - the only problem was getting it! The assumption was that gaining power simply enabled good people to do good things. 

Power was wanted for Us, and Our power was good. The evil of power was when They had it, and exercised it on Us. 

When someone with power did evil, then the ancient assumption was that power simply revealed their real nature - which had previously been thwarted of expression. 

Power for the ancients was thus an amplifier. 

It was as if goodness and evil were innate qualities; "a good man" given more power would, by his nature, do more good; and vice versa. 

The best society was therefore one such as King Arthur's Camelot; in which there was a good and powerful ruler. 

The era of power-as-amplifier also includes the assumption that the goodness of the ruler's power would permeate the people (as if the people would inevitably absorb the goodness of power, like a sponge). So, a good and powerful ruler, would lead to a better people. 

The idea that power corrupts, was a product of the modern era; and became socially dominant especially in the middle 20th century. 

We see it in literature such as the depiction of the Emperors and their courts in Robert Graves's I Claudius and Claudius the God - when many basically-decent individuals such as Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius himself, become corrupted by their power. (And those who are not corrupted get eliminated.) 

The corrupting effect of power was supposed to work such that a normal, or even good, person who got enough power, would strongly tend to be corrupted by it. So that a powerful monarch, or in the 20th century a secular dictator, might start out doing overall good; but would tend to become worse, get more selfish and paranoid, and do increasing harm...

The more power someone had, and the longer he wielded that power - the more corrupted he would become. 

Thus, in contrast with the ancients; the "power corrupts" idea was that power would itself tend make individuals evils: power was understood as a temptation. 

The more power, the longer the power was wielded: the greater the temptation.

From the late twentieth century the idea began to emerge that power was intrinsically corrupt: power just is corruption. 

While it is true that power amplifies innate evil, and also corrupts; in this most recent era there is more to power. It is not just a question of power bringing-out evil, plus tempting people to evil; on top of (and underpinning) these: power always is evil in its fundamental nature. 

This analysis asserts that power cannot be good, that power always is evil - because of what power is. 

Such an idea can be seen emerging in the depiction of the One Ring in The Lord of the Rings - where the temptation of power is, in practice, unstoppable in its corruption- such that even the most good and pure of people (Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, Aragorn) know they they would be unable to resist it.  

Here we may see hints of the current concept that the very nature and operation of power is evil (yet not quite fully in place, because the legitimate monarchical power of Aragorn is regarded as unproblematically good). 

Yet now, the situation is that power is regarded as coercion; as operating by compulsion of one by another; or of the masses by the minority rulers; or of people by the totalitarian System or "machine". 

A literary exponent of this vision of fundamentally evil power is Philip K Dick; with the depictions of future (and present day) dystopias as the Black Iron Prison; in which the whole structure of societal power is regarded as evil incarnate, set against each individual - who is a victim of power regardless of his position within The System. 

The operations of power are therefore such as to spread evil; in that power compels. Power propagandizes, coaxes, and forces behaviour - power deploys punishment for failure to obey; and power allocates rewards for compliance.  

In other words: power is all about bribes and sanctions and the like - these are not means to an end; but propaganda, bribes and sanctions, and brute force are what power is. 

The corruption spreads; because power is about getting others to behave in accordance with fear and greed, and the lust for power. 

This development in the understanding of power is, I believe, a consequence of the changing nature of human consciousness - the development by which human behaviour began as spontaneously and unconsciously immersed in the group-mind; and then (via transitional stages) became a alienated modern situation, in which each human experiences himself as cut-off from other people, from reality - even from his inmost self.

Whereas ancient power was diffused among the group mind - so that it was intrinsically shared-between the members; now power is experienced as external compulsion of one upon others.

Power makes everybody worse - the powerful, and those upon whom power is exercised! 

This is why the making of structures of power - power to shape, destroy and compel the world (as its people) - has been so much the focus of demonic strategy through most of the modern era. 

This has many and deep consequences; such that whereas the ancients could do good by power; we moderns cannot - power only does evil in the modern world, and can only do evil because of its nature. 

This applies to all humans with power - all are evil; and to all institutions with power, including Christian churches. 

Insofar as a Christian church is powerful, it is evil - it can only be evil. Whatever Christian churches do to increase their power is based on the false argument that power will enable them to do more good... The reality is that more-power simply makes churches more-evil. 

Because power is evil by its nature in the context of modern consciousness; institutional activity to "do good" that was normal in the past, is impossible in the present. 

Even when the intent to do good with power is genuine; insofar as power is attained, evil will in fact be done. 

This corruption of power is not just a temptation that might (in theory) be eschewed; the corruption of power is unavoidable, because it is in the fundamental nature of power. 

**

Note: What of the future? Well, it seems clear to me that, when power is known as innately evil; Christians need to lose their past keenness on getting and wielding power via - whether personally, or via institutions. The antidote to a world of power, is a world of love - and that is Heaven; and the mortal realities of Heavenly love that we may experience on earth. But even our idea of Heaven needs to be purged of past infatuations with power. We should also distinguish between the zero-sum games of power, which is all about arranging what is already created; and our potential for adding (eternally) to the sum and varieties of divine creation - through our own divine freedom, in harmony with ongoing creation. Of course, in our mortal lives in this mixed world, permeated by entropy and evil; we cannot eschew power, and necessarily participate in it - but we can and should recognize and repent the necessity. 

Further Note: Lest I be misunderstood - the situation is Not symmetrical. Although power is evil, power-less-ness does not mean good-ness. To be wholly good, power must not be operative. To put matters positively - goodness works by love, not power. Power is the destruction of loving relationship. 

However; in this mortal earthly life, love and power are always mixed in actual Men and their actual relationships, in a manner analogous to the inevitable mixture of good and evil in the hearts of each Man. Only after we have been remade and transformed by resurrection can Men (and other Beings) become wholly-loving. So, the situation in this earthly mortal life is that we cannot Be goos and loving (except partially and intermittently) but we can , and should, to affiliate to the side of love, just as we can/should affiliate to the side of God. It is not a matter of total reform and purification (which is impossible in this world) - what matter is a matter of taking sides; and, when it comes to values and matter of taking the right side.   

Acknowledgement: My awareness of the changing understanding of power originated from Tom Shippey's discussion of the One Ring in his magisterial The Road to Middle Earth, and some further discussion in the essays Roots and Branches.  

Two reasons why evil is so difficult to explain - the primacy of perspective and motivation

Considering that our life and world - and much of our social interaction - is underpinned and permeated with moral evaluations; we have a terrible problem about discussing the nature and presence of evil!

The difficulty about discussing evil is so lasting and intractable that there are plenty of people, including plenty of rich, powerful, famous and influential people - who will deny the reality of evil, in many and various ways! 

But even those insightful and honest enough to admit that they regard evil as real, have a terrible problem with explaining themselves - at least, they seldom succeed in explaining the nature and presence of evil. 

There are multiple reasons, many psychological and some spiritual, for the difficulty of explaining evil; here I am focusing on two important reasons: perspective and motivation. 

Both problems arise because people are trying to find a way of explaining the reality of evil, and they do this by seeking a way of generating an objective consensus about what is evil. 

In other words, they try to frame evil such that what-is-evil is defined in a way that "everyone" can agree upon (i.e. consensus) - and they seek criteria for evil that are, in principle, externally detectable and measurable (i.e. objective).  

They want evil to be something like a "scientific fact"; as they imagine science actually to be! Or perhaps something more like an engineering principle - something that elicits general agreement among the competent, and that reliably works when properly comprehended and executed. Something pragmatically-true.  

People therefore nearly-always try to explain evil in term of evil actions; and evil actions that are acknowledged to be evil by "everybody" - indifferent to the person's "perspective" . 

This immediately means that the examples of evil up-for-discussion are going to be second-hand and remote - often historical, and concerning other-people, elsewhere. Things like a particular group killing done on the basis of an ethnic or religious identity. Such are what people usually try to understand and explain. 

But in real life we find that we never actually do eliminate the effect of perspective! This is seen in evaluating current events. We find that from one perspective; perhaps a great and historical evil has been, or is actively being perpetrated, yet from another perspective this is not so. 

What appears as an objective and massive evil is denied, explained away, or regarded as compelled. One perspectives great evil is seen by its perpetrators and defenders as merely a lesser and necessary evil, the sort of practical action that is needed to survive in this world. 

I conclude that perspective never can, in practice be eliminated. To put it bluntly, evil people will have Good reasons for performing their "evil" acts. 

Perspective changes everything! And this is one of the arguments used to argue (what nobody truly believes) that evil is "relative" and therefore not really real. 

There are philosophical (or theological) arguments by which an objective model of reality is posited, within-which evil is objective; but these arguments are never universally accepted or believed. 

All philosophical arguments require assumptions, and these assumptions are not universal - so that philosophical analysis does not solve the difficulty of explaining evil, but merely leads to the difficulty being shifted to another arena. 

The other difficulty is that while evil is explained in terms of acts, or events, or phenomena - of a kind that can be defined, isolated and measured. 

For instance murder is first assumed necessarily to be evil; then the discussion moves onto a definition of murder, the detections of particular murders, the number of people murdered...

Yet the whole process is undercut by the fact that "murder" is an abstraction intended to cover a wide range of very specific events; and when it gets down to specifics we find that - in order to accord with innate and general morality - the action itself needs to be evaluated in terms of its motivation. 

In other words the objective aspect of murder turns-out to be underpinned by personal motivation which must be inferred.  

In short, when it comes to explaining evil; we cannot escape the importance of perceptive and motivation; and both of these are substantially subjective, inner-states.  

This is one reason why so many modern people in leadership roles try to assert that evil is unreal: i.e. because they do not wish to acknowledge the primacy of subjective, inner states; when it comes to the most important aspects of life. 

Or else they claim to be able objectively to infer inner and subjective states, using objective criteria...

Given the primacy of morality in so much of life; and that authority will therefore always justify itself in moral terms (even if that morality is an inversion of common sense or intuition) - one can see the necessity of somehow excluding the necessity of perspective and motivation in explaining evil. 

The outcome of which is that evil is not - cannot be - satisfactorily explained - which is where we came-in! 

Since morality is inescapable and permeates our world; it seems obviously important that the nature of evil, and its presence and degrees, be explainable, and that these explanations be understandable. 

The current state of incoherent confusion about evil is surely - and for reasons that I would suppose are obvious - an undesirable state of affairs. 

Therefore, I suggest that when we ourselves find it necessary to discuss or explain evil in this world; we start with an acknowledgment that, for such discussion to proceed with any chance of being useful; it requires achieving mutual clarity about perspective and motivation. 

Presumably (if the discussion is honest and sincere) - an up-front and two-sided declaration of where we personally stand on these matters.

In most instances; these will be found to differ - in which case there is no point in proceeding in the direction of arguing about whether such and such is evil. Instead, the discussion ought to go deeper, to consider the whys-and-hows of our assumed-perspective, and our assumptions concerning inferred motivations.   

Why is there So Much evil in the world today? - Much more than ever before?

The inevitable accumulation of evil through history leading to the End Times, seems to have been something that was apparent to various prophets of the past. 

It does seem very evident here and now; in that we are alive in the most evil time in history, and things are getting more evil by the month. This, I think, is a fact - not an opinion.

There are far more people alive now than ever before - now more than seven billion when the world population was less than a billion through history up until the early 1800s. Since early 2020, the whole world is clearly run as a single polity - and this polity has a global leadership and all social institutions that incorporate increasingly inverted value-systems in the realms of truth, beauty and virtue. 

So, our unprecedented state is that the entire world has a vast population who are mostly-and increasingly living by an increasingly inverted system where evil is regarded as good; and good as evil; and this demonic reversal is (by revealed preference) substantially supported by the masses.  

Therefore I conclude that there is a really tremendous amount of evil in the world today, and that this evil has the upper hand - and evil has been able to overturn not only all traditional religious practices (including where differing religions overlap - such as core aspects of sexuality and sexual identity) - but even personal experience and common sense understanding and reasoning. 

Thus we live in an insane world that lives by Evil Lies. 

It is interesting to consider why this should be; and immediately there seems to be several important reasons - and many more that I do not mention; which suggests a convergence of multiple evil phenomena, that things are coming to a point. 

In an overall sense, I think the End Times have been prophesied for so long because evil is accumulative. It gets added to, incrementally. 

Why? I would suppose that much of this relates to the fate of demons and damned souls. That demons (fallen angelic spirits) are in some sense confined to earth - also that damned souls become likewise spirits who are - in some way - bound to the earth. This would explain that the spiritual presence of evil increases. 

Then, what about the mortal Men who are incarnated in this age? Why are they (we) so prone to evil that we are unable to discern the starkest inversions and unable to discern even the grossest lies? Unable or unwilling to respond to knowledge of evil...

Such gross incapacity as has become normal and average is a consequence of Man's denial of (or total indifference to) divine, creation and the realms of soul and spirit...

In other words, as well as the vast apparatus of top-down evil; there seems to be a matching evil among great masses of people on earth - which suggests that there is 'something wrong' with many of the billions of individuals who have been incarnated in recent generations - and (apparently) continuing. 

Why would God allow such a situation to occur - given that God is creator and also loves us each and individually as His children? 

The overall answer must be some combination of this being the nature of this world, and that the situation is 'for our own good' - given that this mortal life is a temporary state whose function is primarily (but not entirely) to prepare us for eternal resurrected life.

I think we must presume that - although God works at the level of individual persons, and the world as a whole is merely a sum of these individual situations; this evil world is the kind of world that is best suited to the needs of kind of people who have actually been born into it (including you and me). 

In a broad sense; it is comprehensible that a world full of evil spirits and damned souls is the kind of world in which mortal Men who have a nature that is grossly insensitive to evil might have the best possible chance of learning what evil is, and deciding to reject it. 

Since this world is built for those who choose to accept Christ's gift of Heavenly resurrected life - the purpose of this very evil world is to bring naturally-evil people to a realization of the consequences of their choice to reject Jesus. 

There are increasingly only the two choices of Jesus Christ, or evil. There is no neutrality and no other viable options - because all other options are collapsing into convergence with obvious and explicit evil. 

Good and evil have become more distinct and ever-further separated. The situation is unprecedented in clarity and simplicity. Clear and simple enough for even the most tainted of souls to know what it is that they are choosing. 

Men may (of course) still choose to reject Jesus Christ and join the side of evil - it is each person's individual choice and cannot be compelled; but they will know very exactly what they are doing.  

So there is a how so much evil accumulated? And there is a why so much evil? And there are reasonable answers compatible with the loving nature of God and the needs of his children - especially the kind of children that make up a majority.   

After which we need to step back and remember that this is ultimately a 'bespoke world', individually-tailored, so each person and situation is unique - and my job is mainly to learn from my situation. 

Purposive evil is complex and strategic... (And this is good news!)

Good is simple and immediate - in the sense that good ends are a consequence of good means; and goodness here and now is the route to good futures.

By contrast, we see more clearly Now, then ever before, that Purposive Evil is complex and strategic... Why? Because evil ends must incorporate good means.

(Purposive Evil refers mainly to Satan and the demons, and their human servants and personifications - and to a lesser extent to those in charge of the long term plan for the subversion, destruction, and ultimately inversion of good.) 

If something approaching pure and immediate evil can be imagined - it would be utterly short-termist and self-gratifying; thus all evil in the world would be at war with each other and there could be No long-term increase of evil. Evil would, no doubt, to be found all over the place - including every human heart... But each little spark of evil would consume itself, and compete with each other spark. Evil would be a constant background but would not increase.

For evil to increase (which is the plan of Satan) then it must be woven with good over the short term to ensure the expansion of evil over the long term.


But this is a complex business - since it is desired (by purposive evil) that the proportion of evil should increase over the long term.

If we think of the admixture of good as the price paid for the long-term strategic triumphal expansion of evil - then part of the plan is that this admixture will increase in the percentage of evil as time goes-on.

So that in the early days of Leftism, it was mixed with considerable good (compassion for the poor, despised and enslaved) - so there were good socialists, even real and great Christian socialists... But after several generations the dominant Leftism has diminished and diminished the proportion of goodness until it is fuelled mainly by resentment, envy, despair... There is still goodness permeating and woven in - but as a much smaller proportion than five generations ago.

Abstraction is an evil - in an ultimate sense. (This writing, here and now, is an abstraction - and one can see the problem.) Because abstraction is a complex strategic tool - abstraction is dishonest about the ultimate nature of reality - it 'models' reality - for some long-term purpose... this abstraction (like evil) sacrifices short term goodness in pursuit of something long-term that is referred to as a good; yet that is not the way of goodness...

By contrast good is personal. Hence Jesus.

Anyway... my point here is that evil must be complex and strategic if it is to increase; and that this is a great weakness of evil.


We look around at the complex strategies of evil in the world today, and we are bewildered - and may feel intimidated by its sheer complexity and interlocking nature. What can we - such small and simple creatures - do against such an edifice?

Well, the real implication is the opposite. Evil has built this edifice slowly over generations because that is what is necessary for the expansion of evil in the world.

In sum - it is very difficult to be strategically evil. Simple good will destroy it; even simple evil will destroy it! The business of corrupting humanity to invert good and evil - such that we will reject salvation and embrace our own damnation... well it is is extremely difficult to manage, and innumerable things to to go-as-planned for it to succeed.


Thus evil is the part of global government, of international trade, of a single all-pervading and interlinked bureaucracy, of a populace locked-onto mass media 24/7... It is all terribly complicated, inter-dependent, terribly brittle.

Each individual person who is motivated by good can, potentially, inflict very considerable damage to strategic evil - simply by being good here and now; just doing the right thing - a tactic that is simple and obvious, and requires no Master Plan. 

This is one message of The Lord of the Rings... Evil is a vast and complex network, the product of many decades of planning, organising, building... Good is 'merely' a couple of hobbits and their friends; doing good things in specific here-and-now situations (assisted by divine providence); and (yet) triggering avalanches of consequences destructive to the vast-and-imposing, but actually-fragile, edifice of evil.

The Opposite of The Litmus Tests: Four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions concerning the ultimate nature of reality

Four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions

A few years ago I suggested that there are several Litmus Test issues, which the demon-affiliated totalitarian Establishment uses to pursue its agenda of damnation (these agendas include the sexual revolution, climate change, antiracism and - more recently - hatred of the Fire Nation and its leader - and some others). 

It is necessary to reject these Litmus Test issues, if one is to avoid being absorbed-into the agenda of evil; however rejection of such specific evil strategies is insufficient; and indeed double-negative ideology (opposition to that which is regarded as wrong) is itself a part of the agenda of evil.  

 

What is important are positive convictions; or more exactly positive metaphysical assumptions concerning the nature of reality - positive assumptions concerning the nature of reality (i.e. positive metaphysical beliefs) suitable to underpin, explain and guide a positive purpose to this mortal life.

I think there are at least four such assumption that it seems necessary to affirm; if one is to avoid being (sooner or later) sucked-into taking side with the agenda of evil. 

 

But in the first place, I need to clarify that "being a Christian", in what has until recently been regarded as the normal and socially-understood fashion of Christianity, has proved itself to be utterly insufficient. 

(This despite that Christianity is ultimately The Truth; and that a purposive and meaningful mortal life depends utterly on following Jesus Christ to resurrection to eternal Heavenly life.)

As of 2024 in The West; that a person identifies as, and believes himself to be, Christian and publicly states his Christianity; that the is an active member in good standing of a major/ large/ powerful Christian church or denomination - or is a priest, pastor, scholar or leader of such a Christian grouping... is Not a valid discernment anymore. 

2020 confirmed this to me: that one could be a practising, devout "Christian" yet firmly on the side of the agenda of evil (first the birdemic/ peck agenda, later the antiracism "MLB" agenda).

2020 saw a stark exhibition of the conformation of "Christianity" (that is, Christianity as defined by the church of which one is a member, this including any and all major churches in The West) to willingly and enthusiastic subordination of (supposedly) core church doctrines and practices to the then-expediencies of the evil establishment totalitarian agenda.

 

So - If not, then what?  

I suggest (at least) four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions that are needed to stay on the side of God, divine creation, and The Good in The West of 2024. 

Of course there aren't really four - and that these are separable and sufficient; and of course such things cannot briefly be explained or justified in a blog post. 

What I am trying to do is suggest (to a sympathetic reader) the kind of positive assumptions that are now required; and that these fit-together (as would be expected if they were indeed true). 

 

Four necessary positive metaphysical assumptions

1. That there is God, who is a person not an abstraction; and with a personal relationship with Men; and that we inhabit God's creation. 

Without these assumptions there is no purpose or meaning to life, and the universe has no relevance to our-selves - so we might as well shut-up and accept whatever happens to be happening. 

 

2. That we inhabit a living, conscious, developing universe. 

I believe that we cannot allow any-thing to be not-alive - if materialism is allowed even a toe-hold on our beliefs, it will end-up by regarding the universe as unalive and purposeless. We are compelled to choose. Either everything is "dead" - as modern science assumes; of all is alive; and, if alive, conscious, purposive, developing (evolving) through time. 

Eastern (including "Platonic") concepts of reality as a kind of stasis, play into the hands of the powers of evil; which is very keen on promoting oneness spirituality, Buddhism etc - for their own reasons. 

In other words: creation is alive. It seems evident, when I think about it, God would have zero interest in creating a universe containing "inanimate" stuff (or indeed "fields" or "forces") of the kind familiar from physics. 

 

3. This mortal life ending in death is followed by continued and personal existence. 

In some sense our "self" is immortal. Otherwise, there is no point to this mortal life.    

 

4. That purposive evil is real.

We need to assume, and believe, that there really is purposive (hence personalized) evil in this universe. 

 

That is, we need to recognize that there is a side of evil; a side opposed to God, divine creation and The Good. 

And realize, too, that evil is indeed a "side" in the spiritual war; the opposition in the spiritual war. 

For many generations, many people have tried to do without (to deny, mock, trivialize) the reality of purposive evil - but as-of 2024 this leads to de facto affiliation with the agenda of evil.

 

Evil is Not, therefore, particular Beings; but it is the side in the spiritual war to which any particular Beings give their allegiance. 

There are - strictly speaking - no Good or evil people in this world. All are mixtures. 

Therefore: Nice people can be (and mostly are, in The West) on the side of evil; Nasty people may be on the side of Good. 

 

(And, of course. Good people may be nice, and plenty of nasty people are indeed evil! We need to know all this, if we are not to be fooled by the 24/7 propaganda emanating from the agenda of evil, as well as our own likely prejudices and misunderstandings). 

 

If you consider that one of these four positive assumptions is unneccessary - or that there ought to be one or more further additions; you may wish to argue your case in the comments.

Why is our reality Good - why will Good win, in the end? (Pluralist theology)

*

A pluralist understanding of God needs to explain why the universe is Good, and why Good and evil cannot simply be reversed.

In a pluralist universe of the kind I envisage - Good 'Just is- it is part of the basic set-up which preceded God - it is akin to existence of matter and the laws of nature.

Evil is not primary, because evil is the rejection of Good - the intent to destroy Good - it is Pride conceptualized as the chosen preference for the self and for self-definition above reality.

Thus Good exists and is a part of reality, then one or more free agents (which are also part of reality) choose to work against Good, against reality.

*

Thus God is Good - at root - because He adheres to the nature of reality - rather than reality being Good because it is of God.

God is wholly Good by choice, not because Good is a property of God.

*

This seems to be the necessary Christian concept of Good.

For a Christian, God is not simply reality to which we must submit - whatever it might be; but God is a reality to which it is Good that we submit.

Good is real - and God is much, much, much more Good than we are (totally Good) - but not simply by saying that everything that God does is automatically Good-by-definition... No - it is that God always does do Good.

*

To a pluralist, there is a sense in which the triumph of Good over evil is contingent, and a matter which must be settled; Good actually has to win the war.

The result of the war of Good and evil is settled by superiority of forces.

But there is a kind of in-practice, 'pragmatic' necessity to the victory of Good.

*

A thought experiment:

1. Evil is to be understood as the destruction of Good, the pride-full defiance of reality. Evil is chaos.

*

2. Hence the triumph of evil in war is a triumph of destruction and falsehood - chaos eroding order (that order being Good and real). Evil (chaos) weakens itself, even as it defeats Good (order) - and insofar as evil (disorder) strengthens itself (organized, principled evil) - it lets Good in again by the back door.

*

3. Hence evil cannot utterly destroy Good in a pluralist universe - because the basic stuff of things (matter, laws of nature, moral laws, and the spirit foci of intelligence which were the basis of humans and of God) are indestructible; indestructible because they are prior to evil.

Evil can weaken Good, simplify structure, reduce complexity - can create false models of reality (but these are still models, hence structures).

Evil can reduce and reduce the amount of Good but since power comes from structure, evil cannot eliminate Good.

*

Thus if the forces of evil were, at some point in the history of things, stronger than the forces of Good, reality would be made more chaotic - but order could not be eliminated.

The emergence (the evolution) of higher levels of Good could be delayed. But if ONCE a wholly Good entity became dominant - became God - then His ultimate victory would become inevitable (although that victory could be delayed); however that victory need not be complete - evil will not be eradicated (because some or many foci of intelligence may choose to refuse to acknowledge it, and they cannot be compelled) - and that victory may not be permanent in the sense that evil may at times grow again and inflict more damage again, and need to be defeated again.

*

It can be seen how, in this sense, God must be Good (or else He could not become God - could not attain the power of God) and - by the time that God IS - then Good must be stronger than evil and must win in the end.

(Win by making things right except for those who do not want themselves made right (those who choose hell); and making things right by healing the effects of evil, rather than any total and final obliteration of the possibility of evil.)

The war of Good and evil can only end finally if-or-when every single consciousness in existence has chosen to subordinate themselves to our Good God. If that cannot or does not happen, the War in Heaven will continue; or at least it has the potential to begin again.

*

But we can also see that War in Heaven, Spiritual Warfare, is a reality - and an eternal fact of the universe - it is a real war, and must be fought, and not to fight it would lead in the victory (but not the ultimate victory) of evil; and it is but at some times it will be much larger and more destructive a war than at others.

(Because this is a plural universe that we have assumed, after all.)

*

The progression of Luciferic, Ahrimanic and Sorathic evil; related to our loving-creator-personal-God, and to Jesus Christ

Christianity is not just about Jesus Christ; it is built upon several other realities:

1. We inhabit a creation - the world is created.

2. The creator is a God, i.e. a personal God (not an abstraction)

3. The creator God is loving towards all the Beings of creation (God might be otherwise, but is not)

In sum: Jesus operates in the context of reality being the creation of a loving (hence necessarily personal) God. 

Jesus is necessary because of the nature of creation: Creation takes place in the midst of primordial chaos. 

Primordial chaos is primal Beings existing without love - without coordination, without harmony; each Being a world unto Himself. 

This is why our mortal reality (termed Primary Creation) is subject to Entropy. Entropy is the spontaneous tendency of creation to revert to primordial chaos. (We experience Entropy in terms of disease, degenerative change, and the inevitability of death for all Beings)

Jesus offers the possibility of permanent and complete escape from entropy and the threat of chaos. 

Evil is the rejection of creation. 

Evil therefore came after creation. 

Evil entails the rejection of love, since love between Beings is what makes creation - creation is the harmony of Beings. 

The first evil is called Luciferic.

Luciferic evil is the assertion of a Being's selfishness ("my" self is all that matters) and the rejection of Love between oneself and other Beings. 

Luciferic evil therefore aspires to use (therefore not destroy) creation; to use creation in order to serve its own selfish will and personal gratification. 

Luciferic evil does not aspire to the damnation of other Beings (i.e. to make them reject resurrection into Heaven); it tends to be indifferent to the spiritual fate of other Beings. 

A Luciferically-evil Being, exploits ruthlessly and without love: desires that any and all other Beings will serve his personal satisfaction. 

In a sense; a Luciferic Being desires that creation will serve his will. This is why he is not against-creation as such. 

It could be said that Luciferic evil hates God (is anti-God; because God is loving), and is indifferent to Jesus.  

The second evil is Ahrimanic. 

Luciferic evil tends to develop into Ahrimanic evil; because Luciferically evil Beings band-together in mutually beneficial alliances, in order more effectively to exploit other-Beings. 

Ahrimanic evil is an alliance of the selfish. 

Ahrimanic evil is anti-God, which it inherits from Luciferic evil; and Ahrimanic evil is in addition anti-Jesus. 

Thus Luciferic = anti-God; whereas Ahrimanic = anti-God plus anti-Jesus. 

Therefore the alliance of the selfish will organize, manipulate and coerce other Beings, aiming that these other Beings will reject salvation: will reject the offer of resurrection to eternal life in Heaven.

In sum; while Luciferic evil desires the exploitation of Beings; Ahrimanic evil desires the damnation of Beings. 

Ahrimanic evil desires damnation because it is more spitefully evil than Luciferic evil. It's desires are not just for selfish gratification; but also for the immiseration of others. 

It could reasonably be said, therefore, that Ahrimanic evil is a greater evil that Luciferic; wanting not just its own satisfaction, but the stripping of satisfaction from others. 

This is why Ahrimanic evil has tended towards depersonalization via bureaucracy. 

The Ahrimanic aim of omni-surveillance and micro-control is not just a positive aspiration for domination; it is also actively directed-against the freedom and agency of other Beings. 

Yet Ahrimanic evil of-itself does not aim at the destruction of other Beings: it aims at domination, not destruction. 

It wants a universe of miserable slaves.

(Indeed; including the "enslavement" of animals, plants, earth and heavenly bodies, and indeed the "mineral" world; permanent utter domination of every-thing, rather than to kill every-thing.) 

And the Ahrimanic desire for damnation of other-Beings is a consequence of being against Freedom and Agency. Salvation is, after all, an eternal choice for resurrected Men to participate in divine creation; which absolutely entails their agency and freedom.   

The third evil is Sorathic. 

Sorathic evil is anti-creation; it aspires ultimately to reduce creation to chaos.

Sorathic evil is directed against all kinds of creation; it is against not only positive Good, but also against Luciferic and Ahrimanic evils - insofar as these seek to exploit or enslave creation. 

Sorathic evil can be considered a completion of the motivational shift from Luciferic to Ahrimanic evil, which is a shift from seeking personal gratification by using other Beings, to a type of personal gratification that enjoys the utter domination of other Beings. 

A qualitative shift from hedonism, to spitefulness. 

Sorathic evil moves on from the desire to dominate the whole of creation, to the desire to destroy all of creation - including oneself, insofar as we all are products of divine creation. 

The Sorathic can be seen as a purely negative form of evil, found in Beings that have lost all capacity for positive personal satisfaction, and can only enjoy destruction.

To summarize: Luciferic evil is pro-creation and anti-God because anti-Love. 

Ahrimanic evil is pro-creation and anti God (anti-Love) and also Jesus (anti-salvation). 

While Sorathic evil is "anti-" all manifestations of creation - including anti- all Beings (including anti-God and anti-Jesus Christ); also anti-Love, and anti-salvation. 

Sorathic evil tends to chaos; but it is not pro-chaos. 

Ultimately, Sorathic chaos is the negation of creation; the end-result of being anti-every-thing...

***

Note on Sin = Entropy and Evil; Salvation being from both Entropy and Evil 

Entropy (termed "Death") and Evil are, together, what is called Sin in the Fourth Gospel. 

Jesus came to save us from Sin - that is, to offer us the chance to reject Sin eternally; live without-sin eternally. 

Thus resurrection into eternal Heavenly Life saves us both from entropy including death (as well as disease and degenerative change); and simultaneously saves us from evil of all kinds. 

Resurrected Eternal Life in Heaven in therefore the Second Creation; which is derived from Primary Creation but operating entirely and eternally on the basis of Love, and without entropy or evil - because Sin is left-behind at resurrection. 

Evil is incremental, but Good is qualitative

People have a false idea about the nature of Good: a false understanding which itself often leads to evil. 

I think part of the problem, is the tendency among intellectuals to seek symmetry in concepts, as if symmetry was to be expected. Whereas (it seems to me) that, aside from structures, genuine symmetry is rare and exceptional in this world. 

So the usual assumption is that Good and evil are two sides of a coin, or a continuum. (Or even that pernicious idea that Good is a happy medium between two extremes of evil.) 

We all know from observation, and experience, that evil is incremental; and that people can be corrupted gradually, step-by-step - by pushing them further and further into doing (and not repenting) evil acts until the person joins-with the side of evil. 

We can observe this gradual, insensible corruption among our acquaintances, in society-at-large - and perhaps we have seen the same in ourselves.

There seems to be a general idea that affiliation to The Good can be accomplished likewise. The idea that we can increase faith, reach towards a Godly (or Christ-like) state, can "become better Christians", by incremental steps of doing more and more Good acts. 

That seems to be a covert assumption under which many churches operate - the assumption that if churches can get people doing more and more "good things" - they will gradually become stronger and more secure in faith. 

Furthermore, there is an assumption that a partial Good has the tendency to lead-onto affiliation to overall Good. So that if a person is dedicated to some Good like the beauty of music, or the truth of science; or has adopted some partially-valid spirituality (such as Western Buddhism, or Jungian psychology) - then all such things are "steps in the right direction" and will tend to develop Christian affiliations. 

Well, these are empirical claims. That is they are not self-evident; but are claims about the nature of human beings and how the world works. I do not agree that this is how the world works!  

In contrast with evil; I regard Good as a qualitative, not quantitative, thing - and therefore not capable of being adopted by increments. 

While it is true that evil acts tend to lead to corruption, desensitization, and towards an affiliation with the side of Satan - I believe the situation is utterly different with Good. 

Good works do Not lead to strong faith - as can easily be observed in the mainstream Christian churches - especially in in relation to the birdemic and peck...

In early 2020, mainstream Western churches (including those known for exceptionally good behaviour and acts of charity) - all, and without any apparent soul searching or crisis of conscience, quickly and comfortably made strong affirmations of their affiliation with the side of global totalitarian bureaucratic materialism.

That is - they adopted the materialist healthism behind the birdemic scam - while many have since adopted one or more of the Litmus Test issues by which totalitarianism is pursuing its goals: antiracism, climate change, the sexual revolution and transagenda, and the rest of them.      

From this gross failure of the true spiritual mission of the churches; it ought-to-be evident that partial Goods do not reliably tend to lead towards the affirmations of Christianity - or at least not on a detectable timescale. 

What instead happens is that most people get 'stuck' on partial Goods; convinced of their Goodness but unable to perceive or unwilling to acknowledge the limitations of their perspective; and thereby blocked from making the necessary deep and existential commitment to God's agenda which their behaviour contradicts. 

For instance; Jungian psychology is a partial Good if compared with the gross reductionism of mainstream materialism. Yet it is a very partial, radically-incomplete, perspective that accepts many of the errors and distortions of positivistic scientism; and which tries to be agnostic about the reality of a personal God - when agnosticism is de facto equivalent to atheism.

Consequently; most Jungians have taken the side of evil, and are deeply committed to aspects of the agenda of evil.  

Yet, despite its innate contradictions and metaphysical gaps and blockages, people get stuck in Jungianism; and (in effect) try to solve its deep incoherence by a lifetime of superficial tinkering.   

This happens frequently, because the problems of Good and evil are often metaphysical - that is, they are due to primary assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

To become a Christian entails believing that there is a personal God who is creator, who is Good, and of whom we are children - and then making an inner commitment to live our lives eternally in harmony with the purposes of such a God. 

Such fundamental assumptions and decisions are Not a conclusion of incremental life experiences. Accomplishing acts of charity, devotion, worship, learning... these do not lead people by step towards adopting such an overall world view and affiliation. Nor does dedication to the partial and this-worldly Goods of creating aesthetic beauty, pursuing the truths of scholarship, or healing of the sick. 

Good is thus qualitative, because God is qualitative - and because our choice to work with - or against - God is qualitative. 

Either we adopt such an affiliation, or we do not. 

Someone who affiliates to Good is 'Good' in spiritual terms - even when he does not do many 'Good acts'. Conversely; someone who leads a life of 'service' and does many Good works, may be and often is on the side of spiritual evil. The Good works have not prevented him from serving the agenda of Satan. 

In sum: Good and evil are not symmetrical - they are different in their nature. Men can be corrupted incrementally towards evil, by inducing them to perform evil acts and not repenting - or indeed celebrating - them. 

But, contrary to centuries of church practice and belief: Good cannot be pursued in an analogous fashion.  

As a result; partial Goods may not be 'better than nothing'; but may, in practice, be worse than nothing; since partial Goods may sufficiently gratify individuals that they fail to seek a full and coherent answer to life's problem; and instead get-stuck on something that helps them feel better, but without providing a sufficient solution to the core problems of this mortal life - and without providing the love, faith and courage to resist the temptations of the world. 

If this world is ruled by evil Men, affiliated with Satan - what does this tell us about God? (Concerning negative versus positive Christians)

It is important for people to realize, to acknowledge, that the global leadership class of 2023 - especially those of The West - are affiliated to evil; i.e. are allied with Satan and against God and divine creation. 

But making this acknowledgement is not sufficient to be Christian, because the Christian God is Good - and Good by (the best and highest) human standards  of Good - as exemplified and taught by Jesus Christ. 

In other words; to be Christian, we must also correctly understand how it is that God, the creator, who is wholly-Good - makes things, such that this world is ruled by evil Men who serve the agenda of Satan. 

In other words; we need to understand enough about the nature and motivations of God to make sense of the current fact of things-now being substantially under evil leadership. 

And there are (from a Christian perspective) right and wrong ways of understanding this.

As so often nowadays; this line of reflection almost immediately gets-down to fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality - especially the nature of God (in other words - to metaphysics). 

And as so often nowadays; such reflections operate as a stress test on some of the historical incoherences of Christianity - in this instance, the dogma that the Christian God is an Omni-God (omnipotent, omniscient, and creating everything from nothing).

When the Omni-God concept is made primary - then there is no real Good or evil; because everything is of-God. 

Our human ideas of Good and evil are then merely the delusions of Beings who have been made depraved and weak, and forced (for incomprehensible reasons) to dwell in the realm of an evil dictator - with the only goal the negative one of acknowledging our own depravity and that evil of our situation. 

Somehow; this acknowledgement of evil is supposed to be the only path to our personal salvation. And yet this (we must believe) was the only and best way that we (who are supposed to be completely made by God, in complete accordance with God's designs, and having experiences completely dictated by God or God's servants) can escape eternal torment.    

I have noticed that some of the Christians who pass the Litmus Tests of our time - and who therefore appear to be 'good Christians' - are doing so negatively rather than positively. In other words - such Christians recognize the evil of the Litmus Test issues - but only because they regard this whole world as essentially evil. 

Such negative Christians regard Men as essentially depraved creatures who inhabit a world that God has given to the rulership of Satan; and which Satan - who is a sadistic, lying tyrant - operates as a prison of torment.   

In other words; such negative Christians regard God as Good (in some ultimate and abstract sense) but one whose Goodness is morally-incomprehensible - because God (as an Omni-God, qualitatively utterly distinct from men) operates by values that are beyond human comprehension and empathy. 

Because if a Man were to treat his children in this way, he would be regarded as a moral monster! 

An analogy might be parents who deliberately choose to send their son to a boarding school whose headmaster is a sadistic tyrant, and who employs sadistic tyrants as teachers; and these teachers ensure that the most sadistic and tyrannical of the boys are praised and rewarded, and encouraged to torment the children at the school and expunge anything in them that is Good or joyful. 

Even more extremely; since these parents are 'omnipotent and omniscient' - we must assume that they might not have sent their son to boarding school at all, but chose to. And they might instead have picked a better Headmaster who had some Good motivations and employed a better staff and encouraged Goodness in the boys... 

But no! These parents chose to force their kid to inhabit torture-school...

And further - these parents must be regarded as having made their son such that he was by nature depraved, that he was corruptible by evil; he is set-up (by his creation-from-nothing) such that he cannot resist corruption.  

Such choices are de facto imputed to the Omni-God - and belief in Omni-God is then made mandatory for Christians... 

Negative Christians are driven to such extremes by their dogmatic adherence to the Omni-God. 

In the past, it was possible, indeed not unusual, for Christians who believed in an Omni-God to operate in a way that was inconsistent with their belief - and which instead focused on the nature, example and teachings of Jesus. 

But nowadays, because of the stresses of these times - the contradictions of mainstream, orthodox Christian theology have been brought to the surface, and confronted by a more evil world than ever before - a world in which the organized institutional 'Christian' churches have (almost-) all chosen to obey the totalitarian agenda of evil, and who actively-support many or most of the globalist-leftist Litmus Test issues. 

Yet to regard this world and Men as essentially evil is to reject that which is specifically Christian, and to adopt a Judaic/ Old Testament/ Islamic - or even quasi-Gnostic - view of God; as incomprehensible or even apparently evil by even the best human standards. 

(The Gnostics believed, in essence, that this world - and all 'matter' - was created and operated by 'the devil'; and was therefore wholly negative, operating only as a test to elicit a spiritual and other worldly desire. For the Gnostics, we Men could not learn anything positive from our experience in this world - we could only learn the negative lesson of its evil, and experience the desire to escape from matter into pure spirit. Meanwhile - for Gnostics - knowledge of God could only be negative ('negative theology') - we could say what God was not; but could state nothing positive and substantive about God. In other words; this is a double-negative theology - in which 'Good' is only the negation of evil. While there are no modern day Gnostics - it can be seen that this negative metaphysical attitude has been, and still is, a feature of many religions and spiritualities. This is also revealed by the commonly-expressed double-negative conception of salvation; which is so often described as as an escape from default-torment - e.g. "Jesus came to save Men from Hell".) 

It seems obvious to me that Christians - i.e. those who follow Jesus Christ - cannot (and should not) follow this path of regarding this world as created by God as a prison ruled by a tormenter; and of God's nature as utterly unlike even the best aspects of the best of of Men.

The test of these times involves both accepting that this world is indeed ruled by evil men who serve Satan; and also understanding that God is Good - and Good by the best standards of the best of Men in this actual world. 

This means that (in 2023) Christians are being compelled explicitly to reject the old error of the Omni-God in Christianity - failure to do so is pushing Christians towards a kind of double-negative pseudo-Christianity, in which God and the ultimates have more in common with the world-view of Judaism, Islam, or even the Gnostic...

In other words; we are called-upon explicitly to reject a type of 'Christianity' that demands (above all else) complete obedience to the incomprehensible and (to us ultimately depraved humans) apparently-immoral demands of all-powerful and abstractly inhuman deity.

Such a Christianity has no essential role for Jesus Christ as such - its theology and demands are wholly-derivable from God as-was before the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: Jesus has been wholly-absorbed-into the Omni-God (as must all of creation be absorbed into an Omni-God). 

Such a pseudo-Christianity is an Old Testament religion (plus/ minus various Greek and Roman philosophical assumptions) - and such remains the case no matter what lip-service is paid to the importance of Jesus.  

In one version; Jesus has been absorbed into an already-existing Old Testament project, without any qualitative break or inflexion; in another version Jesus is just treated as-if he was simply God the Creator.  

To be a positive Christian in 2023 therefore entails more than just rejecting the temptations of the Litmus Tests on the basis that the world world is evil and God made it this way. 

We cannot negative our way out of trouble! 

Good comes from Good, not from a vast piling of evil upon evil. When Christians find themselves talking as if Good could come from evils, they ought to regard this as a reductio ad absurdum - and examine their assumptions that led to this non-sense! 

Christians need to be led by Jesus Christ, not by a pre-Christian conception of an Omni-God. 

A Christian in 2023 needs to detect and reject evil - yes!

But only as a means to the end of pursuing positive Good. 

**

Note added: The reader may notice that I emphasized 2023 throughout. Negative Christianity often worked well in practice in earlier eras - and this is also useful to understand. Firstly, Men had a different and more group-ish (immersive, passive, un-conscious) form of consciousness in the pre-modern era; and this resulted in society-wide forms of religion. The positive aspects of even the most negative theologies were therefore sometimes ameliorated by positive social practices - particularly those handed-down by tradition. One example would be that of Eastern Orthodox Christianity as found in the Byzantine Empire, or Holy Russia. As well as an ascetic and meditative monasticism rooted in negative theology; there were all kinds of ritual and symbolic practices that were part of everyday life and provided a counterbalancing of warmth, aesthetic satisfaction, colour, energy - often the veneration of Mary, the Mother of God was a particular route for this. Something analogous can be seen in some Medieval Roman Catholic societies of Western Europe. But things have changed - modern Men's consciousness is more autonomous and individualistic and consciously aware of things once taken-for-granted so that we must choose much that was previously spontaneous; automatically absorbed from society. Now (2023) there are no Christian societies that provide that kind of communal and primarily-motivating religious life. Each Christian is, in an existential sense, "on his own". Therefore the long-standing flaws of mainstream Christian theology have been unmasked. Thus life in 2023 is always and everywhere a testing-time for Christians; in ways that 1223, 1523, or even 1823 - were not (or not always).  

The self-destroying nature of Leftism is no cause for complacency among Christians

*

The fact that the world view of atheism, Leftism, political correctness is self-destroying is often regarded in a positive fashion by the political Right, as if their preferred party were 'on the side of history' and they merely have to wait...

So reactionaries often wish for the self-destruction of the Left to come sooner rather than later - in other words, they anticipate with pleasure that the Left will soon become so powerful that the Left will soon destroy itself.

*

It is quite correct that when the Left collapses, when the Left destroys-itself, then the Right will take-over - this is correct, but which Right?

My point is that if the logic of Leftism is carried through to its self-destroying end, then it is not likely that Christianity would step-in and take-over.

Secular Right wingers might look forward to a brief period of rulership, yet they too are a self-destroying ideology.

Which leaves only the religious Right among whom Christians are not the strongest nor more rapidly growing major religion.

*

But, at a deeper level, to wish for the self-destruction of the Left is to wish for the triumph of evil - and to hope that from triumphant evil will come Good.

If evil is destroyed by Good, then Good may emerge from the chaos - but if evil is so dominant in the world that it destroys itself, i.e. evil destroys 'the system' by which evil is maintained, and chaos ensues, then where will Good come-from?

How likely is it that a society so thoroughly corrupted that it killed itself, would be re-born purified? Where is purity when corruption is everywhere?

*

Good could only come from outside 'the system', and for that we must pray - but if Good does come from outside, then why hope for the Left to triumph such that it will pull the social edifice down upon itself?

If we hope to be rescued by external intervention after collapse and evil triumphant, then why not hope to be rescued before collapse?

Why not hope to defeat evil before it triumphs?

*

No, we must not hope for the self-annihilating triumph of the Left in expectation that on the other side of evil chaos will lie our salvation.

We must not hope that the parasite will kill its host; must not wish for the cancer of Leftism to grow so large and metastasise so widely as to overwhelm the organism upon which the malignancy depends for sustenance.

Surely, to hope for the advance of evil - for whatever supposed long-term benefit - is oneself to be evil?

We must instead hope for the defeat of evil by Good, of the Left by Christianity, before it is too late.

*

(Although the 'defeat' of evil by Good is always partial and temporary in this world, nonetheless, that is what we must hope for.)

***

Note added: I think that the confusion arises, by which Christians find themselves hoping for the triumph of evil, as a consequences of failing to distinguish ultimate purposive evil from the proximate servants of evil.

At the level of people who serve evil, their triumph may indeed lead to their own downfall - so that an evil leader may have their own power and happiness destroyed as a result of their own evil.

Yet this is just another triumph for that purposive evil which lies behind things. For purposive evil, the destruction of its own servants is simply part of the plan - the aim is that human souls are used then tormented, some sooner, some later.

For purposive evil, all destruction is to its credit. All the servants of evil have some Good in them - for example the faithful servant of evil is at least faithful, therefore their destruction is always a satisfaction to purposive evil.

The unseen warfare, the ultimate spiritual conflict of this world, is not between humans. Humans may be strategic warriors on the side of Good, or tactical dupes on the side of evil.

We are servants, but servants that can and must chose their master.
*

The nature of evil characters in fantasy - Tolkien and Rowling

*

What is the difference between good and evil characters in fantasy novels?

There is a superficial difference which seems universal to the genre, and a fundamental difference which is seen only in the best of the genre.

*

The superficial difference is that good characters are kind, honest and altruistic, while bad characters are cruel, lying and selfish.

But the main superficial difference is kindness versus cruelty - the scenes which depict the evilness of the evil characters are typically those where they take pleasure in torment and torture.

This is seen in the best of the genre as well as the mainstream - Tolkien's orcs are cruel and love to torture, Rowling's Death Eaters love to torture Muggles and Muggle-lovers.

This can be seen as a hedonic morality, evil characters make others miserable: Vote for the goodies and have a better life.

*

Cruelty is never good but it is possible to imagine a fantasy novel in which the goodies were violent and the baddies are pacifists. When the regime is evil and in control, and the only escape from oppression is by force, then evil may be pacifist. 

In Lord of the Rings Wormtongue takes a pacifist line when it comes to fighting Saruman, and he tries to protray Eomer as a blood-thirsty troublemaker who is the cause of provoking Saruman's aggression against Rohan.

In the Deathly Hallows where Voldemort controls in Ministary of Magic, official propaganda presents Harry and his supporters as the cause of all repressions, and provoking the necessity for the Snatcher squads. If only Harry would surrender, or would be handed-in to the authorities - then all would be peaceful...

*

But the fundamental nature of evil in both Tolkien and Rowling is that evil desires to usurp God and itself be worshipped.

This meaning is deeply buried, but it is there.

The reality of Tolkien's universe is that The One is supreme; but Morgoth's prideful desire is to be worshipped in his place. Sauron is Morgoth's chief 'priest', and when he corrupts Numenor Sauron reinstates the worship of Morgoth. Presumably this would be Sauron's aim if he ruled Middle Earth - or alternatively to set himself up for worship (there are indications in the History of Middle Earth that Sauron pretended to be Morgoth at one point).

It is this displacement of God which is Morgoth/ Sauron's fundamental evil - that they falsely set themselves up as the supreme object of worship.

*

And in Harry Potter something similar applies to Voldemort.

While Dumbledore and Harry implicitly serve some higher but unnamed Good (which is, in fact, God - as is suggested by the Harry-Dumbledore discussions of the King's Cross - Limbo chapter, and its depiction of the state of Voldemort's soul) - but Voldemort wants to be worshipped as supreme.

This is perhaps why Voldemort/ Tom Riddle will not allow anyone to speak his name, will not allow his name to be 'taken in vain' - this is characteristic of a jealous god.

*

So, in the best fantasy, evil is ultimately that which would falsely usurp God as that which ought to be worshipped: evil is that which sets itself up to replace the true God.

The goodies are those who oppose this - and the characters are defined as good or evil not so much by their conduct as by which side they choose: real God or usurper; truth or falsehood (although conduct is also affected by the choice of sides).

Evil is an objective wrong because it is a denial of the Truth of the universe, the evil usurper is not - in fact - God: God is God - the only legitimate object of worship.

*

In fantasy novels the attempt to enforce worship of evil leads to the superficial features of evil; because to worship evil and deny God is inherently false; it is distorting, unnatural.

The desire to overturn the organizing principle of the world is indicative of the primacy of pride and will - and to re-order the world requires immense power to reshape everything according to the will of the usurper - the more unnatural the desired state, the greater the power required to create it.

Hence evil characters seek power over the world. The unnatural deployment of power then leads on to the 'superficial' side effects that characterize the evil characters in fantasy: destruction of beauty, denial of Natural Law, deceitfulness, and that cruelty that delights in bending the will of others to conformity with the will-full fantasy of the evil villain.

*

Not a war to win, but a war to destroy

Long-term (six year plus) readers will know of my recurrent "obsession" with the subject of evil; and the nature and definition of evil. 

This is because I believe that the nigh-universal lack of understanding of evil has rendered almost-everybody helpless in the face of a very powerful class of persons who have successfully engaged the hearts and minds of a very high proportion of the population of The West, and many other places. 

Bluntly; lack of understanding of evil has led many hundreds of millions of people (at least) into supporting strategic evil - and with a clear conscience, because they regard that evil as actually "good".

In other words, the inability to understand the nature of evil has led to moral inversion: what is really and intentionally evil is regarded as good, and vice versa.  

And people are not (as they may once have been) merely victims of manipulation - because it is of the nature of evil that once embraced it increases (evil feeds-upon itself).   

Thus we find that the nicest people are, on average, the most deluded; the most likely to be most powerfully supportive of the strategies of evil. 

This is particularly stark when the strategy being supported is a deliberately maximally-destructive war. 

And a war intended to embrace in destruction its supporters - themselves, their families and friends, their homeland, their ideology and passionate convictions - all that they superficially suppose that that they hold most dear. 

A world war is openly being planned - with full public declaration, before our eyes, in the mass media - in the West: in the UK and Commonwealth, EU nations, the USA, and beyond. 

Indeed this war is becoming the only game in town: as a long term strategy war is displacing all the other evil-motivated plans/ "good causes" such as I term the Litmus Tests: socialism/ leftism, CO2 climate environmentalism, birdemic-healthism, antiracism and feminism, the sexual revolution etc. 

All are being wound-down, and preparations for war are building-up.  

What is worse - or rather worst - is that this war (which is, in part, intended to be an expansion of the war that has been going in Eastern Europe over the past four-plus years, and in the Middle East more recently, and incipiently in East Asia) is not a war to win; but a war intended to destroy.

What is already afoot and expanding in Europe, is war of a kind seldom or never seen before in human history. In this actual and coming war; although one side does indeed want to win, and wants an end to the war (or begins that way); those who control the the other side want this war to continue, to expand, to increase in intensity - without end-point.

This happens because those who control one side are not of that side, but are instead (successfully and without being detected) using that side primarily and ultimately to pursue all-round destructive purposes.

This is happening, the strategy is working; things are much worse than almost anyone - including the experts - realize; exactly because almost nobody in the West understands evil; and especially they do not understand the sheer negativity of evil.

War analysts (of all sides) consistently assume that war is about seeking benefit, a negative means towards positive goals; and will end when that benefit has been attained. 

But when a war has been created, and is being sustained and expanded, in order to destroy; and ultimately in order that the participants come to support that goal of destruction - then this is a very different matter. 

The developing war situation is one that cannot necessarily be stopped or reversed - even if there was a general and effective will to stop it - which there is not. 

Evil has such an easy time in the modern world because there are so very few people (and none with power) who are strongly on the side of God and Good.

The mass of people cannot and do not support Good because they do not believe Good exists, or has any objective meaning. Their vague notion of good is something that exists (temporarily) only psychologically; as culturally-contingent notions in the heads of themselves, and people like them. 

The idea that The Good is a part of Reality, or The Universe; is literally meaningless to mainstream modern people - it is not so much denied as something that simply does not make sense. 

But we need to recall that the war of this world is always and ultimately a spiritual war; so this is no exception. 

This is a ultimately war to induce people - as many as possible people, on all sides - to align with spiteful destruction as a spiritual goal.

And this happens by value-inversion; by inducing people to regard evil as good and vice versa; and this is easiest when evil is not understood. 

And this failure to understand evil becomes inevitable when people do not believe-in or understand Good. 

And this failure to understand goodness is inevitable because so many people have assimilated the official and culturally-mainstream fundamental assumptions - e.g. that there is no God, no spirit, no salvation: no possibility of external and objective purpose and meaning in the universe.  

The ongoing and accelerating war of destruction is a consequence of these deep and multi-generational cultural trends. 

This stuff is not some hypothetical future scenario; on the contrary this state of deep incomprehension and value-inversion describes where we are now, culturally. 

And where we are stuck; because it can be seen that the problems run very deep, and have many layers. 

Which is presumably why we are all marching blandly and blindly towards a vastly destructive and intentionally-endless war that nearly-everyone supports indirectly with sadistic vehemence. 

Note: those who publicly oppose the ongoing-upcoming war are also (very nearly always) part of the fundamental problem that has led to the war, and share the same war-generating fundamental assumptions. They do not oppose the war for Good reasons. 

Are the demon-serving (or demon-hosting) Establishment afraid of dying? Not necessarily, but increasingly

It is often said on Christian blogs that the demon-serving high-level globalist Establishment (Them) live in fear of death; because They know They are going to Hell. 

But I do not believe that They necessarily live in fear of death. Some do, no doubt - but not all, by any means; and that has been an important fact in the nature of global evil.

But this may be changing; and more and more of the most evil Men of this world may be becoming terrified of the own deaths; and behaving accordingly with their most evil natures...

What follows are my intuitively-guided speculations on this subject.  

Some of Them do not fear death, I think, because in some instances Hell (accurately understood as a personal fate, rather than a uniform destination) is exactly what They desire, and what They prefer to Heaven.

In other words; They have understood and rejected Christ's offer of salvation. They do not wish to affiliate to God's creative intentions, which entail making an eternal and unbreakable commitment to live in Love. They prefer, and choose, Hell (at least, as They understand Hell will be for Themselves). 

Their choice is, instead of Love; to live (after mortal life, as well as in it) especially in-accordance-with that sin to which each is personally most devoted: pride, resentment, fear, lust, sloth, or whatever. (This is well described in CS Lewis's The Great Divorce.)

The question then is: to what extent this choice is fulfilled in actuality? Can They actually get what They most want? 

In other instances, They do not fear death because They do not believe that they personally are going to die. Not fully: not in their essential nature.   

How They believe this continuation of consciousness is to be achieved is necessarily speculative, but I have written on this subject before.  

In a nutshell; I think They believe that They may continue to 'live' because what we might term Dark Magicians purport to conjure animate thought-forms by group activities that entail mental concentration and ritual. 

This is regarded - not as a spiritual activity; but instead as a quasi-science; a manipulation of the material world by means of channeled will. 

(This belief intersects with the most ideological forms of Transhumanism; when people hope for continued life in a 'downloaded', or perhaps transplanted, form of consciousness. This shows how a wholly materialistic/ atheistic perspective can lead to quasi-spiritual hopes and intentions.)

It is the group nature of such Dark Magical activities that lies behind the Ahrimanic, materialist quality of evil that has dominated the world in recent decades. 

In other words; Ahrimanic evil operates by organized, hierarchical, bureaucratic mechanisms - to create a unified global System that is a mechanism for damnation.  

I think it likely that Their oft-observed concern with symbolism, signaling, ritual, pain, sacrifice etc.; is part of a genuinely black-magic orientated group-concern. This is not just about somewhat extending mortal life (although that is part of it); but also, ultimately, (for perhaps the 'chosen few') with attaining a kind of immortality after mortal death in a material but ghostly, or spirit form, 

The personal goal is then to continue (self-gratifying) activities in this world, as an 'honorary demon'; that has been created (and, probably is sustained - because this state is subject to entropy, and therefore needs constant infusion of energy to remain viable) by Black Magical means.

But, having said all this; I also believe that there has been a change in human consciousness over recent generations, but particularly since the millennium; and that part of this change has been a sharp decline in the ability of group-activity to conjure thought-forms. 

This change in Men's consciousness has affected the 'good magic' of Christianity, as well as the black magic of the demonic Establishment. This development has been a part of the decline of church-based Christianity: the fact that it can no longer do for people as much as it used to do. 

Those Christian group practices that used to 'work' reliably and powerfully to sustain and enhance spirituality, are now diminished in effect, and still diminishing. Indeed, for many people in the West; these practices have altogether lost spiritual power; and church activities have declined to a wholly psycho-social and political role.  

However, this development of consciousness must - I think - also have affected the power of Ahrimanic evil - and this will probably be one of the major causes that the cooperation of evil consciousnesses, which sustains The System, is now breaking-down.

I am (again!) talking about the transition between Ahrimanic and Sorathic evil, about which I have written many times before. 

I mean the breakdown of long-termist and coordinated evil by the defection of individual evil Beings; into the chaotic state of many simultaneous personal agendas each characterized by short-termist and destructive spite.

This is something that can be observed in the world today. The globalist alliance that launched a successful (covert) coup in early 2020 has, this year, fractured geo-politically into Anglosphere/ Western European 'West' and its vassal states; versus the others. 

Furthermore, The West has fractured such that the dominant elements are beginning to destroy the vassal states by acts of sabotage - financial, economic, demographic - and recently actual physical sabotage. 

This must have a confidence-shattering effect on many Establishment members who, until recently, 'trusted' that They would be exempted from the planned mass destruction; and would be rewarded for Their cooperation by eternal 'life' - among other and more immediate gratifications. 

Whether the evil-Establishment were correct to trust in the integrity of the principalities of evil is, for Christians, a question that answers itself! Yet, such Faustian stupidity is a fact of human life. Many Men have believed that Their cooperation with The Plan would win personal rewards; believed that They had a contract with evil, an agreement that evil would "honour"... 

(Despite that the powers of evil cannot be trusted; and will lie and cheat as is expedient - or as provides Them with some kind of sadistic enjoyment.)

Anyway, the hope was that They could achieve a kind of eternal existence of self-gratifying worldly activity.

There must, I think, have been some such 'trust' between lower and higher evil-souls - however misguided - in order to enlist the cooperation of so many individuals in so many nations. 

Many of These are now realizing that They have-been, or soon will-be, betrayed.

They face a dawning awareness of the terror of bodily annihilation and eternal spiritual torment. 

Of course; this betrayal and disillusionment opens a window to repentance; to affiliate with God and accept the salvation of Jesus Christ. 

In this mortal life it is never too late to repent - although it gets harder and more painful, the further advanced in evil a soul has gone. 

But, when repentance is rejected, realization may lead instead to a kind of destructive frenzy of vengeance - the desire to inflict as much suffering on others as possible, before falling into the pit oneself. 

This very purely negative form of evil, a 'lashing-out' which takes 'pleasure' only in the doing of evil and not in rewards from so doing; is what I call Sorathic - and it seems to be gathering strength, perhaps especially in the Establishment of the dominant Western power: the USA. 

I would guess that the 'promised' reward of an eternal life of personal satisfaction was, at best - only ever, in practice, short-term. 

Sooner rather than later; the promised rewards are revoked, and the self-gratifications of eternal living are inverted into a state of eternal slavery; a continued existence only as objects of torment for the pleasure of other evil beings - who are Themselves destined for the same fate.  

As the cabal of organized evil breaks down; such betrayals will be happening, and be observed; more and more often; and no doubt some terrible conclusions will be drawn. 

If this interpretation is correct, and the Dark Magician cabal is increasingly breaking-down into mutual warring factions; factions that then themselves splinter break-down into each against all - then these times are both very dangerous and somewhat hopeful. 

Christians are no longer up-against a coordinated conspiracy - which is good. But those evil Beings (human, as well as demonic) that remain powerful in this world, will feel that - now that their chance at 'eternal life' is gone' - They have nothing to gain from long-termism or cooperation;: nothing to lose' by sheer spitefulness. 

They seem highly likely to behave in an increasingly reckless and frenziedly destructive manner - whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. 

Be Prepared (spiritually, I mean).

Free will is Not the cause of evil

It is a mistake when Christian theologians explain evil in terms of God's gift of free will. 

Because free will is not a cause of evil.

I mean: free will is not even potentially a cause of evil.   

Evil comes from evil: evil acts come from an evil nature. 

A good Man would be free, but would do no evil.

Proof? 

Jesus Christ: He was free and did not evil. 

If Men also had good natures, Men would freely do only good. 

Therefore the cause of evil is the nature of things; the cause of evil in Men is the evil nature of Men. 

If, therefore, you believe that God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo) - including Men - then this entails that God must have created the nature of Men capable of evil.

(This has nothing to do with free will. Free will does not come into it.)

But since God really-is wholly good, and also Men obviously do evil - then it follows that God did Not create Men from nothing. 

The evil that is in Mens' nature is not of God. 

Thus there is something within Men that is not of God. 

Conclusion: Men are not wholly created by God. 

(And the notion that God created everything from nothing is refuted.)

Evil? Don't let it into the heart. If evil is already inside, then label it as evil

The problem with the most prevalent forms of mainstream, normal evil - such as the Litmus Test issues - is that they are invited into the heart; and once inside the heart they are regarded as good. 

There are many incentives - immediate and long-term, psychological and social-material - for supporting the net-evil totalitarian strategies that I call Litmus Test issues; there are many rewards for support, and many sanctions against failure to support. 

And when we inhabit a decades-old and pervasive-intrusive totalitarian ideology; almost all of public discourse is inhabited by one or another (or several - of all!) of the strategies of evil; such that it becomes all but impossible to survive and thrive without going-along-with one or many of the strategies of evil. 

Such is the nature of the human condition in a world where evil is dominant; and where that dominance of evil reaches down into the detailed workings of (almost-) every significant nation, institutions, organization, corporation - and nowadays penetrates even into friendship groups, clubs, hobbies, and the family itself. 

How can we inhabit such an evil world, without ourselves taking the side of evil in the spiritual war of this world? 

The (Christian) answer is very simple, I believe; because it "simply" involves that we recognize evil, and inwardly reject that evil. 

This recognition-rejection sounds easy, and it can be easy (a child can do it) - but in practice is apparently so difficult as to be not just impossible but incomprehensible. 

One difficulty is that "we are all sinners", as the phrase puts it; that is to say, we all practice evil. This is unavoidable not just because this is an evil-dominated world, but because we ourselves can only sometimes and partially desire and live-in-harmony-with divine creation. 

For much of our lives we cannot resist thinking, wanting, and doing evil.  

Therefore, to recognize and reject evil entails that we recognize and reject many aspects of our-selves, and those whom we most love...

And also that we recognize and accept that this situation will not (because it cannot) change: for all of mortal life on earth, we are and shall-be stuck-with our own and other people's deficiencies and wickedness. 

If the above is a broadly correct account of human life on earth; and if evil ought to be dealt-with by recognition and inner rejection; then we can see that it is a Big Problem - perhaps the biggest of all current spiritual problems - when people invite evil into their hearts and call it good. 

Instead, we should strive not to invite evil into our hearts. 

But when, inevitably, we do invite evil into our hearts - when we (inevitably) find ourselves supporting some evil strategy... then we must resist doubling-down on our sin, and calling that evil good. 

We must, especially, resist defending intentional strategic evil; or promoting it on the grounds that is a lesser evil than something else; or on the grounds that - like all evil, everywhere, ever - the strategic-evil contains some good, or potentially good, aspects. 

No - instead we must do that which is simple: recognize and reject. 

And when - and it is a case of "when" not "if" because everybody is a sinner, all will fail and fall; and fail frequently... daily, hourly - we are compelled, or cannot resist, going-along-with or even publicly-supporting some evil strategy...

Then inwardly, in the privacy of our souls, we need to make a clear act of recognition and rejection. 

Don't invite evil; and when we have already invited it into our hears; ensure that the evil does not become a familiar, habitual, acceptable, friend and companion. 

Ensure instead that the evil we have already invited, accepted, and already supported in our hearts; then gets acknowledged and labelled in accordance with its true nature: as an evil we inwardly reject.