The basic error of New Age spiritual optimism

It was in its spiritual optimism that New Age spirituality was most deeply and dangerously in error - an optimism that derived from the middle 1960s hippie movement (or perhaps from the middle 1950s Beats/ beatniks).

The basic stance of this movement was that modern people had spiritually progressed beyond those of the past; that there had been and was ongoing a transformation and advance in human consciousness - with all kinds of new information, experiences, possibilities.

Crudely, but accurately, the New Age assumption was (and is) that the younger generations were spiritually better than the older. This was unwarrented self-congratulation, self-congratulation for one's actual defects! It was indeed spiritual Pride - which is one of the most dangerous of sins. 


I believe that New Age optimism is almost-completely wrong - or more exactly is based on a deep confusion (often a deliberate confusion).

Modern Man has a destiny, possible now but not in earlier eras; but that destiny has not been embraced - and was not embraced by the New Age, but was merely claimed to have been embraced, while the truth of the matter was a deepening materialism (especially political) and pleasure-seeking (esepcially sexual). 

They understood themselves to be people aiming high and achieving new heights; but in contrast, I see people who consistently and with great stubbornness refuse to aim high - who are reductive and disenchanted in all areas of life - at home, at work, in spirit, in church and other groups.

They are people who deny the fact that We, including the New Age people themselves, are more 'this worldly', more materialistic (reductionistic, positivistic, scientistic) than ever before in the history of Man - and it is getting worse.


When I look at the New Age movement over the past fifty years; I see supposedly-spiritual people who are either merely engaged in mundane, petty gossip and bureaucracy 'about' spiritual matters; and/ or people who engage in covert personal hedonism (usually sexual, and/ or financial exploitation) superficially dressed-up in a spiritual garb. 


Our current situation is actually one in which spirituality has been refused; for generation upon generation. This continues; and therefore our situation is getting progressively worse.

Each generation declines from the earlier, because the refusal of the necessity of spiritual progression gets more deeply entrenched.

When spiritual progression is necessary yet does not happen, the gap between where we are and where should be increases - it has increased from a gap to a gulf.

There is an ever-greater distortion of the relationship between our-selves and reality. New Age optimism is one aspect of this distortion.


We ought, therefore, to be pessimistic about the future unless or until there is a massive, qualitative, wrenching and world-shaking change in our basic spiritual stance; until we acknowledge the spiritual as primary at a macro- and micro-level.

This would, obviously, entail a transformation of human thinking. Which is not the kind of thing that happens without people noticing; it is not the kind of thing that happens gradually.

Of course transformation could not happen in a permanent way (not in mortal life) so transformation would be intermittent (perhaps brief, certainly unstable) - but at any given moment it either is, or is not.


The dishonest claim of permanent and solid transformation has been a plague of modern spirituality. While we ought to strive for the spiritual as much and as often as possible; the situation can only improve when people are clear about the times when they (and others) are Not attaining the primacy of the spiritual.

We must recognise that modern man had-and-has a destiny to become consciously spiritual - to become as spiritual as hunter-gatherers but to do so consciously. It is because such conscious spirituality must be chosen, voluntarily and in full freedom that we have not done it.

The spiritual has not happened. As things actually are, optimism is not just mistaken but harmful.


Despite New Age claims; Man's destiny has not even begun to happen at a societal level. The basic nature of our world is one of increasing evil consequent upon the fact that we have refused, and continue to refuse, to recognise the reality of the spiritual and live-by the reality of the spiritual - to make this our life-priority, to seek it to the best of our (limited) ability.

Optimism and the ideology of progress: the Achilles Heel of Western Civilization

I have often commented on the absolute need and demand for optimism that is characteristic of our Western civilization. 

So much so; that many Western Christians have come to identify here-and-now, this-worldly, optimism with the virtue of Hope - which ought to come from faith and trust in God and the salvation of Jesus Christ that happens beyond death. 

So much so; that too many Western Christians refuse even to entertain pessimistic socio-political analyses, because for them pessimism about the future leads them to despair - which they rightly recognize as a sin. 

Their mistake is to suppose that the fault lies in the pessimism, rather than their own this-worldliness, their absolute demand to feel optimism. 

I will argue here that the ideology of progress, and the dependence on psychological optimism, are an Achilles Heel of Western civilization - which both explains and predicts the decline of real Christian faith: a faith that ought to be rooted in hope, not optimism. 

Historically, as the religion of Christianity waned, the ideology of Progress waxed; so that the one replaced the other as the dominant world view.

(The term religion ought to be reserved for religions with gods, spirits, another-world etc. Secular, materialist, this-worldly belief-systems - such as nationalism, communism and other species of Leftism - should instead be termed "ideologies".)  

This emergence of a "replacement for religion" of Progress was very evident, and much discussed, in the late 1800s and into the early decades of the 1900s - and it was so powerful a movement of thought that it hoovered-up and assimilated mainstream church Christianity. It also led to the Theosophical Society-derived, Hindu and Buddhist influenced, "New Age" spirituality of the past half century or so. 

Such a replacement of spiritual, other-worldly, religion by a this-worldly and materialist ideology; seems (in retrospect) almost inevitable - given the socio-political necessity for providing people in the Western nations with some sense of purpose and a basis for organization. 

This progressive expectation - this optimistic expectation - affected all the major Christian churches and denominations, especially those that saw (for some decades, at least) church growth - such as evangelicals both Protestant and Catholic, pentecostals, charismatics, Mormons... 

All were institutionally optimistic about continued expansion in numbers, growth in resources: outcomes of "success" that would be materially measurable. All looked towards some approaching this-worldly triumph, and socio-cultural dominance, or even takeover. 

Even that characteristic modern Western spiritual form called New Age, incorporated optimistic progressivism into its belief in reincarnation. 

Contrary to historical conceptualizations of reincarnation; New Age reincarnation provides grounds for optimism, being seen as an almost-inevitable process of learning, and consequent incremental increase in spiritual stature, with spiritual "progress" accumulating across many incarnations. 

New Age "Karma" will be the cause of this-incarnation constraints, and we may suffer set-backs from bad choices or bad-luck in our present life; but New Age Karma is essentially an optimistic process; building towards higher spiritual status.  

So - there are psychological (and consequently sociological) advantages to the modern spiritual ideology of optimistic progressivism. These include:

1. An expectation of change, therefore novelty and variety of life.

2. The expectation of something to look forward to, incremental betterment of the human condition; because things will improve - sooner or later, and all adversity is regarded as a set-back (e.g. the notion of "what does not kill me, will make me stronger").

3. Provision of a sense of historical direction, and therefore a basis organizing principle for one's life, and society. 

4. A belief that this Will Happen. That is, the implied (if not explicit) idea of "historical inevitability"; so that progress is something that happens to us, is imposed-upon us - and all we need do is respond accordingly; operating like a wave of positive change that we can surf into the future. 

   

However, there are (as is now evident) deep, inevitable, and ultimately fatal, problems with the ideology of progress, and a life built upon optimism. 

One is that by conflating Christian hope with optimism about this-world; Christians become vulnerable to despair when their life in this-world gets worse - and despair is something they are (rightly) told is a sin. 

Therefore, to avoid a despair which is actually a consequence of their secular and this-worldly ideology; such Christians refuse to be realistically pessimistic under any circumstances; e.g. deny the past reality and probable continuation of terminal decline in Christianity, and their church. 

They deny even the possibility that their church may be annihilated (whether by destruction, or by assimilation into some other institution or system) - because such a possibility would lead them into despair. 

The absolute necessity for optimism therefore renders modern Western populations (including most self-identified Christians) dangerously vulnerable to manipulation and external control, by any societal (or spiritual) powers that can affect their psychological state. 

At first people are manipulated into supporting almost any socio-political ideology that offers them an optimistic world view, that offers a feeling of participation in an inevitable trend...

But eventually, having been disappointed over and again, and having lost faith in a better this-world to come; then these people will be manipulated into despair - and by their own assumptions they will be trapped in this despair. 

In effect, such people will lose faith in God and will cease to believe in salvation, because they demand to feel optimistic about an inevitably better future in this-world. 

Such people will see their own pessimism as evidence of God's failure (or non-existence) to make this-world a progressively better place. 

And they will regard eternal salvation beyond death as merely a pitiable (and dubious) second-best compensation for what they regard as Jesus Christ's failure to ensure an always-improving mortal life and world. 

It can be seen that the ideology of optimism and the expectation of progress has been a highly successful long-term demonic strategy. 

Our only hope of hope, is our-selves to abandon the demand for optimism; which includes understanding and experiencing that the true object of Christian hope is located beyond the grave...

Such hope being situated safely out-of-reach of our current psychological feelings concerning the likely prospects for an improving mortal life on this earth. 

The channeling phenomenon of the twentieth century

Throughout the twentieth century orientated towards the millennium, and spilling over somewhat up until the 2012 'delayed millennium', there was a significant sub-culture of 'channeling' among spiritual-but-not-religious people - those who from the 1980s were gathered under the New Age label. 

The phenomenon was essentially a development of the spiritualist mediums from the 19th century; but instead of focusing on contact with the deceased on behalf of their surviving spouses and relative, the mediums of channeling purported to be contacting what might be termed 'spiritual teachers'. 

These channeled-teachers were of a wide range; from God and Jesus Christ, through angels, down to 'ascended Masters', prophets, and famous people of the past - or sometimes named, but imperfectly identified, spiritual authorities. Others were quoting from spiritually perceived sources (e.g. "The Akashic Records").   

I would regard Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy - late 19th century) then Rudolf Steiner (from about 1900 - Theosophy, then Anthroposophy) as probably the major precursors and originators of New Age style channelers. Steiner, in particular, exemplifies both the possibilities and pitfalls of the business. 

I have been investigating the literature on channeling for about 8 years - since I became engaged with the work of William Arkle and the circles he moved in. In his later years, Arkle took a serious interest in several of the channeled books which came out from the early twentieth century, and which were especially abundant in the 1980s and 1990s (Arkle died in 2000). 

Since I respect Arkle, and have learned so much from him, I thought this phenomenon was worth a look; even though Arkle's best work (in my opinion) comes from the period before his late-life engagement with the New Age and channeling.  

I got-hold-of - or took a serious look-at - all the books Arkle mentioned; including his particular favourite from 1931, an anonymous production called The Book of El Daoud, the Father-King, Which is the Gospel of Simplicity given unto his own. 

Others books included a series from 'Lord Mikaal' (i.e. St Michael) including Winds of Truth (from 1950s onward); The Only Planet of Choice from Phyllis V Schlemmer; MAPP to Aquarius by Nada Yolanda; Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh - still ongoing. 

I also listened-to/ watched some famous channelers in audio or video.    

To keep matters brief; I was overall very much un-interested and un-impressed by the authority and accuracy of channeling; as a way of gathering objective spiritual information for the benefit of Mankind.

There were - of course - some bits and pieces of what seemed like valid and helpful perspectives, usually of a very general (indeed obvious) nature. And there was also some indication that the process may have been somewhat helpful to some of the people involved - at first. 

But overall, teaching-channeling seemed like a net-harmful activity - especially over the longer term, and the prophecies - especially relating to the millennium - were wrong both in general and in detail. 

In particular; in the 1980s-90s; it apparently became normal in New Age circles to expect a millennial raising of human consciousness - often described as a raising of vibrations or frequency - which would raise-up the entirely of mankind; or at least those would would accept it. 

The process was primarily something done-to (rather than done-by) humans - it involved varying degrees of eagerness or acquiescence - but was envisaged as an external intervention (sometimes from extra-terrestrials, who - in this kind of scheme - took on many of the traditional qualities of angels). 

Included was a general idea of the expectation increased 'spiritual help' such as paranormal activity (or awareness of paranormal events) such as UFOs, Crop Circles, channeling itself, synchronicities etc. 

And also an increased presence-of (and contact-with) helpful spiritual beings of various kinds including ETs, angels, Masters; and the birth of a new generation of especially spiritual children (sometimes called 'indigo' children - or some other colours). At its most mainstream - in 2008; plenty of people believed that Barack Obama was an elevated spiritual guide called a Light Worker - who would lead the world into the New Age. 

In the event; none of this stuff happened but the opposite. Especially after the deferred millennium of 2012 (supposedly the end of the Mayan calendar and a new astrological cycle.  

The New Age dwindled, and Men got much less spiritual and more materialistic, this-worldly and nihilistic. 

And (especially since social media) the masses have handed-over their minds to the Global Establishment, rather than to spiritual authorities. 

So - is channeling completely bogus? No - because I know of at least one valid example; which is William Wildblood's experiences, described especially in his book Meeting the Masters. 

A comparison with the mainstream New channeling shows why. Wildblood's experiences were personal and private, and not revealed until log afterwards. The teachings were personally directed - tailored to the young Wildblood's needs and development. The teachings were also relatively low volume, and simple.   

This contrasts with the (more or less) famous channelers - who address 'the world', make everything public ASAP; and generate a large amount of highly detailed 'information' on... every subject under the sun! There is also a strong flavour of pandering to the audience about these messages - they say what will play well with the kind of soft-leftists who make-up nearly all of the New Agers. 

Furthermore, the New Age channelers/ mediums (or their sponsors) adopt a 'careerist' moeny/ status. publicity-seeking stance - and some of them also espouse and practice sexual 'liberation'/ promiscuity/ revolution.  

In conclusion; I regard channeling as probably a real thing, a kind of spiritual experience, that happened to some people in the 20th/ early 21st century; and was probably related to that particular phase in the development of human consciousness. 

But it was meant to be a personal and private type of communication and intended to be understood in a Christian context. 

Channeling was Not a kind of objective information, nor a quasi-scientific form of 'knowledge'; understandable, learnable and applicable for adoption by 'the world'. 

To return to Steiner; in his early years, and intermittently thereafter; Steiner made major contributions to understanding our situation in the world. 

But in becoming a professional, addressing 'the world', building a movement, and channeling a vast body of quasi-objective Spiritual Science (which has since been learned and - mostly - applied like cook-book recipes by his followers); Steiner became mostly (but never wholly) a producer of pseudo-knowledge - as did the later channelers. 

(Indeed; a great deal of Steiner's purported Anthroposophical cosmology, history and prophecy comes from Blavatsky's Theosophy, or is modified ad re-shaped from her - naturally, as Steiner was an official Theosophical leader for many years.) 

William Arkle - on the other hand - never seemed to go all this way. 

He was apparently misled, by the consensus of channelers, into a false spiritual optimism - and his hard prediction of a massive enhancement of human spiritual consciousness around the millennium did not happen. 

But his reading and understanding of channeled sources was so selective and idiosyncratic, that mostly it functioned as a confirmation of ideas he had already arrived-at himself - from personal and private intuition/ direct-knowing. He kept his 'teaching' simple, stuck closely to what he had tested and affirmed; and therefore it was largely valid.  

In a nutshell; I think the main value of the channeling phenomenon - as evidence by William Wildblood, was insofar as it was a direct and experiential confirmation of the reality of the spiritual. 

By experiencing genuine channeling either at first or secondhand; some people were lastingly convinced that there was more to the world than the material.  

Thus, true-channeling is probably more a matter of form than content; therefore it is best regarded as properly a transitional spiritual phase, or step towards Romantic Christianity. 

New Age - and the inability to discern

Two things strike me about that vast and decades-long New Age spiritual movement in The West.

The first is that they are plagued and pervaded by the malign consequences of the sexual revolution - which is a sign of lack of spiritual depth and conviction. And, with the 'anything-but-Christianity' animus, evidence of a strong covert motivation of practitioners and leaders. In other words, the hostility to Christianity and embrace of Eastern, Jungian and therapeutic spiritualities is often rooted in a desire to escape the sexual constraints of Christianity.

But the second, and something I've not written about before, is the gross deficiency in spiritual discernment evident in pretty much everyone associated with the New Age style of spirituality.

The most blazingly obvious psychopaths and charlatans are able to pass for enlightened New Age gurus and teachers - able to survive and thrive for decades.

This is so gross that it is evidence of a very deep deficit in ordinary human judgment. These are people who set-off the alarm bells of every decent person who has any kind of moral core, any kind of ability to judge character and motivation from facial appearance, behaviour, body language, and tendency.

The New Age is, however, populated and led by people who lack this basic, biological, adaptiveness. And this accounts for many of its problems; its shallowness, incoherence, psychotic optimism, political stupidity and immunity to experience.

The Celestine Prophecy and synchronicity revisited

"I've found a synchronicity!"

The Celestine Prophecy, by James Redfield, was a self published book of the early 1990s, that went on to become a major best seller; and contributed to the sense of millennial anticipation among "New Age" spiritual seekers. 

On the one hand, the book was much read and discussed - on the other it had a reputation of being day dreamy, wishful, vague, and ineptly-written in the cynical and materialist mainstream.  

I encountered the CP about a decade after publication, and found it a rather charming and naive book, with a pleasant kind of atmosphere about it; and which helped make a significant step towards me becoming a Christian - although that is not the book's intent. 

A few days ago, I downloaded an audiobook copy from Archive.org, and found that I still responded to its earnest and positive tone, while at the same time seeing more clearly the self-imposed limitations that derive from its being a continuation of the idealistic sixties counter-culture. 

The main positive effect of the Celestine Prophecy (and I sampled some of Redfield's follow-up books as well) was to focus my attention on the importance of synchronicity - the idea that the remarkable and positive "coincidences" of life may have meaning, and point to a purpose. 

I reasoned that if synchronicity was a real phenomenon, then events must be arranged in accordance wit some plan or intention. To my mind, this must mean not just an ordered universe, or a transcendent deity, but a personal and loving God. 

Because otherwise reality would not arrange itself around individual people, around me and my destiny. An abstractly structured universe would have no reason to care about individuals or their fate in the world.  

For synchronicity to happen, and to have significance for the future; the events of an individual life must (I thought) be somehow "arranged" and therefore have a spiritual significance. 

In a nutshell; there must be a personal creator God, who loves me (and others) as individuals, and who is continuing to create for our ultimate spiritual benefit. 

Such was my eventual benefit from reading the CP back in the middle 2000s.

But re-listening to the CP, I see that the author's intentions are different. It is not Christian, not focused on resurrected eternal life; but instead hopes for a transformation of this life on earth so as to become a kind of blissful spiritualized paradise of peace, love, harmony - without pain or suffering. 

Indeed, CP asserts that this is happening, and will happen - it will happen to us; because of the direction of history and reality. People fail to see it, because immersed in survival and the seeking of possessions, status, thrills etc. But it will happen anyway, because it must.

Related to this is the vision of synchronicities as something that also happen to us, guideposts pointing at our better future, and which it is best if we follow.  

The prophecies are presented as "insights" - which are items of knowledge that need to be grasped, internalized, lived. 

The picture is of some higher reality that communicates to our senses pieces of information that are qualitatively and positively transformative for the people, and societies, that acknowledge them. 

These are precious insights which need to be preserved, disseminated, read, pondered and internalized. That is how things are meant to happen - and that is what is resisted by the regressive forces, the materialists, the power structures, the exploiters...

The Good Life of the CP is therefore one in which we are guided through the world and our lives by synchronicities, to attain sequential insights, towards a state of enlightenment that is also contageous - in a good way. 

The insights spread from person to person, and each is permanently transformed by each insight - so there is a ratcheting positive movement (albeit this may happen quickly, or else be delayed considerably by our faults and my malign meddling).  

 

In sum - I find the Celestine Prophecy to envisage a very passive form of spiritual life. The millennial New Age will happen to us, will be imposed from externally; and synchronicities likewise. Our job is to follow - and our reward is that these are for our own good - and to make a world where people can be qualitatively more spiritual and happier. 

From here-and-now, I regard these as fallacies, because I do not believe that goodness or spirituality can be imposed from externally. People cannot be made good, the world cannot be made good - good just isn't a top-down imposable thing; it must come from individual choices, from personal freedom, fro the good in individual beings.  

I do not believe, either, that there can be a paradise on earth - because entropy and evil are part of this world. Evil cannot be cured from externally, and entropy is the primal state "within" which creation is always being made. 

I think that evil and entropy can therefore only be escaped and left-behind by a new, Second Creation, which is Heaven, which is post-mortal. 

In sum; the New Age aspect of Celestine Prophecy, and its counter-culture origins and continuation, is seen in a this-worldly (and indeed leftist) vision of the desirable future - a coming Golden Age on earth as culmination of social changes that were the basis of 1960s radicalism. 

It was written more than thirty years ago when tens of millions of people in The West believed that this not only can happen, but would happen - irresistibly. That all people were changing, were being made more spiritual.

Due to some external and universal influence - sometimes called a higher frequency of consciousness, higher vibrational level, new energy or the like (invariably, some term derived from physics - it seemed). 

And that this did not come from the personal loving creator God of Christianity; but from a purposive movement within the whole of reality - a wholly immanent, discarnate, spiritualized idea of everything as ultimately one. 

The millennium was seen as a restoration of a harmony which was actually a unity. There was to be no pain or suffering, because there was no conflict or competition, because everything was one. 

And that is what humankind, and everything on earth and everywhere else, was irresistibly and necessarily moving-towards.  

Yet it did not happen. 

That was not how the millennium went for us. That does not describe the world, now. 

But, somehow, this not-happening hasn't dented the assumptions behind the New Age. Tens of millions of people still seem to live in optimism for the paradisal Golden Age, here on earth - and in line with sixties idealism - they still see this as actually happening. 

A further thing about synchronicity. It now strikes me as ultimately false to suppose that our lives are segmented such that particular bits of them count as synchronicities. 

In truth: our life is continuous, a living process - and while our consciousness may be detached and alienated - created reality is (and always has been) a kind of loving family of relationships. 

The reason why we cannot usually understand The Meaning of a synchronicity, is because in defining it, we thereby chop it out from this process and web of meaning.

We pull out a synchronicity from life, like Little Jack Horner extracting a plum from a pie; and examine it minutely - but cannot see from that one plum the pie itself, nor who made it, nor why it was baked... 

The synchronicity thereby becomes mysterious in its meaninglessness! 

Such are my thoughts from a brief re-engagement with the Celestine Prophecy

The desperate appeal of deus ex machina

"Deus ex machina" is a term used to describe the plot device by which intervention from outside the action appears just before some catastrophic disaster, and solves an apparently impossible problem. 

In "real life" DEM has long formed the basis of optimism - the hope that something not-known (or known but previously inactive) will emerge unexpectedly to save us. 

Or to put it negatively, despair may be staved-off by hoping that "Something will turn-up". 

This may, of course, be true! 

Because we really do not know or understand much about how the world works; so there is never reason to give-up hope.

But hope is not the same as optimism - and it is a very different thing to hope for rescue, than it is to expect rescue by some unknown event.

In particular, it is foolish to construct a specific hope from a logical sequence of double-negative assertions. 

For example, that (for all we know) we cannot be sure that "leader"-X isn't really a genuine saviour, who is (despite superficial appearances) cleverly plotting behind the scenes towards some kind of decisive last-minute master stroke. 

Or, spiritually; the worse the world is apparently getting, and the weaker and more corrupt "my church" seems to be - nobody can disprove that this won't make it more likely that the Deity will (at last!) step-in, make a personal intervention, and save things in some unexpected fashion.

(Such a "saving might itself be negative - as in saving-from the default of Hell; or it might be positive in the sense of establishing a redeemed Church as dominant and pervasive across society.)

Such reflections were provoked by my again considering the (in retrospect) extraordinary optimism that was prevalent among spiritual people in the years approaching and just following the millennium. 

Among many or most such people existed a near-consensus that the whole world was shortly to be raised to a higher spiritual level (higher "frequency" or "vibrational" level); that would affect everybody and every-thing (like it or not).

...Although the more discerning in the New Age clearly acknowledged that for this external influx to be effective would also require a receptivity - or even some positive spiritual move - from each individual; in order to meet this incoming spiritual "energy" halfway. 

So an element of at least consent, and probably collaboration, was also required -- nonetheless the primary cause was a new, or greatly amplified, external influence. 

My interpretation of this apparently anachronistic millennial expectation is that it was the product of a kind of desperation; especially among those genuinely spiritual people who had rejected (or simply did not believe) Jesus's offer of reasserted eternal Heavenly life. 

And, mutatis mutandis, I think the same applies to the optimism (as contrasted with hope) of so-many of those Christians who are serious and motivated about their faith. 

The Christians who believe-in some kind of external saving of this mortal life and the earth; are guilty of conflating the true and sure hope of Heaven, with a false optimism concerning this-world. 

This false-optimism among Christians seems particularly pernicious, insofar as it entails God intervening to save (what seems to me) the most deeply evil civilization the world has yet known - I mean a civilization that is already, and increasingly, strategically and officially inverted in its values.  

The answer is simple, but difficult; and is to strive to be motivated primarily by next-worldly hope rather than this-worldly optimism - and to root this in the faith that God will (indeed, by Jesus, already-has) made it possible for anybody and everybody, in whatever situation, time, or place) to attain salvation.  

The next inference is more controversial among Christians, which is that this can only be attained by taking personal responsibility for salvation. 

In other words; I am assuming that there will be no worldwide, or even culture-wide, deus ex machina intervention; because everything has already been done; and "all" (!) that remains is for us as individuals is to recognize that reality - and to make our commitment, to choose to follow Jesus...

That is the essential starting-point. 

And then... we each need to discover what that actually means for us; for us specifically - here-and now.   

The cusp of a New Era? (but Not The Age of Aquarius)

It is very interesting to me that many people could foresee, before it had actually become evident, that the millennium would be the end of one age of the world, and the beginning of another. 

But it is not surprising that everybody who tried to describe what the new era would look like, got it very wrong. Indeed, it was usual to regard the post-millennium world with a diffuse (because dewy-eyed) optimism, as the dawning of an Age of Aquarius - peace and free-love, free drugs, constant rock music, and a great deal of singing and dancing. 

Well... Not exactly. Indeed, sixties style "freedom" is nowadays regarded as evil in the mainstream, and as for dancing... People dance less often (and less joyfully) now than at any time in history (including during the decade of Puritan Commonwealth!) - and far, far less than during the pre-millennial decades.   

Dancing aside; it is evident that we are now deeply, and it seems irrevocably, into the end of the present era of world civilization - and the end, too, of an age of the world. 

I say "irrevocably" because it is primarily an act of self-destruction - a willed destruction. 

Although most of those who will their own civilizational and (almost certainly) personal destruction would strenuously deny it; and will shrilly justify every single destructive policy and action of the vast and interlocking strategy of self-annihilation, by (what seems to them) reasons of values and necessity -- that this is mere shallow feel-good nonsense is almost instantly revealed when any honest attempt at understanding is embarked-upon.  

The leadership class live in a bureaucratic world of untruth, dual-dedicated to careerism while feeling good about themselves. Which combination is why they must be so pervasively dishonest... One can only feel good about deliberately planning and escalating gratuitous wars, by lying to oneself and everybody else - All The Time.

Meanwhile, the masses have chosen deliberately not to understand what is happening; which means not-even-trying to understand - and squashing one's own personal capacity to think and learn from experience; by self-drugging with mass media, addictive socializing, and assorted intoxications - these being perceived as the only alternative to becoming crushed by fear and despair.

The combination of an utterly corrupt leadership class with an utterly self-neutered mind-numbed population has led to the truly astonishing spectacle of a world that is today literally on the threshold of escalating mega-death from international war; with economic and trade collapse and famine - with far less public reaction or response than to a sporting event or celebrity scandal. 

There is, indeed, in England (who is currently closer to experiencing war than any other Western nation) no perceptible social awareness. 

We may hope for someone, somewhere in The West to have the basic common sense and capacity for consecutive thinking to step back and reverse the ongoing trends. But there are a complete absence of any such persons in public life - or indeed anywhere At All.  

Trends that have been advocated and celebrated for decades, driven by unified leadership and all major social institutions, would be very difficult to stop if there was a powerful and cohesive will to stop them - but there is not. 

By my judgment; nobody has any coherent or plausible idea of what is coming after this era; probably because the roots of the coming collapse are so deep and extensive, that it is almost unimaginable what might grow once these root have destroyed themselves. (Which destruction is currently ongoing, and soon will be all-too-obvious.)  

This is why we hear so many cyclical theories of civilizations - people simply can't imagine anything except a return to some previous situation. 

Of course, what this inability to imagine a plausible and coherent future may amount to, is that this could be the end of civilization. 

After all, in this entropic and increasingly-evil world, everything will have an end sooner or later, at some point - maybe this is what it is like to inhabit an end without prospect of a new beginning? 

And this is all covered by the words and actions of Jesus, whose kingdom is Not of this-world, and whose work specifically enables all those who follow him to transcend the end of this world - when (not if) it comes.  

So far as I can tell, this is the only antidote to becoming paralysed by fear and despair. 

We each (I think) need to be able to envisage the end of everything (and I mean every thing) in this mortal world; and yet realize that even this need not be the end for us (unless we choose to make it so) - but a transformation and beginning of something far, far better - and eternal. 

It is on this basis (from this basis) that we should live and "fight": not to save civilization, not even to save "the world" - because these cannot be saved (and our civilization as-it-is either wants nor deserves to be saved). 

But we should live and fight in this world in ways that contribute to everlasting life beyond this mortal life, Heavenly society we may enter after this corrupt civilization, and the for eternal divine creation rather than this world: which derives-from and sustains good, but mixes-in so much of evil and entropy. 

2016 - the year of ridiculous optimism

It seems that 2016 was the real 2012 - the winter solstice of which was supposed (by many of the New Age spiritual persuasion) to mark the inflexion point predicted by an ancient Mayan Calendar.

In contrast the redoubtable David Icke predicted several years ago that 2016 would be the crucial year, the beginning of a period of about three years when the odds would be stacked in favour of those wishing to overthrow the Global Establishment.

(The 'GE' being the demonic conspiracy to monitor and control everyone into a state that DI terms fascist slavery; but which I interpret as self-hatred, willed-personal-and-national-suicide, and ultimately self-damnation.)

Well, 2016 has indeed been a crucial year - the first such since 1967 (which was 49 years ago - or 7X7 years for you Pythagorean/ Platonist numerologists) in my personal experience.

By my understanding, such calendrical predictions are very approximate, and do not unroll according to any predetermined plan; rather they reflect the developmental phases in a destined (i.e. divinely intended) evolution of human consciousness, as mediated and modified by the vast complexity of human agency and demonic destructiveness. 

So 2016 is the beginning of a period of possibility; when we are being given the clarity of vision to see what has happened to us and what is intended for us - and the chance effectively to say No: to  take another path. The nature of that alternative path has yet to be chosen - and even the outlines are unclear; but it must be (because nothing else is wanted or could work) a path initially of spiritual awakening, leading on (at some point) to Christian religious awakening.

At any rate, I have been getting intermittent intuitions of, apparently, ridiculous optimism throughout the second half of 2016; intuitions which seem to validate what many other have written about and variously interpreted; that the mass of people (a majority, albeit perhaps not an overwhelming majority) have reached the point of recognising the malign intention of the ruling elites towards them and their nations.

So far things have not gone much further than this recognition and the new understanding that this is felt by very large numbers of people (and not just an insignificant and powerless minority). There has been a strong, and still growing-daily, backlash against this incipient awareness, from the Establishment and its organs of government, education, law and the mass media; but this anti-popular onslaught has brought the repression out into the open and undeniable - so it is probably feeding the movement it is intended to crush.

2017 is therefore a moral test for The West. We will be given the chance to escape certain doom, and take another path; but that other path will involve most people in significant personal sacrifice in terms of material goods, comfort, convenience, and so forth. The moral test is whether people are prepared to pay the necessary costs for a better future, or whether by clinging to their addictions and distractions they will embrace the down-slide into despair, self-hatred and chosen damnation.

This is not yet decided, and at present all possibilities lie open before us; and the choices are becoming clearer by the day. What is coming is a test of honesty, courage and love.

If we fail it, as a culture, then we will (as a population) have no serious cause for complaint about what happens after. But if we pass the test, then The West will be reborn with a positive spiritual and religious future; a life of meaning and purpose directed at becoming more-divine - and of course this is available only at the usual price of 'blood, toil, tears and sweat', payable in-advance, up-front, here-and-now. 

Everything always changes, and yet everything stays the same?

Is it true that everything changes, and yet everything stays the same? 

It does seem to have a general truth, especially over the long term, and in one-direction - when the first "everything" is taken to mean the superficial aspects of daily life and things, which are always changing; but the second "everything" means the fundamental and overall goodness of daily life.

For instance, the design of an entity - whether a car or a constitution, fashions or laws - tends frequently and always to be changing (especially in this age of left-totalitarian bureaucracy), and these changes can be "sold" as improvements; however, these changes do not add-up; they fail to lead to any fundamental improvement in things-in-general (e.g. the totalitarian society of left-totalitarian bureaucracy continues, and indeed solidifies). 

What I mean by "one-direction", is that while it is common and easy for surface changes to make life overall and in the long-term worse; this seldom works in the inverse. 

It seems difficult and rare for a multitude of superficialities to improve life in a lasting and qualitative fashion. 

This is related to the observation that while it is relatively quick, easy and cheap to corrupt people and make them worse (It happens All The Time; and I have seen this qualitative corruption of people more often than not over the past decades; e.g. in relation to my class of people in medicine, science and academia). 

On the other side; it is so slow, difficult, and costly of effort to improve people; that I think it fair to say that there is no known method by which it can be done. 

To put it differently; people can be made worse passively and unconsciously, simply by their going-along-with the changes of life, passively responding to the incentives towards evil...

But for people to improve, to become better-people; requires in inner, active and conscious change in their attitudes and motivations. 

Since getting-worse is unconscious and passive and energy-absorbing; while getting-better is conscious and active and energy-consuming - getting-worse naturally happens more often and more widely. 

This, I think, is a reason why well-meaning people so often err in their optimism. 

After considerable investment of times and effort, they have been able to reform some evil or injustice, or to introduce some improvement; and the tendency is to regard all such positive steps as accumulating towards a hoped-for positive and general transformation. 

For instance; institutions, including churches, may have achieved many little-but-surface improvements - in some objectively-measurable area; such fund-raising, attendance, missionary/ evangelical activity, implementation of one or another scheme... 

And these several or many surface changes are mistakenly summated into the optimistic expectation that things are going their way. 

The model they believe is that any step in the right direction is of-positive-value; and so long as there are such steps, then things are optimistic. 

But, after a while, a step-back and an objective eye reveals that although "everything" changes in the desired directions over the short-medium term; over the medium-long term, fundamental decline continues... 

Christian apostasy continues, churches continue to shrink in seriousness and size; faith is rarer and weaker; assimilation to the values of secular-left totalitarianism is increasingly dominant. 

However, such is our addiction to institutional optimism, that an objective retrospect seldom happens, and lessons are never learned. 

Instead, over and again, some novel strategy is embraced, some new set of optimistic "initiatives" becomes the centre of attention and efforts, and some of these are achieved with superficial success...

And the cycle repeats. 

 

This is how it is with The World, and apparently how it always has been. Even when (perhaps stimulated by a religious revival, or a Good Monarch) there is a genuine positive transformation at the large scale - this cannot be made into a system, and the attempt to so so reveals flaws in the original basis for positive change. 

Such that new kinds of corruption emerge, and the benefits are soon dissipated then overwhelmed. 

Everything changes, yet everything stays the same? 

This is why Jesus Christ did not promise a better world, and did not construct a system for attaining a better world. 

He knew that such is impossible in this mortal life, by the very nature of this-world. 

But instead Jesus promised something genuinely attainable (thanks to His work): that individual people might, after death, have resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Turns-out the new Archbishop of Canterbury is not just non-Christian, but anti-Christian

*

Excerpts from his first statement:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/2692/#Audio

*

I want to say at once that one of the biggest challenges is to follow a man who I believe will be recognised as one of the greatest Archbishops of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. He is some one with a deep love for Jesus Christ, an infectious spirituality, extraordinary integrity and holiness, immense personal moral and physical courage, and of course one of the world's principal theologians and philosophers...

Comment: "one of the greatest Archbishops of Canterbury" - This ludicrous remark is a combination of dishonesty, incompetence and ignorance.

*

The work of the Church of England is not done primarily on television or at Lambeth, but in over 16,000 churches, where hundreds of thousands of people get on with the job they have always done of loving neighbour, loving each other and giving more than 22 million hours of voluntary service outside the church a month.

Comment - It is significant that he does not mention among these secular activities anything Christian that churches should do; such as worship, Biblical teaching or evangelism.

*

We have seen the wonderful hospitality and genius of the people in this country inside and outside the church during this marvellous year of Jubilee and Olympics.

Comment: What in Heavens name has the Olympics to do with the Church of England?

*

Because of that vast company of serving Anglicans, together those in other churches, I am utterly optimistic about the future of the church.

 Comment: any serious reader will switch off at this point. Optimism is believing that things will turn-out well, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity (which is about hope) - but anyone who sees any grounds for optimism in the catastrophic state of the C of E is either psychotic, demented, or calculatedly dishonest: in other words anti-Christian. Only an anti-Christian could be optimistic about the future of the Church of England - which teeters on the verge of irrevocable corruption - and it is absolutely vital that its leader recognize this, and operate on this basis. 


*

...The House of Bishops is very wise. 

Comment: no comment. 


*

The Anglican communion, for all its difficulties, is also a source of remarkable blessing to the world. In so many countries it is one of the main sharers of reconciliation and hope in Jesus Christ. Anglicans today stand firm in faith alongside other Christians under pressure in many places, especially in northern Nigeria, a country close to my heart. 

Comment: To say that Christians are 'under pressure' in northern Nigeria is a disgusting euphemism, literally disgusting.


*

...This is a time for optimism and faith in the church. 

Comment: What? The opposite is true - it is the time for Christian renewal of a horribly corrupt, wordly, expedience-driven institution which formally resembles the official 'Sergian' Russian Orthodox church under Stalin (de facto a branch of the government). 

*

I know we are facing very hard issues. In 10 days or so the General Synod will vote on the ordination of women as Bishops. I will be voting in favour, and join my voice to many others in urging the Synod to go forward with this change...

Comment: This is why he got the job.


*

We also face deep differences over the issue of sexuality. It is absolutely right for the state to define the rights and status of people co-habiting in different forms of relationships, including civil partnerships.  We must have no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church. 

Comment: Anyone above the age of consent who uses the word 'homophobia' except in order to highlight its revolting abuse as a totalitarian weapon of nihilistic oppression is on the side of evil. But here is the most 'passionate' part of the speech - the statement of 'principle' - and a focus on a vile, commissar's weasel-word providing unambiguous evidence of his intention to persecute real Christians.


*

The Church of England is part of the worldwide church, with all the responsibilities that come from those links. What the church does here deeply affects the already greatly suffering churches in places like northern Nigeria, which I know well. 

Comment: 'greatly suffering' is better than 'under pressure' - but he doesn't mention who is applying the pressure, causing the suffering...

*

I support the House of Bishop's statement in the summer in answer to the government's consultation on same sex marriage. I know I need to listen very attentively to the LGBT communities, and examine my own thinking prayerfully and carefully. I am always averse to the  language of exclusion, when what we are called to is to love in the same way as Jesus Christ loves us. Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love.

Comment: The bile rises. " I am always averse to the  language of exclusion' - apparently except when the exclusion is being applied to Christians. Then he is very keen on the language of exclusion - having just said "no truck with any form of homophobia, in any part of the church".

And focus on another vile, abusive, commissar's weasel word with 'LGBT': a very obviously disparate constituency, currently-united only in political demands for institutional preferences and unrelenting opposition to marriage and the family (hence real Christianity).

But when Welby says "Above all in the church we need to create safe spaces for these issues to be discussed honestly and in love." this is where he hits rock-bottom; since he is using rhetorical tricks to put his opponents beyond the pale, as if there were any real Christians who would oppose such a notion; and yet at the same time he conflates proper Christian behaviour with 'safe spaces' - accepting without argument that most of Christianity is 'unsafe' for people of non-normal sexuality; and accepting that the solution to this 'hostile' environment is an essentially bureaucratic process of allocating specific times and places and persons (as if in a school timetable) for 'these issues' - implicitly set apart from Christianity - to be 'discussed honestly' - implying that at present these issues are dishonestly discussed specifically among Christians - and 'in love' again defining the Christian problem as being lack of love. Pah!

*

The first speech of the head of the third largest Christian denomination in the world is dishonest from top to bottom, inside and out.

This is utterly inexcusable from a Christian leader, and is indeed so extreme as to reveal Justin Welby as an anti-Christian; one whose energies and efforts will be devoted to subversion and elimination of the real Christian elements within the Anglican communion.

This is, in short, the last nail in the coffin of the Church of England, and the point where break-up of the denomination becomes not just a regrettable probability but a Christian necessity - the only hope for survival of Christianity within Anglicanism. 

*

Well at least we know where we are, and what needs to be done.

We have gone from Archbishop Rowan, who was muddled, ineffective, pompous and mostly bored-by and indifferent-to Christianity; to Justin - who is the first systematically anti-Christian Archbishop of Canterbury.



*

The implicit modern religion of Transhumanism

Transhumanism is not ridiculous - not something to be disposed of with a sneer - rather, Transhumanism is the implicit religion of modern, secular Leftism - it is mainstream and near-universal in the West - it has great power and reach - it underpins the main assumptions of public discourse and policy.

In sum, most modern Western people's actual lives and opinions are based on the Transhumanist belief that Man can, will and should transcend his humanity -- and that the nature of humanity, as it has existed so far, should be considered as a set of defects and limitations that need to be transcended.

Transhumanism is an incremental outgrowth of the secular religion of progress - it sees itself as the optimistic alternative among modern secular Leftist ideologies.

What is Transhumanism? -- well, it is a network of beliefs that people can/ will - sooner-or-later/ and should:

1. Always be happy - never suffer (except insofar as they wish to)

2. Never be ill, never age

3. Never die - there will be no ageing (see above) and death will be infinitely postpone-able - the person will be open-endedly repairable or restoreable - death will be reversible

4. Be able to improve intelligence, personality, strength, capacity for pleasure etc - beyond anything yet attained by any human

5. Be able to change sex, make new sexes, abolish sexual identity and the need for sex itself - or redefine and modify them endlessly

6. Wholly detach reproduction from sex - be able to make babies, perfect babies, without intervention of parents - to bring them up perfectly without 'need' for families

7. Go beyond historical levels of human wisdom, goodness - achieve a higher morality (which will be effortless and universal)

and so on...


None of these things have actually been achieved, indeed in many ways we are further from achieving them than we were a few decades ago - as human capability dwindles and hype increases...

But the core idea is to live-by the belief that such things could-happen - and therefore we should behave asif they have-happened.


Capability dissolves good and evil - because good and evil are subsumed within pleasure/ pain - and when good is pleasure, and pleasure is psychological - then goodness become the technical problem of ensuring pleasure (and abolishing pain) and removing any obstacles to this - and any 'moral' factors which interfere with this can and should be engineered-away.

Human nature is something to created and recreated - the purpose of Transhumanism is, after all to transcend the human; so the core project is not to make humans happier but to go beyond humans - the idea is that humans should build something better than humans - where better is seen in terms of the hedonic axis of pleasure/ fulfillment versus suffering/ misery, such that any human, biological, historical limitation on positive emotional states can and should be removed.

Because, from the Transhumanist perspective, to think otherwise is to want, and to enforce, pain, suffering and misery on oneself and others. And that is evil.


The basis of Transhumanism is that human limitation is the primary problem in life, and human capability is therefore the primary good for humanity; and more capability is better - because (and this is key) any problems that may arise from capability should/can/will be solved by more capability.


Name your problem, and Transhumanism has a solution: Loneliness? Solved by manipulating emotions, perhaps pharmacologically but ultimately genetically - so you cannot feel lonely anymore (i.e. human nature will be re-engineered to become immune to the problem).

Or technology will provide everyone with a perfect virtual social world - psychologically-indistinguishable from the real social world, and completely satisfying and available without limitation. (Meanwhile, the necessary work and reproduction will be done by other means.)

And people will never get fed-up of these solutions, because that fed-up-ness too will itself be engineered-away.


If you happen to believe or feel that the above approach is wrong or wicked or pathetic - then that too is something which can - and probably should - be edited-out -- because it is obstructive at best, evil at worst.

In the end, all reasons for misery and conflict will either be solved in reality, or else we will be re-engineered so as to case caring about them - so 'problems' will cease to be perceived as problems, 'limitations' will cease to be felt as limiations.

And this will not be boring, because boredom will become a thing of the past -- we will be satisfied with what we have, and the possibilities of novelty are open-ended - everything can be change; life will be an endless play and adventure - with all the thrills but none of the risk -- That is the Transhumanist hope, or promise.


The thing to recognize about Transhumanism is that it does not have any respect for human nature as it is - it sees nothing 'sacred' in humans as they are; indeed humans as they are are seen as on the one hand arbitrary, contingent products of natural selection - which could easily have been otherwise, and which are - anyway - simply optimized for average reproductive success under average ancestral conditions...

Why on earth should such a bundle of historical chances be preserved?

And further than this, human nature as it is is seen as a major problem - if not the major problem - because on the one hand we are full of aggression, hatred, sadism, spite etc - while on the other hand we are vulnerable to pain, misery, despair, terror and all manner of sufferings. Both sins and the vulnerability to sin can and should be deleted.


To understand Transhumanism, and understand its visceral appeal and its almost universal influence on modern values - one needs to appreciate, to experience for oneself, this intoxicating sense of liberation that comes from regarding Man as nothing but the contingent product of natural selection... 

One needs to feel the sense that every problem by progress can be solved by more progress - including that any insoluble problems can cease to be regarded as problems

- so that subjectively (so far as he knows) Man attains through progress nothing less than absolute freedom, and complete happiness - forever.

Now, the fact that this is not actually happening is irrelevant so long as the people who have implicitly bought-into Transhumanism, and made it their core belief and hope (typically without knowing the word Transhumanism, nor even thinking-about the subject)... none of this matters so long as the adherents believe that it is going-to happen. 

My feeling is that Transhumanism is immune to argument - it is a circular system (as are all viable metaphysical systems) but it is dependent on optimism - it feeds upon itself, but that self is fueled by the hyper-reality of the mass media.

So, at present Transhumanism is sustained by the fact that people live mostly in the virtual world of the mass media, where mass media reality feels realer than real reality. 

When the mass media crumbles and collapses, when the major social systems such as the economy, law, science, medicine, police, military collapse (as they will, because we, as a culture, are 'not even trying' to maintain and sustain them - we are trying to do various other things but are not trying to maintain functionality - indeed, we have long since ceased to regard reality as real)... when these collapse, so will the psychological basis for Transhumanism collapse.

Transhumanism is the objectification of subjectivity - it is the belief that subjectivity can be engineered at will and without limit to become absolutely gratifying - it is the belief that subjectivity is everything. 

If and when objectivity re-asserts itself, when objectivity become impossible to ignore - Transhumanism will evaporate with no trace left behind - it will seem no more than a group-insanity, no realer than the other mass delusions which beset our civilization in relation to sex and sexuality, economics and law, education and medicine - none of which are amenable to discussion or refutation - all of which are themselves versions of the triumph of subjectivism.

Of course, people can retain their subjectivism in the face of anything and everything. The ultimate subjectivism is indeed that of Satan - who pits the subjective self against the whole of reality, and chooses to prefer the self. And Satan cannot be persuaded. 

But the pervasive mainstream Transhumanism of modernity is a much shallower thing - dependent on  an 'optimism' that is itself dependent upon very specific and unsustainable levels of escalating engagement with the mass media; and a consequent mind-set which takes for granted fundamental technological progress in capability and efficiency without troubling itself about the sources. A mind-set consumed by virtuality, subjectivity, hype and spin. 

However, the real, underpinning sources of actual objective techno-progress are all going-going-gone -- all of them.

The foundations are gone from under the post-industrial revolution system of capability. The edifice of modernity is become a house of cards balanced on sand - the whole being sustained by self-delusions. 

And the surface hope of Transhumanism is continually being undercut and undercut, by the deep daily reality of Godless cumulative nihilism and despair. 

Techno-optimism and the capability of attaining it as a reality is continually being eroded by endemic Western self-hatred; and by the mostly-covert but increasingly obvious, cultural wish for escape from the modern situation by some kind of painless suicide into a suffering-free, blissed-out, eternal nothingness... 

(But the possibility of that, is itself is not solidly believed.)

In sum, Transhumanism is much more powerful and pervasive than generally realized - it is a real factor in the behaviour of modern Man. It facilitates many of the most deeply damaging trends of our culture -  but Transhumanism itself prevents the possibility of its own attainment; for which thanks be to God!

(Note - for a deeper understanding of Transhumanism, its causes and its consequences, read That Hideous Strength and/ or The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis.)   

*