Saturday, 22 October 2016

'Gone mental': The deep meaning of upper middle class post-Brexit vote catastrophizing

The response of the upper middle (professional, higher-educated, willing-servants-of-evil) class to the Brexit vote has been astonishing to behold - they have (to use Ron Weasley's favourite phrase) 'Gone mental'.

I am directly aware of this both in the professional communications I receive as circulars, and in the many conversations I overhear - as well as in the mass media (which is of course not reliable, because manipulative).

At first I thought that this was a sham of some kind - people pretending; but I have gradually become convinced that it is genuine - despite all the evidence and common sense and personal experience - these people are really afraid that if a country is not a member of the European Union, then everything they value will become impossible.

Maybe they are right - in a deep sense; maybe for Britain actually to leave the EU would be the end of that comfort, convenience, sexual possibility and distraction to which The West is addicted and which it cannot see beyond?

But why? Why should should a thing be regarded as a realistic consequence of Brexit? After all, Switzerland, Norway, the USA, Canada - plenty of secular Leftist places are not EU members?

Ah, but that is not the same as leaving. Leaving would be a reversal and overturning of decades of 'progress' towards an Establishment-controlled materialist nihilist totalitarian world government; and that would really be a catastrophe, which might not end there but might be the first and crucial strand to break in that vast web of lies in which - the elite recognise - they have made, sustain and in which we all dwell.

One broken thread - and the UK is a very thick and structural thread - strains all the other threads; snapping the UK thread may lead to a chain reaction. 

So far, the signs (judged not by words but actual actions) are that the Brexit catastrophizers have nothing to worry about; since nothing at all has happened to begin Brexit - and it must be assumed that the government has zero intention of a genuine Brexit, but is implementing some kind of 'Brexit-in-name-only' which will leave core matters unchanged, and the web of lies intact.

Will they get away with this? That is unclear at present - certainly the Establishment will get away with Brexit-in-name-only on current trends, since there is currently no significant perceptible pro-Brexit group, or activity, or movement - or, at least, none that I can detect... 

But anyone who doubted the significance of a real Brexit should be convinced by what happened since the pro-Brexit vote: the sheer 'mental' terror of the Establishment lackeys and minions reveals that if Brexit happened fully and soon, it really would strike a blow against the culture of death which is deliberately driving us towards willed spiritual suicide.

The line of beauty in English country dancing

"The lines, which a number of people together form, in country dancing, make a delightful play upon the eye, especially when the whole figure is to be seen at one view as at the playhouse from a gallery.... One of the most pleasing movements in country dancing which answers to all the principles of varying at once, is what they call the "hey."

Friday, 21 October 2016

Albion and Russia?

A lyrical and original musing on Anglo-Russian (and other) matters from John Fitzpatrick at Albion Awakening:

Conspiracy theories and theory of mind - what The System most fears

1. We are all conspiracy theorists - insofar as we join-the-dots to make sense of the world; the only alternative is nihilism and despair. To 'make sense' of reality, we must assume that there is a comprehensible will at work.

It is merely a choice between 'conspiracies' to believe; and the choice whether to regard as conspiracy as good or evil.

2. This kind of 'making sense' thinking is based upon inferred assumptions about the Intentions, Dispositions and Motivations (In brief the 'Intentionality') of others - other people, groups, nations etc.

3. In other words,conspiracy theorising, which is what we all do, depends on 'theory of mind' - the social ability and the necessity of assuming that there is coherent personality at work in the world.

4. Therefore our understanding of 'evidence' comes from our assumption of intentionality. Evidence does not tell us who has good, and who had evil, intentions - nor does evidence tell us what those intentions actually are. Rather, it is our assumption of intentionality which leads us to interpret the meaning of evidence.

We assume that a given conspiracy is either good or evil in intentionality; we interpret evidence in this light - the evidence then seems to confirm the assumption (as it must). Changing evidence, new evidence, does not change the assumption, because evidence only has meaning in light of the assumption. 

5. The reason why mainstream modern people believe the world of lies from The System (eg. the mainstream mass media, politics and the large institutions and corporations) is in essence that mainstream modern people believe in the good intentions of The System.

That is mainstream modern people assume The System is a good conspiracy - and they interpret all evidence based-on this assumption - the watch the news and read the media and understand the stories and ideas on the basis that it derives from a good-conspiracy.

(People may deny this, but it is true - people believe The System has good intentions.)

6. If people stop believing in the good intentions of the System, if they come to believe The System is an evil conspiracy; their world will change, and The System as-is will be unsustainable.

That, above all else, is what The System most fears:

The System most fears that people en masse will assume that The System is one, and that intentions are bad, wicked, evil.

That fear explains much. 

Specifically - the great fear is that people will realise:

1. The Establishment is ultimately one. There is no division between the mass media, politics, government, corporations - at the highest level they are unified - the conflicts are ot fundamental, inter-office squabbles between functionaries.

2. And the modern Establishment - i.e. The System considered as an intentional personality - is ultimately evil in its nature and intent - that is, it operates strategically to subvert and invert Good.

How differently the world looks from such an angle! How differently appear the facts and theories of public discourse! How differently, how easily, the dots rejoin to make an utterly different pattern!

If this were to happen, if it does happen?...

But what must change is fundamental, it is metaphysical, it is religious. How to induce such a change? I do not know.

On the other hand, such a change cannot be prevented - if the situation (somehow) dicates it; because, of course, sometimes things provoke the opposite consequences of those intended - indeed, that it probably the usual way metaphysocal change is triggered.

From an unexpected, opposite, unseen and unforeseen direction... 

Hence the great fear of The Establishment.

Some in-depth discussion of these psychological mechanisms, and examples from psychiatry, can be found at:

Thursday, 20 October 2016

The Sun is alive and conscious - Rupert Sheldrake's argument (from physics)

Here, in a dialogue form, Rupert Sheldrake puts forward his developed argument that we could and should regard the Sun as alive and conscious - based on arguments he derives from physics, information theory and the like.

Also: Is the Sun Conscious on this page:

He goes on to draw out the implications of assuming the Sun is alive - what other things are therefore likely to be alive, and how they may influence us (and we them, presumably).

I think Sheldrake makes a decent case - from his Platonic/ Aristotelian/ Christian/ Biologist perspective - Although the reason why I myself regard the Sun as (in some way, poorly understood) alive, conscious and purposive is metaphysical rather than scientific: since we cannot draw a line between alive and not-alive, therefore either everything is alive or nothing is alive - therefore (since we know we personally are alive) everything is alive.

[PS: the other participant in the conversation, Mark Vernon, seems like what he actually is - primarily a secular Leftist activist who uses religious (often Christian) language and concepts. His understanding of Barfield is, consequently, partial and distorted.]

A modern Platonist at home - John Michell videoed

With yesterday's discussion of modern Platonism in mind - here is an example of the species in the late John Michell (aged 70), recorded for ten minutes excerpted from an unbuttoned and relaxed - somewhat intoxicated - conversation with dinner guests about his basic and motivating spiritual beliefs.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

More good news from the US elections - Traditionalising and maybe spiritualising the 'hacker' community

The increasingly gloves-off lying and persecutions of the Democrat Party in the upcoming US election - and their targeting of Julian Assange - is probably having an effect on the 'hacker' community which may become highly significant.

Mostly, for the past half-century this community has sided with ultra-progressives and the sexual revolution; and against religion and tradition - and they have gullibly believed the rhetoric of the Left rather than observing the reality. But now they find that the mainstream media-bureaucratic Left are their prime enemies, and the increasingly Christian, reactionary and traditionalist Russians are their protectors.

Although the hackers do not wholly subscribe to the positive aspirations of Russian morality, they are discovering that at least the Russians do aim at a stable morality and their restricted national interest. While, in contrast, the US mainstream media Establishment and the Democrat Party Machine do not; but instead regard morality as an expediently-malleable means to increasingly destructive ends -- up-to and including increasingly obvious efforts to initiate World War Three.

The big question is whether the hackers will recognise that the root of these differences is spiritual - specifically religious.

It is hard to imagine such a materialist and secular group as hackers becoming traditionally religious - at least from where they are now - but maybe they might become deist, Platonist; and regard Good as an objective transcendental reality, and Life as government by ideal principles such as number, musical harmony, and archetypal forms?

It could happen very suddenly; and then the world will be changed; as the single most powerful micro-elite group abandons the mainstream secular Leftist project that they have, mostly in ignorance and naivete, been sustaining for the past two generations...  

Everybody is some kind of conspiracy theorist

So-called conspiracy theorising is merely joining the dots, and inferring a unifying meaning behind the surface of apparent randomness. It is necessary to do this to be a functional person, and society.

The failure to join the dots for oneself simply means accepting someone else's version of reality, and rationalising that choice to oneself as necessary, or expedient, or whatever...

Or else it means trying to function in a universe where nothing has meaning or purpose, including oneself; and necessarily failing. (To the extent people truly do this they are neutralised by despair.)

The biggest modern conspiracy theorists are those on the secular Left Mainstream who interpret everything that has ever happened or could happen as evidence to support what they already believe; and ignoring/ attacking as not-evidence anything which seems too difficult to include; and manufacturing (then forgetting you have manufactured) evidence which one knows to be true but is (currently) not obvious or visible.

The ones (like us) who get accused of being conspiracy theorists are those who insist on joining the dots on the basis of a different set of metaphysical assumptions and who therefore infer a conspiracy theory different from the official one.

At root, the differences are metaphysical. We ought to join the dots, and in a sense have-to - and that can only be done on the basis of fundamental assumptions (i.e. metaphysics) - and it is these assumptions which need to be analysed and compared.

Lacking which; quibbling over how specific units of 'evidence' being brought into discussion 'ought' to be interpreted and acted-upon is just futile. Because it is the underlying metaphysics which defines what counts as evidence - and what (if anything) to 'do about it'.

Tuesday, 18 October 2016

The objective power of repeated rituals

Obviously, repeated rituals have power to change the psychology of participants; the question is whether they have power 'objectively' to affect things beyond the participant, beyond those who even know about the rituals - can rituals change 'reality'?

The typical modern materialist view would be - certainly not; the typical view of most times and places in human society would be - yes, of course!

The historical consensus would also be that rituals can do harm or good (or a mixture); and that to be more effective rituals should be done 'correctly', repeated, and done with concentration and sincerity (ie. with a strong motivation appropriate to the desired outcome).

But rituals do not inevitably have an effect - rather they induce a kind of pressure towards an effect; yet the pressure of rituals may be resisted, and also some things and people are either immune to these ritual pressures or else are protected against them.

Supposing all this is true, and that rituals (done in the proper way) are an effective way of tending to change reality in a desired direction - what are the strengths and limitations of such induced change?

My general impression is that the changes produced by ritual tend to be rather narrow and specific. A 'good' ritual cannot make people all-round-good, but may make them behave better in some specific way (either doing some thing, or not doing some other thing).

And the same for evil rituals. They may harm people, torment them, put ideas into their heads, make them do something bad - but none of these or similar can make a person evil (especially if they repent what they have thought or done).

So evil rituals - even when they 'work' are more like temptations than actually imposed evil.

And - because of protections and immunities - there is a sense in which evil rituals must be invited-in or at least consented-to.

The relevance is that evil rituals are being repeated all over the world and most of the time - for example among the Establishment global cabal; in government and public administration; in innumerable bureaucracies and social systems; and in the mass media administration.

In nearly all large, powerful wealthy institutions evil rituals are 'on the agenda' in a literal sense, and on a weekly, daily - sometimes hourly basis. My contention is that this has an effect - objectively - in making the world a worse place.

And, because Men are fallible, weak, prone to sin and made blind and helpless by secular materialism... the immunities and protections are grossly inadequate; the effects of evil rituals are significantly damaging.

This is where the special and unique strength of Christianity comes in; because no matter how effective evil rituals actually are; Christ's gift of repentance is infinite in power and scope; and can never be overwhelmed by them.

The attack on The Nation State

William Wildblood discusses some reasons for the Western Establishment strategy of destroying the Nation State; and he defends the idea of the Nation State as both necessary and good.

Why do most Christians insist that they are monotheists?

It is an old question - revived for me by listening to an audiobook CS Lewis essay on the topic, where he makes a rational argument for the necessity of monotheism.

On the face of it, Christianity is not a monotheistic religion because of Jesus Christ; who is God - but not the only God, not the same God as the already-existing God of the Ancient Jews to whom Jesus frequently refers, defers and prays.

But for some reason earlyish (probably the second century of the religion) many of the most intellectually sophisticated Christian theologians began to regard it as absolutely necessary that Christianity should be monotheistic as well as having at least two Gods.

The question is, why did they feel that way? I infer that it was because the philosopher-theologians were also (and already) embarked on a philosophical quest to explain the coherence of reality and the necessity of God; they wanted to unite all reality in a single unity that was also deity.  They were engaged in a conflation of Christian theology with philosophy, because they simply took the absolute necessity of their philosophy for granted.

(And they ended by shoe-horning Christian theology into classical philosophy; while also modifying that philosophy somewhat in the process.)

It seems to me that many philosophical Christians simply assume that this is necessary to the religion - i.e. that for Christians God must be ultimately necessary to be the source of everything and all order, and also that for reality to hang together requires that God be not only one, but indivisibly one. Hence monotheism.

I don't accept this line of argument, because - like all lines of argument - it has assumptions; points at which we must assert It Just Is - but these assumptions are not intrinsic to Christianity and instead come from outside it.

And there are other assumptions which work just as well as Christian explanations, are simpler, more comprehensible and have better implications.

So we can drop the necessity for monotheism and suggest that the coherence of reality comes from other sources - especially that there is one creation (not creation by one, but one creation) in which we dwell. This creation (and its creator/s) is, of course, not logically entailed; but a thing which happened-to-have-happened.

We then understand the one-ness of God as described in scripture to be the one-ness of a King, a reference to primacy not unity of identity - and we find that this fits comfortably with the Old Testament culture, language and descriptions.

And Christians are to understand the cohesion of reality to be due to Love - in some sense of Love (and I tried to describe my own understanding in a post yesterday); which is a inter-personal thing, which means that the universe of reality is personal from top (from God) to bottom ('non-living' matter): an alive and conscious universe of manifold entities, cohering by love. 

So we end with a very different world picture from classical theology. And this world picture is not monotheistic - but instead explains monotheism as a consequence of philosophical (not Christian) compulsioins.

But, as an explanation non-monotheism works at-least-equally well: indeed I would assert that it works better for Christians.


Monday, 17 October 2016

People don't always want to be saved...

The Saviour by William Arkle
We see the beautiful head of compassionate love, which is neither young nor old, looking down with sorrow and affection upon the smoke and grime of a big city and endeavouring to enfold it all within him and gather it up, like a hen gathers up her chickens beneath her wing. Although we would often save people from a miserable and wretched environment, we discover it is not easy, neither do they always want to be saved from it anyway. In a deeper way we know we must exercise great patience in our compassion without losing the heart of its attitudes; for the object of our compassion is often a most delicate teaching situation which our Creator is using in the classroom of His university. The ones we feel compassion for may never be able to gather the content of that painful situation any other way.
Note: People often do not want to be saved-from that which they need to be saved-from - and people can only be saved with their own consent, when they are willing.

It seems that, ultimately, evil does always lead to suffering - self-inflicted suffering.

Those who do not want to be saved, who fight being saved; who reject the Gift of the Saviour... they will typically suffer. In a sense they should suffer, because suffering is their only hope.

We, as individual people, should not make them suffer - they do that for themselves - but we should not unthinkingly or always strive actively to alleviate self-imposed suffering - that may well be to harm the other person: harm them soon and forever.

Alleviation of suffering is not an imperative - and we should never allow ourselves to be persuaded that it is. There are worse things than suffering and indeed suffering is, in practice, often a necessity for Good. More to the point, every parent knows that short-term alleviation of all suffering in all circumstances leads to terrible outcomes.

We should always aim to love, pray and allow ourselves empathically to experience compassion for those whose sufferings are self-inflicted and who resist being saved. Yet we must also recognise that we are in this mortal life to learn; yet learning is very difficult, often prolonged, often requiring repetition, often resisted and rejected; and we know that for some people to learn requires suffering.

We must exercise great patience in our compassion without losing the heart of its attitudes.

Question: Why are politicians, bureaucrats, executives and officials paid *so much* to make such utterly worthless speeches?

Answer: It is a bribe.

The speech itself means nothing; it is merely an acceptable excuse for handing-over large amounts of cash to influence powerful individuals - for all the many and usual reasons that bribes are given to such people.

The audience to such speeches are just warm bodies necessary to supply face legitimacy to the process.

What is Love? (For Christians)

Love is the most important thing for Christians, the primary reality (as it relates to all that is Good) - yet Christians have mostly been terribly confused about the metaphysics, that is the deepest level of understanding about, Love.

This is because of the Greek and Roman classical philosophy into which Christianity was squeezed and twisted in the early years of the church - which make something that ought to be, needs to be, clear - into something abstract, paradoxical and sometimes just incoherent.

(For example, the first commandment is to love God - yet the God of classical theology is all-but un-loveable - being mostly a collection of incomprehensible abstractions such as omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, one-ness and indivisibility; unchanging, wanting nothing, without passions or desires, living outside of time etc. One might rationally submit to such a God, but how to love him?)

What follows are notes on how I currently make (ultimate) sense of Love - for what it's worth.

Conjugal love has primacy: that is, love between husband and wife; and from this all other love derives.

So, the first love was between God, our Heavenly Parents - and from this came the love between God the Father and the Mother and their children, of their children towards the divine parents , between their children (i.e. love of 'neighbour'); and the love of creation... all of which eventuated from this first loving union.

Or, the first creative act was the voluntary mutual love of our Heavenly Father and Mother.

That was the model of all other loves - and the source of all cohesion and cooperation and creativity.

Love is therefore active, dynamic, purposive - hence creative. Therefore Life and Reality is an unfolding, a development, a growth and an increase...

So love has a past, present and future; it is a living quality that gives rise to all positive qualities, it is the source of harmony - potentially in everything (and that which is outside the love by choice, is outside the harmony - alone); and the nature of everything comes from the nature of love.


From this can be seen that the Classical Christian errors relate to love being conceptualised as static or unchanging, being unitary and unsexed. These errors are partly addressed by the mystical doctrine of the Trinity (making deity multiple and dynamic, while somehow still unitary and unchanging), and also by the Catholic theology of Mary the Mother of God (to reintroduce the feminine, and the reality of two sexes) - but not fully addressed; and only at the cost of complexity, confusion and difficulty/ impossibility of understanding. This has sufficed to satisfy many in the past - but the problems are nonetheless intractable. 

I believe that love - for Christians - ought to be (if properly understood) simple, lucid, universally comprehensible - love at the divine level ought to be known as of the same nature and quality (if not scope and power) as human love. 

The main post is dependent upon the validity of the revelations of the Mormon Prophet, Joseph Smith; as validated by the following general Authorities of the Mormon Church - although not necessarily what many or most Mormons currently believe. William Arkle has also been a big influence.

She's Having a Baby (1988) - my favourite Rom Com?

Why is the best (most funny, warm, inspiring) Romantic Comedy movie of recent years so generally ignored, so widely dismissed and mostly forgotten?

As you might expect: for all the wrong reasons...

The Norman Yoke

I explain why it is an objective fact that the Norman invaders of England, from 1066 and for generations afterwards, were not true Kings, but merely arrogant, successful and self-glorified gangsters, thugs and thieves. They were effective in their brutality; but grossly inefficient in their destructiveness (of people and land) and endemic disloyal infighting over the rulershipship of a nation they looted like pirates. William the Conquerer was well named - because that was how he and his kin behaved.

Sunday, 16 October 2016

Intensity in literature, music and elsewhere (c1978-81)

Intensity (my own term for it) was what I sought above all in my late teens, early twenties - epitomised for me by the composer JS Bach as performed by the pianist Glenn Gould.

Interestingly, initially I knew of Gould's intense engagement with Bach only via LP recordings, and liner notes - later by a few journalistic pieces. But I never had seen the video recordings which actually show Gould's intensity of absorption in the work.

[Note if you go to five minutes, you will see some of Gould's trademark syncopated (or triplet) trills in the right hand - which apparently enabled him to phrase the trill rather than just letting it provide a drone.]

Gould's engagement is 100 percent from beginning to end - almost exhausting to behold - and it makes you realise how seldom this happens - even among the greats of the concert hall.

So there was my word intensity, and then there was the word 'inspired' which I got from a musical friend - if a performance was judged to be inspired, then that was all that needed to be said in its favour; and if it was not then blah... Inspiration was what was sought - accurate mechanical reproduction was just a waste of time.

Intensity in literature and life as in music - but it was so hard to find and so hard to keep: so hard as to be impossible in practise, as I later discovered from the life of Glenn Gould (which involved such dissipation as hours long rambling telephone conversations, and hours long random drives around the city... filling in time, not intense).

In literature, intensity for me peaked in Hamlet; but not in the whole play - I regarded most of it as padding, and liked best the shortened movie version starring Nicol Williamson, because it was almost all intensity.

Among people, intensity of the kind I craved was in short supply - with most people it never happened at all. I would travel the length of the country to converse with a friend if I thought we might have a really intense talk.

In retrospect, there was something noble in this aspiration for intensity; but also something profoundly misguided. Because when intensity was achieved, for seconds or sometimes minutes, then the self was lost - so it was either the self or intensity but not both; and if intensity is achieved in the absence of the self then, well, it wasn't achieved by me - it was almost like being asleep.

So life was brief flashes of intensity then brooding on them, trying to honour them, recapture them or at least remember them (memory itself difficult and rare or absent, when completely absorbed - I would remember that I had been intensely absorbed, but not anything of what went on during it).

Also, as soon as the intensity was over then I was back to square one; because the fact that I had had an intense experience in the past was no use if I was not intense now. So life was an endless seeking after that which was of supposedly infinite value while it happened, yet no value at all when it was not happening...

And how to achieve it, anyway? Was there a 'method' to it? My only notion was artistic - performance or the actual business of creation; and I lacked the ability in either realm (or, at least, sufficient ability). So intensity was - conversation with rare people aside - a passive engagement with the work of others; which seemed like intensity-at-second-hand - almost parasitic; certainly second rate (yet, as I said above, this was in fact the case for everyone, even those who seemed best at being intense).

And how could I earn a living from being intense? Especially in medicine - where it was either unwanted or a positive hazard!

So what was I doing or aiming at? I was trying to find meaning and purpose while denying, metaphysically, the possibility of meaning or purpose - by being alert but 'lost' in meaning and purpose-full art. Yet art was a creation of Man, which meant that its meaning and purpose was a segment of a Man's life - the life of a Man being, (according to my metaphysics) itself meaningless and purposeless.

(Although Gould and Bach would have disagreed - both believing that reality has meaning and purpose as a consequence of deity; yet, apparently irrationally, I readily assumed that they were both self-deluded about this primary fact, despite that I was pinning my own life on their creativity...)

So intensity was a kind of evasion or confusion - but it did sustain in me an engagement with music and literature which has never been surpassed and seldom equalled in my life.

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Harold Godwinson the once and future king?

Over at Albion Awakening, John Fitzgerald writes an inspiring and lyrical appreciation of the English king, so unfortunately defeated at the Battle of Hastings, 950 years ago yesterday:

Friday, 14 October 2016

Tough, honest talk from English priest Father Andrew Phillips (Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia)

The situation in the UK is no different from anywhere else in the Western world. It is not normal to be a Christian in today’s UK, let alone to belong to the tiny minority here that is composed of Orthodox Christians.

The State ignores Christians and Christianity. We are totally irrelevant to it and its anti-Christian agenda. As far as they are concerned, we are an anachronism and we should die out and disappear as soon as possible.

Having said that, there is no active persecution as such, just indifference and underlying hostility, disguised by the hypocritical politeness typical of the British Establishment...

In the UK today, there are only really two forms of Christianity that are alive, both immigrant: Eastern European and Black African. The rest is fundamentally on its death-bed: it is far worse than ‘serious decline’...

Quite simply, Western people have lost their faith. Since Western civilization was founded on faith, this means that Western civilization is also on its death-bed. Western civilization is today just a series of historical monuments for tourists to visit: the soul has gone out of it.
I would also recommend perusing Fr Andrew's books - some of which are available online:

How two good friends getting 'cool jobs' changed my life (but not that much...)

It was 1986 and I was trying to decide my future. As usual, I knew that I did not want to continue on the line I was pursuing, but not what I did want to do.

The previous year, I had (briefly) arranged to study philosophy at Trinity College, Cambridge - with some notion of following in Wittgenstein's footsteps (why would anyone want to do that? - indeed...); but had veered away and turned-down the place, due to the cost of college fees, plus an inarticulate aversion that it was not the right thing. But I lacked any alternative plan.

Then, on the same evening of the same day, I heard that two good friends had got 'cool' jobs - one as a musical director for the Royal Shakespeare Company, the other as a producer for BBC Radio Three (the classical music channel). I was of course very pleased for them, but I also realised that no conceivable success in my mapped-out future could give me anything like the satisfactions which they would get from these jobs.

I steeled myself, therefore, to make a break - and things went well and easily when I arranged to do an English Literature Masters Degree by research at University College, Durham.

The experience was, on the whole, very good; and I ended up doing a lot of philosophy, and it launched a parallel to my academic career - in journalism, and humanities work - but I can also see that I did not do then (in that one year in Durham) what I was supposed to have done, and for which I received many synchronicitous hints and nudges: I did not become a real Christian (nothing like).

But I only became a very relativistic, postmodern, 'cultural' kind of 'Christian'/ agnostic - such that I would more often look at church architecture, sporadically attend choral evensong, later got married in a church, etc; but not any kind of Christian, not with a faith, not such that it made any significant difference to my real life. And as late as the late 1990s I spoke in a public debate about how Christianity was unnecessary (made obsolete by Darwin etc).

Indeed, this dire spiritual state continued for another TWO DECADES!

So, friends getting cool jobs changed my life - but did not change it in the way it was meant to change it, nor in any deep or essential fashion.   

Thursday, 13 October 2016

Beyond secular conspiracy theories towards Christian recognition of spiritual warfare

Conspiracy theorists are correct in that there is an evil global cabal - but incorrect concerning the motivation of this cabal.

We live in a state of spiritual warfare - and to my mind it is intensifying palpably. I find it increasingly strange to see so many people going-about-their-business and apparently unaware of the momentous changes that are afoot, and indeed obvious.

(e.g. There has never in my lifespan been a time in which the elites behind the Western Powers seem so eager to trigger and escalate a major physical war; and with the flimsiest and least convincing of excuses.)

Of course, modern Western populations are only semi-human in their mass perceptions and responses - since they lack the stable centre of religion, and are metaphysically incoherent; they live inside an artificial and distorted world; and their minds are continually filled-with and distracted-by lying nonsense - all of this in an unprecedented fashion and degree.

So, the true agenda of evil is not just beyond their belief, but beyond their comprehension - lacking God, they cannot recognise nor understand the nature of evil (and are, indeed, inclined to deny its truth and rationality).

So, the conspiracy theorists are correct to recognise a malign will behind the main events of the world - and this enables them to function in a more realistic way despite the official illusions, as compared with the mainstream of duped and deluded people (including especially, it must be said, the liberal intellectuals - whose disconnect from reality is probably the most extreme ever by any group in the whole of human history); but they are wrong abut what the conspiracy are aiming-at.

Secular people regard evil in terms of human suffering on one side, motivated by pleasure (and its proxies of sex, power, wealth etc) on the other hand - and they assume that that is what the conspiracy are aiming-at - i.e. misery for us, pleasure for them...

Christians should know better that purposive evil ultimately aims at the damnation of souls for eternity, not the torment of people on earth (although of course demons like that too).

So Christians need to accept the basic stance, the basic assumptions concerning evil elites and their motivations, from the conspiracy theorists; but go beyond this to full recognition of the aims of spiritual warfare.

But if you do this, if you adopt this correct Christian interpretative stance - you will very likely find yourself pretty much on your own - you won't find much in the way of media such as books, web sites or even social groups to help explain and support you in this stance.

You will need to work things out for yourself... So be it.