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

Wednesday 2 July 2014

The Rolf Harris Affair compared with Jimmy Savile - relevance to understanding the real nature of the modern Mass Media

The extremely popular, (apparently) very likeable, and multi-talented veteran entertainer Rolf Harris has been convicted of a series of sexual crimes (see coverage elsewhere) - and the reports attached to this make clear that he was for decades a crudely aggressive sexual predator.

For me, this is a very big deal indeed - the implications of which ramify into many areas of life.

Harris's behaviour is at a lower level of severity and scale than the horrific behaviour of Sir Jimmy Savile - yet in many ways the I find the revelations about Rolf Harris much more disturbing.

Savile was very obviously a nasty piece of work - and I always found it very hard to understand why people tolerated his presence on TV, Radio and at public events. Rolf Harris - in complete contrast - was very genial, avuncular, and seemed to me like a completely trustworthy and decent man.

(However, one item of coverage was that Savile 'arranged' for Harris to visit a women's 'special hospital' for the criminally insane, where they both watched the inmates stripping naked to be searched before bedtime. This suggests that Savile's immunity from exposure and prosecution may have been related to him fixing-up such experiences for others in his media circle - it seems Savile functioned as a kind of pimp, but that his 'payment' was to be allowed to continue his horrific long-term lifestyle of serial rapes and molestations.)

Rolf Harris was very much a part of my childhood, and someone I had a soft spot for and who I had seen over a period of several decades without experiencing the slightest glimmer of suspicion that he habitually groped and tried to kiss women and even young girls; and did this kind of thing at times in public situations, including TV studios and location TV work. (As well as various other even more wicked and sinister things that I will leave readers to research for themselves).

The Rolf Harris (and Savile) affair tells us a great deal about what sort of behaviour is tolerated and condoned in Mass Media circles.

It tells us that the real aristocrats of modern life, the people who can get away with sexual behaviour that would be severely punished in others (and can do this for decades - when 'everybody' knows all about it) are the popular mass entertainers.

This fits with my thesis that the Mass Media are the rulers of modern society - the Media is the centre of real power.

It tells us that Savile and Harris are the tip of an iceberg - because they could only have functioned in a world where this kind of grossly exploitative and aggressive sexual behaviour was normal, tolerated, condoned - indeed approved.

Presumably everybody who had power and authority was 'at it' (or benefited from it) to a greater or lesser extent.

The Rolf Harris affair also means that there is zero-correlation between what appears on our screen and what is really happening. It means we have no idea what the people in the mass media are really like. It means that our personality evaluation systems are rendered absolutely useless by the Mass Media - we have no idea at all whether someone on screen is good, trustworthy, kind - or evil, lying, exploitative.

Our instincts may be telling us one thing - loud and clear - but in these circumstances our instincts are worthless.

In sum, the Rolf Harris affair demonstrates that we have to assume the worst about media celebrities - unless or until proven otherwise.

The onus of proof lies with them - the lesson I have learned is that media celebrities are guilty of sexual misconduct until demonstrated to be innocent.

Here is a relevant excerpt from my new mini-book Bruce G Charlton. Addicted to Distraction: Psychological consequences of the modern Mass Media. University of Buckingham Press, 2014.

Postscript: the Jimmy Savile affair

A significant stimulus to write this book came from the explosive revelations of the Jimmy Savile affair during 2012 and after – and my developing understanding of the implications.

The Savile affair reveals the leading controllers of the Mass Media in particular, and public leaders in general, as being disgustingly corrupt in terms of what they tolerate and excuse.

Thus, I regard as a major national event the un-masking of the late Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) as a chronic, serial, wholesale, aggressively-predatory sexual aggressor, abuser and rapist of boys and girls, men and women (including mentally handicapped, disabled, ill and hospitalized juveniles) over a timescale of more than half a century, and in reported numbers running into many hundreds (with actual numbers in all likelihood being in thousands, since many victims were incapable of understanding and reporting incidents).

The Savile affair constitutes, in my opinion, in its totality; one of the most horrifying – and horrifically-revealing – events in the history of England. And as a nation, the English have hardly yet begun to digest the implications – that is, assuming we are capable of doing-so, in such a nihilistic, shallow and distractible society as we have become.

The intense interest of this case is that Savile was, for several decades but especially in the 1970s and 80s, massively promoted by the UK Mass Media as nothing short of a lay saint, mostly due to his raising lots of money ‘for charity’ and his work in ‘helping people’.

Jimmy Savile was essentially a creation of the BBC – which is the British Broadcasting Corporation, the state-funded radio and television network and focus of the UK Mass Media. Initially Savile was promoted as a teen idol, as radio DJ and also presenter of the TV flagship Top of the Pops.

Later Savile was promoted in connection with young children; and was, for instance, featured visiting children’s hospitals on Christmas day. Later still, the BBC created a long-running Saturday evening prime time family TV series called Jim’ll Fix It (1975-1994) for Savile’s glorification as a patron of boys and girls, the sick, the crippled and the handicapped - all of which categories are noted among Savile’s known sexual victims. The purported aim of the series was to arrange for a stream of young people to come to the studios and have their daydreams fulfilled by Savile and his ‘team’. In practice, it seems that – all too often – the opposite actually occurred.

Jimmy Savile was, indeed, one of the earliest people to recognize the vast career possibilities of becoming personally very rich, famous, powerful and protected from prosecution by well-publicized charitable ‘giving’. The more Savile gave, the wealthier and more prestigious he became. Until finally ‘Sir Jimmy’ was, apparently, everybody’s friend or favourite Uncle; and his depredations were unstoppable: he was, and openly boasted of being, a-law-unto-himself.

The media, and especially the BBC, thus made Savile into the leading British representative of what it was to be a ‘good’ person, held-up as an example to others.

And not just the media. Savile was awarded a Papal knighthood to go with his British knighthood (Savile was one of the best-known Roman Catholics in public life – despite, as we discovered, openly practising assembly-line sex in the BBC studio dressing rooms with under-age-looking girls); he was also apparently a close personal friend and guest of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; and also of the Queen and Royal Family. In other words Savile was (so far as the masses could see) unanimously endorsed by the establishment at the highest possible level.

Despite being aware of his behind-the-scenes reputation, these establishment idiots nonetheless invited Savile into their own homes to meet their own families; because now we discover that many of these establishment figures had heard multiple reports and complaints, and persistent and plausible rumours of his activities; and did nothing, did not investigate, took no precautions; or else denied, and in sum certainly covered-up what was really going-on. It seems that the Establishment did not even use their insider knowledge to safeguard their own loved ones!

(It is typical of the insanity of modernity that the politically correct elite believe their own lies – even when contradicted by personal knowledge and their own experience.)

And yet, to the unbiased eye Savile was very obviously a cold-eyed, self-promoting, self-enriching, egotistical weirdo – with an embarrassingly inept persona; a man who never conversed but spoke entirely in cliches, and deflected enquiries with strange stereotypical noises and displacement activities.

The only people whom I know who had actually met Savile disliked him intensely; one knew him from their schooldays as being a nasty teenager; a woman friend reported that on meeting Savile he made an immediate, crude and sexually aggressive approach (i.e. groping) – as if it was his habit and right to do so.

A very obviously untrustworthy person.

So, on the one hand there was one’s own instinctive reaction backed by personal contacts, which said Savile was nasty; and on the other hand the Mass Media, especially the BBC, the government, the Royal Family, numerous hospitals and prison services, and (for goodness sake!) the Vatican – all united in telling us that Sir Jimmy was the nearest British equivalent to Mother Teresa (and I am not exaggerating this in the slightest).

Add to this people in the police, the legal system health service officials, educational officials who seemed to endorse Savile despite (as we have heard) numerous reports, complaints, incidents...

An outsider might ask if there was any major group that was not involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in covering-up and thereby promoting Saviles crimes?

And there we have it, in a nutshell. The necessary relationship between Media reality and real reality is not just zero, but potentially negative: the worse the reality, the more the ‘establishment’ ruling elite, promoted it. The ‘lack of discernment’ displayed by the Queen, the politicians, the Media moguls and the Pope could not have been more extreme.

This is a perverse perfection of inversion: one of the most (covertly) evil people that could be imagined, yet aggressively promoted as being one of the best. And this situation continuing for decade after decade; as the number of his victims accumulated through Savile’s long and active life...

As I said, Sir Jimmy Savile was a creature created and sustained by the Mass Media, and most specifically the state funded British Broadcasting Corporation which was the primary source.

From the late 1960s, therefore, the premier UK Mass Media organization was the origin, focus, energy, defender of the phenomenon of Savile – which can be taken as merely the most egregious example currently known of a general inversion of moral (and also aesthetic) values. The BBC, the Mass Media, took this grotesquely-unpromising raw material, and made him into the prime national moral hero, and kept this going, on-and-on, despite all they suspected, heard, had seen and knew.

So we now know (we no longer merely suspect the fact) that the Mass Media will take a truly evil person (or it could be an evil organization, or an evil set of ideas) and make him admired, dominant and invulnerable.

It has always been said, in excusing Savile (both before and after the revelations) for his boring, inept and embarrassing persona that he ‘gave’ millions of pounds to charity – some say forty million.

We now see that this charitable contribution was more in the nature of a bribe than a gift; money paid to ensure sexual access to the vulnerable children he preyed upon, and protection money to prevent him being prosecuted (just one of the hundreds of instances that have emerged would have meant Savile’s ruin and probably jail time).

If we divide forty million pounds by the constantly expanding number of probable sexual assaults over several decades; the charitable contributions may eventually work-out to be something like a few hundred pounds per sexual attack.

In other words, Savile’s charitable ‘giving’ functioned as a pay-off for Establishment status, a high salary, and political protection; also sometimes as a kind of entrance fee to get access to establishments where (as a patron) he could molest with impunity. It is likely that Savile regarded this exchange as being good value for money…

Such ‘charity’ – rewarded by depraved and criminal sexual gratification, personal wealth, and lavish official prestige is revealed as licensed evil on the cheap.

But why did this happen. Why was this all this done for somebody so wicked and dangerous as Savile? Why was so much done to enable and facilitate vice on such a vast scale? What reason could the Mass Media establishment have for doing this apparently arbitrary thing? – what did they stand to gain from it – why not be more cautious?

The immediate cause of Savile’s licence to abuse seems to have been the probable fact that in the BBC (and presumably elsewhere in the Mass Media) with respect to sexual license almost everybody was at it, to a greater or lesser extent; too many people had something to hide – and, quite likely, it was calculated that bringing down Savile would be to bring down the whole house of cards of Establishment sexual corruption.

Because, following the Jimmy Saville affair and a series of prominent prosecutions, convictions and confessions, it has become apparent that there was what would be considered by religious traditionalists a varied and widespread culture of endemic sexual transgression at the BBC.

The once exemplary British Broadcasting Corporation in London had, from about the mid-1960s, seemingly become a moral cesspool, and at times a criminal environment; involving not just the most obviously strange and sinister Savile, but also other media personalities who were more generally popular, and seemed to me and many others as if they were decent characters.

The fact that the most influential centre of UK Mass Media was quite widely known (among those in the know) as a dangerous place for children, implies that this had been an accepted fact; indeed it looks as if sexual access is likely to have been, maybe still is, a major motivational factor in those who work there.

I assume the same applies to other major media institutions, who have at least tolerated – perhaps approved of this; since otherwise the whistle would have been blown long, long ago.

The lessons I have learned from the Savile affair are that:

1. We are unable to judge the moral worth of people in public life from what we see on our screens. We think we can judge this, but we cannot. Our instincts tell us we can, but we cannot. And this applies even, or perhaps especially, to those put forward as moral exemplars. We must therefore resist reassurances that things are alright, simply because we – the public – have not been allowed to learn how bad they are. We now know things may be horrifically bad, and we are allowed to know nothing about it.

2. The moral worth of people in public life is much, much lower than we had previously supposed. Think again of all the major Establishment figures and institutions who were complicit in endorsing and protecting Savile… They knew, but did nothing.

We must therefore assume the worst of many, or most, people in public life – unless specifically proven otherwise.

3. The evils consequent upon the sexual revolution have been systematically-hidden, excused on multiple grounds, indulged, even applauded. There must surely be a lot of the same kind of things we do not know about in many other people, circumstances and institutions; especially those most subject to the changes in ethos dictated by the enforcement of the sexual revolution. It is reasonable – indeed prudent – to assume the worst until proven otherwise.

But those who do not want to learn from the Savile Affair – including the many who were complicit – will not learn from it. And they do not want the public to learn, either.

Already I detect that the whole business is going down the memory hole – because in the modern world it is only the Mass Media that keeps an issue alive, and the Mass Media has no interest in allowing the implications and ramifications of the Savile Affair to be worked-through and kept in mind.

But there are lessons; and we ought to learn them. We should acknowledge the profound foolishness and danger of immersing ourselves in the multiple influences from those depraved individuals in the Mass Media and the Establishment who control and sustain public discourse.

And, having reflected, we must each of us resolve to change our attitudes and practices in relation to the Mass Media.

To encourage such reflection, and toughen such resolution, has been the main purpose of this book.

Monday 15 October 2012

Media-reality versus reality: the case of Jimmy Savile

*

US readers may not be aware of an extraordinary business going on in the UK mass media at present: the un-masking of the late Sir Jimmy Savile (1926-2011) as a chronic, serial, aggressively predatory sexual abuser of children (amongst others).

(I shall leave it to interested parties to sift the vast coverage on this for the sordid details.)

The intense interest of this case is that Savile was, for several decades but especially in the 1970s and 80s, massively promoted by the UK media as a lay saint, due to his raising lots of money 'for charity'.

(Savile was, indeed, one of the earliest people to recognize the vast career possibilities of becoming personally very rich, famous and powerful by well-publicized charitable 'giving'.)

The media, and especially the BBC, made Savile into the leading British example of a 'good' person, held-up as an example to others.

*

And not just the media - Savile was awarded a Papal knighthood to go with his British knighthood (Savile was one of the best-known Roman Catholics in public life), he was apparently a close personal friend and guest of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and also of the Queen and Royal Family.

In other words Savile was unanimously endorsed by the establishment at the highest possible level and with the greatest possible force.

They invited Savile into their own homes to meet their own families; but now we discover that many of these establishment figures were aware of multiple reports and complaints, and persistent and plausible rumours of his activities; and did nothing, or denied, or covered-up what was really going-on; did not even use this knowledge to safeguard their own loved ones!

Typical of the insanity of modernity (it being characteristic of the politically correct elite that they believe their own lies above their own eyes).

*

And yet, to the unbiased eye he was a cold-eyed, self-promoting, self-enriching, egotistical weirdo - with an embarrassingly inept persona; a man who never conversed but spoke entirely in cliches, and deflected enquiries with strange noises and displacement activities.

The only people whom I know who actually met Savile disliked him intensely, one knew him as a nasty child, a woman friend reported that he made an immediate sexually aggressive approach.

A very obviously untrustworthy person.

*

So, on the one hand there was one's own instinctive reaction backed by personal contacts which said Savile was nasty; and on the other hand the mass media, especially the BBC, the government, the Royal Family, numerous hospitals and prison services, and (for goodness sake!) the Vatican - all united in telling us that Sir Jimmy was the nearest British equivalent to Mother Teresa (and I am not exaggerating this in the slightest).

*

There we have it, in a nutshell.

The necessary relationship between media reality and reality is not just zero, but potentially negative: the worse the reality, the more the 'establishment' ruling elite, promoted it.

The 'lack of discernment' displayed by the Queen, the politicians, the media moguls and the Pope could not have been more extreme.

A perfection of inversion: one of the most evil people aggressively promoted as one of the best.

This is a measure of what Christians are up against.

*

Friday 26 October 2012

Savile affair reveals the mass media as controlling core of the Establishment

*

The unfolding Jimmy Savile affair is proving to be both revealing and clarifying with respect to the nature and corruption of The Establishment (the ruling elite) in Britain.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/media-reality-versus-reality-case-of.html

One aspect I failed to mention in the above posting but which has become more apparent is that the police/ legal system were involved in the decades-long cover-up of Savile's strategic predatory serial paedophilia; so this can be added to the Royal Family, the Vatican, governments, health service officials, educational officials...

But the point I wish to emphasize here is that Savile was created and sustained by the mass media, and most specifically the state funded British Broadcasting Corporation which was the primary source.

*

The mass media (and this dates back to the late 1960s) was the origin, focus, energy, defender of the phenomenon of Savile - which can be taken as merely the most egregious example yet known of a general system of the evaluation and validation of moral and aesthetic values.

Savile was made into a lay Saint - that is the important thing to realize; the BBC, the mass media, took this thoroughly unpromising raw material and made him into the prime national hero, and kept this going despite all.

We now know (we don't just suspect) that the mass media can - and does, Savile being the concrete example - take a person, an organization, a set of ideas - and make it dominant and invulnerable; mobilizing all other subordinate aspects of the Establishment to propagate it, and to exclude and repel any potential resistance coming from outside the Establishment.

How this happens is being shown us, day by day, with the unfolding revelations on Savile.

*

But why did this happen. Why was this all this done for somebody so wicked and dangerous as Savile? Why was so much done to enable and facilitate vice on such a vast scale?

What reason could the mass media establishment have for doing this apparently arbitrary thing? - what did they stand to gain from it - why not be more cautious?

For a traditional Christian the answer seems obvious, the inspiration bears all the fingerprints of personal purposive evil at work in the world - evil dominant at the very heart of the Establishment: the mass media, with tentacles reaching out and controlling all significant and subordinate aspects of the Establishment. Even the legal system and its enforcement.

*

No part of the Establishment stands outside of this evil influence - all we are seeing at present is the in-fighting due to the internal power struggles between linked bureaucracies; the media feeding off itself; one part of the Establishment striving for dominance over others; but no challenge whatsoever to the basic ethos of the Establishment and its foundational secular Leftist ideology.

But traditional Christians ought to be able to learn from this: we see the Establishment at work, its linked nature, its core, and its motivation.

It helps to know the location of the enemy's headquarters.

*

Note: It has always been said, in excusing Savile (both before - for his boring, talentless and embarrassing persona - and now after his expose) that he 'gave' millions of pounds to charity - some say forty million. We now see that this was more in the nature of a fee than a gift. If we divide forty million pounds by the constantly expanding number of probable sexual assaults over several decades; it may eventually work-out to be something like a few hundred pounds per potentially career-ending and sometimes prison-worthy act. In other words, the 'charitable giving' functioned as a pay-off for establishment protection; also sometimes as a entrance fee to get access to establishments where (as a patron) he could molest with impunity. 'Charity' which is rewarded by official prestige is not true charity at all - rather, it is an exceptionally insidious form of corruption.

*

Tuesday 19 December 2017

Inexplicable and instant celebrity - a sign of the evil Establishment at work (i.e. the strategic demonic agenda)

A flattering photograph of Sir Jimmy Savile - charity fund-raiser, Papal knight, friend of the Royal Family and Margaret Thatcher etc. One of the most evil men in the history of Britain. The snake-eyes tell you everything you need to know of his true nature

It isn't a new phenomenon, but perhaps nowadays more frequent and obvious than ever before, that very suddenly and from nowhere a person IS a celebrity; despite his or her lack of looks, talent or charm.

And these inexplicable celebrities often seem to be the worst ones, the most evil in their effect.

This is because this kind of manufactured fame and influence is a product of the pervasive and extensive power of the evil (global, demonic) Establishment; who can (not always, but with a high degree of reliability) manufacture celebrity pretty-much at will and from the most unpromising material.

A very clear and early example of the phenomenon was Jimmy Savile. We can perceive now (at least those capable of perception can perceive) that Savile's colossal, decades-long celebrity was manufactured, sustained and protected by the Establishment mainly on the basis of his functioning as a procurer of children for sexual abuse by the elites.

Most manufactured-celebrities do not have so important a role as Savile - and presumably function merely as agents of corruption via the mass media, spreading-out into the unified-linked-bureaucracy; for instance by lending support to and promoting the short-termist-hedonic sexual revolution (the prime agent of corruption in modernity) and the totalitarian, materialist Left-agenda.

Of course, there are many celebrities who attained their position by talent, beauty and/or charm - and these must be corrupted after-the-fact. Usually they are quite-readily so-corrupted (by sex, fame or money - combined with intimidation) - but clearly this process is less reliable; and there is a danger that meritocratic celebrities may rebel against the agenda and their celebrity then needs to be destroyed - although this can be difficult (eg. Jim Carrey, at present; Mel Gibson a few years ago).

Anyway - it is always worth a second look when some person, or some issue (e.g. the 'trans' agenda) suddenly arrives from nowhere to become an apparent public obsession; such phenomena are strong prima facie evidence of the strategic demonic agenda in-action.

Friday 22 November 2013

Sex scandals are more common (and worse, and indeed actively-promoted) in an age of moral relativism

*

The latest major UK sex/ fraud/ incompetence scandal

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9082571/an-icon-of-our-time

shows the open-ended corruption which is made possible by abandoning objective Christian sexual morality.

The point about the Reverend Paul Flowers is typical of modern sex scandals - he was somebody who already - openly, explicitly, boastfully - engaged in sexual practices that clearly transgressed traditional Christian morality.

Indeed, it seems he was admired for doing so, and this is not surprising since sexually transgressive behaviour is nowadays regarded as admirable, and taken as a positive qualification for any high status job.

*

Modern sexual morality is merely a matter of some sort of fluid, arbitrary, legal borderline between acceptable and unacceptable, morally-OK and morally-wrong.

Modern sexual morality is unclear, it is constantly shifting, it is a matter of opinion - when the rules change then (supposedly) right and wrong changes along with them...

So, the situation is in place where a person in a position of responsibility has been appointed with full (insider) knowledge of their non-traditional sexual behaviour - and there is no point at which is becomes clearly necessary to stop them, because all their transgressive sexual behaviours up to that point have been tolerated or even approved.

*

The scandal of Jimmy Savile revealed that he practiced mass-production assembly-line promiscuity in the BBC London studios - and that 'everybody' knew about this, the behaviour was tolerated by all, and no doubt envied by some of those who tolerated it.

Wholesale, aggressive, crude promiscuity did not stop Savile being awarded a British knighthood and a Vatican knighthood (he was probably the best-known Roman Catholic in the UK); it did not stop him being on close personal terms with the Queen and the Prime Minister and so on downwards.

*

So, where is the line of sexuality? The answer is clear but unwelcome to modernity - the line is drawn by traditional Christian marriage.

Attempts to draw a wider line of morally acceptable sexuality have all failed, because the line will not hold.

Indeed, it seems clear that the forces of evil only ever want to move the line in order to move it again and further until all lines seems arbitrary - and morality is re-defined as doing whatever you want, so long as you can get away with it.

The legalization of routine divorce was - it turned out - only a prelude to the dilution, then destruction, mockery and demonization, of real marriage. Likewise, the acceptability of extra-marital sex was - it turned out - only a prelude to the likes of Jimmy Savile and Paul Flowers - and all the others who preceded them, and more that we do not know about.

*

Friday 31 July 2015

The Satanic British Establishment

Just a brief comment - mainly for non-British readers - concerning the continual drip-drip media coverage of gross, systematic sexual abuse of children - mostly boys - among the British Establishment going back to the middle nineteen sixties.

The basic theme emerging over the past several years and continuing, is that Sir Jimmy Savile was not unique, but simply the most extreme example of a widespread practice - and indeed the fact of Savile surviving and thriving for decades intrinsically entailed exactly that he was merely representative of a much wider culture.

This involves senior politicians and government officials, as well as people in the media and entertainment and enforcement agencies - and indeed the picture painted is one of large scale, organized, multi-centred, strategic paedophilic abuses and toleration/ reward of abusers among hundreds of men and women (e.g. Margaret Thatcher and The Queen - both personal friends of Savile, and patrons and promoters of other abusive figures named in the media) in positions of decisive power and influence. Not one single massive conspiracy, but a significant number of large local set-ups - each protected by different modes of what might be termed Establishment Privilege

The scale of the activities is, frankly, astonishing. At the very least, considering that paedophilia is regarded by the average Briton as just about the worst of all crimes, this represents a remarkably 'tolerant' and socially-dissonant subculture among the ruling Establishment (including and involving the pinnacle of the Establishment, the most prestigious and powerful figures), since it is clear that 'everybody' (who was anybody) knew (or had heard of) what was going-on - but nothing ever was done about it. Indeed, many of the alleged abusers were rewarded with status, fame, power and money - all the rewards that the Establishment could confer.

Given the dishonesty of the mass media, and the fact that the evidence comes only from the mass media - is all this true? Did all these Establishment figure really engage in such grossly immoral (and criminal) activities, and were they really protected from exposure and prosecution?

Certainly, I have zero experience of this kind of activity in my own circles, not even the rumours of such activities. But then, I am not, nor ever have been, in this elite. If it is true, then it must have been confined to a secret and ruling elite subculture. Furthermore, the exploited children were mostly drawn from the chaotic subcultures of children's homes, runaways, the wild children, the borderline mentally handicapped, mentally ill, drug users, prostitutes, trafficked, uncared-for and so on - and again I have very little knowledge or contact with such groups.

On these grounds it is possible to deny that their was any such problem, and that the whole thing is a media invention - or at least a wild exaggeration based on just a handful of genuine cases. The question is why are such things being exposed now by the mass media and the police? It looks like some kind of inter-Establishment war, a war of evil versus evil, but this is not something I understand.

On the other hand, the current media coverage is piecemeal, presented as a series of isolated 'scandals', and does not draw general conclusions as I am doing.

Unfortunately, I have come to believe that it is true; and that there really was, probably still is, a monstrously wicked cult of child sexual abuse among the Establishment, which thrived in an environment of mutual protection of privilege. And since I think this is true, then it casts an horrific retrospective light on the British Establishment of the past half century.

This stuff is so grossly abhorrent, that comparisons with Caligula and Nero spring to mind; and in general the sense is one of Satanic influence among a group that have lost their religious faith and embraced a socio-political ideal of sexual revolution - in which one barrier after another to sexual gratification has been dismantled.

Indeed, this seems to explain the Establishment push behind the sexual revolution - the tolerance, indifference and approval of sexual adventuring and experimenting - and the fact that so many people were so easily blackmailable by the Establishment to keep quiet; with an all-seeing surveillance state and manipulable laws, backed by the irresponsible and irresistible destructive power of the mass media.

At any rate, while I do not seek to persuade others of the validity of this analysis, my working assumption is now that the British Establishment of the past couple of generations was far, far worse than anything its erstwhile (mostly Leftist) detractors ever alleged of it - its moral authority is utterly exploded, there has been a failure to recognize and enforce even the most basic level of human decency.

To a lesser or greater extent; this taints all of those who are a part of that Establishment, and who have been rewarded by the Establishment - especially the 'Honours' System of medals, knighthoods, life peerages and the like. These self-styled honours are coming to seem like badges of complicity.

I cannot allow much in the way of 'good intentions' from such people - rather, it fits with a policy of deliberate, strategic subversion of public morality, especially sexual morality. And this policy has been extremely successful - the depraved Establishment have substantially succeeded in eroding the basic decency, the traditional virtues, of the British public.

A topic worthy of George Orwell and one which Orwell would instantly have recognized; and lacking an Orwell, a story of the British people that perhaps never will be told.

Wednesday 17 February 2016

What is the evil agenda of elite evil?

There are a lot of people who are concerned about the evil of the Western elites, its nature and purpose. Since this evil is covert and heavily defended, there are massive divergences of opinion about its nature and purpose - so we have multiple theories of motivations: Caligulas, capitalists, illuminati, aliens, lizard people...

There is a lot of crazy talk coming from people of different levels of craziness - but then it turns out that there has indeed been some crazily massive and systematic evil going on in Britain: by any historical standards.

The revelations over the past few years of the wholesale, decades-long activities of Jimmy Savile are beyond the imagination of most people, and he was one of the most well-connected people in Britain: an intimate, advisor and facilitator of senior royalty, senior politicians, senior BBC officials, lawd and health service bureaucrats... the elite of the elite. After this came the revelations of multiple examples of organized paedophilia being concealed/ tolerated/ protected by these same authorities - and again at a scale apparently unique in history.

These situations were known to many thousands of the most powerful people for a long time - and the necessary inference is that what was going-on was, overall, what they wanted to be going-on.

So we have an evil elite, and they are evil in ways and to a degree which is crazy - so what are they trying to achieve?

It is here that the theorists ideas seem grossly inadequate. If the evil elite are as powerful as they seem to be, then why the secrecy - and why is it so unclear about what they are aiming-at?

The answer is that the source and ultimate organization of evil is neither human nor alien but demonic. And the demonic perspective is not strategic - it does not name at any particular end state - its modus operandi is destruction: destruction of The Good.

The demonic tactically undermines, subverts, attacks and ultimately inverts all that is Good, wherever that may be found. There is maybe a vague notion of creating a state of disorder that they intend to exploit - but not much detail beyond that. They simply succeed in one destruction, then move onto the next.

It is, in a sense, no more than a series of 'petty triumphs'; of prideful impositions of domination and manipulation; of delighting in the grotesque smashing of innocence and beauty; of getting-away-with outrageous lies and cruelties - indeed, knowing their own covert evil and not merely getting-away-with-it but being publicly and multiply honoured as exemplars of good; of infiltrating, hollowing-out and filling with corruption the finest and noblest institutions...

And all for no better or deeper or more coherent reason that the gleeful mockery of it, the sense of their own superiority -- the conviction that all this (their own successful destruction and deceit) is conclusive proof of the stupidity and hypocritical-wickedness of the masses (and the weak minority of the genuinely religious), and thereby justifies the activity.

In the end, everybody knows (more or less) what is going-on, but everybody pretends it isn't: and this situation just gets more and more extreme, thorough, and crazy. And this is exactly what the demons want.

There is no Master Plan, there is nothing more-than more-of-the-same: more extreme in degree, more insane in content, more widespread... And (best of all, from the demonic perspective) all the time, all this grotesque and viscerally disgusting stuff is going behind a facade of pomp, ceremony and prestige.

The demons are already regarded as angels; they intend to be worshipped as gods.

And then, when good is defeated in the piblic and visible reealm, and the evil god will rule in the role of Goodness; a new phase will begin (or rather will become dominant - since it has always been there): the struggle for domination between the triumphant demons, their destruction of one another.

But it never stops (until everything stops). So long as there is any residual good, there is work for evil.

Note: I am talking above of varieties of demonic illusion, influence, control, and at the extreme possession -- demons cannot incarnate, cannot have bodies (according to Mormon theology). The above ideas are my most recent reflections along a line begun by reading Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future, by Fr. Seraphim Rose. I think there was a core of truth in what Seraphim Rose argued - although I believe he was wrong to state that all New Age/ Occult/ Spiritual/ Paganistic/ Eastern Religion (etc) phenomena are demonic; by contrast, I think there is much good in some of them.

Wednesday 24 September 2014

No resistance to anything anymore - This is not adaptive: this is pathology

*
It strikes me that one problem is that the West is sick.

I don't mean 'sick' as a metaphor but really diseased, suffering from diseases - perhaps especially Britain which is the most advanced modern society because it was the first. Here there is no resistance to anything anymore. But other places are little better and on the same road.

*

This is the only adequate explanation for how little resistance there is to lies, nonsense, and the crude inversion of good and evil. People have always spouted lying, meaningless evil rubbish; but in the past they weren't believed, they were not cooperated with, they were resisted and fought

Here in the UK, the majority of young beautiful women choose to vandalize themselves with tattoos; half the population are drunk or drugged half the time (and most of the rest wish they were); the population is almost sterile, by choice, and are being replaced by random others - centuries of culture is being dismantled before our eyes, and the destruction is celebrated.

Multiple millions of people do no work or insignificant amounts of work - ever. The people who are productive and do something useful are despised and harassed and demoralized by armies of politicians, manager, administrators and regulators who are professional saboteurs - actively and unceasingly trying to stop them doing anything useful. The highest aspiration is retirement (not working but getting plenty of money to do what you want) and travel (high status serial distraction with the hope of cheap drunkenness and sexual adventures).

*

We have been hit by major disasters: the London race riots locked down the city for days but the cause was concealed and nothing was done; Sir Jimmy Savile - the most praised celebrity of all time - was revealed as a sexual abuser of epic proportions whose depradations were widely known but nothing was done; slavery and trafficking slaves has been reintroduced to the nation which first abolished it and nothing is done; organized systematic rape gangs were known about for more than a decade but nothing was done.

There is nothing, nowadays, big enough or bad enough to galvanize the British to deal with it - or even to remember it.

*

Why? Why have people given-up - en masse?

In the past people were often in scary, dangerous, fatal situations - much worse than now - but they didn't give up. Modern people give up in the face of microscopic pressures; they don't even have enough energy and motivation and integrity to complain! Anything and everything is met with mumbling, grumbling acceptance.

*

Part of it is that the UK is nominally Christian but there are hardly any Christians, and hardly any of the self-identified Christians are real, and hardly any of them are solid.

But even among real and solid Christians there is very little/ no resistance. There are too few in any one place, with too little interaction between them; they cannot support each other enough to make a real difference.

Nobody among the British will just say NO, and stick by it.

*

Yes there is 24/7 propaganda for mostly bad things. yes there is soft power - vilifying, shaming, fines, sackings. But why are we so vulnerable to this stuff? People in teh past faced prison, torture, executions without yielding. Why does almost-everybody consent to the system and the vile, destructive fashions?

Why do we despair and do nothing about it.

*

What this increasingly looks like is a sick society of sick people. An old society, a society of millions on invalidity benefit, tens of millions dependent on drugs - whether they need them or not, of chronic diseases - mental and physical.

I am not making a Nietzschian point here, I am not yearning for a nation of vigorous blond beasts; I am not despising or hating the sickness of old sick people (after all, I am one of them!). (Modern society is already filled to overflowing with resentment and hatred - it is just that the resentment is feeble, futile, evanescent - hence deniable.)

I am simply stating that there are strong indications that the population of the oldest industrialized society in the world is maladaptive; as individuals and at a group level.

Why? Well all the above is consistent with widespread, near universal, genetic damage; mutation accumulation due fact such as the child mortality rate has fallen from about half to about one percent, and that for six to eight generations the people with the least mutations have had the least children, and those with heavy mutations loads have had the most - also that for several decades the average fertility is well below two children per woman for all classes, and the population of British is shrinking. This is a recipe for eventual mutational meltdown, but on the way to that increasing pathology is inevitable.

So we in Britain, we in the West and East Asia, are a sick society of sick people; and there is nothing that we can realistically do to prevent it; not least because it is caused by what was probably the greatest boon of the industrial revolution - the near abolition of child mortality - which throughout human history has been a major cause of human misery.

However, it makes a vast difference; it makes all the difference in this world (and the next) how we respond to the facts.

We do not need to be - we ought not to be - what we are now; which is a society of death wishers, a society of time-servers, a passive society of unmotivated hedonists. That we have just given up is because we have as a nation and as a society turned away from God, forgotten God, hate God - and this puts us into a position of weakness unprecedented in human history.

We know in our bones that we are dying, personally and socially - because genetically. We know too that disaster looms. But it is unacceptable to respond by simply trying to get through the intervening time with as as much fun and as little unpleasantness as possible. This attitude doesn't work, it makes everything worse; and it is evil because it not only acquiesces in the destruction of all good things (marriage, family, beauty, honesty etc.) but actively (albeit feebly) promotes evil (sexual hedonism, the marring of beauty and imposition of ugliness, hype and lies and fake denial).

In such circumstances it is not hard to imagine a suicide cult taking hold - even a cult of humane murder on a massive scale; spun as being the only reliable way to avoid future suffering for yourself and those you care about. Because modern secular people regard death as a full stop, an oblivion, and they like the sound of that better than a world of suffering, fear, starvation, disease and violence (which is the world they are working hard to enable).

Therefore, if it is not to become a cult of death, a culture that is dying needs to look beyond death. There is no alternative. Only by looking beyond death can we put a life of disease and decline into a meaningful and purposeful context.

We can only live well in a sick society in the time that remains us (indiviually and collectively) when our mortal lives are seen in context; and context means as not-the-whole thing but a part and a preparation for the whole thing.

No matter how bad things become, and the quantitative scale of a modern collapse would dwarf anything humans have experienced so far, from the individual perspective there can be no suffering or loss that Men of the past have not already experienced - and which some of them have transcended by their faith in God.

*

Where does it begin?

It can only begin with individuals, individual choice, by opening-ourselves to God. We are not going to be rescued; we are not going to have God forced-upon-us and the future mapped-out and ourselves carried-passively-along.

It all begins with a change of fundamental attitude. Anybody can do it. You don't need to be young, healthy, high status. You can be old, sick and despised.

No matter how sick you are, you can open you mind, you can say yes. You can repent the evils of our time and in yourself. You can recognize the side of Good and join it.

It makes all the difference: the difference between living the cult of death, and living in expectation of eternal life.

*

A note on the concept of 'adaptive'.

The idea here is that modern men have lost some of the most basic and significant adaptive behaviours due to mutant accumulation, due to substantial relaxation of natural selection against mutations. In biology, adaptation is (roughly) that a stimulus leads to behaviour which is (on average) beneficial to survival and reproductive success. Thus, pathology/ disease is pretty-much behaviour that is not adaptive - behaviour that does not contribute to survival or reproductive success.

Adaptations are not natural nor are they spontaneous, but they evolved. Therefore random damage will nearly-always destroy adaptations. What is left when adaptations have been destroyed (partly or wholly) is not another form of adaptation, but is disease - it is (biologically speaking) no good for anything - just as cancer (which is precisely a loss of adaptation) is good for nothing (not even for the cancer itself, in the long run).

Mass maladaptation, mass disease, is possible because of the society of growth in peace, prosperity and plenty. But mass and increasing maladaptation is incompatible with a society of growth in peace, prosperity and plenty; because p,p&p are an achievement, unusual in the history of the world (not the default!) - and because mutation accumulation (maladaptation) cannot even sustain p,p&p but will instead destroy it.

For a while, society has been living off the inertia from the major achievements of the past - but the achievements dried up, and have been first parasitized then actively destroyed.

I am suggesting that in the vast majority of modern humans in Britain - and other developed countries - with respect to many, many of their attitudes and actions, people en masse violate adaptive, evolved behavioural rules which could have been taken for granted at any previous point in history; and this is evidence of multi-system disease; and the situation is getting worse. And that understanding the basic cause of this implies matters will continue getting worse until the basic current form of society (modern society, based on growth I productivity of necessaries) will come to an end.
*

Wednesday 15 October 2014

Understanding the culture of celebrity

*
The cult of celebrity is strange and gets stranger all the time- probably it is best to think of it as an addiction.

'Everyone knows' that celebrity is at best a fake and at worst enables and protects an astonishingly depraved life - Sir Jimmy Savile may have been (I hope he was) the most extreme example of top-level celebrity evil, but is not the only one - and at every level celebrity works in a multi-valently wicked fashion - causing both passive and active evil.

Celebrity in the modern world is on such a vast and intrusive scale, that the human mind is assaulted, bewildered, drawn-in and held in a prison of dissipative nastiness.

Even at its least actively-harmful, millions of man-hours are expended by ordinary people in watching, reading, gossiping and social-networking about celebrities and their doings - not to mention the multi-billion dollar segment of the mass media that is utterly dependent on the celebrity culture.

*

This is evidence of human boredom, futility and desperation on a scale which is almost impossible to exaggerate. And the fact that so many people are happy, willing, active and aggressive supporters of the celebrity culture - in their spending, their allocation of time and effort and their proselytizing zeal - is conclusive.

*

There is zero possibility of reforming the culture of celebrity - such attempts merely strengthen the culture by further increasing its size, complexity and ability to defend itself.

We see this all the time - a celebrity whose celebrity is fading will signal 'goodness' by adopting a 'good' cause, by emphasising 'charity', or becoming 'political'. Even when this is transparently self-serving (as is all advertized charity) then the subsequent debate fuels celebrity.

*

The process has been raised to the power of three by social media and social networking systems - so hundreds of millions of people are now 'celebrities' - most importantly perceive themselves as celebrities - celebrity bloggers, youtubers, facebookers, tweeters... even schoolroom or friendship group celebrities who update their 'fans' on their minute by minute doings (celebrity paid-for each also acting as 'fans' to enable the celebrity of other members of the micro group).

The process resembles 'taking in each-others washing' - but the end result is that almost everybody who wants it (which is apparently almost everybody) has a personal stake in celebrity culture, feel a part of it.

*

The culture of celebrity is a direct consequence of secular modernity - because without religion Man is un-rooted, life is futile, and becomes ever more alienated, nihilistic and despairing.

The modern situation is that there is nothing more significant for modern people than celebrity - except perhaps sex, but that is anyway almost-wholly absorbed into celebrity. When sex is non-celebrity sex, it either makes no difference and is invisible as if non-existent; or is regarded as despicable.

(After all, what is the point of going on a date, having a sexual encounter, getting married or having kids if you cannot facebook, tweet, snapchat, instagram, or blog about them to your celebrity group?)

*

Celebrity culture is now so big and so immersive - and so destructive of goodness, reality, religion and the soul - that the situation cannot be ameliorated except via massive mass media collapse; which will happen, and will itself lead to so many problems and so much suffering and death, that the culture of celebrity will be sucked into a black hole.

But if the culture of celebrity is not repented, if the culture of celebrity is looked-back-on as a golden age of happiness (as so many people nowadays look back on the depravities of the nineteen sixties) - then the disappearance of the culture of celebrity will do no good to those who have lost it.

*

This is the religious significance of the culture of celebrity: that it is itself evil, and by many means blocks any spontaneous tendency to repent the evils of the culture of celebrity.

Given its size, scope, inclusiveness, power... in and of itself the culture of celebrity is sufficient to establish the modern era as the most evil in human history.

How strange that evil should have such an apparently harmless appearance!

One might have expected torture, human sacrifice, fighting - but it turns-out that evil triumphant is millions upon millions of people (each one some kind of 'local celebrity') gossipping about each other, 24/7, via the mass media amplified-a-thousandfold by social networking...
*

Monday 23 May 2016

Joining the dots on the evil ruling elite's sexual proclivities

I noticed the headline recently that erstwhile child actor Elijah Wood had confirmed that the Hollywood upper echelons are rife with sexual depravity directed at children - drawing parallels with the revelations concerning Jimmy Savile as the focus of the same kind elite network/ conspiracy among the British Establishment at the BBC and other mass media, Government, the Royal Family, and apparently the legal system and senior police. There are also sporadic revelations of the same kind of thing scattered around the world elites more generally - enough to make a pattern - and a much more pervasive tendency among the dominant powers to excuse, de-prioritize, minimize, cover-up and forget this type of thing.

We have to join the dots here; and notice that the focus of activity seems to be on the means of mass communication - those jobs where people have influence on public opinion both directly (the hard sell via laws, regulations and advocacy) and (more insidiously) implicitly and covertly via subtle messages and denigration of the opposition and resistance (especially among serious Christians).

It looks very much as if 'the world' is being run by a small and powerful and extremely-strange group of people who are distinguished from 'normal' people by their positive and active attitude to what is regarded among the mass of ordinary and even wicked people as beyond-the-pale and the most depraved activity of all. For example, even among the most hardened and horrendous British criminal prisoners, such people are regarded as the lowest of the low. (Leading to the apparent-paradox that the highest-of-the high are morally the lowest-of-the-low; as was the situation with the Roman Emperor's court under Tiberius when Jesus was born - and even more so with his successors Caligula, Claudius-Messalina and Nero.) Indeed, so rare and peculiar is this type of depravity that it appears to be substantially a calculated act of ultimate self-degradation and celebration of absolute evil: the kind of thing which seems to be a deliberate strategy of corruption of one's own soul.

If so, we would be very wrong to regard the international elites as well-meaning but misguided/ incompetent - or indeed as being motivated by any of the 'normal' types of sinful human appetite such as greed and lust; we seem to be up against a group that are altogether more purely evil than this.

The obvious rejoinder is that if the world is ruled by such grossly wicked people, then why aren't things much worse, and more obviously worse, than they are - given their power, why don't they just implement evil by diktat?

My understanding is that it is the nature of the human condition that Men must invite evil into their hearts for evil to gain dominion. For evil to triumph, making people do evil things by coercion or incentives is not enough - people must be made to want evil. They need to be induced to embrace 'moral inversion'; embrace evil as good. And this is altogether a trickier and more long-termist project than mere destruction of The Good- which will often induce a powerful opposite reaction.

And if it is desired to create a situation in which people choose to regard evil as Good - then clearly the means of mass communication are precisely where you most want to work - to make it such that the very imagination is subverted then inverted. It all makes a horrible kind of sense that the BBC and Hollywood have emerged as foci of this depraved sexual cultus - albeit the tip of an iceberg extending to embrace so many of the Western and Westernized ruling elite.

Tuesday 6 December 2016

Modern evil: monsters and demons

Much of what is distinctive about modern evil is - ultimately - the work of demons: I mean the global conspiracy (the 'Illuminati') and their mass of minions and henchmen that constitute the secular New Left which dominates the West.

These are the strategists of evil - taking a long view - their plan being to subvert and damage The Good en route to their plan to invert Good and evil and achieve the self-chosen damnation of mankind...

(...The ugliness of Modern Art being asserted as beautiful, the beauties of traditional art mocked as patriarchal or Kitsch - truth being labelled as hate speech - politically correct lies as a deeper kind of 'truth'; chastity, marriage, family being denigrated as oppression - and the ever expanding, subsidised and officially endorsed license, transgression and manipulations of the sexual revolution as admirable and courageous liberations.)

But not all modern evil is demonic: some is merely monstrous.

As usual Tolkien can help clarify things. In Lord of the Rings, demonic, strategic evil is represented by Sauron and his enslaved Ringwraiths, and hollowed-out and possessed servants such as The Mouth of Sauron (and behind Sauron, excluded from The World itself - the actual Satan of Morgoth).

But evil monsters are also encountered - and these are 'tactically evil' in the sense of utterly selfish and seeking of their own immediate gratification. Old Man Willow is a monster of selfish greed, resentment of hobbits, and desire to dominate and presumably eat them. The Barrow Wight is some kind of wicked ghost, hoarding treasure and striving to perform human sacrifices. The Watcher in the Water seems to be a malign predator merely.

The worst of monsters is, of course, Shelob - the giant spider (descendent of Ungoliant) whose evil is an insatiable hunger for the life and energies of everything else that exists; without foresight or goal - to eat until there is nothing else left alive - when she would die of starvation...

The link between demons and monsters is that the demons will use the monsters for strategic ends; rather as the demonic Illuminati (of politics, royalty, Vatican, media, law enforcement etc) used the monster Jimmy Savile - but the pattern is replicated in many places and at many levels.

Wednesday 16 September 2015

Has Queen Elizabeth II done a good job?

I am a monarchist - in the sense that I regard a good King as the ideal form of government (although not always the best in any specific time and place). Many people assume from this that I would want the country to be run by The Queen. But that is not really the case.

This year there are some national celebrations of Queen Elizabeth having become our longest reigning monarch, including celebrations of her achievement. I like the Queen as a person, and she conducts herself extremely well in her role - but surveying so many years, I find it hard to recognize what the Queen has done to make a positive difference to the United Kingdom.

Despite having an 'on paper' role in many important things like choosing the Prime Minister and heading the Church of England, the constitutional monarch is either mostly or perhaps entirely 'a figurehead', and so far as I am aware, the Queen has never used her powers directly - except via the Governor General of Australia to dismiss the Australian Prime Minister in 1975.

Aside from the Queen herself, The Royal Family are a pretty disgraceful bunch, who have epitomized most of the pathologies of modern life. And since the 1969 BBC TV documentary The Royal Family, the publicity people employed by the Queen have encouraged the tendency to regard the monarchy as a long running soap opera; justified by their entertainment value, their 'common touch' (they certainly display that), and the supposed goodwill created among foreigners and the related boost to tourism and imports...

With the British monarchy, after so many centuries of being willingly subordinated to parliament, there seems to be near zero resistance to being used as media puppets and rubber stamps and a strong sense that - with the exception of the Queen herself - they see the whole thing as a family business rather than a sacred responsibility. They grasp the privileges, but reject the responsibilities - especially the moral responsibilities, of their positions.

As is usual in modern bureaucracies, people fiddle with the rules but are unprincipled about applying them when they go against Leftist principles - and when Queen Elizabeth dies Prince Charles is not, according to the rules traditionally-interpreted, eligible to become King - because he is divorced and is not an Anglican (indeed, he is not a Christian) and is married to a Roman Catholic. Since the monarch is Head of the Church of England, this rules him out; but hardly anybody mentions this, and modern Brits would regard the enforcement of such rules as 'discriminatory'.

In sum, I find no desire in me to celebrate the long rule of Queen Elizabeth; despite my personal regard for her. I suspect that she deplores many of the things that I deplore about Britain, I know she wants us to be a Christian nation, I know she works behind the scenes - but I am afraid that this is not enough, by no means sufficient.

The Queen ought to have been an example of principle, she ought to have provided us with leadership, her views on fundamental matters ought not to be in doubt At some point - and many more times than once - she should have used her veto powers to prevent obviously anti-Christian laws and to prevent evil persons from assuming positions of power (indeed, the Queen's friendship-with and patronage-of the likes of Jimmy Savile and Anthony Blunt seems to betray an extreme moral blindness): her position on these matters should have been clear and explicit and to have led to action. She should have put the monarchy on the line while it still had something to contribute.

Forty years ago the monarchy had great prestige and potential for good - but the prestige was dissipated and the potential for good was unused.

In a nutshell, under Queen Elizabeth's reign, the British monarchy has become indefensible. That is not a cause for celebration.

Wednesday 4 March 2015

Just how bad are things? And why are they SO bad? And what must we do about it?

*
I regard things as very bad indeed. I recognise that this view is not generally accepted - most people would say that things are bad but not much worse than usual. But I regard that attitude as the final straw in clinching just how bad things really are.

What sets us apart from earlier societies is moral inversion; that the bad things are openly promoted as good by politicians, government agencies, the legal and educational systems and in the mass media.

Naturally this confuses people - since in the past people have usually been bad despite official exhortations to do good. In earlier times the officials were usually hypocrites, but paid lavish lip service to the importance of being and doing good - now they urge and reward and coerce people to do be bad, and attack good - while reversing the labels.

*

What do I personally regard as the strongest evidence of things being extremely bad, in my country of England?

The high and rising addiction to the mass media, that people will not believe their own experience and knowledge but instead believe the mass media. The grossest example is the ignorance and denial and total lack of interest in truly massive, rapid and multi-faceted demographic transformation.

http://addictedtodistraction.blogspot.co.uk/

The collapse into sub-replacement fertility among the most intelligent, best educated and wealthiest people - the taboo against noticing this, discussing it, doing anything about it.

That inverted and pathological sexuality are propagandised, and defended by draconian regulations, laws, and managed-mobs. Two landmark examples are the Jimmy Savile affair- where the most widely promoted moral exemplar of recent decades was revealed to be a monster of depravity; and the still unfolding revelations of industrial scale paedophilia in Rotheram, Oxfordshire etc.

Related to the last - that the British establishment does not just tolerate, but vigorously-protects systematic racism, violence, torture, mutilation, slavery and disciplinary-homicide when it occurs among recent migrants and immigrants.

http://thoughtprison-pc.blogspot.co.uk/

The fact that a majority of young, and a large minority of older, people practise and proudly-display escalating levels of permanent self-mutilation in terms of tattoos, piercings and the like.

In the public area of communications, people are dishonest nearly all the time. This applies not just to politicians and bureaucrats, advertising and the mass media; but equally to schools, colleges, science, medicine, law, the police, the military, and of course the mainstream churches. Every statement is hyped, spun, selective, distorted, designed to mislead and seeded with outright lies. The very discourse of our time, thus our capacity for reason, is rotten - and ineffective.

*

That is a short list of a few of the things which most strike me and come to mind.

But how can this happen? How can all this be going on with either ineffectual resistance or tacit approval of the mass of the population?

There are many answers, and many factors contributing; but the deepest answer and underpinning reason is the lack of religion in the UK.

At a profound level, the mass of British people deny - correctly - any absolute legitimacy for themselves and their convictions; and therefore collude in an agenda of multi-pronged self-destruction.

People try but cannot convince themselves of the validity of any secular rationale for modern peace, prosperity and comfort - and in this they are absolutely accurate. Our unprecedented material well-being and amusements - based on the inherited gifts of past geniuses - does not justify anything; certainly selfish abundance does not justify the kind of tough, long-termist, explicitly discriminatory policies required to safeguard and sustain a complex civilisation.

*

Bad things will go on happening, and will go on getting worse and more urgent, and will continue to be ignored, misinterpreted and forgotten; unless or until there is a mass religious revival - which would almost certainly require the emergence and intervention of some leader of goodness, genius and great good fortune.

Because these deep problems are a consequence of a national state of nihilistic demotivation which is both severe and widespread; religious revival, which should of course be a Christian revival, is the one and only and absolutely necessary basis for doing anything which is net-constructive.

(If we try to solve the major problems without religion, we will surely, one way or another or in many ways, end-up using the (un-repented) 'Boromir Strategy' of using the One Ring to fight Sauron. We will - like the secular Right - try to defeat the evil of Leftism and try to make a better world by fostering hatred, greed and pride - in other words, the weapons of The Enemy.)

*

Of course, such pragmatic criteria are not a reason for becoming Christian - the only and sufficient reason to become a Christian is that it is true: objectively true and really real.

(If another, non-Christian religion was the subject of a Great Awakening, then realistically this would simply be a different form of societal demise - a different route to what would amount to the same destination: i.e. the collapse and replacement of Britain by something else.)

*

In sum, the more bad things happen with the approval of the ruling elites and the badder they get, the more tempting it is to try and stop these bad things by arguing and organising against them - but that is a counter-productive waste of time.

In sum, as things stand, the United Kingdom does not deserve to survive, knows it does not deserve to survive,and that is why it is allowing and encouraging its own demise.

The answer is that we must deserve to survive; by having a higher goal, and being motivated by serving that higher goal: Christianity.

*

The only strategic stance - at the general, socio-political level - which is not fundamentally a waste of time or counter-productive is Christian evangelism; to try and promote, in whatever way we can best think of, a religious revival.

I have not the slightest flicker of optimism that this is actually happening - but it could happen, so there is ample room for hope.

Start here and now and with yourself.

*

Thursday 7 January 2016

What is going-on with global conspiracy theories?

I knew almost nothing about the world of large scope conspiracy theories, certainly no details, until I discovered a couple of years ago that somebody who I had once known quite well was actually the leader of one of the lesser known but still substantial groupings (having very detailed theories about alien Illuminati who control most of the major political and social systems).

(It was only yesterday I came across the idea that these members of the elites are a race of large reptilian shape shifters - apparently, I had unconsciously screened and edited-out this material in the past so it never reached awareness.)

Anyway, this old friend sent me links to his stuff which I sampled, and I had to form an opinion of it to make a response.

My overall view (and this includes the reptilian stuff I have only just heard about) is that these 'global conspiracy' people are mostly intelligent and well-informed individuals (my old friend is both of these), and that among a mass of errors and deliberate frauds, they are responding to a core of what might be termed some genuine 'underlying raw phenomena'.

(This is, in broad terms, the interpretative strategy of Fr Seraphim Rose in his book Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future of 1975 - when he looks at the upsurge in paranormal interest of the late sixties, including UFOs.)

It is striking that some of the conspiracy theorists have for a long time been accurately describing - in specific detail - the grossly depraved sexual culture of the British Establishment since the nineteen sixties; of which most of us have only been aware since Jimmy Savile - but which continues to astonish and appall with its revelations. I would certainly have regarded endemic, pervasive elite paedophilia as the craziest of allegations; until I, like everyone else, was forced to accept the weight of evidence.

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/the-satanic-british-establishment.html

In a nutshell, my interpretation is that these global conspiracy theorists are essentially atheists who are describing what they can perceive of the actuality of Spiritual Warfare in the End Times.

The conspiracy theories are about aliens; my guess is that the core of reality is demonic activity at the high levels of global society, and presumably some rare manifestations or detections of actual demons (who are said to be discarnate beings, but who can simulate human bodies).

That is, reptilians = demons (and not aliens).

(Also, some'good aliens' may actually be angelic - in principle, Christians must accept that possibility.)

So that is what I said, and what I think is probably going on - global conspiracy theory is what you get when spiritually acute people notice the situation of spiritual warfare which has played-out on earth and through history; they are people who disbelieve the positive side of Christianity and therefore misinterpret the real activities of Satan and his minions and servants.

The result of this one-sided combination is a horrified and dread-full state of mind, in which the individual conspiracy theorist feels himself overwhelmed by the power and scale of purposive spiritual evil in this world, and sees no realistic hope for escape during mortal life, and no hope of opposite and compensatory supernatural good.

This state of mind can be experienced by engaging with their world for even a few minutes - the nature of the analysis leads strongly towards despair, and therefore indirectly supports the evil agenda (since despair is a sin) - which may perhaps be why propagation and discussion of such ideas is allowed to continue.

Indeed, this is what seems to happen with all secular groups who practise what they term Red Pill thinking - I mean those who develop a world view focused on the harsh-but-denied 'truths' of modern life.

If this perspective is taken seriously, on its own terms, such thinking must lead to horror, misery, dread and despair - which is the inescapable state of mind of those of the ultra-radical anti-establishment anarchic Left who genuinely believe their own analysis.