Bruce Charlton's Notions

Many writers on theology (in many religions, including Christianity) believe that the masculine principle is primary in divine creation; the feminine being secondary, or perhaps inessential.  

Or else, they believe that such sexual differentiation is superficial, and that primarily/ originally there is no sex, no masculine or feminine - but a single creative principle that includes both. 

Others believe that sex is merely an earthly and mortal accident or expedient; and that the highest form of after-life entails loss of sexual differentiation (either as spirit, or as resurrected Man). 

But I regard God as a loving dyad of man and woman, masculine and feminine; and that original divine creation comes from this creative love. 

This dyadic quality is not a matter of 'equality' - it is simply that both man and woman are the actual basis of this divine creation that we all inhabit. 

A man and woman, who are coherent on the basis of love, were and are the true spiritual 'unit' of both divine and human creativity: thus God (the prime creator) is a Heavenly Father and Mother - both. 

The destiny of individual mortal men and women is a different question. Each person's mortal and resurrected destiny is unique - and we are not supposed to conform to a template, not be poured-into a standard human (or male, or female) mould. Love of God first, and fellow Man second, is mandatory for salvation - because only such persons want Heaven. 

Thus woman/ the feminine is Not subordinate to man/ masculine - both are absolutely spiritually necessary; just as (by analogy) both have been necessary for reproduction in this mortal life. 

We were not originally, nor will we ultimately become, de-sexed or a single sex. The dyad goes 'all the way down' to before creation; because dyadic love was what made creation possible. 

Ultimately; in absence of both - there cannot be love, therefore no real creation nor creativity. 

How do I 'know' this? Simply by having formulated the question; after which it 'answered itself' as these things do. I other words by 'intuition', by direct knowing. 

By contrast, when I asked other questions, when I formulated my understanding in other ways; I came up with answers that did not suffice - as became clear after a while.

This is not the kind of thing that anyone should accept from external sources - not from me, nor anybody else, nor institutions. 

We are supposed-to discern such matter for ourselves - and there is no substitute for this conscious choice. 

(Probably, it was not always thus - at times and among some peoples, it was right that Men be ruled spiritually by their environment or society or church - but here-and-now we must choose consciously.)

To know-for-ourselves, from experience, the nature and motivation of God is perhaps the primary task of Man here and now; given that almost-all external sources of such 'information' are deeply corrupted. 

At the very least, we need to exercise experiential direct personal discernment in relation to the external sources that we choose to accept as authoritative; for instance, choosing a denomination and church; and then choosing-between the conflicting views emanating from denominations and churches. The requirement for each individual person to discern is unavoidable. 

Having gone through this process of discernment - rooted in formulating a question such that the answer is coherently self-validating in ones actual and examined life - I don't really care what 'other people' say about the problem - and certainly will not abandon my direct knowledge of such matters on the basis of people pointing at 'authorities' whose authority to determine my spiritual life I do not acknowledge!

Others should do likewise. 

And what if/ when they come up with 'a different answer? What then?

What then depends upon each individual for himself or herself. Group-orientated policies and behavioural/ belief compulsions can have nothing to do with such matters. 

But whatever happens in each mortal life, we certainly should not attempt to avoid personal responsibility for deciding upon such matters. Salvation is between each Man and God (God would not have it otherwise!); and 'my' salvation depends on 'me' discerning the nature and motivation of God. 

Once a Modern Man has overthrown the culturally-inculcated 'materialist' picture of a mechanical-random universe without meaning or purpose; and has instead made the assumption that he lives in 'a creation' - then he will probably need to consider the nature of The Creator - i.e. God; and God's motivation in creating this reality. 

This whole question was opened-out for me by the work of William Arkle; for whom it was the beginning point of enquiry in many of his books and essays. Arkle helped me to realize that this is, in a sense, the most profound of questions; and one which may provide something like a Master Key for understanding.  

Because, as so often - it is asking the right question that is crucially-important. Most questions are unanswerable; but the Right Questions typically bring their own answers (if we let them) - without need for further investigation. 

Thus, understanding is mostly about questions and the assumptions behind them; such that wisdom is right-questioning.

What this means here is that there is a choice of how to proceed in understanding God the Creator. Do we, for example, follow most Christian 'theologians' through recorded history, and at this point switch to the mode of philosophy - the mode of (for instance) logical reasoning, as The Way to understand God?  

Or do we, like Arkle (and some other Romantic Christians) aim to understand God as a Person? 

Do we, for instance, try to imagine and intuit what it was like to be God the Creator before creation - and to understand empathically what God may have aimed-at in embarking-upon creation, and continuing the work of creating? 

This is a critical point in any Christian's development; the point at which he must choose how God is to be understood: should he regard God as a person primarily, a person fundamentally like-ourselves, and therefore understandable by us -- or something else, fundamentally unlike ourselves.

Judaism and (especially) Islam have decisively chosen to regard God as fundamentally unlike ourselves; but Christianity has been divided on this matter; as we can see even among the Gospels and Epistles - where there are passages in which God the Father of Jesus is spoken of very personally - and others in which the discussion is abstract and unlike human persons.

Each Christian - it seems - makes this choice between God as a person (like us) or God-impersonal (unlike us); although in the past this choice was usually implicit and often unconscious. 

One gets a strong impression that through history most laity (and some saints) had a very personal understanding of God while theologians and priests tended towards abstraction; with an ultimate understanding of God as impersonal, unlike-Man - and these warned against the perils and pitfalls of 'anthropomorphism'. 

Perhaps the matter can be summarized as a distinction between (on the one hand) Christians who saw the gulf between Man and God as between creator and created - and therefore with God the Creator as ultimately unlike Man; and therefore Man as unable empathically to know God, as one person knows another. 

This attitude means that God's motivations for creation cannot be empathically-understood, nor is intuition much help - because God is infinitely un-like us; so God's reason/s for anything (including creation) are necessarily incomprehensible. 

On the other hand; there are those Christians who regard Christianity as a religion in which we are God's children - and so ultimately like-unto God; and where Jesus Christ was a Man who was (and is) a fully-divine creator; who we can choose to follow to an eternal resurrected life as divine Men. 

From this choice of a personally-rooted Christianity; Men can (by an empathic intuition) legitimately infer something of God's probable personal motivations for embarking on creation. 

We may also find these inferences confirmed by statements in the Gospels (especially the Fourth Gospel called 'John') and other teachings - but we will also find contradictory statements. 

We can thus assume that God's motivations were rooted in love; and the desire for God's family of Men to be able to rise to the same level of divinity as God the Creator.

Ultimately to form an eternal and expanding Heavenly Family, who will (each in his or her unique fashion) participate in the 'ongoing' work of creation. 

In a nutshell, such a Christian may come to feel that creation was primarily 'about' Men, and aimed-at the raising up of Men from a starting state of divine-childhood, to the fullest and highest possible 'grown-up' divine-status - on a level with God the prime creator...

Raised to the same status - but not The God, not a prime creator; since there is only one such. 

And exactly this can be seen described in parts of The Gospels: the assumption is that God's intent is that what happened with Jesus will happen to as many as possible of other Men. 

Positively, we can understand God's motivations as expanding the scope and differentiation of an eternal loving family, and of raising-up at least some 'divine friends' to the level of full-co-creators - as has already happened with Jesus Christ. 

It is a motive much like that we ourselves experience in our joy at wanting to have a large and loving family, and for each of those family members to develop in his or her own uniqueness; and in chosen and joyous harmony with each other (love of Man for neighbour) and with God's creation (love of God).  

Negatively, we can say that before creation God was lonely, bored, under-stimulated and with an eternity of this stretching-ahead... 

Thus, divine creation may negatively be understood as a 'cure' for God's pre-creation state as relatively solitary, and experiencing a dull, static, uneventful existence. 

We may also realize that the only permanent (eternal) 'cure' for boredom is to dwell among other Men, who are each genuinely free agents, each with free will and individual creativity. 

It would Not be an answer to boredom for God to live among automata, un-free puppets, or any kind of reality (or virtual reality) that had been wholly-created by Himself. To avoid boredom forever requires genuine free agency among Beings. 

This may help understand why free will is an absolute requirement of creation - from the perspective of God's personal motivations. 

The above brief discussion is intended to illustrate how a serious effort to understand God, and God's motivations, can be of real help in understanding this mortal life. And I also take it as a kind of confirmation of the validity (backed by Scripture) of regarding God the Creator as a person; a person sufficiently like-unto-our-selves that God's nature and motivations are accessible to our empathy and intuition. 

It seems clear that a significant proportion of the Global Establishment are determined to reduced the world population from about seven-plus billions, to to something like a tenth of its present level - which would involve the deaths of more than six billion persons: something wholly unprecedented in scale. 

I have termed this level of mortality "Giga-death" - and, indeed, I believe it is possible that it may be something that would happen even without intent - due to biological factors.

However, there is now intent to inflict Giga-death - coming from the 'highest' levels of human power (and underpinned by the supernatural and immaterial demonic powers that these humans serve); indeed, the plans for Giga-death are well advanced. 

The causes of death (as in the causes underlying the "Horsemen of the Apocalypse") can be boiled-down to three broad possibilities - one at a time of which has tended to dominate historically, but which can also operate simultaneously and synergistically. 

These are:

1. Disease (including poisoning)

2. Violence (including war)

3. Starvation

All three policies are being pursued pretty vigorously - and it seems that they can all be done with sufficiently deniability to fool the witless and addicted masses. 

The birdemic was a failed attempt at 1; but it is likely that it will not be the last. More effective, in places, was the social restrictions and infrastructural chaos introduced under the excuse of the birdemic; and of course if society is reduced to chaos, then disease could certainly become a very major cause of mortality. 

On the back of the birdemic, there has been a sustained attempt to poison billions of people with the peck - but whether this is effective remains to be seen. 

It is important to realize that, when it comes to anything involving 'science' - the Establishment are grossly incompetent because of their endemic lying and infighting for personal advantage. They are superb at the easy job of causing destruction and chaos, but incompetent at anything requiring skill - and creativity is utterly beyond them. 

Violence is being worked on vigorously at present - in terms of the disorder of mass migration, 'diversity', selective/ no policing and active societal destruction; and by taking advantage of the 2020 coup which has placed a population-hostile, globalist-totalitarian-compliant, political/ corporate/ major institutional leadership-class in control of nearly-all nations. 

But now - and acutely, increasing daily - the 'Giga-death by violence' agenda is being aggressively pursued by provoking and sustaining armed conflict with non-Western nations; and driven towards escalation by putting in place multivalent, interlocking structures and alliances (rationalized and backed by the recently monolithic mass media); that are intended to lead, incrementally but irrevocably, through escalation to world war. 

Presumably, this could rapidly achieve the goal of massive casualties by violence - plus adding substantially to chaos and its consequent disease - and starvation. 

The starvation agenda is being pursued by destroying the world economy at multiple levels and in multiple ways - first with the 'climate change' agenda, from 2020 much more lethally with the birdemic restrictions and testing regime; most recently with the vast damage of 'sanctions', trade blockades - and the multiplier effect that each of these has on disrupting world and local economies. 

As with the planning for war; the intent of the starvation agenda seems to be that damage to production, processing, transport and distribution will incrementally become so great - and be inflicted by so many simultaneous destructive influences; that a positive-feedback process will eventuate. 

This means that each increment of harmful change will cause further and greater harmful changes - in an accelerating, and then runaway fashion. 

Once enough damage has been inflicted in enough places; the process will be irreversible - even if there was any will to reverse it. 

Deliberately to kill billions of people - the Giga-death agenda - must surely involve all three of the major mechanisms of mass death (linked by their common determinant of chaos); and we can see exactly this being implemented before our eyes in real time. 

At some point, presumably, all three causes will interact-with and reinforce each other in a Triple-headed Apocalypse. 

One of the obvious things about life is our inability to sustain those moods and motivations we most want. 

This may be because our wants are not good for us, spiritually good; and are therefore sabotaged by divine providence.

But other times it may be what CS Lewis termed "the law of undulation", which means that life tends to alternate between experiences, moods, emotions; with respect to attitudes, goals, energy... In sum, there are many alternations of many kinds.

Ultimately, this is because we need to learn from this mortal life, and most of us need to learn from both of the many extremes or 'opposites' of experience.

What we don't get in 'real life' we may be guided to experience in art, in dream, or by other vicarious means.

Thus life seldom 'leaves us alone' but is continually bringing problems and dissatisfaction, from which (it is intended) we will continue to learn. 

Undulation is part of this business. It does not necessarily mean we are failing, it may mean that we have experienced enough of one kind of difficulty, and now it is time for another.

I need to remind myself of this when it comes to my main goal in life - which relates to what I have termed Primary Thinking, which I regard as a means to the end of Final Participation. 

It is an active, conscious, and self-validating kind of thinking - in which there is the possibility (within constraints of our scope of ability) of direct understanding and correct knowing, and of personal creativity in its purest and eternal form (that is, participation in ongoing divine creation).

Yet I have periods of time when I can't do this - or, at least, it just does not happen. When, instead, my thinking is far more passive and absorptive - for example, I read fiction or memoirs, converse widely but without particular aim, watch TV or movies - and do not write notes or experiences that higher for of Primary thinking.   

Sometimes, this is because I am off-track; but other times it is an undulation; a necessary (or, at least, useful) variation on my life that enables me to widen acquaintance with the work of other minds; and to (les critically) absorb information and ideas - which later should prove the subject matter of the discernments and evaluations of Primary Thinking. 

Overall, I don't much like such variations in my life while I am in them - at times I try to fight them with Will Power - which never works, and is the wrong response anyway. But usually, in the end, it turns-out that something of significance was, in fact, accomplished in such phases. 

Providence is, after all, wiser than my personal plans. 

There is a fascinating passage in Owen Barfield's What Coleridge Thought, which is of great value in clarifying the difference between intuition on the one hand - upon which our primary evaluations ought to be based; and on the other hand what might be termed habits, including spontaneous (including innate) mechanisms of thinking and (perhaps evolved, or socialized) 'habits' - which are often erroneous. 

In Chapter XII of Biographia Literaria; Coleridge describes two 'prejudices' (or 'certainties') that are aspects of the realism of mankind, which we all spontaneously do, and believe to be real; yet which are contradictory: 

The first 'prejudice' is what Coleridge terms the outness of phenomena; that (in some sense) there really exists things outside of us; such as that table - which we spontaneously regard as being as we perceive it to be. 

This is not some conclusion we derive from observation and reasoning - it is a matter of 'how we are made'. We do Not spontaneously believe that we see merely the 'appearance' of a table (the 'real' table being something else); but we do naturally assume that the table 'is' a thing outside us, a phenomenon out-there to which we do not contribute. 

The second 'prejudice' is the awareness that 'I' am 'in here'; perceiving the things I regard as things, the phenomena are outside. 

In sum - the two built-in and spontaneous assumptions are that 'I' an 'in here'; and there is a world 'out there'. 

And the apparent contradiction is that the outside strikes us as absolutely real and separate from the I inside; but all we know of the outer, depends on the I inside who observes it - so the 'outer' cannot be wholly outer - or else the perception of an 'I' within must be mistaken...  

Then Coleridge makes the crucial distinction between 'outer' and 'I inside'; that although both of these 'original and innate prejudices' are natural and spontaneous - if we proceed to analysis, to reflect on these prejudices - the assumption of outness dissolves, but the assumption of a 'me, inside' that is doing the analysis does Not dissolve! 

As Barfield summarizes: that inner I which is doing the analyzing always remains aware that it is doing it. And even if the inner I denies that it is doing the analyzing - we remain aware that act of denial comes-from the I itself, and therefore refutes the denial!

While, on the contrary, the natural assumption that there is an independent, obvious, 'objective' world of phenomena, of things, out there; is easily theoretically disproved - by several valid lines of argument. 

Thus, despite their immoveable habit; it is quite normal and common for people to believe that the appearances of things 'out there' is not the whole truth of them, and that the real things differ from their 'obvious' appearances.

In other words; our natural sense of realism about the outside world is 'merely' a habit, which cannot withstand analysis - but on the other hand, our natural sense of our self inside is robust to honest and coherent analysis. At the end of any analysis, we still are aware of our inner-self doing that analysis. 

This 'honest analysis' is therefore potentially an important test for detecting genuine intuitions, compared with false habits or prejudices, or 'wishful thinking'. 

Real intuitions are robust to honest analysis by our-self, whereas fake-intuitions (that may be evolved structural mechanisms, habits, or passively absorbed from socialization) are Not thus robust.

But of course that analysis must be honest! 

The persistence of the 'observing I' through all analysis can be dishonestly denied, as can any other proposition! And exactly such denials are meat and drink - the Big Lies - that underpin the activities and ideology of the modern, mainstream, Establishment System.  

This is why intuition requires us to test assumptions for our-selves. Only we can know the difference between honest discernment, and the many possible tricks and fakery of another Being's conclusions. 

It seems to have been little noticed that for several decades, the West's idea of 'conquest' has been morally to corrupt nations - for the obvious reason that those paid to notice and inform the masses, are themselves among the most corrupt. 

If you follow-up the consequences of any Western intervention - whether an invasion/ occupation; engineered and paid-for 'regime change'; or 'subversion as usual' by means of subsidizing NGOs, 'charities' and funding destablizing leftist groups...

You can see a pattern of Western intervention invariably increasing moral corruption (bribery, theft, sexual immorality, social breakdown with violence); including the destruction of any genuine religion by convergence and suppression (especially Christianity, but also any traditionalist religion with a distinct world-view and morality). 

Thus, the actual and achieved pattern of Western intervention abroad is Sorathic (i.e. doing evil by inducing chaos) rather than Ahrimanic (i.e. evil imposed by systems of totalitarian bureaucratic surveillance and control) - and has been for a good while. 

A clear example is the current conflict involving the Fire Nation - where it seems that (as usual) the main Western 'plan' has been first grossly to corrupt the top-level leadership-class of a nation (by standard techniques of bribery and blackmail); then deliberately - but 'deniably', by proxy - to provoke a war; and now to encourage the maximum of destruction to population and infrastructure. 

By such means has the Western Establishment has pursued the most advanced forms of Sorathic evil abroad - but what about 'at home'? 

Meanwhile, for the past couple of decades and peaking in 2020 with the global coup; the dominant strategy 'at home' in the West has been Ahrimanic. That is, to use a single, linked, increasingly international bureaucracy-mass media, to create a society of omni-surveillance and total control. Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset are some statements of this plan. 

However, there have also been strongly Sorathic aspects in home policy; especially the implementation of mass immigration to the West - including the encouragement of illegal, violent and criminal migrants. 

This inevitably creates social and economic breakdown and chaos; and the chaos has been deliberately concealed by suspending the surveillaince-control Ahrimanic state when it comes to 'multicultural' sub-groups - such as 'no-go zones' of cities, and police policies of 'non-intervention'. 

The actual governance of Western nations (e.g. in relation to the personal behaviour of politicians, and the conduct of elections) has also become extremely, now all-but openly, corrupt - hence chaotic.

Chaos has more recently been fuelled by birdemic-testing-quarantine and the peck, the imposed cult of antiracism and race-sex preferences, and the truly colossal global economic destruction caused by financial and economic 'sanctions'. 

At some point, the forces of chaos become, of their nature, irreversible. Evil feeds upon itself - inevitably, by its nature (when unrepented); and the Sorathic is a more advanced form of evil than the Ahrimanic.   

The triumph of leftism (and it is, indeed, triumphant - worldwide, at the highest levels) therefore turns-out to be the triumph of corruption and chaos. 

That is what leftism is at root, and what it always tended to become over time - because the nature of leftism is oppositional and negative; hence incoherent; and incoherence is another word for chaos. 

In other words; leftism is the ideology of evil, but evil has different forms; and there is always conflict among evil-serving persons and entities.

Yet, over time, evil innately 'progresses' from Ahrimanic to Sorathic; from (partly) constructive and planned, towards very-fully-destructive and chaotic. 

For a while, the most destructive evils of mainstream Western Establishment leftism were mainly exported abroad; where societies were destroyed serially. 

But now, the same chaotic evil is getting a grip 'at home' - overwhelming the bureaucrats, transhumanists, and mind-programmers - and the current triumphs of the left are more about spreading destruction than about increasing control. 

The bad news is that it is much easier to corrupt Men than to encourage morality, to destroy than to create. 

The 'good' news is that the left is - at an increasing rate - destroying its own capacity to inflict chaos.

Yet evil does not destroy itself as it advances, and Good can only arise from Good-aiming Persons - and Good means of-God. 

However, this analysis suggests that there may be coming more spiritual scope for Good, for Christian awakening and conversion, as The System destroys itself... Even though the physical/ material prospects seem extremely bleak. 

Nearly all of Christian discourse seems to be focused on morality - indeed, before I was a Christian that was all I could perceive of it. Yet - as I then realized - to discuss morality in isolation is all-but meaningless; and especially when the prevalent 'cosmology' is entirely materialist and scientistic. 

In other words; Christian morality makes no rational sense if the universe operates and life evolved on the basis described in mainstream science - and assumed to be The Whole Truth (in some kind of crude form) by the entirety of influential public discourse in all developed nations. 

What is needed is to relate Christian morality to our understanding of the nature of reality. 

(A better - because more general - word for what I mean is metaphysics; but I am focusing here on the cosmological aspect - on how the universe happened, and - in particular - how life and mankind happened.) 

An anecdote may help clarify: Whenever (as an atheist) I thought about some aspect of Christian morality - such the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, or any distinctive Christian church teaching in conflict with the mainstream - I would be faced by the incompatability of this with the way the universe worked. 

By what possible mechanism - I thought - could we get specific moral teachings, relating - for example - to sex and sexuality - from a universe that had formed on the basis of physics, and a life that had evolved by natural selection? 

Where could any real, objective, true morality possibly have come-from - given these materialistic ingredients for he world and everything on it?  

In sum - you can't get morality from the ultimate explanations of physical reality - such as quantum theory, relativity or whatever; neither can you get morality from natural selection properly understood (at most, natural selection can yield a delusion of morality).  

By failing to tackle and express Christian cosmology; Christianity relegates its morality to the level of an arbitrary construct - merely a matter of opinion or expediency. 

If not - then what? What ought Christians to do instead? 

In the first place - Christians need to start at the beginning, and emphasize that this is a created universe; and that God is The Creator. 

Only in such a context can we discuss any real, objective, universal morality. 

And lacking such a context All morality will be arbitrary and expedient - as indeed mainstream, modern, secular-left morality explicitly acknowledges itself to be - when compelled to answer the question*. 

But secular morality has the vast proximate 'advantage' over Christian morality of being backed by most of the world's power, propaganda and money...

The only expedient reason, therefore, for accepting Christian rather than secular-left morality is that Christianity is true, and that truth matters. 

And that is a matter of ultimates: including of cosmology.  

*Note: If the universe (and life) originated and is sustained by 'science explanations'; then reality has neither purpose nor meaning. Without purpose and meaning, there can be no real morality; but only arbitrary human constructs. There can then be no coherent discussion of morality at all. Attempts to construct a morality based on pleasure-pain probabilities (e.g. utilitarianism) are equally arbitrary; since there are no grounds for saying either than pleasure is better than pain, or that the happiness of the community is more important than that of an individual - and no grounds for arguing against short-termist selfishness and unconstrained manipulation and exploitation. All possible values hinge on this question of whether reality is created, or 'just happened'.  

I am currently re-reading various Owen Barfield works, including What Coleridge Thought (1971); which had a massive impact when I last read it in 2016. This reading led eventually to my still current metaphysical system (based on the eternal existence of Beings). 

Both in 2016 and now, I gave the fullest and most active attention to my reading; which for me entails reading, in a cafe, at the 'best time of day' for me - which is before 11.00 am. I sit wit the book on one side and a notebook on the other; and read a bit but keep breaking-off to  write comments in the notebook about as much as I read. And I take as long as it takes to work through the book in this way. 

When I first read this book, I was mainly trying to understand 'what Coleridge thought'; but this time I am comparing this with the ways in which I have extended or modified my own philosophy - in which I was triggered by the ways in which I regarded Coleridge as 'dead right' and the ways in which I felt he was still captive to the philosophy he had learned as a younger man. 

In particular, Coleridge (and indeed Barfield) seem to me to suffer - to a relatively worse degree than I do myself - from what Barfield termed Residual Unresolved Positivism. Coleridge was a great genius pioneer, and was making a trail for the first time; such that things were made easier for those who followed.

(Including that Coleridge had, by his work, permanently affected and added-to the world of divine creation - which we can now discover intuitively for ourselves - if we are able to ask the right questions.)

Thus, Coleridge's extremely abstract and difficult exposition of 'polarity' or 'polar logic' and of his schemata for describing human mental activity, can be simplified greatly (I believe) by the simple assumption of having the metaphysical assumption that the 'basic unit' of reality are Beings, which have properties such as life, consciousness and purpose - and who are 'defined' as existing through-time - which means that we should eschew discussing them without reference to time and transformation. 

I have found this to be (so far) extremely powerful and satisfying - partly because it is an explicit elaboration of how I recall seeing the world as a young child; and it chimes with my understanding of the 'animism' of hunter-gatherer tribal people. 

So, this time of reading, I am fitting Barfield's understanding of Coleridge into my own understanding - which is, in a sense, the opposite of what I did first-time-through.

It was always an element of Leftism, but from about the middle 1960s, anti-Christian, anti-traditional, anti-functional and anti-biological concepts of sex and sexuality became a recurrent and core strategy of Leftism. 

As a young Leftist; I personally found this strategy difficult to take seriously - and that was because I was of the Old Left persuasion, that regarded politics as properly concerned with economic and social arrangements. 

I failed to notice that Leftism lacked any genuine socio-political-economic goal; and was of-its-nature subversive, oppositional and intentionally destructive; and for this purpose sex/ sexuality is an ideal tool.

(Although the Left also has several other tools of similar value, including healthism, antiracism and 'environmentalism'.)

As I wrote a while ago; in natural Man, sexuality seems to be the second-most powerful motivator. Second, because Religion is - historically, and properly, the primary human motivator. 

But in a post-religious society, such as we inhabit; this means that sex tends to become the strongest motivator for many or most people. 

I think we can observe that this is broadly true, and that sex-as-motivator has been for many decades strongly encouraged, indeed enforced, by the major social institutions and corporations, mass media and the arts. 

Such sexualizing of culture is a self-reinforcing positive feedback cycle; since many of the majority of secular people (including many of those who affect to be religious and identify as-such, but who in practice always put religion in a subordinate place to dominant - therefore Leftist - social mores) are already primarily motivated by something-to-do-with sex - and the encouragement of a sexual focus has the effect of continually adding petrol onto smouldering ashes, and then permanently fanning the resultant flames. 

Even the reluctant and media-avoidant are unavoidably assailed by sexual stimuli and propaganda from all sides, on a daily (hourly) basis; which they cannot really ignore. This is why sex/ sexuality is nowadays primarily a motivator rather than something that someone does. 

In other words, the overwhelming importance of sex in modern life is its role in thought; in imagination and day-dreams and (mostly) in personal and secret 'fantasies' - which are seldom 'successfully' enacted yet still exert a powerful, albeit mostly negative, effect on people's actual lives and decisions. 

The modern sex/uality that so dominates modern societies is Sex In The Head - and may have little or nothing to do with the body; although such themes may (whether directly or indirectly) occupy a good deal of social interaction.  

Yet, of its nature, personal motivations to do with sex are unsuitable as a basis for changing social arrangements - therefore sex/ sexuality first needed to be assimilated into a Leftist ideology; directed at society-as-a-whole.  

This ideological assimilation of sex was accomplished from the 1960s (initially as 'free love' with easy divorce, then feminism, then campaigns to support various forms of unnatural sex/ sexuality, now the transagenda); by an army of ideologists, journalists, writers and artists, social scientists, critics, and bureaucrats. 

These sexual commissars were (apparently) mostly personally core-motivated by sexuality, and they were supported (materially and by attention and encouragement) via multiple channels - commercial, official, and overtly political; presumably by those who were similarly motivated. 

Thus, in a post-religious society; we have experienced a continual increase in concern with sex and sexuality; an increase which feeds upon itself - and is especially targeted on adolescents (and the increasing numbers of perpetual-adolescents) who, for biological reasons, are usually spontaneously focused upon sex and sexuality. 

Sex has therefore proved to be the single most effective battering ram used against the residue of religion; almost certainly responsible for most of the epidemic of apostasy that has over the past several generations afflicted and destroyed first The West, then The World. 

This means that - in a society increasingly dominated by Leftism - sex and sexuality are mainly pursued via ideology; and that people are strongly motivated by sexual ideology since (in absence of serious religion) sex represents their most powerful motivator - and they have been convinced that the attainment of their major life-motivations must run through support for Leftism. 

Thus the sexual revolution has been one of the most important Litmus Test issues, determining whether someone is pro-The System, or pro-God (which are, increasingly, the only possible choices). 

To understand this - and why it is that sex is such an important human motivator - yet properly not the most important motivator - is now a vital spiritual task for most people; and a task for which there is no help (but much hindrance) from the mainstream and mass media, and not much help from the mainstream of traditional churches. 

As usual - this is a task that needs doing for (almost) every person; but external sources are corrupted; therefore we must take personal responsibility and do-it-for-ourselves and from-our-selves - which is possible, with guidance of the Holy Ghost. 

Note added: It strikes me that I have relied on readers to join the dots here. Current news in the USA is about who gets to impose their sexual values on everybody else; and - in the context of our post-religious, hence sexually-motivated society - this is a set-up by The Establishment/ The System - intending further to undermine, scapegoat and destroy the residue of faithful Christians. But especially (as we perceive from evil-Leftist words and actions) the faithful in the Roman Catholic Church. Non-Catholic Christians should take note that the demonic powers (and despite the horrific extent of RCC corruption) nonetheless regard the Roman Church as a significant obstacle to their goals, worthy of specific attention. This I take as confirmation (for those who doubted) that there yet remains a significant and specifically-Christian force-for-Good in the RCC, as is. 

Further note: As so often in these End Times; if the current situation is looked-upon as a learning opportunity - provided by God in context of the world as people have chosen; it provides a yet further, yet clearer example of the purposive and strategic evil of the global ruling Establishment and The System they control. 

The stage that Modern Man has reached in his evolutionary development is one where, sometime in adolescence, his consciousness becomes cut-off from the collective consciousness in-which he used (in early childhood) to be immersed (as was 'early man'). 

Modern Man becomes alienated such that his only direct experience is self-consciousness. There is coherence within his mind; but outside his mind is an incomprehensible chaos - and all communication are uncertain and prone to distortion and 'wishful-thinking'.  He finds himself alone, isolated. 

What does he do? Man cannot be alone, and so he must somehow reconnect with the collective, with other Beings... 

There are two options - one is mainstream and common - the other rare and regarded by the majority as childish and dumb wishful-thinking. 

The mainstream attempt to reconnect is to open the mind to dominant external influence. 

Each Man reconnects with the collective by voluntarily immersing himself in the dominant, powerful, most authoritative current-opinion; and thereby alleviates his lonely isolation and again feels a part of a greater whole. 

This mainstream strategy is a chosen passivity; a decision Not to think, but instead to be... what ever the collective is currently dictating. 

In the modern West, this is the decision to live in accordance with The System (the decision that most people have clearly made - including most self-identified Christians) - by this; one's facts, concepts and attitudes absorbed-from the powerful bureaucracies, officialdom and the mass media. 

And by this - to some subjective extent - one escapes isolation and becomes a part of the human collective: a materialist world backed-by a de facto monopoly on propaganda/ education and coercion/ bribery, and therefore assumed to be 'real'. 

And now that all of these institutions agree monolithically on all issues that They regard as essential; and now that individuals are plugged-into communicatiouns systems for most of every day - it has never been easier to feel a part of the collective by the simple decision to be passive and absorptive. 

Of course; this sense of belongingness is impaired by the covert fact that such cohesion is man-made and arbitrary - and by the intermittent awareness that the unity of perspective is (substantially) manipulative and exploitative. 

Nonetheless, it is regarded as the only alternative to utterly alienated isolation - so such doubts are suppressed or ignored; on the basis that 'there is no alternative' - at least none that are real. 

But there is an alternative to the mainstream outer-to-inner, switching-off thinking and opening one's mind to external meanings; and that alternative is to work from the inside outwards. 

In other words; the alternative is to start from the cohesion of one's isolated mind, and then choose to align this inner coherence with divine coherence. 

By choosing to align with God's creation; we thereby reconnect our inner mind with the larger world, and escape from alienation by re-joining God and God's people, the inhabitants of Heaven and those who have chosen (while on earth) to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected Heavenly life after their deaths.

So these are the choices. We are driven to escape the isolation of modern consciousness; and can choose either to open our minds to the external; or to connect of inner divine natures with the greatness of divine creation. 

This inner-outer reconnection is done for the sake of Love - or else it is not done at all. We must want to live by-Love. 

And why would we want this? Because, in essence, we have chosen to believe the hints and glimpses of a life rooted in Love (hints and glimpses from family life, romantic love or intense friendship) that are afforded by this mortal life. Those who choose to believe that these point-at the possibility of Men living eternally with the divine (and other Men); having made an eternal commitment to live-by-Love.  

Conversely (and this seems to be the normal, mainstream, dominant view of Modern Man) we can choose to regard the hints and glimpses of a life lived by Love as merely delusions or manipulative deceptions - such that the only realistic decision is to subordinate our-selves to whatever currently are the dominant external influences. 

That Jesus Christ was incarnated, embodied, ought to be a decisive clue from Christians that the world of (unembodied) spirit is inferior in terms of divine possibility. 

Yet clearly this mortal incarnate life of ours, now, is intrinsically flawed and not viable. 

Thus mortal life should be understood as a time of learning and choice - essential for resurrection, but transitional. 

If the body is considered to be bounded-spirit; we can see that boundedness has advantages in terms of the capacity to operate from our-selves.

...In contrast to a discarnate spirit which interpenetrates, and is interpenetrated; influenced and influencing - immersed in a world of other-spirits.  

It therefore seems that incarnation is necessary to personal and individual creation; and in the world of pure spirit there are only the two possibilities are going-along-with divine creation - or opposing it. 

Traditionally 'the angels' - who I regard as never-yet-incarnated spirits of Men - divide between those angels who serve divine creation and are willing conduits of God's creative will; and those demons who oppose the divine. 

Mortal, incarnate Men (such as you and me) have a positive creative potential beyond angel or demon; we can (because of incarnation) contribute-to - actually add-to - divine creation from our unique-selves; because of the freedom that is associated with incarnation. 

Man's creation is always (at least implicitly, even when without awareness) associated with Love: Love of God and fellow Man - it is Love that harmonizes individual creativity with the creativity of other Beings and with divine creation.  

By contrast, demons cannot be genuinely creative; but can only simulate creation. Having determined to reject Love and oppose the divine; all demonic thoughts and actions and other activities will necessarily be dissonant and destructive to divine creation and to the creating of others. 

But demons themselves cannot even have their own ideas! Thus demonic ideologies are always double-negative in form; like socialism, feminism, antiracism, environmentalism. Such 'ideals' merely oppose some supposed injustice or wrongness (which is actually some obstacle in the path of self-gratification); and have no genuinely creative alternative or aim. 

Because to be genuinely creative means to be an agent capable of creation (which requires incarnation) and also harmonious with existing divine creation. So demons merely oppose, while demon-affiliated Men cannot create positively, but only act selfishly (i.e. from their unique selves, but necessarily in conflict with other unique selves).

This is why Good and evil are not symmetrical; Good has many possibilities denied to evil; while evil has the easier 'job' of subversion, destruction and inversion - and indeed evil is incapable of anything else. 

It is up to each of us to see-through the disguises and simulations of evil pseudo-creativity; otherwise we will become unwitting dupes of the anti-God agenda. 

Something I used to speculate about as a young child, was what it would be like to be on The Wrong Side in a war - and to know that you were on the wrong side. I used to feel thankful that (as I supposed) such a thing could never happen to me; and that 'my' side had been, and always would be, the Right one.

This is, I suppose, an innate and spontaneous tribalism; which is rooted in a kind of 'biological' loyalty that in fact defines 'right' as 'us' - so that 'we' are always in-the-right - whatever happens. 

But, of course, we do not now live in a society structured around mutual loyalties within families and (more broadly) clans - but pretty-much the opposite; and our officially-dominant social ethic is an inversion of biological affiliations. Primacy (for the Western Man) is given to the alien, the other, to what I am Not; to whatever opposes family, reproduction, and indeed basic functionality. 

So, the deep structure of the ruling leftist ideology of The West is that 'we' are innately on The Wrong Side; even as this ideology itself originates and rules specifically in The West.

Thus a contradiction - as usual when we are dealing with evil. Evil is rooted in lies and manipulations, therefore it deals-in contradiction, revels in it!

And anyone in The West, especially if a white man of biologically-functional sexuality - knows with one part of his fractured mind that he is always on The Wrong Side; even as he knows that he is always on the side of 'right' only when he pursues policies predicated on self-hatred, personal and familial suicide, and promotes whatever and whoever is most alien and 'other'. 

'Doing-good by self-harm' - might be the motto for the likes of us - and certainly the self-harm done on our behalf (by The System) is invariably immediate, primary and definite - while any supposed-good is remote, conjectural, and vague to the point of invisibility. 

Then there is the wrongness of our goals in war; which are nowadays to impose the inverted-values of the Global Totalitarian System (and its financial, economic and legal tools) upon any who resist in any way. 

For instance, a current explicit goal of wars is to ensure that as many as possible of the youngest possible children (everywhere in the world) are sexually corrupted and opened to maximal exploitation; and are poisoned, mutilated and biologically-neutered - and that no society should be able to opt-out of such imperatives.  

So now we all know what it is to be on the Wrong Side, and to know it...

Consider the 'justifications' for recent and current wars compared with the past. In the past wars were to defend the homeland (especially women and children): now it is a matter of covert policy to oppose marriage, families, reproduction and the innocence of children; and of explicit moral principle to send women to be killed on the front lines. 

In the more recent past, other wars were justified on the basis of ethnic, religious or national interest - nowadays, it is asserted that we are going to war for the benefit of 'other people' about whom little or nothing is known (except via the media, government officials, and other known-liars), and about whom (until the war began) nobody in The West had any traditional care or concern. 

Thus, the narrative is that our motives must be pure and the reason must be impartially-just; exactly because 'we' ('we' meaning, in practice, 'you' - i.e. the subject-masses) have nothing to gain and everything to lose from war. 

We are nowadays paying, fighting, and dying for the asserted 'benefit' of others - not ourselves. 

(And when there is such profound ignorance and actual-lack of genuine care of these others 'on behalf of whom' we are supposedly acting; then the fact of war actually causing gross harm, instead of benefit, is easily ignored.) 

Modern war is highly abstract and ideological; therefore something approaching the complete inversion of past war - in terms of its justification and what is supposed to motivate. The modern motivations and justifications are naturally, therefore, a combination of the arbitrarily-manufactured, and the opposites of what used-to motivate war. 

The prime casualty of abstraction and inversion is enfeebled motivation - and indeed this is the most demotivated society, ever. Western motivations are now so shallow and so weak that they can almost-instantly be manipulated and pointed in any arbitrary direction - by crude media-bureaucratic propaganda. 

And these System-imposed-motivations are mutually contradictory hence net-destructive; so that the masses are utterly disempowered by first their demotivation and secondly by the gross and self-destroying incoherence of what feeble motivations the leadership class do posses (which are shorter-and-shorter-termist and careerist in nature; plus the gratification of increasingly-corrupted sexual desires/ fantasies at the highest levels - plus fear). 

Consequently, the West is ruled by negative, oppositional weakness - and that rule is increasingly totalitarian and dominant exactly-because the subject-masses are even-more negative, self-contradicting and demotivated. 

Consequently, the trend is for more chaos, greater weakness, gross untruthfulness - masking deliberately-induced collapse. 

(In brief; I think that many of the plans and schemes have the proximate and materialistic Plan A of increasing the power and wealth of some few, specific members of the ruling humans; but if/when this does not happen Plan B supervenes, which is the spiritual imperative to destroy Good and increase chaos. This is ultimate; because The System is ruled by demons, by supernatural entities, whose ultimate goals are negative-spiritual - not positive-material.) 

We know we are on the side of Wrong... Then what is to be done? - especially considering that a negatively-motivated Global Strategy is easy to accomplish; since it is relatively facile to destroy; while it is difficult to create.  

Clearly, the single most vital response is understanding; to see-though the fake-justifications to the evil motivations beneath. 

Without such understanding, nothing Good can be achieved. 

But when the odds are so heavily stacked in favour of evil, and when evil is anyway far easier to accomplish than good; then even knowing we are on the side of wrong does not translate into large-scale, organized, 'systematic' opposition to that wrong-side. Because when we are engaged in an inverted conflict, then such opposition actually increases motivation and cohesion on the side of evil. 

As usual in these times; the proper consequences of seeing-through lies and discerning evil is first of all the spiritual result of thinking and knowing truly - and to achieve this should not be underestimated, since it is the prime way in which we personally contribute to God's creation. 

But secondly, genuinely Godly-opposition needs to be about 'doing-Good' rather than the 'double-negative' of 'opposing-evil'. 

And Good can (as a strong generalization) now only be done by individuals doing very specific and personal acts of Good with other individuals - aiming for spiritual benefit primarily. 

This is not easy to discern, and the possibility may arise only seldom; but we should aim to be prepared and fortified for when such an occasion presents-itself - as it surely will, sooner or later.   

It is a pervasive and influential - albeit unacknowledged - assumption of most Modern people; that everything, and everybody, has always been the same everywhere. 

At most, some who regard themselves as 'realists' (usually supposing themselves to inhabit 'the Right') will acknowledge differences in ability and personality - for instance significant differences in intelligence between individuals, races, sexes; and similar hereditary personality distinctions. 

Yet, there is often an extreme reluctance to acknowledge that people in other times and places had a different relationship with 'the world', and were differently motivated*. 

The sameness of people is clearly an assumption, that is a structuring and metaphysical assumption - prior to evidence - not a consequence of examining 'the facts'; because the facts can equally 'prove' the opposite when examined on the basis of the opposite assumption: i.e. the assumption that the consciousness of Man has developed through history, and different among different places and races.  

Another, and related, Modern assumption is that each individual man is ultimately to be understood as the member of a group (or several groups). This is found in the leftist identity politics which has utterly taken-over the highest level of global leadership - such that an individual is defined by society (and, more importantly, by himself) in terms of group-identification - sex, race, sometimes class, sexual alignment or identity, political affiliation etc. 

Consequently, the ultimate goal in human life (or the 'bottom-line' of existence) is seen (albeit vaguely) in terms of gratifying group ideals. Once a person has identified 'itself' by group affiliations; then hopes and aspirations are focused on group arrangements - that is, on social and political arrangements. 

There is an ethic that nobody can be, or ought to be, 'happy' unless and until some particular socio-political arrangements are in-place - and this is the basis of the waves of leftist, top-down crusades. It is an absolute and wholly uncompromising ethic - while any particular 'crusade' is active; such that the moral individual must be (in principle) prepared to 'pay any price' to achieve... whatever it happens currently to be... elimination of the birdemic, global antiracism, climate cooling, a massive increase in transidentification, and annihilation of the Fire Nation are recent/ current examples. 

We can see that all these share the structuring assumption that groups are primary. The individual has no identity or validity aside from the identity with group - and this has become the prime act of choice. 

We must choose our group identity from a range currently 'on offer'; and those group identities which are positively valued are based on inverted values, are anti-natural, and/or subversive/ destructive of whatever Christians would regard as Good. 

Group identities based upon self-hatred and a covert suicidal motivation are particularly highly-valued. 

Resistance to the mainstream 'offers' and value systems are almost-always also framed in a way that gives primacy to the group; not least because this is regarded as the only way that power can be matched and overcome. 

The general idea is to generate Good Groups to oppose and defeat Evil groups - thus people hope (and work) for Good groups based on particular Christian Churches, or particular nations or races - or esle they hope (and work) to 'convert' particular churches/ nations/ races away from evil leftism and to something better and net-Good. 

Ad this is done on the basis that Men are essentially (deep down, primarily) the same now as ever we were; and thus the lessons and practices of The Past (of some particular past and place) can be re-animated and re-applied to the Present and Future. 

However, if Man's consciousness had changed throughout history, differs in different places - and is, indeed, differentiated down to the level of individual persons - then the world and its prospects are very differently understood. 

What this entails (for Christians, anyway) is a structuring conceptualization (i.e. a metaphysical assumption) that God is concerned primarily with individuals, and not therefore primarily with groups - not even with those groups we call churches. 

For this to be true, it seems that each individual is likely to have an unique 'destiny'; which he presumably brought-into this mortal life; and which has developed in life as a consequence of choices. 

And if Man's Life is indeed to be understood in this individual fashion, then we will also assume that God is 'running the world' in ways that primarily take account of individuals; of individual persons each in a relationship with God. 

If so; then the world changes for the better by means of this individual relationship and action. 

And, conversely, to regard the world primarily as composed of groups will intrinsically drive the world (and the lives of individuals) towards the worse; whatever those groups may be. 

We then cease to seek group-solutions to world problems - and cease to seek group-motivations; or, at least, cease to regard group-level analyses and policies as the Main Thing. 

We assume, instead, that The Action is driven by individual persons; and that God's positive interventions in The World operate via the actions of individuals - by the choices, thinking and doing of individuals.   

*The largest and most obvious difference is that Men of the past saw their lives and the world (as it were) through religious spectacles; whereas now this is very seldom the case. So alien has this become that many recent depictions of Medieval life are grossly unrealistic in their distortions - either all-but ignoring religion, or assuming that the churches were wholly cynical and manipulatively directed at modern objectives. 

Eowyn was, of course, disguised as the male rider Dernhelm, and we are told she blended-into the mass of other riders, indistinguishably. 

These pictures therefore inform us that the Riders of Rohan fought the Battle of Pellennor Fields wearing metal basques with twin conical 'breast'-plates, that fully revealed their legs and buttocks... 

I must admit that this was not how I personally saw the Riders of Rohan with my minds eye; and I rather wish I hadn't discovered the fact. 

When I think rigorously about what is required for 'true creativity' by a Man, then it seems that a pretty extensive set of pre-requisites must be in place; such that true creativity is only possible to some people, at some times and places in history. 

Human creativity is possible because of divine creativity: we dwell 'in' God's creation; so, for a Man's creativity to be real entails first that it comes from the Man himself - from his unique personal 'self'; and second that it harmonizes with divine creation. 

If creativity does not come from the Man himself, then what we have is just an instance of divine creation. 

Through most of history (in most places) Men did not claim to be creative, because their experience was that creativity came from God (or the gods). This was sometimes called inspiration; reflecting that it was breathed-in from some other source - from the divine, from the muses or whatever. 

So most of creativity in the past was not the product of an individual person - because the individual was merely a conduit for the divine; a tool or instrument of the divine. 

This kind of creativity is therefore real - and it harmonizes with divine creation - but it is not personal, its creative aspect is of-God, not of-Man. 

On the other hand; every-thing (every thought or action) which comes from a person innately, from his Real (hence divine) Self; is not of God, is indeed personal - but it is not creative unless it harmonizes-with and adds-to divine creation. 

Thus, most things we do from our-selves is merely personal, is not from God but instead a product of a Man; and it is Not creative. It is indeed anti-creation. 

In other words; of itself, that which originates from Man will Not, of itself, be creative - because it will be individual and out-of-harmony with divine creation. It will therefore be (to a greater of lesser degree) damaging or subversive to divine creation. 

In order, therefore, for a Man to be genuinely creative; he must be sufficiently an independent agent that he can generate thought/action from-himself (rather than simply being a conduit channeling divine creation); and top be genuinely creative, he must also make the choice to align himself with divine creation by a voluntary act. 

All independent acts of a Man that are aligned with divine creation are therefore instances of true personal creativity - but the magnitude of achievement varies between a world-historical genius; and someone 'minor' or altogether unknown, who has lesser ability and application but who nonetheless does 'make a difference' (and an eternal difference) - but a small difference, yet in a positive direction. 

Thus all acts of true personal creativity add-to divine creation, but the amount by which they add to divine creation varies hugely in accordance with the 'stature' of individuals. 

The business of aligning with divine creation is what happens when a scientist is devoted to 'the Truth' or when an artist is devoted to 'Beauty' - both of these are types of alignment with the Reality of divine creation. 

The long period of attunement, learning, practice and preparation which leads-up to a work of genius is exactly this process of alignment. Once the individual is aligned with divine creation; then his spontaneous creativity will contribute to overall creation. 

This model also explains why recent generations of supposedly creative people have the form of the 'evil genius' - in that these are people of great ability who are Not aligned with the Reality of divine creation; and who therefore inevitable do harm to creation. 

This thought-provoking comment was made by "ben" in the course of a discussion over at Francis Berger's blog. 

It immediately set off a train of thought. 

Obviously this statement is true, in the sense that real meaning (and divine purpose) is deliberately being 'drained' from all of the world by the actions of the global establishment; and being replaced-by evil-motivated manipulative pseudo-meanings; fed to us and forced-upon us by the daily onslaught of mass media, bureaucracy and officialdom. 

Thus, one who is passive will find his world incrementally leached of meaning and of the motivations that derive from meaning - such that only those who actively seek for meaning will nowadays discover it. 

And that available-meaning will not be found where it used to be found, nor will it be found by the activities that used-to discover meaning - but only in other places, and by other means. 

The mainstream has tried pre-emptively to thwart this active seeking and creating of meaning in our world; by the slur that such is merely the wishful thinking of weak minds. 

We must therefore decide whether to believe Them that the true reality is indeed the official world of less-and-less meaning, in which we can only obey whatever is the current Thing...

Or not to believe this; and instead to replace from our inner and from divine resources, what is being denied us from external and societal indoctrinations. 

One way of understanding the evil that dominates this world, now; is in terms of various unconscious instincts - or 'gut feelings' - that have arisen in more and more humans over the past few hundred years - and the ways in which these 'new' unconscious instincts have been brought into culture. 

The corruption that now dominates the world, has successfully grown over the past couple of centuries (in particular), by taking advantage of these recently-developed 'gut-feelings' - and distorting them to evil while acknowledging them and bringing them into psychological, cultural and political manifestation. 

For example, there are 'new instincts' that have to-do-with each individual person being the proper basis of his own ultimate spiritual destiny ('individualism' of conscience and understanding) - which are also related to a belief that in this respect all Men are alike, therefore each is (and ought to be) his or her own master. 

The churches of the world (Christian and, so far as I know, other), have, by contrast, either broadly denied the reality of these (and other) 'new instincts' - and regarded them as intrinsically evil (the 'traditional' response). Or else the churches have accepted the secular and materialist interpretations of these instincts, and changed the religions accordingly (the 'liberal' response).

So; these new instincts to do with the individual and his relation to his soul, have been materialized into various leftist doctrines and philosophies - socialism, feminism, antiracism etc. 

My understanding is that what was going-on has been that a genuine (and very widespread) change in Men was of unconscious and unarticulated nature - and Men became aware of it by being told its implications were socio-political in nature. 

Therefore, Men look to the satisfaction of these new instincts in terms of changes in 'society'. 

Yet, these new changes to Man's 'gut feelings' cannot be satisfied by external socio-political material changes of any possible type - because the 'new instincts' are in fact individual and spiritual in their nature; and seek gratification in terms of the spiritual. 

And, what is much worse than the social-material just not-working as a satisfaction, is that this has become an open-ended method of manipulating people into evil. Since the leadership class became substantially corrupted into leftist-materialism (which happened by the early 1900s in Britain); the mass of people have been led-by-the-nose into greater and greater evils in pursuit of an ever-receding world in which (it is asserted) 'social justice' will at-last satisfy these powerful new instinctive yearnings. 

Meanwhile, this corruption has been more-and-more evident to the shrinking and weakening traditionalists among the churches - until indeed the outcomes (and, even more so, aspirations) violate basic common sense and biological functionality... 

But too-late; because the externalization and objectification of these new instincts has become so complete that people now take all their interpretations from externally (as their way of participating in life 'outside' their own thoughts in a world where God and spirit are regarded as subjective wishful thinking only). 

As culture has become more-and-more completely monolithic and centrally-controlled; and as the central control has become more-and-more demonic (anti-God, anti-creation) in its motives and plans; thus has corruption proceeded. 

And the traditionalist churches have looked on helplessly - in effect self-crippled by their incapacity to acknowledge the change in human consciousness, in human nature; and thus without the capacity to win many arguments except logically and leaving-out the heart. 

My contention is that the way out from this impasse is by rendering the unconscious conscious, and by recognizing the need to regard the inner and chosen as essential and the external and imposed as secondary. 

This, in turn, requires an explicit metaphysical explanation. It is not enough to leave instinct unexplained, it is not enough to operate at the level of gut-feelings, of 'psychology'. 

Instead, the whole needs to be related to God's plans for the world as a whole and for each of his children in their mortal lives - which itself entails an explicit explanation in terms of the primacy of children, as a multitude of individuals.

Modern Man is to be saved as an individual, not as 'a people' - as of Now; this socio-political world is ultimately merely the sum of individual salvation quests and conflicts: the Real Action of our times is 'located' in each Man's heart; and the task is to understand this consciously and make the choice in accordance with God and creation.

For several years in the 70s, I would rise at about five in the morning, and take a walk through the woods on Backwell Hill - even if (especially when) it was a school day. 

I looked forward to this annual ritual because it seemed as if something magical was always just about to happen (and change everything for the better); although it never actually did - except for that magic itself. 

In other words Sehnsucht - although I did not know the concept at the time.