Bruce Charlton's Notions

*

The Left has triumphed over recent decades by ratcheting incremental change in societal ideas - such that each new move can be seen as hardly-different from what already exists.

And 'public opinion' has been moved Leftward by truly massive, and now massively-policed, media saturation - and the use of exemplary punishments of public figures for real or imagined violations of the zero-tolerance policy concerning non-PC public (and private) discourse.

*

Yet the Left remains terrified by the insecurity of its achievement.

And they are correct to be terrified - because while it has taken decades to build up, the situation is held in place only by truly gargantuan efforts in propaganda from a mass media of astonishing size (backed up by equally vast bureaucracies of the state).

This is constantly pressed-upon by underlying human nature - which, the heavier it is pressed down and the tighter it is squeezed, the more extreme would be the behaviour if ever it 'got free'.

(This would not be a pretty sight, and its increasing horribleness leads to increasing efforts to make it not happen, and an increasing worseness when it does happen - in the usual fashion of these things. In fact, it is happening already, as people perceive for themselves - but is simply being disguised or excluded from public discourse.)

Indeed, it is probable that the situation cannot be held stable - but that the Leftist revolution must keep moving - keep inverting and destroying one after another of the bases of traditional society.

*

The basic modern situation, then, is Leftism versus human nature. In the old days, the Left denied human nature and regarded people as a blank slate to be written on: they still say this but don't believe it, because the need for propaganda and coercion continually increases, it doesn't 'wither away'.

The conflict between Leftism and human nature is particularly bitter and intractable because Leftism is intrinsically atheist and therefore can see nothing other than 'this world'.

(By contrast, the Christian conflict with human nature - which is itself a much more partial thing than Leftism v HN, and fully expected and indeed the very reason why Christianity is needed - is resolved, but after this life, one way or another.)

*

There is a solution for Leftism - a way it can win the conflict with human nature: and that is to change human nature.

(This was foreseen by CS Lewis in That Hideous Strength and The Abolition of Man.)

In a sense, the power and pervasiveness of the mass media is already a major step in this direction, since it is a qualitatively new situation - but clearly it is not enough.

As the limitations of propaganda become apparent, we can foresee the dawning realisation that humans will need to be changed permanently, by technological means presumably, in order that they conform to the world view of Leftism.

*

Of course changing human nature would not really solve the problem, as Lewis made clear.

But the the problem itself is the consequence of an incoherent - indeed demonic - ideology that nonetheless survives and thrives.

And from within this demonic perspective, changing human nature appears to be the obvious solution, merely doing fully, more efficiently and permanently what is currently done partially and at the cost of vast effort and with clumsy coercion.

The project to change human nature fits in with both the imperative of sustaining the 'progress' of the Leftist revolution and the self-interest of Leftist leaders in eliminating opposition once and for all - so it will very probably be attempted.

(Unless things collapse before that point.)

* 

*

From an essay by Stratford Caldecott - H/T Dale Nelson.

http://www.secondspring.co.uk/otherreligions/scaldecott3.htm

*

The admittedly heretical Blake, says Chesterton, ‘was on the side of historic Christianity on the fundamental question on which it confronts the East; the idea that personality is the glory of the universe and not its shame; that creation is higher than evolution, because it is more personal; that pardon is higher than Nemesis, because it is more personal; that the forgiveness of sins is essential to the communion of saints; and the resurrection of the body to the life everlasting’ (p. 209).

*

The truth at issue here is the Christian emphasis on personality, which derives ultimately from the mystery of the Incarnation and the revelation of God as Trinitarian love.

The Incarnation has always been hard to take: a ‘scandal’ to the Greeks - that is, to Gnostics and to the followers of other religions alike. The Christian emphasis on a particular man of flesh and blood, his gruesome death and empty tomb - unless interpreted as a purely symbolic narrative - strikes them as absurd or even unwholesome.

Yet it is this emphasis on the physical Incarnation that is the foundation of all Christian mysticism. I am convinced that the non-Christian Traditionalists, even despite their sensitivity to the different ‘languages’ of grace, do not take this all-important fact sufficiently seriously.

*...

The precise Christian claim is easy to state, but difficult to grasp: that Jesus, who was the long-awaited Messiah, was a human being, a man, but also God: a divine Person, the Second Person of the Trinity. In him, the Creator of the cosmos became (and will eternally remain) a man of flesh and blood like us.

*...

The paradox is scandalous because it means that Jesus is more than any Jewish prophet; more than (to use the Indian term) an ‘Avatar’ or Manifestation of God. The Supreme Reality has not merely revealed itself on earth as though in a mirror, but has stepped, like Alice through the Looking Glass, inside the very world of the mirror.

This simple fact changes our destiny. Our highest aspiration is no longer to be liberated from the body in order to merge our particular spirit with the universal Spirit. There is now a higher destiny than nirvana: it is ‘salvation’, the Beatific Vision, the marriage of heaven and earth.

When the Church Fathers wrote that ‘God became man so that man might become God’, they did not mean that we will one day awaken to the fact that we were God all along. They meant that we are not God, but may become so: God by grace not by nature.

Once divinized through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the divine nature in which we share remains undivided, and yet we remain eternally distinct from every other person, whether human or divine. Losing ourselves in the contemplation of the Beloved, we receive an eternal identity in the Communion of Saints.

*

Notice in particular how, if the cosmic relationship of Self and Other, of Subject and Object, is to be transcended, as Asian religions and the New Age believe, ‘eternal life’ must consist of extinction - the extinction of a raindrop in the ocean.

This is a unity of absorption: the Lover is absorbed into the Beloved.

But at that point love itself comes to an end: loves turns out to have been merely a longing for unity with God, which is now satisfied. There is no Lover any more: only the Beloved, who contains everything that was of any value in the Lover.

*

But while a Christian may agree that duality - the separation of Self and Other - is not the end of the story, he knows a happier ending than the one proposed by Asia. The Incarnation has revealed a distinction within the Godhead between Father, Son and Spirit. The message is that Lover and Beloved can ‘live happily ever after’.

Love does not merge with the Self into the Other, but preserves them in relationship. In place of the unity of absorption, Christianity places a mystery of unity without confusion, and proclaims that love need never come to an end (1 Cor.13:8).

Our relationships are the most important things about us; love is the way, the only way, to enter into eternal life.


http://www.secondspring.co.uk/otherreligions/scaldecott3.htm


*

NOTE:

Christian mysticism differs as much from Buddhism, or Hinduism, or similar religions as a space rocket differs from a submarine.

Between both a rocket and a sub there are superficial similarities - they are both metal tubes, both have engines and cockpits filled with dials.

But the one aims to escape earth while the other aims to descends to the depths of the ocean.

It is the aim which utterly distinguishes Christian mysticism from all other mysticisms.

*

*

It is regarded (among rigorous rational people) as bad practice to use ad hominem arguments - attacking the man rather than his argument.

I have had this done to me, and found it maddening - people who know nothing about me imputing all kinds of false motivations and completely ignoring (or re-writing) the argument...

*

Yet this kind of thing is probably necessary (as well as inevitable) because everything hinges on motivation.

Sometimes 'reasonable' ideas must be opposed because of the motivations of those proposing them - whether these are individual motivations or institutional motivations.

*

The Left always does this - but the Right (especially the secular Right) has often been hampered by scruples against the ad hominem - however, I have come to believe that these are not really scruples, but an error.

Looking back at the long defeat of Christianity, we can see that the process was attained by an incremental series of many small steps, each of which was rationally defensible when viewed in isolation (and without making any assumptions about motivation).

Yet it is equally obvious as to the motivations of those who pursued these multiple incremental steps, that they knew exactly what they were doing: breaking-up the long term strategy into deniably-small stages, each stage ratcheting the next.

*

(It is rather like a Gateway drug: each sin a person is persuaded to adopt, leads on to further sins, in order to be consistent with or justify the gateway sin.)

*

So let's just drop the prohibition on ad hominem arguments, shall we?

When we know people or institutions are badly-motivated and aiming-at evil outcomes - then they should be opposed, even if what they are trying to do just now (considered in a specific context) seems to be pretty harmless.

*

*

I have recently spent a week in Stratford upon Avon which is... Shakespeare town.

There is no other place of its size in Britain which derives its character from a single person. Britain produced many eminent men and women, but only one of them has a whole town devoted to their memory.

*

I found it worked very well. Of course, Stratford is very crowded indeed in some parts at certain times of day; but the fact that the place teems with visitors from all over the world means that its facilities are excellent (more like a city than a town).

And it is encouraging to know that what brings everybody to Stratford is Shakespeare; and remarkable that Shakespeare apparently speaks to so many people of so many types.

*

Although there are plenty of (more or less speculative) pictures and statues of Shakespeare and characters from the plays, having a writer as its focus means that the celebration is very word-focused.

There were many quotations scattered about the place, and these were extremely effective: again and again I found myself stopped and my emotions aroused by reading a phrase set into stone or brass, or quoted in a multitude of ways and places.

*

The situation of Stratford is itself extremely pretty - with lovely riverside walks lined by willow trees and many water birds, especially swans (symbolic of The Bard).

Strolling down the canal and along the banks on a sunny summer morning to attend the 8 am Eucharist at Shakespeare's own church (Holy Trinity) where he is buried, was one of those perfect times.

*

Although of course many people are in Stratford just to pass the time or because dragged-there by teachers, and there is the usual trashy tourist stuff; it was a generally encouraging experience to know that this place exists purely because of the mass of folk who flock from all over the world, brought by a great writer from hundreds of years ago.

And when celebration is necessarily focused on great words; the words do their work.

*

*

It's an interesting exercise, because it renders most sentences containing 'equal' (or equality) as very obviously false.

Having rejected 'the same'/ identical as valid synonyms, the next step in the exercise is to find another synonym which makes sense in the context.

This can be difficult...

Therefore, equal/ity is revealed as a fake concept, an obfuscator of thought.

*

e.g. "Liberty! Sameness! Fraternity!" - ahem...

e.g. "Equal opportunities" goes to Identical opportunities; "Equality of outcomes for men and women" goes to the same outcomes for men and women.

(But how can we make things identical or the same? Only one way: By making them identical or the same - by coercively imposing identicality and sameness.)

e.g. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created identical..." um, not really, so how about: "all men are created the same"... Nah. OK then: "all men are created with... indistinguishably-similar... wotsits..." - Oh, I give up.

*

*

In essence - should Christians demonstrate their allegiance - by wearing a Cross, for example?

Yes, they should.

*

Partly for reasons of witness, and partly for reasons of convenient mutual identification.

*

And partly because most non-Christians self-identify...

...so that devout adherents of most other religions are usually immediately identifiable - and so are anti-Christians by their style of dress (youth cult allegiance, immodesty), bodily self-mutilations, badges, consumption and conspicuous life styles.

Indeed, we have reached a situation when Christians are among the few who do not self-identify.

So we should.

*

*

Not, surely, to scour the world in search of genuine poor to whom we can then give alms.

Not, surely, to import genuine poor in vast numbers such that they can be sustained by coercively-extracted taxes.

Not, surely, to redefine poverty in relativistic rather than absolute terms (so 'the poor' are 'always with us' - but not because there are always poor people, but instead because there is always a bottom ten, or twenty, or whatever, percent of the population as defined in some statistically-measurable definition of wealth.)

Not, surely, to deliberately create and sustain local poverty in order that alms may be given them.

Not, surely, to equate taxation with almsgiving (nor to equate bureacratic organizations with 'good works').

*

But if not, then what?

The short answer: Christian evangelism.

In a society where there is no real Biblical poverty - almsgiving (and good works) should focus on evangelism.

Specifically, on gaining converts, on deepening the faith of the converted, on supporting good teaching, on making the sacraments available, on spiritual activities (supporting Christian works, monasticism etc).

How best this may done is a matter of judgment, and discussion - but evangelism ought to be the focus, ought it not?

*

NOTE 

On the definition of Biblical Poverty see:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/biblical-poor-do-not-exist-in-west.html 

*

*

Christian evangelism is often unwelcome, and angrily rejected - which may seem surprising, given the desperate state of people. But the vehemence of rejection of Christianity now is a consequence of the distinctively modern kind of desperation.

Modern Leftism is an outcome of many decades of anti-Christianity, direct and most often indirect, explicit but more often implicit.

*

There is an extreme absence of understanding of what Christianity is (including among most self-described Christians), plus an active mis-understanding (distortion) of what it is - and people are so rooted in this-worldly materialism that they cannot recognize their world view as a recent and artificial ideology - neither spontaneous, nor discovered, nor evidentially-supported -  but merely assumed; and sustained only by unrelenting propaganda (mass media, education), bribery and coercion (taxes & tax-breaks, subsidies, public administration, legal system).

*

Nonetheless, ultimately, people are responsible for their choices; and for their rejection of transcendental reality.

Therefore, acceptance of Christianity entails a reduction in self-esteem, admission of error - for which there are reasons, but ultimately no excuses.  There is to be no self-justifying re-writing of history, nor soothing redefinition of good and evil, beautiful and ugly, truth and falsehood.

To become a Christian is perceived as, often is, a 'downer' - thus evangelism is seen as an attack, at attempt to inflict pain.

By this-worldly standards, it is. 

Hence the anger.

*

*

Human societies with very high mortality during childhood an early adulthood over many generations will be (relatively) low IQ societies - because reproductive success is mostly a matter of rapid development, early sexual maturity, and high fertility (number of childbirths) hence smaller and simpler brains.

Reproductive success is mostly a matter of fertility, sheer numbers of babies, to compensate for the high chance that each will be killed before completing reproduction.

*

Societies with high mortality during childhood and also during early adult life may well favour rapid increase in general intelligence over the space of relatively few generations, insofar as higher intelligence reduces mortality rates.

Fertility will be (and needs to be) significantly above two babies per woman on average, but beyond this number, fertility is almost irrelevant because reproductive success comes from lowering mortality.

*

Societies (such as the whole modern world) which have low mortality rates in childhood and early adulthood (low by human historical standards) will become (relatively) low IQ societies if they are secular - due to lower fertility among those with higher IQ -

- but this will not necessarily happen if/when societies/ groups (which must be coincident) are orthodox, traditionally religious (perhaps monotheistic).

*

So there is one high IQ sweet spot for sure (high mortality through into early adult life with universal above-replacement fertility) and one possible sweet spot (low mortality but fertility differentially higher in higher IQ).

*

*

Modern Leftist elites are instead primarily self-destroying - only secondarily (and contingently) self-interested - even when 'self' is considered in a extended fashion as including genetics, ideology or both...

Think about it - unlike any other elites, modern Leftist elites are neither patriotic/ nationalist, nor are they religious - so they strategically destroy the basis of their own power, they destroy the basis of their own prosperity, and they officially hate reproduction - even if they do have children take no mind to the long term health and happiness (let alone salvation) of these children.

They hate themselves - and have created a vast propaganda apparatus (in education, public administration, law and of course the mass media) against people of their own type.

*

Indeed the characteristic of modern Leftist ideology is that they regard their own spontaneous self-interest as something which must be confessed and overcome - and submitted to the self-interest of other specific groups. The outcome is a chronically-tormented state - but for a few PC Saints there is a kind of blissful ecstasy in witnessing and abetting one's own destruction and the destruction of everything one values; a PC martyr's last living memory being his own murder precisely by those whose interests he most assiduously promoted.

*

Of course, if you are already assuming that elite behaviour must be explicable in terms of self interest, then you can indirectly, and by looking behind the obvious, find or invent ways in which modern elite behaviour is self-interested.

But that was never necessary in the past: past elites were self-loving, self-confident, self-glorifying - openly, obviously, primarily.

No - modern Leftist elites really are essentially what they seem - that is, they are ashamed and want to destroy themselves along with everything else.

A very advanced, pure and refined form of nihilism.

*

*
I have been visiting some old country houses which were inhabited by Roman Catholic families during the period of the 1500s and 1600s when it was uncertain whether England was to be Protestant or Roman Catholic.

These contained 'Priest holes' - concealed chambers and escape routes for hiding Priests - Jesuits, or 'secular' Priests trained abroad and monks.

The accounts of the times are astonishing for the devoutness exhibited on both sides, also for the hatred and horrific cruelty of persecution on both sides.

*

But this was in fact war, and that fact does explain the relentlessness of the persecution.

It was a cold war, mostly - but the punishment of Catholics was mostly motivated (at the political level) by the fear of treason, and this fear was very real.

There were of course plots and plans to kill monarchs, and/or to assist foreign invasions - and this kind of thing does tend to elicit aggressive responses.

*

And there must have been extraordinary psychological conflicts between patriotism and religion.

Most obviously, for Roman Catholics, between the natural desire to have England ruled by the English and with the English way of life; and the desire to restore Roman Catholicism, even at the cost of becoming a conquered nation.

*

On the other side, the Anti-Roman and Protestant side were responsible for smashing and looting the English way of life - including schools, hospitals and crafts - through the vast destructiveness of the 'dissolution of the monasteries' era under Henry VIII, and the later iconoclasm of the Puritans at the time of the Civil War.

*

The modern 'reaction' against religious wars has buried 'religious differences' under the imperative of hedonic, distracting Leftism - and the iconoclasts and appropriators have joined forces with the traitors and sponsors of invasion.

In modern England, nobody cares enough to 'sacrifice' even a couple of hours on a Sunday to attend Church - never mind risk torture and execution for beliefs.

As for cruelty and persecution - for the modern English, it all depends on who is being persecuted and who is inflicting the cruelty.

*

The authorities do not at present tear people apart judicially, as happened to Nicholas Owen, the master carpenter who travelled England making priest holes; on the other hand they tolerate, excuse and actively conceal and lie-about murder and mayhem on a large and growing scale. (This has been re-labelled as tolerance and equality.)

Destruction of beauty is still a state-sponsored activity (but re-labelled as 'art'). Propaganda against ideological enemies is now called 'science'. Immorality is re-labelled as a higher form of virtue, or as disease, and promoted with cash and kudos - both actively and indirectly.

And rather than two profound imperatives leading (at times) to excruciating conflicts; to be strongly anti-English and zealously anti-Christian is regarded among the ruling class as quite simply admirable.

...The difference is between a Christian elite and an elite who 'believe in' nihilism.

*

*

For those readers in the USA who find me excessively pessimistic about the prospects for Christianity, from where I am situated  -

From: http://matthiasmedia.com/briefing/2011/08/does-the-future-have-a-church/

• 39% of churches have no-one attending under 11 years of age
• 49% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 11 and 14
• 59% of churches have no-one attending between the ages of 15 and 19.

*

H/T -

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/gimme-five-im-going-to-church-because.html

Interestingly, one of the Anglican churches I regularly attend is mentioned here as one of only four Church of England parishes with large numbers of teenagers who attend worship...

*

*

I was thinking about whose newly-published online writings I most look forward to reading - and I came up with the name of Mark Hackard.

He is an occasional contributor to the Alternative Right webzine - although MH himself is not ''Alternative' but argues from the perspective of a traditional, Orthodox, Christian Right:

http://www.alternativeright.com/authors/mark-hackard/

I don't know any more about Hackard than it says on the AR spiel, not have I been able to find-out much more, nor discover much more of his writing, nor how he makes a living (if he does). I always wish he wrote more (or, if he does, that I knew where to find it) - but probably he writes the right amount.

I simply find that I am tremendously interested in what Mark Hackard has to say; and he seems to speak with an honesty, moral seriousness and (dare I say) wisdom that would be hard to equal among currently active online writers.

*

*
From Heretics by G.K Chesterton (1905):

At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living."

We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world.

And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins.

Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

*

Some things have changed in the past century since Chesterton was writing. The official doctrine, which has justified, promoted, subsidised and institutionalized 'conversational pessimism' remains in force; and yet applied unilaterally to suppress its opposition.

Radical nihilism is broadcast and published in the mass media - yet to defend traditional Christianity is viciously punished by means informal and formal.

*

The key is differential enforcement. So many laws... but just a few are enforced. Everyone is in breach of regulations all of the time, but only some people and some transgressions are punished.

*

So officially there is a free-for-all and this gives unlimited scope to nihilism and its fellow travellers; but anarchy is 'managed' by the liberal-discretion of officials; so that which opposes nihilism may be (but is not consistently - therefore deniably) intimidated, prosecuted, and beaten-up (metaphorically or literally).

So officially 'theories do not matter' - but unofficially any deviation, even if a single word, from approved theory may be (but is not consistently - therefore deniably) punished and punished and punished...

*

But what we want is not liberty; nor do we want equality of law nor even equality of enforcement - what we want is the Good: the true and the beautiful and the virtuous - and that which is conducive to them...

*

Every one of the popular modern phrases and ideals is a dodge in order to shirk the problem of what is good.

We are fond of talking about "liberty"; that, as we talk of it, is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.

We are fond of talking about "progress"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.

We are fond of talking about "education"; that is a dodge to avoid discussing what is good.

*

The modern man says, "Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace liberty." This is, logically rendered, "Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it."

He says, "Away with your old moral formulae; I am for progress." This, logically stated, means, "Let us not settle what is good; but let us settle whether we are getting more of it."

He says, "Neither in religion nor morality, my friend, lie the hopes of the race, but in education." This, clearly expressed, means, "We cannot decide what is good, but let us give it to our children."

G.K. Chesterton Heretics (1905)

*

*

This is pure autobiography...

IF the argument is about the reality of a deity - arguments such as the Five Ways of Aquinas, for example - then it is rejected because obviously such simple 'proofs' cannot prove the reality of something as complex and many-faceted as the Christian God.

And obviously simple arguments could not prove the reality of any kind of god which might have some personal relevance.

So such arguments are not engaged with, or perhaps held at arms length and studied academically - so that whether they are right or wrong becomes a matter of at most mild interest.

*

YET if the kind of multi-stage argument that might prove the plausibility and reality of something-like the complexity and relevance of the Christian God - an argument which would necessarily combine metaphysics, logic, history, psychology... all sort of things - then the atheist reacts with Woah there buddy! - One thing at a time! You seems to be assuming an awful lot of stuff.

*

So, anything short and simple is obviously too short and simple; anything more complex is too long, and too speculative.

*

It's a combination of what purports to be hard-nosed skepticism with a short attention span honed on the sound bite.

There is already a word for this: sophomoric - the wise fool. Wise in his skepticism, foolish in his impatience - productive of armour-plated arrogance.

And this is applied to the fundamentals of life, to the most important questions a man can ask himself...

*

*

From Heretics by GK Chesterton - 1905:

Many of the most brilliant intellects of our time have urged us to ... self-conscious snatching at a rare delight.

Walter Pater said that we were all under sentence of death, and the only course was to enjoy exquisite moments simply for those moments' sake. The same lesson was taught by the very powerful and very desolate philosophy of Oscar Wilde.

It is the carpe diem religion; but the carpe diem religion is not the religion of happy people, but of very unhappy people.

*

Great joy does, not gather the rosebuds while it may; its eyes are fixed on the immortal rose which Dante saw. Great joy has in it the sense of immortality; the very splendour of youth is the sense that it has all space to stretch its legs in. In all great comic literature, in "Tristram Shandy" or "Pickwick", there is this sense of space and incorruptibility; we feel the characters are deathless people in an endless tale.

*

It is true enough, of course, that a pungent happiness comes chiefly in certain passing moments; but it is not true that we should think of them as passing, or enjoy them simply "for those moments' sake." To do this is to rationalize the happiness, and therefore to destroy it.

Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized. Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness.

*

A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag.

The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end.

*

These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary.

Once look at them as moments after Pater's manner, and they become as cold as Pater and his style.

Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.


*

*

This blog will take a pause (with perhaps a few intermittent postings) for a while; intended to allow me a pause for re-creation, unstructured thought, exploration, orientation.

Back again soon...

*

*

I used to be a keen socialist, from age about 13-18 - and as a teen I read fairly widely in the British tradition: William Morris (very much liked him), The Fabians (GB Shaw, Wells etc), Tawney (Christian socialism) and modern people like Schumacher, Anthony Crosland, modern Fabian Essays, the New Statesman every week...

(I was never a Marxist, however.)

*

Socialism is of course egalitarian, that is it is focused on equality - and most of the early socialists wanted equality of opportunity - an essentially equal chance for everybody, but naturally leading to unequal economic outcomes.

(The recognized the obvious truth that strictly equal opportunites lead to unequal outcomes.)

They focused on levelling-up of economic conditions, and on education: compulsory education for all, more schools and colleges, more scholarships for the poor, better schools all round etc.

George Bernard Shaw regarded this as insufficient, and argued for economic equality - specifically equal salaries for all - he regarded this as sufficient to address the problems of inequality - but of course he allowed for many other differences.

Essentially Shaw wanted to settle the economic problem (and socialism was based on an economic analysis) - and allow people to get-on with more important matters.

*

But none of these early socialists argued that people were equal.

None argued that that individuals and groups were the same.

They did not argue same-ness because it obviously was not true - to argue to would have been simply insane, nobody would have taken them seriously at all.

And because people were not the same, therefore their outcomes in a system of equality would naturally be different. Therefore if (like GB Shaw) you wanted equal outcomes you had to impose them coercively - precisely because people were not the same, and if you did not coercively-impose equal outcomes you would not get them.

They realized that as soon as you stopped actively-imposing equal outcomes, then outcomes would again become unequal.

*

Yet nowadays same-ness of all people and groups is precisely the default of Leftism - and the assertion that because all people and groups are the same, then and difference in outcomes must have been coercively imposed.

Now, this modern doctrine of the same-ness of people and groups is not just a stupid and indefensible error - because it is not the kind of thing that somebody can be wrong about, it is not the kind of thing that could possibly be the result of a mistake.

None of the early socialists believed it, perhaps nobody believed it until the mid-twentieth century - and it was not believed then as the result of any kind of discovery!

*

So, the modern near-universal belief in the same-ness of people is not, therefore, any kind of stupidity, nor is it due to any kind of un-informedness.

And, although this belief is obviously insane - it is not plausible to imagine that belief in the same-ness of people was caused by actual clinical mental illness affecting the intellectual elite en masse...

No, no - what a belief in the same-ness of people is, is evil; pure evil.

(Evil is the destruction of Good - and Good is truth, beauty and virtue - in unity.)

*

Belief in the same-ness of people is an ideology which allows un-bounded destruction of human society - at every level - and without limit or restraint - and continuing until there is nothing left that can continue the process of destruction.

This is not the kind of thing that happens by accident, or as a consequence of well-meaning people blundering in their analysis and actions - it is done by people in service to pure evil.

The people themselves may or may not be evil or nasty people - just as Maoist Commisars, Gulag guards and Gestapo may or may not have been evil or nasty people.

But those who believe in the same-enss of humans serve evil - they are on the side of evil - and this is a straightforward objective fact: anyone who believes-in, argues for, or enforces policy based-on the same-ness of people and groups is serving evil.

*

*

http://notionclubpapers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/why-read-tolkiens-notion-club-papers.html

*

*

It is easy to become a theist (a believer in the reality of 'god' - not specifically nor necessarily the Christian God). Indeed, to be a theist is the only coherent system of belief - as has been clear since ancient Greek times. 

1. Recognize the reality of transcendental values - any one from the list of truth, beauty and virtue. Recognize that these are not only a matter of opinion. 

2. Recognize that there must be a god/s, or else transcendental values could not be real and we could not know about them.

3. You are now a theist.

4.  Recognize that there must logically be one god above all gods.

*

To become a Christian involves another set of steps:

1. You need to make a decision about revelation.

You need to decide if it is possible that god communicate with humans (divine revelation) or not. This is something to do with whether god is a 'personal god' - who is concerned with humans in general, and in particular.

If revelation is impossible, then knowledge of god must be inferred from the world using reason and instinct - this is the pagan position, natural religion, spontaneous religion in its various specific manifestations.

2. If you regard revelation as possible then presumably it has happened, and you need to evaluate human history on the basis of sorting-out which of the claimed revelations of god are real; and how accurate are these reported revelations.

3. There are not many, three or a few more, major religions based on monotheism and revelation - how to choose?

Find out about Christianity - which is not easy because of the vast amount of disinformation, misunderstanding, and corruption. Then decide whether Christian revelation is supported by, is consistent with, the evidence - prophecies and their fulfillment, miracles etc. 

4. If you find that you want to be a Christian, then you should decisively acknowledge this fact to yourself (and others whom you trust) - don't conceal it, don't lie about it.  

At this point you have crossed the line.

By clearly acknowledging that you want to be a Christian (that you are a 'seeker') then you essentially are a Christian.

(Because of the promise that he who seeks will find: will find. A promise from God will absolutely certainly come true - because nothing can stop it.)

5. What follows is a lifelong search to understand and know and practice Christianity.

People naturally focus on this final step, step 5 - with all its worldliness, its inter-denominational struggles, failures and compromises and corruptions; but really it is step 4 that is crucial to salvation.

*

If you sincerely want to be a Christian, you should regard yourself (in private and in public) as a Christian: because in fact you are a Christian.

* 

*

 http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/05/counting-chinarsquos-christians 


(Or see article below)

This sounds like very good news, world-changing news - perhaps even world-saving news...

(Although by somewhat similar statistical criteria there are supposed to be about 40 million Christians in Britain, whereas I suppose the real number is about a tenth of that, or maybe much less.)

Aside from that the Chinese converts are mostly Protestant, does anyone know of reliable sources as to the nature and characteristics of the new Chinese Christianity?

***

Counting China’s Christians

4 May 2011