Bruce Charlton's Notions

The twentieth century was the era when evil transitioned from Luciferic to Ahrimanic as the dominant form.

Luciferic evil is the 'traditional' type; hot, impulsive; characterised by violence and murder; the gratification of sub-human, 'animal' instincts; and the cult of personality:


During the late twentieth century; evil transitioned to become Ahrimanic: not just sub-human, but sub-animal - Men became regarded as meat robots and flesh computers. The evil was not concentrated into a dictator, but became impersonal, unlocatable.

Evil is now dispersed among committees, faceless bureaucrats, institutions: The System.


Then people celebrated a person - a man represented a nation; now people celebrate the largest organisation in Europe - a bureaucracy represents a nation.

Then the masses celebrated an individual; now an abstraction. 


Then the dictators aspired to mould the population into a cohesive functional unit that could be whipped into a frenzy of productive or destructive action, worship or hate - as required; and this mass could be directed to do whatever the dictator wanted doing...

Now The Matrix aspires to destroy all human society, break the population into individual, mutally-fearful, docile and despairing individual units - ultimately to reduce these units down to a sub-animal level of cogs in a machine; or ideally software components.

(If living tissue can be reduced to binary code simulations - so much the better.)  

Then we could see evil; now we cannot.

This pearl of wisdom comes from Spider Man; and it can be applied to the modern spiritual condition.

Modern Man is in the rare position of being able Not to believe in God; in effect Man can now defy the creator of the universe by the simple choice of his will.

This is an intoxicating realisation. We can, and most do, entirely deny the divine, the spiritual, the eternal - and choose to believe only in the sensory perceptual and material.


Furthermore, in recent decades Modern Man has asserted his ability to believe in things that are false; to regard ugly as beautiful; to insist that sin is a higher morality.

And, of course, vice versa: truth is hate, beauty is kitch, and virtue is opporessive. Modern Man, having unbelieved God, has chosen to live in an inverted world.

That's where we have been, for some time: a staple of public discourse in modern societies; and has within the past weeks it has been enforced by a new and global qualitative acceleration of centralised surveillance and control.


I can recall exactly this intoxication in my childhood at six years old. I was told that if I did not want to believe in God, I did not have to.

What a feeling! Nearly everybody around me said they believed in God, but I could defy them all by a single act of unbelief!

I could defy any God, if there was one. I did not have to believe anything just because some people said it.


This experience was pride in action at one level; in another sense it was potentially the beginning of wisdom. To an adult mind, the beliefs of society-in-general ought not to be regarded as binding.

For example; at present general societal beliefs are incoherent, since they are mostly digusting, immoral and/ or lies. But I can choose to believe them - and most do so choose.

The Modern lesson here is that belief is arbitrary, and no belief should to be regarded as perverse or wrong. We believe whatever we want to believe.


(In practice, we believe whatever we judge to be most expedient - here and now. But what of the long term? What about those we love, our nation and civilisation, the planet?) 


Believing in God just because we have been told to believe, cannot be regarded as wise or sufficient, except for young children. It is necessary for each person to take responsibility for his own primary and ultimate beliefs.

But that is Not what has happened. Instead the whole of modern society is one vast denial of personal responsibility - we call it bureaucracy, or The System.

Everything 'important' is decided by committees, votes, procedures, lotteries, algorithms, precedents, polls, authorities, peer reviewing... almost anything is regarded as preferable to personal judgment and individual responsibility.


Well, Pandora's box is open, the genie is out of the bottle; we are too far down the track of consciously deciding what we believe to return to passive acceptance - even if that were possible... Which I do not believe: I think the process has been driven by the divinely-driven developmental transformation in Men's minds, 'evolution of consciousness'.

We need, as a matter of extreme urgency - i.e. starting this instant; to take full responsibility for our mental choices - including our deepest and least-examined fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality.

And we need to recognise that when we get to the very bottom; we must make an intuitive decision - from our-selves - of what genuinely seems true and right; and which we are happy to base everything else upon.


Fundamentally there must be some ultimate and foundational belief-assumptions, which we are prepared to regard as self-evidently true; and upon which we are prepared to built the whole of our lives; fully recognising that this can be done by nobody but our-selves, and that what happens to us in an ultimate sense hinges upon these assumptions.

No more excuses: we have our freedom, we have the power not to choose God and to believe anything; and with that power comes responsibility.

To shirk responsibility is to refuse life.
 

Such is the title of one of the best R&B singles (R&B? in feel yes, but not in chord structure), by the Spencer Davis Group; as heard, as known aurally.

A cheerful, feel good single.

Of course, I couldn't hear a single word of the verses - I could only hear the chorus words: "So happy baby, Give me summer loving!".

But it didn't matter, because the voice was really great (a plump, middle-aged, Black American from the Deep South, obviously - presumably Mr Spencer Davis himself), the rhythm playing superb, the Hammond organ interjections tasty. Altogether typical of why (in the pre/early-Beatles era) most of the best pop music was imported from the USA.

Well, music is for listening, and that's what listening tells you.

But a bit of background research reveals a different story:


"Gimme Some Lovin'"

Well my temperature's rising and my feet are on the floor
Twenty people knocking 'cos they're wanting some more
Let me in baby, I don't know what you've got
But you'd better take it easy, this place is hot

[Chorus:] I'm so glad we made it, I'm so glad we made it
You've gotta gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
Gimme some lovin' (gimme gimme some lovin'),
gimme some lovin' every day

Well I feel so good, everything is sounding hot
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and I don't know what to do
Wait a minute baby, it could happen to you

Well I feel so good, everybody's getting high
Better take it easy 'cos the place is on fire
Been a hard day and nothing went too good
Now I'm gonna relax honey, everybody should

Gimme some lovin' (gimme some lovin')
I need it (Gimme gimme some lovin') I need it
Ooh, gimme some lovin', every day, every day...

Kudos to the group of Roman Catholic Cardinals and an Archbishop (with many other signatories) who have produced a statement concerning the birdemic which is exactly what is most needed.

This is solid evidence that real Christianity remains active and effective (if not dominant) within the Roman Catholic Church; and puts to shame the other major Christian denominations who have failed to make similar statements (who have indeed actively colluded-with the global powers of anti-Christian materialism).

Excerpts:

The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the [birdemic], the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good.

We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against [the birdemic], however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry. The rights of God and of the faithful are the supreme law of the Church, which she neither intends to, nor can, abdicate. We ask that restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.

I don't believe in the devil. 
You should: he believes in you.

Thus a key exchange in the movie Constantine (2005). This should be a meme blazoned across the world, because it is strikingly true.


In a world where people don't believe in purposive, personal supernatural evil; such evil becomes pervasive and general.

Obvious evil ought to be obvious - and it used to be. When it is the case that people have to have evil explained to them, for example in terms of its effect in causing extra suffering - then we are already lost. We ought to be able to recognise extreme evil as such; but our society lost that ability when it denied God.

Thus the evil of "social distancing" is dealt-with as if it was a sociological research problem. Yet this evil is so obvious that not to see it immediately - and instead to demand an explanation of exacly how it is evil - is already to be deeply complicit in evil oneself.


Because evil - like good, like creation - is participative. It requires Men; it requires Men's thinking.

For evil to do its work, we must meet it halfway - or even invite it into our hearts. Demonic powers do half the work, but we must do the other.

For example, evil may provide visions or words of corruption; but Men must interpret these, conceptualise them, give them meaning - or else they would merely be raw stimuli.


Looking around the nation, I see evil established deeply in many hearts - especially among the educated sections of the population. I see a smug, self-satisfied mass of 'concerned' people, who expend vast efforts on moralising in a socio-political discourse - and who are dishonest, blind to the devil, utterly convinced of the reality and sufficiency of their own 'good intentions'.

Yet whenever some new and extreme evil is proposed (e.g. mass routine abortion, castrating boys and calling them girls, grooming of children into premature and pathological sexuality - and now 'social distancing') these people are always at the forefront.

They don't merely sin themselves - which is unavoidable for many; but their own sins are made invisible; therefore (far more seriously) they do not repent, and instead propagate sin by word and deed. Such constitutes the great bulk of the mass media, much of 'education' and 'law' - and indeed all major social systems.

But these are only the worst and most extreme because a large majority are so affected. All that can be said in favour of the 'silent' majority, is that they have retained an instinctive, unconscious awareness of sin; which makes them uncomfortable, even though it does not make them repent.


Our task in this modern word was, and is, to bring to explicit consciousness the spiritual - which in past ages was natural and spontaneous. We have lost the natural but inarticulate awareness of absolute intrinsic evil - thus we need to choose to acknowledge the reality of evil.

The same, of course, applies to God. Everyone used-to believe in God, from direct personal experience (indeed, we all did in early childhood) - but we no longer get these divine contact experiences. Therefore, our belief in God has become a free choice. We can believe, or not. 

And since the devil, Satan, demons (and purposive personal evil in general) are defined by their opposition to God, the good, and divine creation - we need also to choose to acknowledge their reality as well.

Belief in the devil is a choice. This is no longer (or hardly ever) a matter of spontaneous personal experience of personal evil powers, but of conscious thinking, direct knowing.

We moderns are free-er than ever before, thus more responsible. In the past, people were more passive and unconscious - hence they less blameworthy, but also less praiseworthy. But for us, now; innocence and ignorance are not an excuse, because we really do know better.

We Are Responsible - and this is unaffected by propaganda, laws, regulations, social pressures... We are responsible, we know better, but have chosen the worse.  


Evil has become just a branch of politics; consequently, modern evil is defined and redefined at will by the usual political means of propaganda, law, bureaucracy and physical coercion (police and mobs).

When - as now - intrinsic and extreme evil is rampant and triumphant through the land - yet unrecognised, unopposed; this is because evil has become (by will) utterly invisible, concealed, denied; inverted into a new-kind-of-good.

Therefore, there can, and shall be, no resistance to evil until after spiritual change. People need to know God, know that we live in a creation, repent evil, and acknowledge the reality of the devil.

(We may not know him, but he knows us.)

And such spiritual change can only arise from each person, individually, by choice and in freedom. Lacking which; we have - en masse - freely chosen evil; and thereby have chosen the unavoidable consequences of choosing evil. 

My pen-friend Andy Thomas has compiled a series of perspectives on the birdemic. Andy is Not arguing from a Christian perspective, so these do not cut as deep as I believe they really need to - but they are clearly and coherently expressed, and may serve as a bridge for some people to escape from the 'official story', and open them to other possibilities. 

Some outstanding theological clarification on a vital topic from WmJas Tychonievich. What William calls the Supergod conceptualisation is what I have blogged about here under the name 'omni' God - that is, the idea that our God is abstractly defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent etc.

By contrast, I believe in God as described in the New Testament (and the Old) who is The Creator and Our Father. Scripture does not use abstract terms from Greek and Roman philosophy to pre-define God; God is known by us as a person - not a set of attributes into-which the person of God must (for some reason) be hammered.


What William and I share is a foundation in Mormon theology - William due to upbringing, and me due to having discovered Mormon theology in middle age. But, for whatever reasons, you will seldom hear Mormons arguing against the Supergod concept in the kind of ultra-logical, no-holds-barred fashion that WmJas approaches the subject.

Yet, this is an extremely important matter; because many people are (permanently) deterred from becoming a Christian by the insistence of mainstream churches that the omni concept of God is absolutely necessary and non-negotiable. For most Catholics and Protestant priest, pastors and theologians alike: if you don't believe in Supergod then you are not a Christian.


I regard this claim as lazy, incoherent, deadly nonsense; and the fact that so many Christians for so many centuries have stuck with it makes no difference. It was, in my opinion, this intransigence over an incoherent assertion that led to the rise of the major monethistic rival to Christianity - which has now outstripped Christianity in size.

Christianity's most formidable rival asserts the much-more-coherent abstract omni-deity; that is not necessarily nor always Good - according to human evaluations; and is not our loving Father whom we may know personally. If the omni-God is insisted-upon and given priority by Christians, the rational result will be a Christianity that is a second-rate version of its rival.


If an individual Christian is happy with the omni God and it does not spoil their Christianity, then fine. We are not all called upon to attain coherence.

My objection is the exclusivist preaching of philosophy at the expense of religion; and the insistence that church members assent to non-sense.

In practice, most Christians fudge the question in real life; and also in practice many or most Christian laity do not believe, and never have believed, in Supergod - but instead implicitly the benevolent Father Creator, such as I (and William) regard as true. 

Anyway, WmJas has written an essay that I would have loved to write - so I endorse it without reservation.

A couple of days ago I watched a recent, enjoyable and worthwhile, ultra-low budget movie called Cosmos (2019). At the end I thought, as I have thought scores of times before: "That was a good movie, but it would have been a really good movie if it was half-an-hour shorter."

I can't be bothered to do the research; but I would guess that a much higher proportion of the very best movies are around 90 minutes than clock-in at two-plus hours. Clearly, it is easier, more natural to construct a good movie at the shorter length.

I must say, I find it hard to understand why so many movies end-up too long. So obviously too long - such that almost any audience member could tell the maker where the cuts could and should be applied.

My main theory is that good editors are rare, and/or that the editor is given too low a status in devising the final cut. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that 'director's cut' movies are almost always worse; which suggests that editors make a vital input to quality (albeit director's cuts are only done for already-successful films; and this may tend towards meddling with the final product being a case of 'the only way is down').

Considering how vital is the art of editing to the success of a movie; it is striking that the public don't know the names of the best film editors, in the way we know the best directors, writers and actors.

But the difference editing makes can be seen between the first and third movies of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings - which are superbly edited - and the Two Towers movie, which is much less-well edited. This is something like a controlled experiment; in that the other key members of the production 'team' were unchanged, and the editor was the major difference.

Another suspicion is related to stars demanding a certain minimum amount of screen time (as when the first Batman revival movie (1989) was structurally spoiled and the impact diminished by an over-extended final scene with Jack Nicholson's Joker).

Or, it may simply be that the film makers get too attached to particular scenes, and cannot see that they are making the movie as a whole worse.  

Anyway, I am confident that if all 2 hour movies were forcibly subjected to a skilled and insightful re-editing down to half an hour shorter; nearly all of them would be improved significantly.

Social distancing (SD) has surely been the most effective deployment of PSYOPS in human history. In the space of a few months, this recent, controversial, empirically un-tested hypothetical model about how best to manage influenza epidemics; has been universally propagated and imposed by the governments of the world.

The two metre separation has redefined, and begun the annihilation of, all human social functions and interactions.


To varying degrees, in varying ways, the way we relate to other people has been transformed.

People now treat each other as potential threats; walking down your own street has become regarded (internally) as a high risk activity.

When we approach a stranger (if indeed we dare to venture outdoors or into a supermarket, and if there is anybody else outside at all - since many places now resemble towns of the dead: ghost towns, with human beings deleted from the scene), there is a new social evaluation and negotiation.

Some people are friendly, others (like me) apologetic - and only really concerned not to offend; others are looking-out to take personal offence, and engage in self-righteous indignation and condemnation, or signal their own virtue and concern.

Some people radiate terror, others glare with baleful hostility.

(I suspect that there are significant numbers of people who - from the way they avoid these activities - believe the birdemic plague can be caught by making eye-contact, or by saying 'hello'.)


My point is this: all over the world, billions of people have suddenly had their basic human relationships transformed for the worse by a theory!

This is a solid fact. It is necessary to grasp and consider it - without inserting more theories about 'why'. 

No doubt the legislation, surveillance and fines were a trigger; the unrepented and uncontextualised fear was a strong contributor; and the almost eager agreement and embrace of these restrictions by the masses has surely been a vital element.

But whatever the cause (and asserted necessity), thanks to this hypothetical epidemiological theory (presented as a known fact) the whole world is now a worse place.


If you could rewind the clock six months or a couple of years and point to a handful of obscure research articles modelling influenza outbreaks - arguing over whether SD made outbreaks better or worse; it would not have been possible to believe that this single idea could have been propagated to cover the world and change everything.

Yet it has happened.

Here we are.

 

It has now become apparent that the primary reason for the fake response to the fake birdemic is to impose social-distancing: that is, to isolate individual people from each other, forever.

As the lockdown is 'eased' in the UK (gee thanks!), the SD 'laws' (currently a separation of at least two metres apart) are actually being reinforced; including fines that start with 100 pounds and double for repeated 'convictions' up to 3,200 pounds.

Given that the birdemic is now proven trivial, and SD is (scientifically speaking) just a new, untested, controversial and implausible hypothesis for spreading-out the impact of a trivial problem; it is clear that the global imposition of social distancing is itself the prime objective of the recent totalitarian takeover.


Why? Why have They (the Global Establishment) atomised the entire human species in this way?

Obviously, because SD does things that They want to do. What are these things?


From a purely biological perspective, Man is a social animal - thus SD negates our basic animal nature.

From a psychiatric perspective, the damage from social isolation is clear and extreme - as jailers and torturers have long known.

From an economic perspective, SD renders impossible urgent and vital production, service and trade; thus makes it impossible to sustain the world population.

From the perspective of education, police and military, sports and tourism, religion, the arts, sciences, health care... these and other social functions are de facto destroyed by SD.


1. In sum - human society as such is being annihilated by social distancing. 

2. And SD is exactly the policy They are doubling-down on.

3. Therefore the annihilation of human society is the core objective of the birdemic.


So, now we know...

To continue my long-running series about the benefits from looking more closely at Gilbert and Sullivan arias; here is another special favourite from Ruddigore: the soprano character's signature song: "If somebody there chanced to be".

There is such a lot to enjoy about this one. On the one hand, Gilbert's lyrics are literate, clever and witty. The (typically absurd) idea is that this is a beautiful, 'poor but virtuous', working class girl whose manners are derived from a popular manual of etiquette; that she constantly consults and which she follows slavishly, whatever the consequences.

[VERSE]
If somebody there chanced to be 
Who loved me in a manner true, 
My heart would point him out to me, 
And I would point him out to you. 
But here it says of those who point, 
Their manners must be out of joint  -
You may not point – You must not point – 
It's manners out of joint, To point! 

[CHORUS]
Ah! 
Had I the love of such as he, 
Some quiet spot he'd take me to, 
Then he could whisper it to me, 
And I could whisper it to you. 
But whispering, I've somewhere met, 
Is contrary to etiquette: 
Where can it be 
(SEARCHING BOOK.)
Now let me see 
(FINDING REFERENCE.)
Yes, yes! It's contrary to etiquette! 

[VERSE]
If any well-bred youth I knew, 
Polite and gentle, neat and trim, 
Then I would hint as much to you, 
And you could hint as much to him. 
But here it says, in plainest print, 
"It's most unladylike to hint" – 
You may not hint, You must not hint – 
It says you mustn't hint, In print! 

[CHORUS] 
Ah! 
And if I loved him through and through – 
(True love and not a passing whim), 
Then I could speak of it to you, 
And you could speak of it to him. 
But here I find it doesn't do 
To speak until you're spoken to. 
Where can it be? 
(SEARCHING BOOK.)
Now let me see – 
(FINDING REFERENCE.)
Yes, yes! "Don't speak until you're spoken to!"

On the other hand; Sullivan sets each verse to a wistful minor key melody, with a spare orchestration, that brings out an innocence and yearning not obvious in the lyrics; then he transitions to major key for the chorus in waltz time, with the Big Tune. But he holds back the full accompaniment (doubling the voice on violins) for the repeat of the tune in each chorus.

Furthermore, Sullivan achieves that extremely-rare thing of fitting the music to the specific emphasis of the language, on a word-by word basis. This subtle art is prized in, for instance, Purcell - while being largely absent in, for example, Handel.   

Thus, Sullivan gets the emotional impact of the waltz; while avoiding the problem of excessive schmalz to which waltzes are prone.

The combination is one that I find strangely moving, with a genuine sweet freshness that captures what is so special about Gilbert and Sullivan. I can only compare it with what Mozart achieved in some of his operas like Figaro or The Magic Flute - where farcical words and situations are given sudden and unexpected depth and power - in the lightest and deftest manner.

This combination is really rare in music, and in art generally; and I greatly value it.

William Wildblood analyzes the nature of evil; and concludes:

Reality is primarily spiritual and the contemporary attack on the soul is every bit as evil as the evil of the Nazis. It is just evil manifesting in a different sphere, spiritual rather than material.

Our refusal to recognise spiritual evil and the hubris that goes along with this is why the Western world is dying. It cannot be saved but that is not important. What is important is individual souls and these can be saved but only if they renounce the world as it is and do what I believe is called in the terminology of mobile phones and other electronic devices, a factory reset in which all or most of the accumulated data is wiped clean and you start afresh.

This is repentance or, to use a word I prefer because it signifies something more comprehensive, metanoia, a total change of mind and heart driven by penitence. 

The need for metanoia means that a vague, generalised, intellectual kind of spirituality is not the answer. There's plenty of that about but it does not reach to the bottom of the soul and can often by engaged in without the renunciation of worldliness. It's a new suit when we need a new mind.

The true religious goal is not to make us happy in this life but to prepare us to enter the next. Too much contemporary spirituality is therapeutic when it should be transformational and this is part of the form evil currently takes in our world.

Not in the traditional sense, there can't. 

There cannot be a hero leading a fellowship of fighters for freedom and The Good; because there is nothing specific for them to fight, or beat; no wicked Emperor (or Vizier), no all-powerful dictator (just replaceable suits, puppets and drones), not even The Party nor a Ministry of Magic...

Instead a nebulous, all pervasive, globally-interlinked, bureaucratic-abstract System; to-which all are linked, with-which all are complicit, and from-which nothing stands altogether apart. 


Indeed, with things as they are; the idea of a hero defeating evil on behalf of a silent oppressed majority of the good masses, is unrealistic. The modern materialist masses overwhelming desire their own oppression - mostly tacitly and implicitly, but often-enough explicitly and aggressively.

So, even if the fellowship somehow did defeat the many-headed system - and succeeded in 'Scouring The Shire'; the would-be heroes could not expect the gratitude of the populace; but quite likely the opposite. 


So if group rebellion and mass resistance just isn't going to happen - because unwanted - what should Christians actually do?

Some principles are that whatever is done, we must do alone, or with (at most) a handful of like-minded folk (who we would need already to know). Our advantage is that we do not need to wait on persuading others, or developing consensus: we can get on with it immediately!


What is 'it' that we should do? Well, for our-selves 'it' must be to develop personal understanding: knowledge of what is happening in a spiritual sense.

As for evangelism, this understanding and knowing is also what must be encouraged.

It would be unwise, as well as futile, to encourage action in a situation when so many people are so wrongly, as well as feebly, motivated. Right motivation must precede that strong motivation necessary for effective action.


And if this 'plan' sounds just as futile, or even more futile, than trying to organise resistance; then we need to bear in mind that God works through-us - and anything of value that we personally do, can (and will) be amplified and directed by divine providence - to whatever degree is best.

Always bearing in mind that effectiveness will be calibrated by the divine against the eternal condition of post-mortal Heavenly life; and will not be aimed-at optimising our immediate comfort and pleasure in this mortal world.

Thus hope is sustained by faith.

The thing is: They are clever! Not all-knowing, certainly not all-powerful - and highly fallible; but They are clever. A lot cleverer than most of their pseudo-intellectual critics who will explain-away the biggest, fastest, most universal and comprehensive change in the history of the world as some kind of random coincidence of something or another.


I mean that, just four months ago, the world was qualitatively different; and now almost everybody is living under an extremity of control and restriction that would have been literally incredible, just four months ago. All the talk is that this change will be permanent, in some form.

It happened. And - fundamentally - hardly anybody has noticed; and hardly anybody who has noticed can see the obvious cause; but instead grasps and holds-tight onto the transparently inadequate and incoherent excuse that everything is necessary because of the deadly birdemic plague - and the totalitarian world must continue because of the birdemic plague...


This is all the more surprising since - for the entire last generation - the best-selling, and biggest impact media have been all-about evil totalitarian dystopias; from Harry Potter and the Hunger Games through innumerable other variants of the same idea. And this was building upon the past century of similar products - The Time Machine, 1984, Brave New World etc.

These have been massively disseminated, in multiple media. Now, why would the Global Establishment be so keen on making and sustaining mass media phenomena describing totalitarian dystopias, if that is what they were planning to impose upon us?

The answer, I think, is misdirection.


We have seen many, many evil totalitarian dystopias; but the evil-ness of these societies has always been portrayed as militaristic, violent and murdering. (That is, Luciferic evil.)

This is indeed natural, because in a godless and secular society; directly causing physical suffering seems to be the only kind of evil that people recognise. Thus in these modern dystopias, the baddies are bad because they torment, torture and kill lots of people.

Therefore, when a totalitarian society arises that does not (any more than usual) torment, torture and kill great masses of people - and what is more, was implemented without any uniformed, marching armies and by consent - then it just isn't noticed, and is indeed denied.

Misdirection has worked. 


A godless materialistic society has no belief in any purpose or meaning to life; therefore the idea of evilness as micro-control of behaviour and thought has no reality. It cannot be grasped.

Such a society denies the non-material, the spiritual - indeed it barely acknowledges the autonomous free agency of human beings; who are continually redescribed and modelled in terms of being wholly-determined or statistically-random in their actions. The existence of evil spirits is regarded as being childish, dumb or an insane delusion.

In such a world - and this is mainstream and mandatory in Western discourse - there can be no genuine intent, not even of humans; and everything is explained by the forces acting-upon humans.

One would have supposed that the indescribably vast evidence of humans planning and scheming throughout history and into the present might have had some traction - but no.

The only acceptable view is that stuff just happens, either because it must - or for no reason at all; but at any rate, evil strategies are ruled-out a priori (by assumption) because evil Men are not self-motivated and evil spirits don't exist.


The actually-existing Ahrimanic nature of modern evil is beyond comprehension; hence unrecognised; hence unopposed. The evilness of a society of omni-surveillance and total-control is seen only when this is used to pursue violence; and there is no conception of materialistic reduction being evil in itself.

In sum; when reality is spiritual, but Men are materialistic, then the basic nature and point of life become utterly invisible to consciousness. At an unconscious and inarticulate level; Men retain an awareness of spiritual realities - and it is this that causes the demotivation, fear and despair underlying much of the world today. But unconscious and inarticulate does not suffice.

Therefore, the best and most important thing that we can do is to bring to explicit consciousness these vague feelings and hunches about what has happened and the nature of this current situation. We need to make our-selves aware of that understanding already latent in us.


This is the indispensable first step... But towards what? The answer is: To the salvation of our souls, to life everlasting beyond death.

Those who don't want Heaven can get what they want under totalitarianism - they have no problem with being misdirected.

Those who want Hell or self-annihilation for themselves have no problem with totalitarianism, because it is a demonic mechanism of damnation. They can continue to live under misdirection.

But you may be different. If you want Heaven, if you are a Christian, you need to understand.

Following from my previous selection; the following phrases are from a non-public letter - there is no web-link. You will just have to trust me about accuracy; or not. Quotes are in plain text; my interpretative comments and emphasis are in italics:

For many people, the restrictions imposed on the use of church buildings has been of particular concern, and a source of sadness.

 Sadness... Well, of course, the sadness of priests is primary. Laity... not so much. And sadness is, of course, the main thing; not - errr - salvation, or anything of that sort.

The House of Bishops has now agreed that individual diocesan bishops can issue guidance about the first stage of a gradual easing of restrictions on the use of church buildings, whilst keeping our church buildings closed.

Only essential buildings are remaining open in the UK (such as bicycle shops); and the House of Bishops does not regard churches as essential - hence they need to remain closed.

Incumbents and priests in charge, or area deans where there is no incumbent, can in consultation with their churchwardens and bearing in mind their specific location, appoint one person for each church in their benefice to enter that church building...

Other organisations like supermarkets can have plenty of people inside their buildings; but not churches. In churches only an appointed person may enter. Because... well... presumably because of the danger that if two or three are gathered together - something Christian may occur. 

The appointed person should be entering the church building for any or all of the following (i) pray the Daily Office and/or celebrate the Eucharist on behalf of the community they serve, (ii) live stream or pre-record worship, (iii) ring one bell to mark prayers being said or mark events (e.g. Clap for Carers...)

Because the modern Church of England's focus of worship is the National Health Service?

...The church should be near to where the appointed person lives and a visit should generally be part of their daily exercise....

In other words; priests must choose between visiting church and exercise. Other workers are 'allowed' to exercise in addition to travelling to and from work; but not priests.

Only the appointed person (and any of their household) should enter and the door should be locked.

Because it is vital to keep people out of the churches.

Consideration should be given to what cleaning will be needed to make our churches safe (e.g. bat, mice and rat faeces, mould spores, dust, legionella disease in water systems, as well as disinfecting gates and door handles etc). This will need to be done by the appointed person.

The priest may pray the daily office or celebrate Eucharist; but only if there is time left-over after sweeping-up the bat faeces...

When adopting this guidance, our priority must be to act responsibly and safeguard ourselves and other people from infection.

Yes, we understand. The Bishop's priority is this world and not the next, the material and not the spiritual, safety of bodies but indifference to souls. 

We get it. Really, we do.

If you do not already understand the distinctively 'Ahrimanic' nature of modern evil; then I think it would be time well spent for you to look-into this.


One quick and enjoyable way - which I wrote about a couple of years ago - is to study Screwtape Proposes a Toast (1959) by CS Lewis (PDF version here) - and indeed the character of Screwtape as contrasted with his nephew Wormwood in The Screwtape Letters (PDF here).


Throughout the Letters Screwtape is recurrently trying to reign-in Wormwood's naive, short-termist and (for Wormwood) personally-gratifying evil of tormenting, frightening and playing-nasty-tricks-on his 'patient'; but losing sight of the fact that the ultimate (and proper) goal of demons is damned dead souls, not miserable living humans.

By this analysis: Wormwood's is the old-style 'Luciferic' evil; Screwtape represents the modern, totalitarian, bureaucratic, soft-sell, incremental Ahrimanic evil - much less spectacular and obvious; but in the end much more powerfully damning for exactly those reasons.


In Proposes a Toast, Screwtape comments:

The quality [of Ahrimanically-damned souls] may be wretched; but we never had souls (of a sort) in more abundance....

We are tempted to say that such souls — or such residual puddles of what once was soul — are hardly worth damning. Yes, but the Enemy (for whatever inscrutable and perverse reason) thought them worth trying to save. Believe me, He did. 

You youngsters who have not yet been on active duty have no idea with what labour, with what delicate skill, each of these miserable creatures was finally captured.The difficulty lay in their very smallness and flabbiness. 

Here were vermin so muddled in mind, so passively responsive to environment, that it was very hard to raise them to that level of clarity and deliberateness at which mortal sin becomes possible. 

To raise them just enough; but not that fatal millimetre of “too much.” For then, of course, all would possibly have been lost. They might have seen; they might have repented.


That is exactly the nature of modern Ahrimanic evil - it is pathetic in its passivity of evil-ness (it is evil minus the courage and motivation of great villains of the past); but there is such a lot of it!

Don't get me wrong; my recognition of the birdemic fake crisis is not based on its having made much of a difference to my own life: it has not. I already led a very restricted life due to illness; so not that much has changed. Indeed the recent spell of fine, dry, spring weather, quiet roads (I live within a mile of the city centre) and the return of the song thrush have all (for example) been major personal enhancements. So, it's nothing personal.

What I have missed most are threefold:

1. Trips by car to walk in the countryside.
2. Going to a cafe in the morning for my reading, writing, meditation.
3. Cricket.

George Sayer wrote the best biography of CS Lewis; and he was also a significant friend of JRR Tolkien. Sayer wrote a fascinating memoir later published in Tolkien: a celebration edited by Joseph Pearce (1999).

In one section Sayer recorded:

[Tolkien] had a very low opinion of his own merits and fairly easily got into a depressed state when thinking of his faults and deficiencies. 

Life was a war between good and evil. He thought the sacraments freed one from enthrallment to Sauron. 

Once he spoke to me of Ireland after he had spent part of a summer vacation working there as an examiner: 

"It is as if the earth there is cursed. It exudes an evil that is held in check only by Christian practice and the power of prayer."

Even the soil, the earth, played a part in the cosmic struggle between the forces of good and evil...

[Tolkien] found little or nothing wrong with the pre Vatican II Church, and therefore thought the reforms of the 1960s misguided and unnecessary...


The context is that Tolkien, by choice and with enjoyment, made many visits to Ireland both on holiday and as an external examiner for several universities; and said in a letter to his son Michael that he was always happy while there. 


My inference is that Tolkien's love of Ireland was bound-up with its being a Roman Catholic nation - and one of the most deeply and devoutly Catholic in the world.

And, just as Tolkien would have been very distressed by the state of his church nowadays; likewise he would have probably have been strongly averse to the modern, secular Ireland; which was built-upon rejection of the church, and embrace of the European Union and its ideals.

This is as clear an example as may be wished of how things have changed and reversed over the past half century; how so many institutions and nations that were then net-good have since become net-evil.


And an example, too, of how this is related to the end of traditionalist, institutional Christianity - which once permeated the minds of Men. By Tolkien's analysis, the cursed nature of Ireland is no longer held in check and transformed by the church - so what remains after this subtraction is (overall) evil.

Something analogous, but different in detail, has happened everywhere. Once good nations become inexorably horrible, decadent, depraved; after the influence of their traditional Christian church is removed.  

Yet, as with Vatican II, the churches removed-themselves from their various nations (or at least actively colluded in the process).


So, the experiment has been done; all over the world. And we can each of us see, all around, in exaggerated form (if we have the capacity think and make the choice to be honest) the terrible consequences of Christian apsostasy and unopposed materialism.

It turns-out we all live on 'cursed ground': when Christianity is deleted and materialism is triumphant.

This has become undeniable in the past weeks; with the truly despicable spectacle of most-of-the-world embracing totalitarian, materialist monomania; and the masses succumbing to fear, resentment, spite and despair.

Yet we can get no help from the churches, nor from any other institution. That era is finished.

So we must do now what we probably should have done long ago; which is to take direct and personal responsibility for our Christian faith; to make it a faith of the heart, fuelled by the fires within.

Motivation is primary because life is 'dynamic'; all is alive and conscious, ultimate (metaphysical) reality is of beings and their relationships.

This is The Spiritual - and materialism is wrong and evil because it denies this primacy.

Reality is thus dynamic - and also participative.


It is the fact of our participation in the creation of reality that makes motivation primary; because when we are participating in creating reality it is our motivation that shapes the nature of that reality.

(I mean this literally - it is not our subjective impression of reality that is shaped by motivation; but objective reality iself.)

A person of good motivation (aligned with God and divine creation) will make the world in harmony with good.


By contrast, a person of evil motivation (aligned with the personal powers of evil, and their intent to subvert, destroy, invert good, reducing creation to chaos) will pursue an anti-creative way of existence.

An evil-motivated person will - in his existence and overall in outcomes - be net-undoing creation, in effect working-against good. 


Motivation describes which way we are pointing in our living...

We each are pointing either towards contributing to the harmonious development of on-going creation... or Not.

In all our doings, we are each aligned-with God's creative purposes, or Not.


It is not each individual action or type-of-action (as if these could truly detached from the stream of time...) that is crucial, rather it is the dynamic 'process' of creat-ing (in time; time is intrinsic to the dynamic).

To use different words; the actuality of participation is a weaving-in of our personal creating (through time) with God's creating (through time) - this harmonious weaving depends on aiming in the same direction, at the same goal.


Motivation therefore describes the direction of our intent.

Only when our direction is shared with God's, is our motivation the correct direction. Only then will our living be joined-with creation.

In sum: morality is dependent on our motivation; and motivation is our direction-of-pointing; and direction is our choice of 'alignment' in the spiritual warfare of mortal life.


Note added: It is interesting to consider why (and this goes back some decades) people-in-general absolutely refuse to consider the question of motivation - despite that without knowing (i.e. inferring, because it can never be 'known') motivation, most actions cannot be evaluated. 

We know this from 'real life' - plus good fiction: it makes all the difference whether Gandalf says something, or if Saruman speaks the same words. 

This refusal to discern and judge motivation is so pervasive, and goes so strongly against self-interest, that I regard it as pathological. In other words, it is part of a widespread/ all-but-universal 'mental illness'. 

Which illness is the mainstream materialism/ secularism/ atheism... Once one has assumed that we life in a random-determined, purposeless and meaningless universe; then it seems peoples' motivations dwindle inexorably, and only the here-and-now behavioural-stimulus has any traction (and that not much). 

Because motivation is primary in morality, discernment of the motivation of others is essential; we absolutely must be judgmental.

If we refuse to judge, we will not be able to choose validly who is motivated by good, and who by evil. We will not be able to pick the right side (the side of right).

We will not know whether we are working on the side of God, or of the devil.

(This is especially important here-and-now - when the side of evil is so dominant in the world; when evil dominates all large and powerful human institutions.)

Note: This is why one-ness teachings usually end-up preaching evil in modern Western conditions: because they argue against discernment and judgment. They try to convince people that we ought not to discern beautiful from ugly, virtuous from wicked, truth from lies... on the basis that all such are merely superficial illusions (maya). From a Christian perspective, this means that adherents of one-ness in practice go with the dominant flow: and thereby (albeit flaccidly) support leftist, totalitarian materialism, and fashionable 'causes'. This (under current conditions) generally means aligning-with the side of evil; neglecting to discover and work-with divine creation. Furthermore, anti-discernment, anti-judgment leads to enfeeblement of motivation generally; since it is not worth the effort of doing one thing rather than another - or some-thing rather than no-thing.