Bruce Charlton's Notions

This world is ruled - whether literally or symbolically - by Ahrimanic demons, those they possess, and their obedient servants. These have created an evil-directed, unitary global System of always-increasing omni-surveillance and micro-control. 

The masses are now slaves to this System - and everyone (slaves and slave-masters alike - albeit not the demonic spirits themselves) depends on the evil System to keep them alive. 

So, if not, then what? If not The System - what? 

The most visible and outspoken opposition to The System are Sorathic in motivation. They hate the System, they hate those who run the system and who colluded with its construction. They want to smash the System; immiserate, humiliate and kill those responsible for it. 

So The System is slavery - and to live entirely at the mercy of the Global Establishment; who are known to be evil in motivation, nature and methods. That is one choice. 

Or there is freedom...

The Sorathic constitute most of the 'freedom' fighters of today; both on the 'anarchic' Left, and on the 'secular Right' - and their appeal comes from the fact that the major constraint on human freedom is indeed The System. 

The rationale is that anyone who supports The System is on the side of the Ahrimanic demons; and so they call upon people to attack, sabotage and 'fight' The System, and all those who serve it.

Think of the organization Amazon. One of the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in the world; whose rulers are a part of the Global Establishment; who are among the architects and administrators of Ahrimanic evil... 

Yet an organization upon-whom hundreds of millions of people depend, day-by-day, to stay alive. 

If we support Amazon - we support Ahrimanic evil. Yet if we aim to destroy Amazon, we will be working to initiate a sin-driven social maelstrom which would suck to destruction much of the world. 

This is the choice as presented to the masses. Support the Ahrimanic evil of slavery; or become a Sorathic 'freedom fighter' working to pull-down and explode The System - leading to a world of rapid mega-death. 

Sorathic-freedom is a fast-track to chaos - and chaos is the opposite of God's creation. 

And (in a world of seven-plus billions) chaos is a world of accelerating-spiraling down into starvation, mutual lethal violence; and mass (real) plagues, poisoning, and untreated trauma and disease - on a scale vastly greater (a thousand-fold greater) than anything ever seen in world history.  

Sorathic destruction presents itself as freedom from the prospect of being incrementally dehumanized and spiritually-crushed by escalating Ahrimanic slavery. But that freedom is rooted in sin. 

Sorathic freedom is motivated by psychopathic (love-less) loathing, fear, resentment, and despair.

If the Ahrimanic System is smashed by Sorathic destructiveness; the world will have exchanged Satan for another and worse demon - the demon of wholesale destruction of everything that is true, beautiful or virtuous: of everything that is divine creation. 

So a Christian who is motivated by Love of God; can neither sustain The System, nor aim to destroy The System - can embrace neither 'law-and-order' nor 'freedom-and-chaos'. Can neither approve nor aim-to-destroy Amazon or any equivalent institution. 

Both motivations are types of evil; and indeed Sorathic destructive-chaos is a purer form of evil than Ahrimanic slavery. 

The dilemma, this double-bind (by which all choices are evil) is real; but it exists only at the level of This World, this Mortal Life. 

Such is the nature of these testing times.  Evil can be transcended - but only by making resurrected life eternal our priority; and by living in that light. 

We must live day by day, and make our life choices, primarily in light of eternity and Heaven... And therefore Not by trying to maximize this-worldly health, happiness and well-being.

What eventuates in this earthly mortal life is neither known, nor knowable; because secondary to our spiritual decisions.  

All worldly-motivated paths lead to Hell - sooner or later, by one route or another. 

This is a simple question with a simple answer. 

Life has no necessary meaning at all, for those who reject Jesus Christ's offer of resurrected life eternal in Heaven. 

It is the outcome of resurrected life eternal that gives meaning to this temporary and entropic mortal life. Without this outcome, mortal life lacks the context which gives it meaning. 

To reject Jesus Christ's offer is in the power of each and every person. Everybody chooses whether of not to be resurrected. 

But if a person chooses Not to be resurrected, one inevitable consequence is that his mortal life on earth will be meaningless. 

This is because mortal life is designed as a necessary phase en route to resurrection. One cannot have resurrection without going-through the phase of mortal life. 

And each individual person has an unique experience of mortal life - some die almost immediately and are not even born, others survive to become babies, others to various stages of childhood... and some live for many decades. Plus, of course, each person has an unique mind and body, an unique family (or other) circumstance, an unique social experience - and makes his own choices which affect all of these...

What any specific person's mortal life means; depends on that person's nature which he brings from pre-mortal spirit existence. These range very widely from those who are born greatly good or with great abilities; to the vast majority who are born with strong tendencies to choose evil, without much (or any) apparent capacity for love, and with all kinds of deficits, pathologies and disadvantages - presumably some are innate to that person, some are intended by God. 

What we make of life, whether we fulfil our primary destiny; is up to each individual. But we can be confident that God will (sooner or later, somehow or another) provide the necessary situation, present each with the vital choice that he needs to make.     

In sum: when a person who has rejected Jesus's offer of resurrection to life eternal in Heaven then complains that his life is meaningless and has no purpose; he is correct. 

His life is indeed meaningless and has no purpose. 

But that has been his own choice. 

Do Christians really need to discern evil? Yes! 

Christians really do need to discern evil, in the sense that evil is those who have taken the side against God; and Christians need to know who is on that side. 

When somebody (or some social institution) is on the side against God, we need to take a different attitude to them - towards what they tell us and what they do - than if they were on the side of God. 

Since we all live in society, and all must deal-with other people and with social institutions - we simply must discern which of these people and intuitions are overall and by motivation working against God, the Good and divine creation. 

And if we get it wrong, then we will will have joined the side of evil. 

If Christians mistakenly 'give the benefit of the doubt' to people and institutions (instead of trying to discern the truth as accurately as they can) - they will falsely regard actually-evil people and institutions as Good. 

And then these (self-identified) Christians will believe and propagate Big Lies; will act dishonestly in support of evil; and consent to be manipulated strategically, in multiple and coordinated ways, to destroy the virtue, beauty and truth of divine creation... 

Which is, of course, normal and mainstream behaviour nowadays among the millions of people who suppose themselves Christian but who actively serve Satan. 

That's how important it is to discern evil. 

What of us survives death? The same 'self' that survives through all the transformations of our mortal life; and that same self which came originally from before that embodied life when we were first formed on earth. 

As I look back on my life the memory seems like a dreamy vision which was inhabited by the same self. In my earliest childhood memories, through the development of growing -up and adolescence, and the now-strange events of my early adult life... Everything seems fuzzy, indistinct, dreamy (maybe nightmarish) - but the self continues. 

I can imagine my-self as a four year old, as nine, as thirteen, when I was twenty-one and so on - it is the same self but the situations are as different as can be, and mostly have the quality of a day-dream: fluid, imprecise, fuzzy... 

Was that really me in those situations, in those behaviours? Yet the self that observes these strange occurrences was the same. 

That inner self seem independent of the body - that body which changed so much. Independent of circumstance - which changed so much. 

I think "Was that really me?" about what I did, where I went - but I do not think that about the self that remembers. That was really me. 

It is that self, which was maintained through so many 'bodies' and situation which will be maintained through the transformation of biological death - and will remain.

But what then? What happens to the self when the body has not just changed, but died? It continues in some way, but how?

The tendency is for the self to lose its consecutiveness; its memory and its continuity; to break up into mere awareness of the moment. We have an inkling of this from some dreams, from recollection of descending into delirium... of losing grip on the situation, or our sense-of-being falling-apart; that perplexity, slippery-confusion-angst as we cannot recall how things became as they are, or what we are supposed to do. 

(We may see exactly this in demented people - as reality, purpose, their situation is always slipping away from them.)

This situation seems to be the 'natural', spontaneous fate of the self - called by the ancients names including Sheol and Hades. The self survives biological death to become a witless, demented ghost who does not remember who he is; merely reactive; incapable of purpose and choice. 

(The process of dying is the dwindling of the self towards this state.) 

Death is the state of mere-being, without memory, aware only of the instant now.

This state of Sheol/ Hades is what Jesus called death; it is what he came to save-us-from. Jesus is our saviour from the death that is mere-being of the self. 

We are saved from death by following Jesus. How can this 'following' be imagined? 

All will encounter Jesus after death, and before the dissolution of the self into a witless ghost. 

What is preventing immediate dissolution of the self? God does that  - God the creator - by divine creative power. If we love God; then we allow God to stop the dwindling to nothing, allow God to sustain our-self in a state in which we retain our memory, purpose etc. 

So we remain able to choose. 

We could imagine this choosing as meeting Jesus in a dream; and, as in a dream, we will know that it is Jesus. We realise that Jesus is present with us. And then we decide. 

So, instead of dwindling to mere-being; we will recognise Jesus, and will remember and know what he is offering us: resurrected life eternal in Heaven. And we decide whether to follow him to this everlasting life; or not. 

If we choose to follow Jesus - what then? It is the continual presence of Jesus that will guide us through the transformation of resurrection. It is the continual presence of Jesus that enables resurrection - and for this to happen we must actively wish for this transformation - which transformation is permanent and entails rebuilding from the remnant self wholly in the basis of love. 

If we cannot love, if we reject love, or if we want something else - then we will choose Not to follow Jesus. Indeed we cannot follow Jesus unless we are prepared to make a permanent and irreversible commitment to live only by love; to become forever incapable of not loving. 

As I implied earlier; if someone loves God, but does not want to follow Jesus (e.g. perhaps a theist but not a Christian) - he will Not be transformed. Instead he will remain in the state of consecutiveness of consciousness; being maintained thus by ongoing divine creation. He will be sustained in awareness wholly by God - thus aware only of himself and of God. 

This is the state sometimes called Nirvana; a blissful state of current awareness of God's love and of being in the state of loving God - an eternal now; without memory and without purpose. A passive state. 

Not mere being; but a state of being 'in' love. 

What of Hell? The demons themselves do not die, since they are never incarnated spirits. But what of the ex-Men in Hell: those selves who were once Men but have been through biological death?  

I suppose Hell to be the choice to prevent the dissolution of the self by continual infusion of life energy. So, instead of becoming a witless, demented ghost in the state of Sheol/ Hades; the self is maintained in this world, 'animated', energized by demonic actions. 

Divine creation is primary - it is (as we see it) something from nothing. It is originative and primary - adds to reality. Creation is the opposite of entropy. But creation entails love (in a crude sense, creation requires love). 

So, those who cannot love, or reject love, cannot creation.  

Since demons cannot create, they are bound by entropy. 

That life-energy that sustains continuity, memory and purpose is continually being used-up, needs continual replacement - like fuel in a car. 

Replacement life-energy to sustain a dead-self functionally-above the level of Sheol must therefore be taken from living beings, for example from living Men. 

The process is not creative but parasitic, vampiric. The sustaining life-energy is extracted from one being and redirected into another; just as we consume the energy of coal to warm ourselves when otherwise we would freeze. 

Crudely, one lives because another dies; one dies that another may live - but (because of entropy) only temporarily. 

The Hellish economy is therefore based upon destruction of energy. While Heaven grows as love grows; Hell is always shrinking. 

Hell's intent is to retain functional life without love of God. Hell maintains control of its denizens by the threat of death - if life-energy is not infused (by demonic action), the damned soul will to revert to the insensibility of Sheol. 

Thus the economy of Hell is one of mutual exploitation, of 'dog-eat-dog' - one ex-Man survives only at the price of another Man being consumed (either consumed partially, or - eventually - consumed wholly). 

...Until only one remains - and he will then inevitably die. 

In the end, all will die; so life in Hell is a deferral of ultimate death - the ever more frantic desire to live a little longer, to be the last to die.

In conclusion. When we die biologically, our self will survive; but the state of that self is a matter of choice. And the choices seem to be fourfold: Heaven eternally, Nirvana, Hell - en route to Sheol, or Sheol and the extinction of self awareness. 

In a deep sense, after death we get what we want. And what is that?  

From what most people are saying nowadays, it seems that Heaven is currently the least popular of these destinations - Sheol-direct (i.e. perceived death, annihilation, cessation of all awareness of the self) perhaps the most sought-after. 

And the other two possibilities of Nirvana and Hell, maybe ranking somewhere in between?  

Just a guess... 

Brandon Sanderson has been one of the the best of modern fantasy fiction writers. I have a particular affection for The Rithmatist which has become one of the handful of favourite books I keep re-reading. Otherwise, I greatly enjoyed nearly all of his books (especially the Mistborn trilogy) yet without wanting to re-read them - with the exception of Warbreaker (2009). 

I have read Warbreaker three times so far; and it is a really good book - ranging across humour, adventure, horror and with several scenes of great beauty and heart-warming heroism which do not fail to make me weep. 

The characters are excellently done; varied, interesting, many are very likeable (even some of the baddies) - several are (in the end) genuinely, memorably heroic. 

It displays Sanderson's supreme ability to invent many and different, complex and interesting magic systems. This remarkable system (based on 'breaths' and colours) has an extra symbolic level, with moral and aesthetic aspects. 

He also invents a linked religion; which is unveiled through the plot. And the plotting itself is a real virtuoso effort - as intricate and satisfying as the best whodunnit detective novel - and like writers in that genre Sanderson springs his plot twists honestly; having explicitly given the readers everything necessary to predict the surprise - but misdirecting us from the implications. 

Indeed, I have never come across any writer who is more adept than Sanderson at the plot-twist - and there are many in Warbreaker. This is linked to the fact that when Sanderson is at his best: nothing goes for nothing. 

The reader needs to be alert and attentive from the first sentence; because everything has a payoff later (mostly, in some unexpected way). 

Warbreaker is almost certainly the best book Sanderson will ever write - because it uses the fullness of his character to the maximum. 

A book cannot be greater than the Man who writes it - and Sanderson has not at any point been a Great Man like Tolkien and CS Lewis. Nor (to mention two of the best modern fantasy writers) is he a genius at the level of Susanna Clarke when writing Strange and Norrell, or JK Rowling when she was writing the Deathly Hallows. 

(Genius creativity is fragile, and temporary - especially among women geniuses, who nearly always suffer labile weirdness or craziness; whereas only some male geniuses do.)  

In a nutshell, Brandon Sanderson has been about as good as a not-genius, professional author can be; because the heights of genius accomplishment are inner-driven ('endogenous'), and a genius is almost-never a professional. 

Also because "Branderson" is now several years into in what looks like a permanent and self-willed decline; partly caused by relentless over-production. Including by the (related) mechanism of pro-fiction-production. Nowadays, this grossly over-uses the input of others, including activist editors - leading to a kind of composition-by-committee - a process that purges individuality, and smooths-away the peaks, as well as filling the troughs. 

And lastly from the incurably deadly poison of creeping political correctness. Brandon Sanderson was resistant to this, due to a devout Mormon upbringing; but like the CJCLDS generally (although further advanced) he is now keenly spiraling-down the vortex of Establishment-pandering Leftism.   

I can never really endorse a book (or movie) that ends badly - and there are a lot of them. I mean works that begin well and fall to pieces to end poorly. It seems to be much more difficult to end well than to begin well. 

It is interesting to speculate why this might be. There might be many reasons - but one is clearly that the author is technically able to write, but does not have anything to say. The book goes nowhere, because there is nowhere for the book to go. 

This is a product of the fact that the work cannot be greater than the man - and there are a lot more technically-adept Men than there are great Men. 

For the same reason, there are a lot more first-rate minor writers, than major writers; and many problems arise from a minor writer trying to give the impression he is major. The word for this is pretentious.  

Another, related phenomenon is more modern - which is an author striving for originality or to 'make a point' - usually of a socio-political nature. Such authors sabotage their own works by their desire to avoid at all costs being clichéd; avoiding what they regard as tropes or stereotypes; wishing to be known as to be 'subversive', edgy, dark... 

That is; the desire primarily to please critics, editors, scholars and 'pseuds' in general. Naturally, this leads to poor works. 

Such self-sabotage with the intent of garnering the praise of those whose world view is primarily ideological can, itself, be a mask for incompetence; but is not necessarily so. 

One of the most notorious self-sabotages in literature is the ending of Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw; which has Eliza Doolittle marrying Freddie instead of Higgins - as the narrative irresistibly suggests she would. 

Shaw was trying to make an anti-romantic ideological point - as he explained in a (very unconvincing!) post-script; and for this he was prepared to wreck the end of a brilliant play - and he then doubled-down on this error. 

Because the actors who were successfully touring Pygmalion away from London changed the ending (without telling Shaw) by adding some unspoken 'business' to imply that Eliza would actually marry Higgins. This 'played' much better with the audiences; who were otherwise leaving the theatre confused and dissatisfied.

Shaw was incensed when he found-out, and did his best to stop it; yet when Pygmalion was converted to one of the most successful musicals ever - My Fair Lady - the anti-Shaw pro-Higgins ending was retained.  

Shaw was setting his undoubted genius against the autonomous and irresistible demands of natural narrative - and not even Shaw could make anything else work. 

In writing Pygmalion; Shaw had something to say, and said it - which is why the work has lasted. But for the play to be truthful, there can only be one ending - and it is not the ending that Shaw wanted to write. 

There are many works that contain much that is good, but are marred by a bad ending; and whether one responds to such works is a matter of preference. 

A couple of examples from my experience are Phillip Pullman's 'Dark Materials' trilogy; which begins very well indeed but begins to fall to pieces even before the end of the first volume - and of course ends very poorly. 

(The reasons why have been definitively described by John C Wright in his essay collection Transhuman and Subhuman). 

Another example is Elidor by Alan Garner - which is generally well-liked but which has an ending that is both abrupt and unsatisfying. 

Why this should be, I believe to be related to an element of bitter, disillusioned (apparently guilt-motivated) class-resentment; that seems to have grown in Garner throughout adult life almost to overwhelm him - and to spoil most of his books (and especially the endings).

Both Pullman and Garner are technically very gifted writers who are limited by their own natures, which are significantly stunted by their (very typically modern) failure to learn from experience and consequent doubling-down on a false and nihilistic world view. 

That same critic-pandering, reality-rejecting pathway was pioneered by James Joyce with Finnegans Wake, and Samuel Beckett from 'Godot' onwards. 

From the above analysis it can be seen why so many movies of the past few decades fail to end well - after a promising start. 

There is this determination to be praised for 'courageous' (ha!) subversive/ edgy/ dark qualities - for imposing value, sex and plot inversions without regard for the natural demands of narrative. So the movie draws us in, sets-up a situation - then delivers... nothing. No closure. No meaning. 

(And then gets Establishment-praised for 'bravery'!)

To construct a coherent and satisfying movie remains possible (e.g. Groundhog Day, Dunkirk), but is never easy nor common - and these all have a strong sense of inevitability about their unfolding and resolution.  How much simpler to write politically-correct dross - and reap the awards...

Surprising plot twists and ends can be done effectively - e.g. Maleficent, Rogue One; but always by deploying some alternative 'traditional' story trope - such as self-sacrificing heroism. 

In other words, new story shapes are possible; unpredictability and surprising twists may be effective. But these require exactly the kind of endorsement of narrative inevitability that the subversive/ edgy/ dark anti-heroic impulse rules-out.  

In sum; some of the poor endings (and, indeed, middles) of novels and movies can be explained in terms of authorial limitations; but even-more is subtracted by authors trying to make socio-political points, or curry the favour of cultural gatekeepers at the cost of narrative destruction. 

This business of putting up an image on the blog (for which I blame William Wildblood) has led to continual dissatisfaction about 'the impression created'. 

The previous blog picture (which didn't even last a week) had me on a walk in Spain (Costa Blanca) - which, while accurate (I have been there dozens of times) creates a falsely globetrotting ambience; whereas in truth I travel less, and less far, than anyone I know. 

The current image on this blog therefore has me at  the stone circle Long Meg and her Daughters, just across in Cumberland - only about an hour from where I live. (See how long this one lasts...)

The trouble is that images are overwhelming - as the modern world knows only too well. Images trump words. 

So the image will surely come to dominate whatever written content I generate; and it will be hard to resist continual tinkering (although so few photos of me exist, since I take the family pix and am usually behind the lens - so that will set a limit). 

I see no way around this: we are up-against evolved psychology, or something...  

Plenty of Romantics have got caught-up and lost in the toils of one or another of the snares left by CG Jung. 

My impression is that there was a major resurgence of the Romantic impulse between about 1954 and 1979 - which was the root of Existentialism, the Beats, Hippies, Neo-Pagans and the Counterculture in general.

I think initially there was a hope, a yearning, that modernity would be overwhelmed by a resurgence of what Alan Garner called The Old Magic. (This also drew-upon Robert Graves's White Goddess - which is another kind of snare.) 

When this just didn't happen, the counter-culture was disseminated, and modernity continued; there was a re-conceptualization in terms of Jung - and this was, pretty much, the transition to the multifaceted (and highly consumer-orientated) New Age, which still continues. 

The two snares of Jung are first the reduction of magic, the supernatural and the spiritual generally; to the psychological. And secondly the reduction of spirituality to therapy. 

Jung took all kinds of spiritual phenomena and re-explained them in terms of the psychological. For example, his last book took the phenomenon of Flying Saucers, and reduced them to a modern version of the same psychological phenomena that had previously caused sightings of fairies. Jung claimed that it was not a reduction, because he posited a new kind of psyche that was in between the objective and the subjective - a kind of objective subjectivity. 

This was perhaps related to the collective unconscious - which sounded exotic at first, but ended-up being a purportedly objective place, accessible by all people in certain half-awake/ half-asleep states of mind (active imagination).  

The deeper one goes into Jung, the more his world is revealed as just another branch of modernity. The exotic glamour of the subject matter becomes revealed as mundane symbolism - like Jung's paintings of mandalas - which strike me as excruciatingly dull!

The other snare of Jung followed-on. Since Jung turned out not to be an extra depth of living - and not to transform the person spiritually; Jung's ideas became reduced to a broad definition of therapy. 

Broader than the Analytic Psychology which was its root; the promise was a that if one adopted a Jungian perspective, there would be very general improvement about how one felt. This could be less suffering, more happiness, or (as with James Hillman - Jung's most eminent successor) a greater depth of apprehension, a more profound life. 

This got progressively diluted through the materialistic 1980s onwards; and became absorbed into the self-help, counselling and 'mindfulness' themes; which were rapidly bureaucratized. 

Jung was a red herring, a blind alley for the Romantic impulse. The problem was that while he addressed the important issues - he retained the this-worldly, atheistic, non-Christian context of mainstream materialistic discourse. His analysis was therefore intrinsically incapable of addressing the problems at a sufficiently deep level to solve them. 

Meanwhile; the proper way ahead was already available - deriving from Jung's rival and competitor of the early twentieth century in Switzerland: Rudolf Steiner; and elaborated by Owen Barfield. This was in the lineage of Romantic Christianity, which had begun in the late 1700s.

Yet, I cannot really blame the Romantics from missing the right answers - since, especially in the case of Steiner, they were buried in among a great deal of wrong and irrelevant material, and a personal guru-cult; where they still (pretty much) languish. 

As I said earlier today; we participate in the creation of reality - and we choose (each of us) the basis of that participation - therefore we (like it or not, and most deny it) are responsible for the basic features of our reality: both individually and en masse. 

Put simply: By our ultimate (metaphysical) assumptions concerning the nature of reality; so reality is shaped (and there can be no knowable reality without ultimate assumptions). 

Therefore - the basic nature of our reality is a downstream consequence of our structuring assumptions. 

This is what we see all around us. Yes, of course there is an evil (i.e. on-the-side of Satan) Global Establishment that (early in 2020) successfully - and with near-zero opposition - implemented a global totalitarian coup under cover of being the (regrettably necessary) response to the fake birdemic. 

But the fact is that this was overwhelmingly welcomed at the time and since - despite continuing changes in the 'rationale' for the birdemic-'response'; despite massive and obvious dishonesty, despite glaring incoherence of propaganda and regulations.  

And this is a straightforwardly predictable consequence of the decisions people have made, en masse, regarding the nature of the world. You could call it 'justice', or 'karma'; you could call it a punishment... but whatever you call it, we can observe the link between ultimate convictions and outcomes. 

On the one hand, the world is now a very nasty place and getting worse by the week; and on the other hand, the vast majority approve of this nastiness and want it to increase.

Of course, it is the masses who do and will suffer the most (both now, and after death) - and it is natural to want to alleviate the colossal scale of this suffering. Yet, since the suffering is self-wished and self-imposed - and since those with power relish the suffering masses and do everything than can to amplify that suffering; the suffering will surely come.  

In sum; people en masse have chosen to take the side of evil in the spiritual war - have actively repelled their awareness of the fact; and that choice will (naturally) have mass consequences. 

Even more simply: People, globally, are responsible for the qualitative increase in their own suffering since early 2020 (and for the situation which led to that increase). 

If people, globally, do not like their reality, which is based on lies and evil-motivation; they can choose instead to live by a reality that is true and which takes the side of God and the Good.

They must then first identify, then revise their ultimate assumptions.  

It is never too late for this; although the choice gets harder and harder, the longer repentance is delayed; the longer that lies are defended and evil is excused...

If you do not yet recognize that we all participate (by our consciousness, by our thinking) in creating reality - and that without participation there is no knowable reality; then you have not thought about the matter sufficiently*. 

Because we do participate is creating reality by our thinking - we contribute to the nature of this reality; and therefore, like it or not, we are co-creating The World. This is an awesome responsibility that can only be shirked by handing-over the process of reality-creation to the powers of evil; for example, in 2021: The System, the global Establishment, the one bureaucracy, the mainstream mass media and dominant institutions.  

Since The System is evil in motivation; by shirking our responsibility to participate in creating reality, we are allying with evil. 

Therefore, to be on the side of God/ Good/ divine creation we must acknowledge our participation in creating reality - and act accordingly. 

On the one hand, there is no such thing as reality without consciousness; on the other hand, it is obvious (from experience) that we cannot make reality how we want it on a whim and in the short-term. Our co-creation of reality works at a much deeper level - for example the level of the basic (metaphysical) assumptions we make concerning the nature of reality...

If we decide to assume (and all assumptions are decided, that is our responsibility) that there is no God, that the world is meaningless and purposeless, that science (i.e. official professional research) is the only truth, that consciousness is a meaningless epiphenomenon... Then we will ensure that our-world, and the mainstream shared-world, has that nature. 

If, on the other hand, we assume that the world is a blank slate upon which we can inscribe any reality that would gratify our immediate desire - any notion that pops into our heads (whether some pleasure-seeking/ pain-avoiding instinct or more likely placed there by the System's propaganda apparatus); with any and as many properties as we think we want... Then we will have a superficial, always changing, incoherent, intrinsically-dishonest world. 

(This way in which our real, deep, sustained assumptions lead inevitably to consequences; is sometimes called 'the law of attraction', or providence, or 'karma'. It is the basic reason for the current state of the world - a Global and increasingly-totalitarian system of anti-human, anti-Christian pro-Satanic purposive-evil. This is a simple consequence of the assumptions of most men; especially those who are institutional leaders and their servants. We can see it in others - the way that a person with persecutory paranoid convictions will create exactly the world of his delusions; thus confirming them. Or a person with is possessed by morbid jealousy will drive-away into infidelity she who he most fears is unfaithful. A person who thinks-evilly can only assume evil in others. This is mis-named 'projection' in Freudian terminology.) 

If we do not assume meaninglessness, nor immediate personal gratification, nor a passive surrender to systemic-evil; what, then, is a viable assumption? What is the way that our assumptions can make a Good world?  

As background; in some deep way, our reality always includes some of our-self; and that applies also at group levels. Our group-reality is these shared assumptions. When these shared assumptions are wrong, then reality is wrong. 

The task is to seek for true assumptions, and by basing our thinking upon these true assumptions, to participate in creating a better reality. 

How to base our thinking on truth? Well, there is no single and universal method - each must seek his own - but that is the intent behind such methods as prayer, meditation, worship, ritual and praise in song, craft, art and other forms of creation. 

This is an daily, hourly, task - and no permanent answer can be found in this mortal life (which is for learning, not for any permanent state of success). Yet if we are allied with God/ Good and divine creation - that is what we can do to make a positive difference: a permanent positive difference. 

*Saving the Appearances by Owen Barfield may help you, as it did me. The Philosophy of Freedom by Rudolf Steiner was also helpful, although a more difficult read.  

In this earthly mortal life; the deep problem is not change but loss; not that things are always changing, but that this change is so often a matter of degeneration, disease and death. In brief, this is a world ruled by entropy. 

But if we choose that Heavenly eternal life beyond the transformation that is death; we inhabit a world ruled by creation rather than entropy. It is a changing world; but a world where change preserves that which is good, where change is a building rather than destroying, where instead of death there is eternal life.  

In Heaven - instead of degeneration; there is increasing ability, functionality and knowledge. This is theosis, or deification - becoming more god-like.  

In essence there is a transformation from a world dominated by chaos to a world dominated by creation. The difference is love - since creation comes from love, and is made possible by love. 

Mortal life comes between the first transformation of incarnation, when our spirits become embodied; and the second transformation of death, when we may choose the permanent embodied life of resurrection. All people experience these potential transformations - what varies is the gap between them - the gap of mortal-life. 

Our mortal life is often very short (e.g. the time between incarnation and death still in the womb, or at birth, or infancy - these account for most human lives in history); but may be many decades long. 

The first transformation of being incarnated is what enables creativity.

(Pre-mortal angelic spirits are not creative; but live passively and unconsciously, automatically-obedient). 

And it is the second transformation of death that enables creativity to be permanent and thus divine. 

(This happens in consequence of the resurrected Man having made a permanent commitment to live by love. Insofar as this state may temporarily be attained in mortal life - permanent creation may be achieved, but the ability of people to know this creation, remains subject to entropic change.) 

Note: Why cannot demons create? That demons cannot create is a frequent insight. Assuming (as I do) that it is correct, it is a consequence of demons being incapable of love; either of being incapable love or of having made a permanent commitment to reject love. Demons can only, therefore, simulate a fake creativity - by mechanisms such as extrapolation, interpolation, novel combinations, inversions etc. - i.e. exactly like the typical fake-creative (often evil-motivated) products of fashion, journalism and advertising. It also explains why demons are keen to enlist semi-corrupt humans to their causes, since they remain capable of creativity. Creation comes from love, and cannot be wholly-evil - even when creative individuals (including geniuses, such as Picasso or Freud) are net-evil-motivated.  

Further Note: What is the purpose of mortal life on earth - given that everything comes-to-nothing, sooner-or-later? Given that every-thing perishes, in the end? The purpose of life of earth is not given nor automatic, but needs to be chosen consciously; and what must be chosen for life to have purpose, is to value love intrinsically and for itself.  A child may do this unconsciously and passively; but an adult needs to make a conscious choice of love - and needs (because of entropy) to keep choosing. 

The group of bloggers with whom I am associated have been (slavishly, I would call it) following the lead of our eldest and wisest member (William Wildblood) in putting up recent self-photos so as to emphasize the anti-anonymity stance we all hold in a world of masks and anti-human PSYOPS.

So Don't Blame Me for the hideous picture over there* - it is a screen capture thingy from a Youtube interview I did with Keri Ford. There is a bit of vertical stretching type distortion, which makes me look somewhat thinner than IRL. The annoyingly opinionated facial expression is, however, accurate - sadly. 

The background is my 'study' - i.e. the room dedicated to storing my books (as opposed to the other rooms having other primary purposes which have a lower % of book cases, or mostly books belonging to other family members)...

For years, I never threw out any books; but dragged the increasing accumulation from flat to flat - but when I got married, and we were both keen readers; and then had kids, who were keen readers - we got to the situation when we needed to get rid of books in order to keep getting books. Since when we have disposed of hundreds - especially (not very good) novels; one way or another. 

One excellent way is to pack hundreds of books tightly into boxes in the garage or attic, in totally inaccessible piles; then after several years when you have forgotten about them or not really needed them - they can be given away (if you can find anyone to accept them, which can be difficult). 

But the study does not contain my most-used books; which is the Inklings section; which is downstairs. It is amazing how often I take-down and refer-to these volumes - especially those by and about Tolkien.

In recent months I have found myself drawn back to Tolkien yet again. This is quite spontaneous - and rather absurd. Why am I listening to the audiobook again, while reading relevant sections of the History of Middle Earth? 

Why did I dig-out my strange Tolkien Tarot card game by Peter Pracownik? - which is dated 1996, but has a style like the early 1970s, when I was starved of Tolkien material and had seen no illustrations except a strange poster set on sale in a hippy shop on Park Street, (Bristol) - where I examined the thumbnail illustrations of the posters. 

The matter of Tolkien material is illustrative of the changes of the past fortysomething years. I was terribly short of Tolkien material as a maniacal 'fan' - owning just a handful of books - and unable to afford the hardbacks with the proper maps. Indeed, Tolkien published only a few books (The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings and another three short volumes); and there was not even a reliable biography to inform people about his life. 

To be a Tolkien fan in those days was to be like a monk in a Medieval monastery - poring again and again over the very few available manuscripts. And like the Medieval scholar, this involved a fair bit of hand-copying and commentary. I have kept some of the old copies I made of Tolkien's letters, calendars and the like - from Appendices absent from my paperback LotR but loaned from the library. 

The 'commentaries' were my own attempted expansions of the world; such as little illustrations, a short story, a couple of song settings, poems, inscriptions on my possessions; and even 'automatic writing' by which I generated by own Tolkien-runic name. All these entirely for my own consumption; since I knew of nobody else who was interested to anything approaching the same degree as myself. 

So - interest was maintained by going deeper and deeper, and alone. 

Nowadays, of course, the Tolkien related material is in effect unlimited. So while I was narrow and deep (and, since the material was finite; the only possible direction was to cut deeper and deeper). By contrast, modern fans are broad and shallow; and maintain their interest by a constant infusion of new material from fan-fiction and fan-art shared in a vast community online, and from all over the world .

Yet, the situation of these times seems to call for something more like the Medieval/ Seventies narrow-and-deep approach than the millennial breadth and novelty - because the Tolkien communities are now all corrupted by, converged-onto, Leftist politics - ever increasingly so. 

Such that mainstream Tolkien fandom and scholarship alike have become basically anti-Tolkien in their stance; in a way exactly analogous to modern Christian churches.

Thus Tolkien is used to pursue Leftism; so that those who are in the mainstream of Tolkien studies are all a sub-part of that Global Establishment agenda - with exactly the same agenda of antiracism, sexual revolution, fake-environmentalism, and the like. 

(I fully expect soon to stumble-across blog discussion, papers, special issue journals, conferences, and academic volumes of multi-author essays on the theme of 'Tolkien and the Birdemic' - but I will not go out of my way to find them!) 

In other words, Tolkien fandom is a world best avoided! 

So - I am finding myself increasingly (and almost irresistibly!) drawn back (or forward, since it is conscious and voluntary) into mulling-over the same old few books, for my own purposes - a process of cyclical rediscovery and deepening. 

You might try for yourself such a strategy of narrow-and-deep attention; but applied to whatever author (or other equivalent) that you personally have been spontaneously engaged-by. 

*Note added - Don't know about you, but I can't stand that seeing that picture of me every time I look at the blog. It has to go... Now replaced with a less aggressive one of me from 2019; on a walk in Spain. 

We inhabit a world where - on the one hand - Men have, en masse, rejected god/s and eliminated the divine from core consideration and thus become genuinely insane: unable to perceive, think, reason and learn...

And on the other hand; this is a world where all the major social institutions - politics and government at all levels, the mass media, law, major churches, the military and police, education and science, health services... A world where all the major institutions have taken the side of darkness in the spiritual war...

In such a world of both inner passivity-incoherence and outer evil; how does anybody ever awaken to God and the Good; to truth, beauty and virtue? 

It would seem impossible to escape - given that Men are corrupted both within and without. 

Well, there is an escape - but of course it must be recognized and chosen. 

The escape becomes possible when someone's life reaches a reductio ad absurdum: by which I mean, the situation when a person finds-himself thinking, saying or doing something so monstrously wrong that he shocks and awakens himself. 

This shocking and awakening moment has happened to me, more than once; and on a particular occasion which made me recognize that my entire (atheistic) morality must-be evil - since it had led to this situation. 

There was a moment when I realized that if I can think this is right and proper, based-on and derived-from my moral principles; then my moral principles are revealed as rotten - therefore wrong. 

If I was not to be evil, I needed urgently to understand and reject the moral assumptions that led to the immorality of that reductio ad absurdum. 

It seems obvious that many people have gone beyond this point - and that our society as a whole has gone beyond this point. 

As a clear example: when a society has developed explicit and official moral principles that lead to coercively taking children from their loving natural parents and into the institutional horrors of state custody; in order that the children can be poisoned with hormones and surgically-mutilated; in order to enforce a delusion and pretense that they have thereby 'changed sex'... then that society has reached such an extreme stage of depravity that even the grossest and vilest reductio ad absurdum cannot any longer be recognized. 

At an individual level, the success of Alcoholics Anonymous often derives from an individual reaching such a point of personal degradation from drinking, that he wakens-up to the fact that his own rationalizations for drinking are absurd, that he is 'an alcoholic' who cannot deal-with alcohol; and stopping drinking must become the focus of his effort. 

The reductio has awakened him to the need to extract himself from his life as an alcoholic. 

To be effective, this entails not only explicit recognition and repentance; but having a higher reason to stop drinking: in a word God. Alcoholics Anonymous is built from the insight that the alcoholic will not change his life unless there is a higher and stronger motivation than the attainment of short-term pleasure (or the alleviation of short-term suffering). 

In other words, the reductio moment must be followed by a conversion experience. 

And if it is not - then insight will simply lead to despair, or will negate itself with a return to the old patterns. 

The capacity to experience a reductio ad absurdum and to respond by conversion is therefore is a test for save-ability, a test of whether a person is doomed to damnation - or can extract himself from from the downward vortex into self-chosen hell. 

The reductio relies-upon both a residual capacity for moral revulsion And a residual desire for meaning, purpose and coherence that can only come from a life based-around the reality of god/s. 

But when a person (an institution, a nation, a world...) finds himself thinking, saying or doing something monstrous derived-from what he supposes to be true-assumptions and correct-principles - yet having arrived he does not recognize he has arrived at a reductio ad absurdum...

Well, then he is beyond saving...

That point, for many individuals - and for all institutions, nations and the world - was reached in 2020. From 2020 the world itself is a reductio ad absurdum. Either one recognizes the fact... or not.  

We are at a profoundly maladaptive stage in the degenerative pathology of modern consciousness; that is to say the Consciousness Soul - in which we experience our-selves as cut-off from the world and other people. 

The subjective experience of the self now regards itself as a meaningless epiphenomenon, a free-spinning cog; with no access to reality, and no validity to its thoughts. 

Therefore, people do not trust their own thinking, do not even trust their own powers of observation and reasoning. They doubt (to the point of paralysis) any conclusions that they may themselves reach - even about the simplest and most obvious of matters. 

Yet people need to live - so lacking anything from-within (anything that they will believe, or can motivate them); they must by default respond to external guidance. 

Consequently, modern people (especially women) have become almost wholly passive and dependent-upon external inputs of facts and values; which mostly come via mass and social media, and from 'official' institutional sources. 

Women are most prone to this passivity and gullibility, since their evolved disposition is to rely on the peer group for life-guidance; and for motivating their behaviour.  

(Or in practice they rely upon whatever modern simulacrum psychologically most-approximates the ancestral peer group: i.e. mass/ social media and the official consensus of those with power) 

The desire to fit-in to the norms of this perceived peer group is very powerful - and when people are lacking any more powerful inner motivation it is overwhelming, irresistible; and people become incapable of learning from experience. 

And as men have become much more behaviourally-feminized (apparently from many contributing reasons); men too have become increasingly helpless against their own perceived (but actually Establishment-manufactured) peer group motivations.  

Consider the birdemic, or any other of the Big Lies such as climate change, antiracism or the sexual revolution. There is, in the first place, no reason At All to believe the mass Media, the official bureaucracy, the corporate PR, the international or national politicians - since they are known to be incompetent and have bad incentives. 

On top of that; they are known habitual and extreme, grossly inconsistent and incoherent in their statements, and show zero capacity to evaluate the consequences of their policies or learn from experience. 

Further; they have now all-but prevented (made impossible, punishable, illegal) all public dissent from the dishonest, manipulative gibberish they spout...

Yet the mass of the public cannot see this, cannot comprehend it, will not think about it, will not question it - and have shown an open-ended and apparently infinite capacity for zealous credulity. The masses regard whatever happen-to-be today's facts and theories as 100% good, true, vital and necessary. 

What this means is that the typical, majority, modern Man ignores that which he knows from his own experience and by his own reasoning (which he believes to be worthless); and therefore, necessarily, thinks and does whatever the dominant external sources tell him to think and do - without limit and regardless of changes and contradictions in this external input. 

This is exactly what we see everywhere around us in the world today. 

It is therefore completely ineffective, therefore futile, to explain and show modern Man the arbitrary, dishonest, and inconsistent behaviour of the Global Establishment/ officialdom and the mass media - because that is an appeal to his own motivation to think, discern, reason and act upon the outcome. So, modern Man will believe powerful external authority regardless...

There is an answer; but it is religious and metaphysical. Modern Man must consciously choose (because that is what the Consciousness Soul requires) to believe in God; and specifically believe-in the Good creator God of Christianity, who is our divine Father - we his children...

And from this modern Man must come to understand and believe that his own thinking is potentially valid: and that his own best discernment of truth is the best possible motivation for life. 

The best motivation - because he is a child of God, who shares in the divine; and the best because his loving God will provide specific and individual guidance for his life. 

Only then can modern Man come to see-for-himself, think-for-himself, and learn from his experiences; and become sufficiently motivated to over-ride the external, pervasive, evil-seeking programming from the Global Establishment.  

The good reason is that all politics is corrupt, and that thinking about politics is a deceptive distraction from what Christians ought to be doing. 

This is a perfectly reasonable and sensible motivation - although the consequences are pretty extreme - and include striving for silence and zero opinion on socio-political matters. 

It would mean genuinely-ignoring the mainstream official and media information and interpretations on life; and there are not many people I know of who actually do that (instead, they either accept or reject - but don't ignore). 

The bad reason for 'ignoring' politics is when Christians fail one or more of the 2020-21 Litmus Tests, and want to create wriggle-room by which they can continue to support Leftist causes. 

This is bad, because it is dishonest. Such a person is actually just pretending to ignore politics, covertly; so that they can continue to support the globally-dominant, institutionally-pervasive side of Leftism in the spiritual war - in one or more favoured respects. 

(And as of 2021; Leftism is, in actuality, on the side of purposive evil - Leftism, of course, includes All of the mainstream political parties and groups. And there is No 'political Right' in the West - only Christians (and the majority of self-identified "Christians" are fake - being covert Leftists). The non-Christian or atheist "Right" are merely a species of Leftism - as is becoming ever clearer with each passing week; as they sell-out and take-the-ticket, en masse.) 

The covert-Leftism motivation is bad for at least three reasons: because it is a failure or refusal to make necessary discernments; because it is dishonestly putting socio-politics above Christianity - while pretending to do the opposite; and simply because Leftism (in its many, and mutating, manifestations) is the primary strategy of Satan.  

Note added: Deciding whether someone is motivated by a genuine desire to ignore politics in order to concentrate on Christianity; or is covertly Leftist and is pretending to ignore politics in order to follow the mainstream in some (anti-Christian) respect - is, of course, a matter of judgment. And judgment is based on inference about another person's state of mind, and therefore may be wrong. Yet, judging others is both inevitable and necessary for Christians; and we must act upon our judgments. (No need, then, for Christians to feel guilty or to be evasive about judgment!) Also, we must discern and judge so often in modern life that we cannot afford to be hesitant, conflicted or squeamish about the matter; but on the contrary should strive to be swift, light-hearted and decisive in our judging of others. However, we must also be open to the possibility of our own error, and prepared to repent and revise our judgments in light of further experience.  

Kevin McCall has taken a recent post from this blog, and extended the argument to conclude "Magic, or Bust!" (You need to read that post to see what he, and I, mean by 'magic'.)

So McCall argues that 'white magic' is, or ought to be, one aimed-at goal in these times. Indeed, I cannot think of any more-valuable and more deeply-satisfying thing someone can do than this. 

Valuable because it is a contribution to God's ongoing work of creation; satisfying because that which we contribute is from our unique individuality (exactly which, nobody-else could contribute). 

But how to do it? It is clear that good magic ("white magic") cannot nowadays be done as it was in the past. The modern consciousness has become almost completely cut-off from the divine if there is reliance upon spontaneous and unconscious mechanisms. Also cut-off from the consciousness of other-Men for old methods of aligning our will with the divine. So modern Man experiences himself as alone in a meaningless universe. 

To regain and experience 'participation' in both consciousness and that of other Men; Modern Man needs to attain this in a conscious and chosen fashion, in thinking (i.e. the state of Owen Barfield's Final Participation). 

If this is the "Magic" we need to seek; the how do we seek it? Given that any attempt to compel Magic by will-power can only be ineffective, or lead to 'black' magic. 

Well, first of all we need to be able to 'detect' Magic when it is happening - and when it is not. We need to learn that discernment in ourselves. Simply by knowing and valuing Magic, we will tend to increase its intensity, duration and frequency - as contrasted with someone who does not value Magic who will be more likely to think or do something that dissipates the state. 

Then we can learn in a negative sense what states of mind and conditions are hostile to magic. For most of us that will be situations of distraction, hyper-stimulation, rigidly constrained circumstances (like bureaucracy and form-filling), and passive states of impaired consciousness (including intoxication). 

In general, modern Man tends to seek passive forms of consciousness; seeks to be overwhelmed by external stimuli (such as media inputs; novel or highly-stimulating situations) - but if attained, this blocks any possibility of White Magic. 

Eventually we might learn the kind of activity and situation that is conducive to the sought-after Magical consciousness. McCall mentions art, prayer and meditation - and of course these terms are very broad in themselves. But also there are particular places, 'hobbies', activities (such as walking) - even certain times of day. 

Circumstances will never be causal, but may be conducive - yet even what is conducive will change through time due (for example) to habituation, changing specific situations, and changes in personality - including illness. 

Therefore what helps in attaining the Final Participation state of Magic needs to be discovered for each person; and probably rediscovered as what once worked well, loses its effectiveness. 

This is a world where all political activity in opposition to the Satanic Global Establishment is increasingly illegal or impossible. We can interpret this as a further encouragement to do what we, anyway, ought to be doing - which is to stop seeking political Answers to the evil of these times; and instead to focus on a Romantic and Christian response of purposive, individual, spiritual activity.  

Everyone is pointing-at this broken world - Everyone is doing it including the Global Establishment who actually broke it and who make sure it keeps breaking! 

This is a neat trick practiced by those on the side of evil and against God: David Icke calls it Problem-Reaction-Solution - 'They' create a problem, use Their control of bureaucracies and media to evoke a massive social reaction, then impose Their fake-solution - their 'answer' (for which the problem and reaction were in truth just an excuse). 

That, pretty much, summarizes the entirety of local/ national/ international 'government' here and now. 

But if the answers of the Global Establishment are evil-seeking, then what is is the Real Answer to the problems we see everywhere? 

It is only a partial Answer is that we should stop creating fake-problems and exaggerating them. Even if this was done, there remain many serious problems in the world. 

Even if this was a world of Peace, Prosperity and Comfort, then the real problems would remain unaddressed - because that is merely 'materialism' and leaves-out the spiritual and the divine. 

A 'PPC'-world would still be (and this is the main problem) a world of misery, degeneration, disease and death; and without the spiritual and divine it must be a world of alienation; a purposeless world of of meaninglessness, and transient illusion. 

There can be no material answer to spiritual and religious problems - and this fact used to be widely understood, as recently as the middle 1970s it was mainstream. 

But in context of rapid Christian apostasy, and the materialism and bureaucracy of existent Christianity; this led to a futile hope of salvation in environmentalism, the arts, and utopian social arrangements. 

When (by the late 1970s, early 1980s) it became obvious that these hopes had failed, the West refocused on materialism with a new zeal. 

The difficulty is that (as of 2021) people are apparently no longer capable of discerning what are the real problems, and indeed incapable of basic common sense reasoning. 

The mass of Men are now, by strict definitions, insane - living (by choice) in a manipulated world of delusional abstractions, and aggressively unwilling to awaken or to think. 

From such Men as we have become; we can expect No effective and Good social or political Answers. 

This means that (here and now) we cannot even imagine what the right Answers would be. 

But we can recognize that our problems run so deep - into Men's very thought-processes, their basic assumptions about reality, their deep habits and reflexes - that any effective answer must be extremely 'radical': must cut very deep, at the roots. 

And therefore than the real, true and Good answer to the broken world must be massively disruptive. 

Massive disruption really seems unavoidable. The Global Establishment is telling-us, explicitly, that our lives already have been and will continue to be transformed in ways that are indeed staggeringly radical and disruptive. 

The genuine choice is then between a massive disruption led by the powers of evil and aiming at evil; and one that is a consequence of the spiritual and religious Christian transformation of Men - who will then (only after such a positive transformation) develop a strong and courageous commitment to the side of God. 

What would happen then (after spiritual and religious transformation) cannot be predicted; certainly it cannot be planned - because the Answer is not political. 

Politics will only lead us down, further towards that hell-on-earth envisaged, planned, implemented and already well-advanced by the Global Establishment. 

Our actual situation and what we need to do are therefore very clear and very simple. 

What is neither clear nor simple is to predict what will happen as a consequence... that is not only unknown but unknowable. 

We are therefore required (if we wish to avoid hell-on-earth - which evaluation seems rare) to step into the future with courage, hope and love - sustained only by faith.     

Since (from where we now are) this worldly consequences are certain to be adverse; such a faith must be other-wordly (post-mortal) - based upon knowledge of the resurrected life to come from following Jesus. 

And this we will not get from any of the main 'Christian' churches as they Now are, but must develop - substantially each for himself; from our own resources and direct divine guidance. 

This is absolutely possible and attainable for every individual - but only if he wants it. 

And there is the problem. Someone who wants salvation can be helped to attain it by many and effective means - but for the masses who do not want the gift of resurrected eternal life in Heaven... nothing can be done. 

Readers may know of my special regard for the Fourth Gospel (called 'John' in the Bible) - which I regard as an eyewitness account of the life and teaching of Jesus written by his closest disciple (Lazarus) soon after the ascension. 

Some of my key convictions have been developed over recent years in interaction with William James Tychonievich, who has a similar but non-identical understanding of this greatest of all books. WmJas brings particular and distinctive skills and knowledge to the task of understanding. 

William has now made a new blog where he has collected his scattered analyses and explications of the Fourth Gospel - if you don't already know it, I recommend you take a look.  

Supposing you believe you are a Christian, but just fail just one of the 2020 Litmus Tests - for example the commonest failure, which is the birdemic? 

(But an analogous argument applies to all the other Tests, mutatis mutandis.)

But surely (you say) if I self-identify as a Christian, and I want to stay a Christian - why shouldn't I be able to do this? Surely Christianity is one thing and politics is another thing?

Well, in an abstract, reductionist and theoretical way - yes you can do this; in the sense that it is not rationally-impossible. 

But here and now, as of 2021, you won't do this. If you accept the birdemic narrative, you will not stay Christian. 

Firstly because in believing-in the birdemic, you are believing in The System: you are buying-into the narrative of the Global Establishment, officialdom and the mass media. 

You are passively-accepting your dominant world view from Them. 

Therefore you have already surrendered your conscience and your discernment. 

But even if you somehow manage to negotiate this; the birdemic is tightly-integrated into - is indeed the primary rationale and justification-for, the totalitarian coup of early 2020 and its strategy of Big Lies, omni-surveillance, micro-control; its fake-response of lock-down-social-distancing-masking; its PSYOPS of fuelling compulsory untruthfulness, fear, resentment and despair; its (rotating) single issue mode of thinking where anything and everything can-and-should be sacrificed to the (Establishment defined and propagated) birdemic project. 

Therefore, in actual practice (never mind the abstract logic), if you were a Christian before the birdemic; you will not be a Christian if you fail that Litmus Test. 

You will not be motivated to oppose the permanent prohibition and eradication of all Christian social activities. 

You will not even be able to resist supporting purposive strategic evil in your own mind - since you have placed the choice of following Jesus Christ as a lower priority than the birdemic; you have subordinated Jesus to the Establishment; and the Establishment is evil. ... 

The Establishment is evil in the precise sense of being on the side of Satan against God - indeed, being dominated by Satan and the demons.

(And if you can't perceive this staggeringly obvious and explicit reality - then you are already on the dark side.) 

Hence, by making the wrong political choices, by failing one or more Litmus Tests, you have already made your choice against Him. 

However it may have been in the past or in other places; as of 2021 Bad Politics kills Christianity. 

As a sometime squeezebox man (piano accordion and melodeon) - I have been on the lookout for good players over a span of several decades. 

I've seem plenty of remarkable playing, but nothing as remarkable as these two pieces performed by a young Irish folk musician called Cillian King. 

The thing is; his instrument is an Anglo-Concertina, which gives a different note on the push and the pull. This makes it great for some kinds of folk music (since it has a built-in bounce, due to the need to change direction of the bellows so often) - but not for for classical music. 

Furthermore, it is essentially a diatonic instrument designed to play in two major keys (a fifth apart) on two rows of buttons; and various missing 'accidental' notes (needed to play chromatically and in other keys) are distributed in a third row. 

All of which would, I would have thought, made it impossible to pay what this young chap plays below. The fact that he does so with great verve and musical phrasing is a terrific bonus. He actually gets better the long the pieces go on!

First: Moto Perpetuo Opus 11 by Paganini. 

Second: Prelude from Violin Partita No. 3 BWV 1006 by Bach.