Bruce Charlton's Notions

We don't usually enjoy travel or fishing programmes - but this one is different; being presented by two droll chaps called Rob Sitch and Tom Gleisner who usually work as comedians; but who also love fishing (especially that most picturesque type: fly fishing). The series consists of their visits to various places around the world to engage in this pastime. 

The production values are high, the rivers and their settings look absolutely wonderful, the atmosphere soothing; but woven through the pictures is a quietly amusing commentary from the two lads - who seem to be (and are) old college friends and work colleagues. The flavour is something like an Aussie Three Men in a Boat.

After the first couple of episodes (in which they were finding their feet - which is why I linked to episode three, above) each is very artfully constructed; with the same kind of crafted but convincing 'spontaneity' that might be seen from Jeremy Clarkson's Top Gear*

To complete the package - the acoustic guitar dominated background music is really pleasing; and the into/ outro theme is beautiful and memorable. 

*Whose recent Clarkson's Farm I would also recommend, both for belly laughs and also a lot of interesting stuff about English farming - 2020 style! 

My understanding is that the landslide English (English) vote in favour of Brexit was one of those moments that was divinely-engineered to have potential to lead to a widespread Christian and spiritual awakening in the nation. 

As a result of this hope-full sign; with William Wildblood and John Fitzgerald, Albion Awakening was launched - with an explicit intent to encourage this revival. 

I'm not sure how long that window of opportunity was open; but it soon emerged that nothing spiritually significant had happened. 

The English stayed as materialist, consumerist, hedonic and cowardly as ever; the mainstream political process again took-over; and Brexit dissipated into fake, boring, materialistic wrangles among Establishment representatives concerning bureaucratic micro-problems. 

After years of delay and dilution, of lies and propaganda, my impression is that (whatever the official story) nothing substantive has happened at all. I think the UK is supposed to have left the EU in some kind of way; but I don't believe it for a moment. 

And since early 2020, all such issues have - anyway - been gobbled-up by the global Establishment coup; so that now all people everywhere live in one world System - where remaining life-differences are merely quantitative and regarded as temporary; where all 'politics' is merely the inter-office managerial wrangles of a single mega-bureaucracy; and where no nation (no person!) is allowed to dissent or opt-out on any issue that the covert international government regards as important (e.g. sexual revolution/ birdemic/ climate change/ antiracism).  

We live in Fukayama's 'End of History', New World Order, World Government, as planned and pursued by the globalist Establishment for more than a century (and of which we were fore-warned by Establishment ex-insiders such as Aldous Huxley and George Orwell) ... 

And, as always, the reality for the masses turns out to be very different-from, and much worse-than, they were led to hope-for and expect. 

So Brexit is dead - that window of opportunity is closed - that hope came to naught. 

But what about the recent 'freedom' marches in London? Perhaps the biggest grassroots public gatherings/ demonstrations in national history - many hundreds of thousands of people? One cannot help but feel somewhat stirred by any expression of resistance - and to wish them well... 

But can we hope for anything substantive from them - or will they go the way of Brexit? 

Well, no; we cannot hope for anything substantive - not if they remain protest-orientated, and focused only by a negative agenda and rationalized merely by an hedonic and utilitarian 'moral' calculus (making more people less miserable and more happy). 

No hope unless 'protest' was swiftly followed by a spiritual Christian revival that would be a positive agenda. 

No hope unless they became a no-institutional but powerful fellowship of Christian believers - because any alternative socio-political institution will surely be assimilated or destroyed. 

Only an other-worldly and eternal frame: only acknowledgement of this as a God-created world - and active and explicit support of the divine agenda... only such could provide the love-motivated long-termism and courage in a Good cause that have been so profoundly lacking in England for so many decades.  

Otherwise the movement, no matter how massive and enthusiastic, will quickly be controlled, converged, co-opted and intimidated into extinction or irrelevance.

This done using the power of the media (and public addiction to it) to manipulate, marginalize and demonize; by dishonest and selective policing and application of the 'law'; and by multiple (tried and tested) techniques such as double-agents, spies, agents provocateurs and false flags.

A Good future lies only on the other side of a powerful spiritual and Christian revival that acknowledges the war of Good and evil, the primacy of the spiritual; and explicitly takes the side of God. 

And the Good of this future is to be measured primarily by spiritual criteria - with any material benefits (such health, prosperity, peace, happiness) unpredictable and secondary by-products of a primarily spiritual focus and priority. 

But if we aim, instead, directly for the material benefits... then we will get nothing but more chaos, fear and despair. 

WmJas Tychonievich clarifies that the invented 'ethical' imperative against 'ex-clusion' masks the fact of coercive and mandatory in-clusion of all individuals within the global totalitarian System ('the Matrix'); also that, increasingly, self-exclusion (that is, anybody choosing to live outside of the System and its tightly-controlled ideology) is forbidden. 

But does forbidden mean impossible? Well... not exactly. Because the System is - by design - a machine of damnation - Therefore They want everybody to want to live inside it. This is why They invited the fake positive morality of inclusion, and manufactured abhorrence of exclusion. The built-in covert assumption behind-which is that everybody, necessarily and always, wants to be on the inside.  

Because the crucially damning (i.e. salvation-rejecting) effect of the System is when people embrace and endorse the System - think by it. To regard the System as Good is a demonic value-inversion; which entails regarding Heaven as bad. 

However, the System ceases to be an effective instrument of evil when someone knows the nature of evil (i.e. opposition to God, divine creation, The Good), has recognized the System as being evil, and has rejected the System for that reason. 

The global totalitarian System is a material one, which excludes the spiritual (denies the reality of the spiritual) - because only the material realm is controllable. The System now includes all of public discourse, and all major institutions (including the churches); and its grip increases daily. 

Of course, those demonic Beings who control the System are not themselves material - and They know perfectly well the reality of God, creation and The Good (which they oppose). It is this larger perspective of the demons that enables them to control the System and to make it served the goals of damnation - while their human servants and dupes are mostly oblivious. 

The strategy of totalitarian evil is to induce an habitual, passive, unconscious materialism among all humans; thus to confine them completely within the System - hence to be able fully to monitor and control them.   

So, it is not - after all - difficult to escape the System; because the spiritual realm lies beyond. But escape is not in the physical realm - not in the realm of society or culture - not in any institution (including not in a church - when church is functioning in the public realm) - since all of these are by-now net-absorbed-into the System (corrupted, converged); and the System is evil. 

The spiritual real is explicitly known only in the realm of thinking; and within thinking in that kind of thinking that could be called direct knowing, conscious intuition or heart-thinking: in other words the spiritual is to be found in thinking that comes from our real (and divine) self. 

Such thinking is undetectable and uncontrollable by the System. 

And such thinking participates in a realm of primary thinking that is shared by, contributed-to, accessed-by - all other Beings who are engaged in intuitive direct knowing. So, we are not alone. 

Yet, heart-thinking and direct knowing are only temporary and partial states in this mortal life - which is instituted for our experience and learning - for our 'education'. We who live in this era of global totalitarianism have each, personally, much to learn from the experiences (which is indeed why we are alive, now).  

And we may - if we have made the right choices and have the right values - also have a life outside of the System in addition to the spiritual realm of primary thinking; I mean the realm of love: love of family, spouse, children, real-friends - and including (for some people) love that crosses the portal and encompasses some of the 'so-called-dead'.

So there is life outside the System; life which always and necessarily escapes the System and is free! Yet, as the System increases its scope and grip, this free and loving life is a more-and-more completely a spiritual life, which we may consciously know almost wholly in the realm of (primary) thinking.  

It is a theme running through Rudolf Steiner's philosophical writings that we need to trust in our own thinking; and that if we do not - then we are lost; because we can trust nothing 

When I read this line of reasoning; I experienced an immediate sense of recognition and affirmation: I felt that I knew exactly what he meant, and why it was so important. 

In a positive sense; it recognizes that all logical, evidential and systematic constructs ought to be built on top of (and consistent with) intuition (or direct knowing) - thinking-intuition conscious and explicit, and explicitly recognized as such. 

In a negative sense; it recognizes that someone who has ceased to trust in his own thinking has become a mere puppet, a hollow simulacrum; mentally paralyzed and a conduit for the ideas of others. 

And I also saw that to induce and make habitual a distrust of one's own thinking is a major strategy of modern ideology and propaganda - over several centuries and escalating. 

The aim of much modern culture and lifestyle is to induce doubt about even one's own strongest, deepest and clearest intuitions; to encourage a lack of trust of personal insight; to feel plagued by the uncertainty of every intuition. 

Now, of course, modern habits of mind immediately seize upon doubt and uncertainty about 'how can we know?' whether this intuition is real - it might be wrong. 

We tend feel certain and sure and confident only about the 'fact' that intuitions are often wrong (that old  paradox of relativism!). 

And what about 'other people' who 'claim' to have solid and lucid intuitions - might they be mistaken, lying, crazy, manipulative?... Maybe we ourselves are those things? How can we know? 

And how can we know for sure that intuition really is the bottom line anyway; how can we be certain that we really ought to trust thinking - what is the proof?

(All of which just goes to show what happens when we do not recognize that we must trust our own best thoughts - and when we do not trust our-selves to know our own best thoughts.) 

What such thinking actually arises from is a mistrust in our motivations; and that may well arise from the evil of our own motivations because we do not know the truth. 

Someone who rejects true knowledge of God the loving creator (and us his children) has refused or violated his own intuitive knowing about that which just-is primary and foundational - and such a one surely cannot trust his thinking on other matters. 

(When we don't get first things right, second things do not follow.) 

Because all unreflective and passive modern Men have accepted false metaphysical assumptions regarding the basic nature of reality by default - and that is where intuition needs to start.

Of course; our ability to know is limited - and may be relatively small; but we (each personally) cannot do any better than what we personally think, and directly-know. 

I recently described how the evil motivation of the birdemic peck could be inferred from the fact that it was unnecessary, ineffective and harmful. The entirety of the birdemic response... exactly the same. 

It later struck me that this Triad of Evil applies to All the core Leftist policies of 2021: all the Litmus Tests - all the Big Evil Lies. 

Think about the global transformation in alleged response to the CO2 Climate Warming Crisis Change Emergency ... each and all of the measures are unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Think about antiracism - everything done in its name is unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Or the sexual revolution - all the legislation to sustain 'human rights': unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful. 

Or whatever is regarded as primarily important to do by the Global Establishment, the Mass Media, large institutions of all kinds... unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful.

It is interesting to speculate why this should be - why the takeover of evil has been achieved by the same Triad of Evil - attitudes, priorities and policies that are conjured from nothing. 

The answer is that this is exactly how purposive evil works; it is exactly what would be expected when evil is dominant in the world. 

The strategic process of evil is, of course, driven by sin - and sin is the denial, negation, inversion of that reality which is God's creation. 

Since these times are by far the most evil in the known history of the world; of course the core strategic activities of the world in 2021 are unnecessary/ ineffective/ harmful.

The Triad of Evil is the new normal. 

I have often written about CG Jung on this blog; because he was a significant (albeit on and off) influence over a period of some thirty years, from my young adult life through to becoming a Christian. 

Jung is something of a help for atheists who experience alienation and 'division' very sharply - as I did (and do). Alienation is the awareness of being cut-off from 'the world' including human society - cut-off in a world of abstractions, thinking, un-naturalness - while division is the awareness that we live in separate worlds that do not join up: e.g. the worlds of solitude, family, education, the workplace, crowds, authority, mass media, the arts, science and technology...

The Jungian approach is to treat alienation and division as 'dis-ease'; as a therapeutic problem. In other words, the idea is to alleviate the misery, depression, hope-less-ness of this experience of being a compartmentalized and cut-off subjectivity. 

This Jungian 'therapy' might be actual psychotherapy with a therapist in 'Analytic Psychology' - or, much more often, a kind of self-help, or self-therapy; based on reading and understanding Jung's ideas - or at least some secondhand (and more accessible) account of them. This latter was my own approach - I read a great deal by and about Jung, thought deeply about it, and tried hard to live by it. 

But the idea was not wholly 'therapeutic', because the way I encountered Jung was in a context of artistic creativity. I think it may initially have been (age 19) via reading Michael Tippett's essays published in Moving into Aquarius; then various bits of actual Jung, an short book by Anthony Storr, and a Jungian analysis of Wagner's Ring (and Mozart's Magic Flute) by Robert Donington. 

At any rate; Jung came to me as both a way of feeling-better, and as a way of artistic creation - a way in which the artist might on the one hand integrate the warring elements of his personality and simultaneously re-connect with 'the public' or 'the audience' by reference to the shared archetypes of the collective unconscious. 

This was explicitly the case with Michael Tippett - whose best work (from the late 1930s and for about a decade), which is maybe the best English classical music of the twentieth century, was written under the impact of Jung. It was also argued (by Donington and others) to be the explanation for the uncanny power of many other artistic works, especially those that had reference to 'mythic' elements.

So the promise of Jung was alluring: that one might both heal that misery of personal alienation so characteristic of twentieth century life and beyond; and also deepen the capacity creatively to connect with other people. 

The difficulty is, however, that of having psychology at the bottom line; because when psychology provides the ultimate justification then life becomes a matter of subjective 'feels'. And it turns out that - in practice - the Jungian therapeutic strategies don't work very well. 

This is not surprising because they do not address causes, but only effects. There was, perhaps, a hope that integrated Men conscious of collective archetypes might 'make the world a better place'. But the problems are actually intrinsic to mortal life (and the ancients realized); secondly to human consciousness - as it now is; and thirdly to the nature of modern 'industrial', mass, bureaucratic society - which has only become worse over the past century. 

Jungian strategies do help a bit, especially at first; but the effect is neither profound nor lasting; and sooner or later, the Jungian perspective dissolves into a corrosive, 'relativistic', subjectivism - which devolves towards short-termist selfish hedonism. 

This is because psychology is not anchored, and goes nowhere - except to death. 

So Jungian ideas take their place among the failed promises of a this-world utopia; and we are set back to the ancient realization that mortal life in this world cannot satisfy our deepest needs; and even the satisfaction of our superficial, here-and-now desires turns out to be very temporary and/or partial.

Also, the Jungian perspective lacks ultimate purpose. Even if Jungian techniques really worked; they would only restore 'dis-ease' to 'ease'. The Jungian basis for creativity may explain why things are emotionally powerful; but do not provide a reason for creativity per se; do not provide a purpose for creativity any more profound than that of an analgesic or stimulant drug. 

One a man, or Mankind, has been healed - then what does he actually do? Once men are united by their awareness of the collective unconscious... what then? 

The aimed at situation is a state-of being and there is no purpose, no dynamic. Which may be why Jungians tend to adopt 'Eastern' types of spirituality derived from Hinduism or Buddhism - in which (for Westerners) the hope is of a permanent state of unchanging bliss, without awareness of any separate self - assimilated into oneness...

By contrast, the Christianity I have arrived at sees this mortal life as purposive, and a preparation for immortality as a separate self - not assimilated into oneness but instead many persons whose purposes are harmonized by love. 

I see creativity not as the removal of divisions; but instead as the overflowing of love between persons, between beings - by a close analogy of the way that an ideal (eternal) family operates, in which the individual family members are continually experiencing, learning and developing.  

From a this-worldly perspective this looks like an attempt to ignore the problems of this mortal life and instead yearn for another world; but properly it should be understood as the only way in which this mortal life can be made more than mere, temporary, psychological states.  

When we look forward to eternal resurrected life in Heaven; then the experiences of this mortal life are given permanent relevance. When this eternal life is loving, personal, familial and everlastingly creative - then there is a real, objective, permanent value for the things we do here and now... including creative work such as writing, music and art. 

It turns-out - contrary to mainstream expectation - that Jungianism is unattainable because this-worldly - hence subject to 'entropy' (the worldly tendency towards change; disease, degeneration, death); whereas Christianity is practical and realistic for everybody because rooted in the eternal love and creativity of Heaven. 

(Creation can be understood as the true opposite of entropy.)

No matter our situation or past; we can all participate in the making and enhancing of future Heaven. 

The good (loving, creative) things that happen in this life can (if detected, discerned and valued) be carried forward into Heaven...

While bad things can (when acknowledged) teach us about sin and the need for repentance; so we can repudiate and leave these behind at the time of resurrection - because Heaven, to be Heaven, must be a place of love only. 

Whatever happens to a Christian can be regarded as grist to the mill for experiencing and learning; and that in itself is therapeutic in a way that goes beyond psychology. 

The global Establishment - being endemically dishonest - believe that They can do anything They wish. But They can't do most of what They suppose. 

In particular, Their positive projects will not happen. 

For instance, They cannot do 'transhumanism'. This project attempts to enhance human powers by technology and go beyond the human to a higher level at which there will be no misery, illness, ageing, or death. 

Of course this is not desirable - since it amounts to the mass genocide of Mankind (to 'transcend' Man is to destroy actually-existing Man). But also none of this is possible - and the idea it is an attainable goal is based upon various combinations of ignorance and lies. 

As with 'trans' sex operations; we are capable of wrecking humans, of making them miserable and dysfunctional by technology; but not of enhancing them. And, as with trans operations, the transhumanist scheme can only be maintained by an evil derangement of human thinking; so that abusive mutilation, poisoning and chronic suffering is triumphantly 'rebranded' as an enhancement of life.  

Other instances; They cannot achieve omni-surveillance and total control. They cannot 'build back better'. They cannot re-set the world. They cannot control global climate. 

All these are far beyond human capability; and - thanks to Their activities - human capability is collapsing at a rate perceptible by the month, and accelerating.

All Their positive grandiose strategies, schemes and plans are not possible, and will not happen. 

But what They can do is to destroy. They cannot build back - but They can destroy what has been built. 

They cannot save the world from 'climate change' - but they can wreck the infrastructure of communications, trade, power and transport.  

They cannot make a sustainable global totalitarianism - but They can destroy The System which sustains a large majority of the world's population. 

They cannot make a healthier world in (fake) response to the (fake) birdemic - but They can permanently cripple global health services. 

They cannot make a safer and better internet from the incipient fake 'cyberpandemics' - but They can destroy the internet (having previously compelled the world to depend upon it for survival). 

They cannot make a new, motivating and inspiring Leftist ideology - but They can destroy the institutions of religions and churches all over the world. 

In sum; They cannot save the world, but They can wreck the world with the fake measures supposed to save it. 

This is a matter of inter-demonic warfare. Most of the evil in the world at present is managerial and bureaucratic; being based upon the justification that the end justifies the means - in other words that the evil methods (lying, manipulation, intimidation, bribery and corruption etc.) are 'unfortunate' necessities only ('reluctantly') deployed in order to reach (allegedly, falsely) desirable and necessary goals; such as stopping the birdemic, ending racism, preventing global warming etc. 

But the more-extremely evil beings know that the 'evil means to good ends argument' is always itself an instrument of evil; and furthermore that these 'ends' (whether good or evil) are impossible, cannot happen...

So the end result is always to get more and more short-term evil, going nowhere - except destruction. 

Because They include most of the richest and most influential people in the world; destruction of all that is good, or has good in it, is something They can do, are doing, will continue to do... Whatever the goals and ends with which They delude Themselves. 

It has been characteristic of my reading since mid teens that I read several to many books at a time. My mother used to be driven crazy by the way I carried a small/ medium-sized pile of books around with me - planting them wherever I wanted to sit. 

In those days it was mostly fiction that I read, but from my middle twenties I was more likely to read non-fiction including biographies. 

These are often disillusioning - even when they are (more or less) good (and most biographies published are terrible (far worse than most novels) - as you can see from the bio section in bookshops). Yet I continue to explore them - and will often read many or all the available biographies of someone who interests me. 

At present I am reading The Oxford Inklings by Colin Duriez - which I found in a secondhand bookshop in Glasgow; volume two of Rudolf Steiner's life by Peter Selg; a biography of Michael Tippett by Oliver Soden; and am expecting delivery of Sun King's Counsellor - a biography of Cecil Harwood by Simon Blaxland de Lange. 

The Inklings bio is primarily intended for a popular audience, as compared with the other available Inklings books - but the author 'knows his stuff' and writes in an enjoyable style. For someone like me there is not much that is new - but Duriez takes a different angle and highlights different aspects from other biographer, so it is nonetheless interesting. I was also pleased to see myself referenced!

The Tippett book is more revelatory. I have read several previous biogs of Tippett (incluyding a big one by Ian Kemp in the 1980s), and the composer's autobiography; but Soden has done a more thorough job. Unfortunately, the book also exhibits the common defects of modern biographies of a glib/ facetious tone, and pervasive leftist assumptions and propaganda. 

Cecil Harwood was best friends with both CS Lewis from when they were undergraduates, and Owen Barfield from schooldays; and Barfield and Harwood were appointed Lewis's literary executors. Harwood was an anthroposophist, headmaster of a Steiner school and became the leader of the main group of the British Anthroposophical Society. 

Blaxland de Lange wrote an enjoyable and valuable  (albeit eccentrically organized) biography of Barfield; so I am looking forward to this new one. 

One interesting aspect of the Tippett book that reinforces an insight that grew upon me only gradually is that Leftism (which grew mostly in Britain, and was led from Britain until the 1960s) was always mainly about the sexual revolution - and only secondarily about economics. 

(Tippett, in his youth, was actively involved in organized revolutionary communist politics = widely, recklessly sexually promiscuous with men - mostly. The personnel/ networks involved were all-but identical.) 

So the New Left of 'identity politics' (sexual 'liberation', antiracism, feminism etc) which emerged and took-over the Left leadership and socio-cultural mainstream from the middle 1960s (and which now rules the world) was from the later 1800s and increasingly through the early twentieth century - a hotbed of both promiscuity and 'nontraditional' sexuality among both leadership and many of the followers. 

In one sense I have known about this since my mid teens, through reading biographies of English Fabian Society leaders (Hubert Bland, GB Shaw, HG Wells, CEM Joad...), Socialists and Communists (the circles of Pre-Raphaelites, Edward Carpenter, Oscar Wilde). 

But - misled by the strong nonconformist Christian tradition of Leftism - I used to suppose that the economics came first, and the sex was secondary and optional. That the desire for radical social change - and the alleviation of poverty and deprivation - was the driving passion; while the desire for more sex with more kinds of people was a consequence of the economically-driven new society. 

Now I would say that the truth of Left motivation was more often, and more powerfully, sexual - and the complex apparatus of theoretical and activist Leftist politics was an elaborately indirect excuse and rationale for the desired sexual 'liberation'. 

Partly the economic/ political theory served to disguise the true motivation from individuals themselves, and partly it served to disguise a long termist strategy from the general public; because one clear factor that emerges is the degree to which the sexually radical colluded to promote and defend each other; the extent to which (from the earliest days) they operated as a cabal, a mafia, a conspiracy of interest. 

This has become obvious now; but a century ago was much less obvious - and the 'idealism' of Leftist economics and activities was more evident on the surface. 

What happened is evidence of corruption. The demonic side of Leftism worked mainly through sex and sexuality; and had its inevitably corrupting effect on those who embraced it; with attitudes, motivations and behaviours causing personal degeneration that would have been much more evident had it not been covered up and explained away by the collusion of other Leftists...

Until such a point of moral inversion was reached (after the middle 1960s) where the sexual revolution could be celebrated, promoted, subsidized - and finally enforced by legal and employment regulations; and biological, traditional, Christian sexuality could be demonized and excluded from public discourse (including education and 'science').

I now perceive that the Left was always about sex, because it always was demonic in its most powerful and pervasive motivations. Of course the Left (i.e. evil) is not only about sex and sexuality - because resentment, fear, and despair are now becoming even more dominant sins than sex. Modern Leftism is becoming more and more negative as it become more evil - because the deepest nature of evil is purely oppositional (against God, divine creation and The Good - and not 'for' anything). 

But while the masses demanded some positive and pleasurable motivation - it was mainly the prospect and promise of sex that took the place of religion as the main drive.

Economic, political and social Leftism provided (for a few generations) the necessary 'cover' to make this sexual behavioural priority into something that was - for a more Christian, and more moral, era - psychologically and sociologically plausible and defensible. 

Now that we live in a society where the Christian churches are all-but destroyed/ dwindled and corrupted; and where Big Lie based inverted-morality is globally dominant and mandatory - there is less and less need for the sexual revolution to retain its lures of promiscuity and novelty for the masses; who now live in a world of sexual lockdown and sexual distancing without any planned end.  

But for the ruling Establishment at its higher and secretive levels, I have no doubt that the sexual revolution - in more corrupt and more evil forms - retains its role as a primary covert motivator.

Not many books have affected me more than Walden by Henry David Thoreau - for me, it is one of the great essayistic prose works to which I return recurrently.  

But it is also a book that helped create and reinforce a delusion in my life - and it seems to be a common delusion in many Western lives for more than a century: the idea that each of us can and should be able to live a life that is both continually-rewarding and objectively-satisfactory. Each of us ought to be able to find and make an earthly paradise...

In Walden, Thoreau uses his personal experience and writerly gifts to create a masterly and evocative account of one year in what seems to be an almost wholly-satisfying life - a life well-lived. And, what is more, this account went on to become a highly-respected and frequently read classic (albeit, Thoreau died before this happened). 

As a young, romantic and alienated atheist, this was what I wanted to hear and needed to believe; that this mortal life could be made self-justifying - both on a moment-by-moment basis and overall. It seemed that Thoreau had 'proved' this. The next question was how to do this for myself, in my own life. 

Such was the expectation - and I embarked on a simultaneous exploration of my own 'inner' needs and abilities on the one hand; and the 'outward' side and exploration of the world of music, literature and the arts for further ideas and possibilities. 

When I discovered Colin Wilson's The Outsider just a few years later, I realized that here was another man on this same quest - since this book surveyed many lives in the same spirit of looking for examples of a life-well-lived; and Wilson announced himself as trying to complete in his own life what these had attempted in theirs. 

But after the first flush of excitement; I gradually realized that Wilson's verdict on the lives and works of his exemplars was negative. And I gradually realized, from my own studies in biography - including Thoreau - that this was always the case. 

A genius like Thoreau could create an artistic expression of the life-well-lived in this earthly paradise of Walden Pond; but he could not and did not himself actually lead such a life. 

The paradise was an artistic artefact - not a human possibility; an illusion which led to a delusion.

And all this is very obvious to most people - I am unusual in that it took me much longer to come to such a conclusion (perhaps due to my unusual capacity for absorption in art, and my personal need); and I only reached it after extensive exploration and years of increasingly-failed attempting.  

As is usual, the problem was my faulty metaphysical assumptions. I did not believe in God or a created world, I did not believe in Heaven. Hence I was engaged in the attempt to discover meaning, purpose, coherence and permanent value in a world that I had already decided could have none of these.

The ideal of a life-well-lived could only be a delusion because it could only, at best, last for the period while I was absorbed in a world where the artist was (in effect) God. So long as I dwelt imaginatively inside Walden; for so long I inhabited a purposive and meaning-laden world that the creator (Thoreau) had made - with relevance for my condition and addressing my needs. 

But whenever I left this world, I would return to a 'real life' in which I had decided there was no real point or purpose. So the attempt at paradise became an attempt to fool-myself, to make myself feel as if my life was self-justifying; even though I knew (i.e. had decided) it could not be.  

This is why I think it is so vitally important for us to recognize that this mortal life is not an end in itself but an education; mortal life is experiences of relevance to life eternal in Heaven, if we learn rightly from them. 

As such a life-well-lived is a matter of learning from experience, we can and should set-aside the ideal of constructing for our-selves an earthly paradise. 

That such is impossible was, indeed, the wisdom of the most ancient philosophers and theologians who have left records. They knew that this world was intrinsically one of disease, decay and death - a world of evanescence, imperfection and un-satisfactoriness; and that therefore its reason must be sought in its relation to some external world where 'entropy' (as we would call it) does not rule.

For Christians; this external world has been revealed as resurrected eternal life in Heaven; and it is this which gives real and permanent value to this transitory mortal life. 

Thus we can recognize our imaginations of living an ideal life in an earthly paradise as delusional; yet we shall not despair! 

But instead see life as experience and learning and therefore always be full of hope... and indeed eager anticipation. 

Unlike the earthly paradise; such is a wholly realistic and attainable ideal. 

Frederick Nietzche is generally known as one of the most vehement and radical foes of 'Christianity' - certainly he described himself as such in his last main book The Antichrist. 

Yet as I read Nietzsche's argument in The Antichrist now; it seems to be directed against mainstream, modern, Establishment materialist Leftism - against 2020 systemic totalitarianism triumphant - rather than against Christianity as I understand it.

Indeed, read this way, The Antichrist is a brilliant exposition of the dominant reductionist and secular negative- ideology that has infiltrated, subverted, inverted and (since the global church closures of least year) all-but destroyed institutional Christianity. 

Nietzsche's criticism's of Christianity are characteristic of modern, mainstream, secular, bureaucratic Leftism: The morality based on resentment; the incoherence of equality; that mass inculcation of 'pity' which is designed to paralyze with guilt; and to induce self-hatred, nihilism, despair and the desire for death (eg. abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide).  

Nietzsche's assumption was that there was only 'this world' and he failed to recognize that, if true, this negated all possible justifications for Life of the kind he sought. His diagnosis of Ahrimanic evil was exact and prescient. 

But - at the time of his final dementia and mutism - he had not recognized that his alternative of a morality of Life (by which he meant individual spontaneous instinct) was subhuman, selfish, destructively short-termist - and by nature and merely atavistic, regressive and Luciferic. 

In other words, Nietzsche had not got beyond a negative critique based upon unexamined assumptions. The development of human consciousness means that the Luciferic is unattainable (even if it were desirable) and the Ahrimanic inevitably defeats it. Thus the German National Socialists (who revered Nietzsche, and issued Zarathustra as a Bible-equivalent) began with a philosophy of Life; but inevitably ended with escalating bureaucracy. 

This failure of the Luciferic is why the actual effect of Nietzsche on the atheistic anti-Christian culture which followed, has been to lead towards the Sorathic world of spiteful destruction - a program of civilizational/ national/ personal annihilation - instead of his hoped-for fantasy of pagan strength, courage and dominance.   

What Nietzsche should have done (and perhaps would have done - given more time; and an intuitive recognition of such realities as God, creation and life beyond mortality) was to move on from his negative critique of historical-actual church-dominated Christianity, to apply his creative insights - his direct-knowing - to remaking Christianity instead of trying to destroy it. 

As things stood; Nietzsche was using a double-standard - applying his 'methods' only against Christianity; and not against the assumptions from-which he critiqued Christianity. 

Nietzsche's own method, if thoroughly applied, would have led him back to Christianity - but Christianity of a very different nature than the one from which he began. 

Also, as I have said before, I think it likely that Nietzsche was himself 'saved' - i.e. that after death he chose to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

Why? How? Well, in a nutshell, what Nietzsche had against Christianity was that he believed it was not true. 

If when, after death, Nietzsche discovered that Christianity was true; then a Man of his creativity and honesty - and with his passionate human motivations - would likely have chosen active, eternal, interpersonal Life in Heaven; rather than the anti-Life lies, ugliness and sordid sins of Hell; or the living-death, un-conscious, blissed-out passivity of Nirvana.  

Supposing there was a Thing; and supposing that Thing had the following characteristics according to published, official Establishment data.

The Thing is supposed to solve a New and Severe Problem. 

Suppose that the official data demonstrates that:

1. The Thing is Unnecessary

The Thing is not needed, because the Problem is neither New nor Severe; but instead not-significantly-different-from many such Problems in the past; all of which resolved without any such Thing.   

2. The Thing is Ineffective

The Thing does not do what it is supposed to do: it neither prevents nor cures the Problem. (Those who had the Thing still get the Problem - as much or more than those without the Thing). 

3. The Thing is Harmful 

Much more harmful than the supposed Problem (which is not a New Severe problem, anyway).

Now suppose that the Establishment - knowing this data; having collected and approved this data; nonetheless adopt a strategy (supported by propaganda and implemented by sanctions of unprecedented scope and severity) to administer the unnecessary, ineffective and harmful Thing to Everybody in the world. 

The question is: Could such an Establishment reasonably be described as anything but Evil?

Note: If you personally want to consult the official sources; please go ahead and do so - but don't ask me to do it for you. If you don't trust my honesty and competence, why should you trust the sources I direct you towards? This Thing is a matter for taking personal responsibility.  

One test for whether your spiritual understanding is sound and correct is whether you can Start Now on doing what needs to be done. 

We have, through long history, become used to the idea that constructive, positive action is at the group level - that the individual (here and now) is of no use in doing the work of the world; and therefore a Great Deal of Life is expended in preparation and planning. 

For example, in effective politics or business alike, the plan is to build alliances: to work incrementally, to prosecute plans of propaganda, legislation and regulation - then implementation and enforcement... 

The only thing that can be started 'now' is the long process of working-towards... whatever it is. 

Likewise, in traditional Christianity, and also spiritual work, being a Good Christian is a matter of going-through strategic educational programs, building-up a church-rooted lifestyle - whether based in ritual, participation in sacraments, gathering to worship, meeting to pray or study scripture...

The assumption has been that this long-termism will lead - by accumulation and training - to higher and higher levels of being-a-Good-Christian. 

But in the world now - none of these things can be relied upon. The Church is liable to close at any time. Gathering for any purpose is disallowed, restricted, uncertain. Centuries of practice have been obliterated. 

Strategic planning is now restricted to the agents of evil (with their Great Reset, Agenda 2030, the birdemic-peck plan, unrolling antiracism etc). 'They' are always busy, busy, Busy nowadays; have accomplished a lot, plenty of immediate tasks; so much evil accomplished since 2020 - yet so much still to do... with a long way to go in eliminating or inverting even hope for the family, Christian churches, truth, beauty and virtue...

On the side of God; it seems that long-term wordly-planning has become either impossible or a snare tending to evil. 

The attempt to return to 'normal' life, or achieve institutional stability - to be able to strategize - has misled many into accepting-embracing lockdowns, social distancing, masking, the peck strategy... and whatever comes next likewise.

The more long-termist (within this mortal world) one tries to be; the more one is drawn into The System - because the System is everywhere in public discourse, and only The System provides whatever stability and predictability remain (Ahrimanic evil) - even as it (increasingly) systematically works for greater unpredictable chaos (Sorathic evil)!

It seems that whatever kind of Christian life we try to build for ourselves; must be of a sort that we can begin at almost any moment. Something that we can Start Now. If it entails delay - preparation, planning, accumulation - then it will probably not be attainable; but even if it is attainable, it will require System-engagement and therefore probable corruption.

This is the challenge and adventure of these times for Christians. 

And because God the Creator is on our side, and loves us as His children, we can be confident that it is possible for each and every person in all specific situations. 

God - through His ongoing creating and care for each individual - will always be-ensuring that it is always possible for you and me and everybody to Start Now! 

Our personal task is to learn and discern just what that entails. 

This is not relativism because there is God, and we live in God's creation: God's creation is truth. 

Relativism, by contrast, asserts no God-creator and discovers no truth. 

Neither is reality discovered (or dictated!) by "science"; because the nature and operations of "science" is itself a choice.

Therefore there is only a single 'truth' - which is God's creation - and the primary choice is whether to live in God's creation or someplace else. 

That is the main truth we create by our thinking. 

And apparently, as of 2021, most Man have thought themselves out of God's creation; by thinking themselves things that are not a part of God's creation - not coherent with God's purposes. 

In early childhood and in past eras; Man's thinking was largely passive and unchosen; but for modern Man from adolescence on there is choice: we choose what we think. 

Choice for modern Man is indeed unavoidable, hence the choice just-is moral, a value, a responsibility.

Each Man is now becoming his own creation - therefore, the big question is (or should be) whether this creation is harmonious with divine creation; and with the creation of those Men who have chosen to take the side of divine creation; or whether a Man's self-creation will be Something Else. Something that is Not divine creation. 

This might, in principle, be an unique, isolated, personal creation - each Man as God of his own universe, consisting only of him-self.  In practice; this almost never happens (and if/when it does ever happen, we would not know about it.)  

Or, Men might reject divine creation and instead join-with the sub-creations of Satan and the demons. 

These are sub-creations, because they are 'within' divine creation; and are using that which God has created - but turned against the purposes of God and disharmonious/ dissonant with divine creation. 

Hell-on-earth is therefore a concept to describe these anti-God sub-creations - which are now mainstream, official, and increasingly mandatory. 

An example of a hellish subcreation is the belief that a man might really become a woman (and in reverse, or back and forth as desired). Modern Man is such that the the thinking creates the reality - so that our culture is set-up to create, sustain and enforce the thinking that actual change of sex is real. Many people here-and-now live in this thought-reality - a reality in which sex change is a 'fact'. 

So, on the one hand, 'trans reality' (a world in which trans is a factual reality) is a 'real' reality; but on the other hand it is not divine reality - it is nether a part-of nor harmonious with God's aims or God's plans. 

This can be seen from the observation that insisting on 'the fact of trans' subverts and makes-incoherent many other 'factual' aspects of reality; it is subversive and indeed inversional of many values and beliefs that are part of Christian hopes and aims. 

Because facts are not isolatable - every-thing is connected, every 'fact' links with reality; so to think a fact inconsistent with divine creation is to reject creation, and to dwell in a sub-creation. And while God's creation is coherent, sub-creations are not. 

Sub-creations are incoherent for many reasons - but mainly because of their motivation; which is against God and the coherence of divine creation. The desire for a self-created reality - which, I repeat, is now not just a possibility but an inevitable fact of our modern existence - is therefore divisible into the choice of God's creation or the rejection or God's creation. 

Modern Man can therefore think, and make, a reality in which sex change is 'really-real'; but trans reality is not some isolated 'fact', but is indeed linked with an entire sub-created reality that is intrinsically hostile to God's creation. 

In other words, to make trans 'really'-real entails making our sub-created reality dissonant with God's creation and hostile to the aims of God. 

Man can make trans real by Man's thinking; but the reality in which trans is real is outwith God's created reality.

(This is ultimately why hellish realities are not creative, including not procreative. Since the only reality we all inhabit is God's creation; any Being that goes against God's creation cannot be truly creative because he cannot contribute to God's ongoing creation. Only one who shares the aims and methods of God's creation can coherently contribute to God's ongoing creation. This sharing of aims and methods is a consequence of what is termed Love. Thus only one who loves first God and creation, and then his fellow Men in context of that divine purpose, can be truly - that is primarily - creative.) 

On the other side, to take the side of God and to embrace the aims of divine creation, are also active personal choices. 

We must Now choose to think God's truth, just as we must choose to think Satan's untruth. Always there will be, will have-been, choice; and therefore responsibility.  

Traditional Christian ideas that put the initiative of belief on God's side, and see Man as naturally Christian and passively able to absorb God's truth; and which see obedience to externally-defined God's truth as the primary virtue - are not longer applicable. 

A passive and obedient attitude will nowadays absorb and follow the anti-Christian System that rules this world; and Men will then (as they mostly do, apparently) think one or another version of that anti-God sub-created reality which is currently mainstream and mandatory. 

And this choice of God's truth is active, it comes from each-of-us as an unique individual endowed with the divine capacity of agency, or free will.  We cannot escape the fact of this capacity! 

We can think, and believe, whatever we wish; even against the consensus of nearly the whole world. Indeed we will think and believe what we have-wished; and we will ourselves live the consequences of our thinking. 

The responsibility is unavoidable - potentially a great gift: the greatest imaginable, to participate actively in God's creation, for eternity; potentially a hellish curse. 

Most Men appear to have rejected the divine great gift and to have chosen Hell; by choosing to think/ to make-real/ to make a Reality in which the thought-thing is real - that which is incompatible with the motives of divine creation.    

I have read several biographies of Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925) - including his partial Autobiography, which I would recommend (albeit it is not factually reliable, but more of an apologia working from the covert agenda of explaining 'why I was always right').

However, none of the biographies greatly impressed me so far except for volume two of Peter Selg's seven (!) volume study; which is that covering the years 1890-1900. 

This was the period after Steiner finished University and began seven years of editorial work on a collected edition of Goethe's scientific writings, in Weimar; then moved to become a journalist in Berlin.

This is also the period when Steiner wrote his PhD thesis (now published as Truth and Knowledge) and his major philosophical work The Philosophy of Freedom. 

It was also the period when he began his remarkable career as a lecturer, and (around 1898) became a Christian. This was a major and sudden change, since up to the early 1890s, Steiner was apparently anti-Christian (according to his writings), moving in radical anarchist circles; also deeply engaged with the work of Nietzsche (befriending for a while Nietzsche's sister, and meeting the mute and demented philosopher; and having published a book about him in 1895). 

I am currently reading the first volume of Selg's biography (1861-90) having read all but one of the later volumes). So far there is very little detail beyond what was reported by Steiner retrospectively and many years later. 

Indeed, his early years are extraordinarily poorly documented, for such a famous and influential man. It seems that none of his thousands of disciples made any serious attempt to collect information while he was alive or just after. Or perhaps enough effort has not yet been made?

But I am looking forward to the later years, from when Steiner studied at the Vienna Institute of Technology; where I anticipate more in the way of external corroboration from independent sources. 

In general, nobody has so far been much interested in Steiner except for his followers (Colin Wilson and Gary Lachman's overviews probably make the best starting point); and Anthroposophists seem incurious to seek beyond what Steiner himself said about himself. This is not difficult to understand, given the past and continuing attitude to Steiner within the Anthroposophical Society... 

In Steiner circles, he is not really seen as a Man - but as something more like an angel or deity whose entire vast work is necessarily necessary, coherent and of timeless relevance. It would be blasphemous for any normal person to select-from, critique, let alone criticize, such an individual. 

For example, Stanley Messenger was asked in the Q&A after a talk whether Steiner had ever made an error; and SM was unable or unwilling to mention even one instance - but instead said that Steiner may sometimes have been misunderstood. 

Even Owen Barfield - a major genius in his own right, as well as (probably) Steiner's greatest follower and developer - never (to my knowledge, in print) allowed himself to reject anything ever written by Steiner; the furthest OB would go was to state that he did not speak about that which he had not, yet, confirmed. 

So, I am not exaggerating. And this attitude serves to maintain the near-total neglect of Steiner, who was certainly a major genius and of vital relevance to these times; but who (to one outside the charmed circle) was a also flawed character, most of whose work outside of philosophy and the history of consciousness can and should be ignored or set-aside.  

Nonetheless, as a major genius with such vital things to say; I find myself driven to continue exploring Steiner's biography, through the available channels; and to draw my own conclusions. 

We are all tempted by the idea that what we say to other people - perhaps in response to a question - might influence them for the better. For instance, the idea that when somebody says something about the birdemic, the peck, antiracism of climate-emergency-warming-change; we might respond with some phrase that does real goo. 

Thus we are tempted to use rhetoric - which, I take it, is language designed to influence other people in a particular direction; language designed to affect others as desired. 

For example, rhetoric might be defensive language designed to escape from the feared consequences of non-compliance with social norms; or evangelical language to awaken another person to the truth specifically, or to the Good more generally.

Evangelical rhetoric may be highly-motivated; but even them it is prone to be manipulative and to treat other people as interchangeable units - rather than as individuals. Of course, the particular 'other person' might not be known to you - and therefore can only be treated as a stereotype of one sort or another. 

My aim - which I seldom achieve - is deep honesty or silence. 

Silence is the honest response appropriate to presumptively hostile persons (especially those on the other-side, against God) - which nowadays is the majority of human interactions (especially in the workplace). 

Deep honesty is trying to answer the underlying question, not just the specific question; to address the assumptions behind the question. 

For example, an honest answer to 'Have you had the birdemic peck?' might be just a flat 'No'. Without explanation or excuse. That might, itself, lead to something. 

Or it might be 'No - it's too dangerous' (or some elaboration thereof). 

But the deeply honest response might be that you regard the whole birdemic business as an Evil Lie; or that that you believe the peck to be, in some way, an instrument of evil in the spiritual war against God. 

Thus, to provide a deeply honest answer almost always requires a pause for thought - to take account of the personal and situational context; and then an answer of a few sentences, at least. 

That in itself means that silence, or no answer at all ('I don't want to talk about it, thanks.') may be the only practical response in most ordinary social situations. 

Yet even this kind of response is very unusual, and perhaps difficult, in 'normal' social interactions. Not to reply instantly to every question needs forethought, and - probably - would need to be practiced a few times before becoming natural and spontaneous. 

Again, a pause for thought, interrupting the usual rapid to-and-fro of casual social chit-chat, would seem to be necessary. 

The way things work under a totalitarian demonic dictatorship is... instructive. 

Those of us who have been the subject of politically correct witch hunts over recent decades, or who have friends or colleagues thus demonized, were given a vivid advance-experience of what everybody-in-the-world is now getting. 

(Albeit, very few of the witch-hunted learned the right lessons, or indeed any lessons - then as now. Experience only favours the prepared mind - and in a materialist, leftist, atheist world - extremely few minds are prepared to learn from experience.) 

Everybody-in-the-world has-been or will-be confronted with the decision of whether or not to accept the birdemic peck. 

Of course - at some point, maybe soon - pecking may become mandatory and compelled; but the demons regard it as spiritually important that we consent to our own corruption (ideally we should embrace it, want it); so compulsion may not affect our spiritual decision. 

Because to be physically-compelled to participate in evil, against one's spiritual judgment; and/but then to repent this - is in fact a victory for God. 

The matter of the peck is confused by materialist expedience. 

Of course it is physically harmful (that is a genuine no-brainer) - only the scope of which is uncertain; but that is not the real point... 

If pecking is avoided because of physical harm as such - this is not a spiritual decision but merely one kind of expedience - an expedience that values physical health above social acceptance. 

So peck-rejecters might well be ultra-materialists, hence on the demonic side. 

In sum; to be good, the peck must be rejected for the right reasons. 

The peck is a unprecedentedly-massive illustration of the established facts that the social activities, the professional and powerful institutions of science and medicine are dead - having been incrementally absorbed into the single global bureaucracy over the past 50-plus years, and become systemically-dishonest. But even if they weren't dead; neither science nor medicine are grounds for existential decisions concerned with salvation. 

So why not the peck? If material expedience should not be our priority, then why not go along? Why Not inwardly consent to the easiest, the mandatory, path? 

Not many people will be able to avoid such a thought rising in their minds. And the 'why not?' question is unanswerable for many/ most modern Men - especially given the extreme cowardice and habitual dishonesty engendered by denial of God and the spiritual. 

Is there any simple and clear answer to this deadly formulation of Why Not? Preferably an answer that does not require multiple assumptions and long chains of reasoning. An answer that fits with common sense human reasoning, and does not require expert knowledge of exactly what the peck may do, or is intended to do...

I think the best answer comes from knowledge of the spiritual war of this mortal world between God and evil; and the inference that those who advocate the peck are on the side of evil. 

Once this is clear, then it is obvious that we should not do what They are very keen we should do. 

We may not, probably do not, know exactly why They so-very-much want us to do 'it' (whatever 'it' may be); but (given their clear and sustained intent) we can be confident that 'it' will be for a bad reason and to cause us spiritual harm: tending towards damnation. 

When dealing with evil people, that is with habitual and gross liars, it is often (in practice) impossible to establish what specific evil reason They are intending. 

But whatever it is, we can be sure that it is evil; and is meant to damn us. 

And that is all we need to know. 

Several of the Inklings were poets; and all the Big Four - CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield - began their literary careers intending primarily to become poets; only Williams ended his life regarding himself a poet. 

Williams was the only successful poet among them; being regarded as one of the leading British poets of his generation; albeit mostly for the poetry that was published before Taliessin Through Logres and The Region of the Summer Stars - which Williams himself regarded as his best and only significant work. 

At the other extreme, it has been said that Tolkien is, because of the songs and verses in The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings, the most often read of twentieth Century poets (this is assuming that the verse is not just skipped by readers - as has been suggested). 

Tolkien wrote a great deal of unpublished poetry in his early years (including unfinished long poems), published quite a few shorter and comic or lyrical works, including translations and modern-language development of ancient works, mostly in small magazines.   

Lewis's first two books were poetry - and it was only the critical and sales failure of Dymer (when he was aged about 28) that he decided not to continue on that line; although he published many more verses in magazines through the rest of his life. 

Barfield wrote considerably more poetry than he published; but he did publish in small magazines - mostly later in life. 

But which was the best poet? Williams seems like the obvious candidate; but I do not regard Williams as a real poet. And to my inner-ear; Lewis and Barfield were also 'contrived' versifiers; whose work lacked that something unique to real poetry.  

So there is no doubt in my mind that JRR Tolkien was the best Inklings poet - indeed the only real poet among the Inklings if judged by the standard of English lyrical poetry (i.e. song-like verse, plus something more) that defines for me what is 'poetic' about poetry. 

If I was asked to define what makes real poetry - as contrasted with verse - I could only do so indirectly; for example by pointing out that Palgrave's Golden Treasury (1861) displays the nature of this tradition in a very pure and concentrated form. 

Most of Tolkien's output would best be characterized as verse; and it varies pretty widely in quality (as does the work of most real poets) - but Tolkien at his best was a real poet; whereas the other Inklings were writers of verse, and not true poets. 

My selection of Tolkien's poetry at its best would include these five poems; The Sea Bell; Imran; and Aotrou and Itroun - and also some others, including a few of the earliest poems posthumously published in Lost Tales. 

It is a feature of the spiritual war nowadays that The Enemy (i.e. those on the side of Satan, against God) are dispersed in many places, deny any self-definition; and indeed are just part of normal, mainstream 'public opinion' as revealed in officialdom, institutions and the media, 

It is sometimes said that this makes evil difficult to discern - on the assumption that the evil is hidden among the good, in many and changing forms, under many and changing names and deceptive rhetoric...

But the truth is that evil is very easy to discern nowadays; indeed evil has never been easier to discern IF the line dividing good from evil is drawn in the right place. 

The problem that many people have in discerning evil is that they are retaining too much evil in their own assumptions, in their own world view. 

They are (in effect) trying to use a line between good and evil, when that line has been positioned such as to include evil; therefore they find the discernment to be difficult and unsure. 

This is seen, for example, in what Owen Barfield termed RUP - Residual Unresolved Positivism - something to which everyone brought up in The West is prone. 

RUP is a matter of retaining 'materialist', 'scientistic', 'reductionistic' assumptions that were unconsciously absorbed in childhood and adolescence, are invisible to normal introspection, and which have become habitual framers of thinking. 

This happens when we consciously oppose positivism, wish for a fully-spiritual life, yet keep un-consciously falling back into positivistic ways of regarding the world; therefore we sometimes fail to detect (and may end-up supporting) positivism when it is being deployed by the powers of evil. 

Another - just as common and related - problem is RUL - Residual Unresolved Leftism. 

The assumptions of Leftism (e.g. Leftist concepts of equality, social justice, diversity, environmentalism, antiracism, feminism, sexual revolution, the mainstream hedonic utilitarian morality etc) is pervasive in public discourse as background assumptions. 

Very few people in The West are altogether free of these false, tendentious, evil-tending ideas - and Christians, as much as most, often cherish such ideals - or try to do so. 

RUL therefore confuses our discernment of evil; since Leftism has been a major (probably The major) strategy of evil in the modern world. 

Thus there is evil at work in the world and impinging upon our personal lives, yet because some evil in our-selves matches that external evil, we fail to recognize its true nature. 

With RUL, the line has been drawn wrongly; too close to evil - not including all of evil; with some evils left-over on the side of good; so discernment begins to seem difficult, complex... 

We become confused, disorientated, unsure of what to do and what to reject. 

But the difficulties and complexities are an artefact of the line being drawn in the wrong place - due to Residual Unresolved Leftism. If we can identify and repent all of our Leftist assumptions, the task of discernment is revealed as simple - indeed it has probably never been simpler than Now! 

But another difficulty is that when the line between good and evil has been drawn correctly, and discernment is swift and decisive - it will be found that most of the world, and pretty much all of officialdom, major institutions, and the mass media - are on the side of evil. 

It will also be found, more disturbingly, that most people are on the side of evil; which means that most individual persons we encounter will support the side of evil - will be cooperating-with and probably defending/ advocating/ working-for the powers of evil. 

And this applies even in Christian churches and among the leadership of Christian churches; because being on the side of evil is not about one's majority or average beliefs. 

Even one Leftist belief or assumption suffices to corrupt; because (as of 2020) the tendency of institutions and their choice between good and evil sides may be dictated by a single Leftist belief (such as the Litmus Tests). 

This may be disturbing, unfamiliar, and often demoralizing. 

Yet we should remember that with normal Christianity; any single unrepented sin - no matter how 'small' - is sufficient to cause damnation; because we only truly desire Heaven when we are prepared to give-up all sin for it. Heaven is a place without sin; and nobody can enter it who has not repudiated sin. 

Here on earth, something analogous applies to the sins of Leftism. To be on the side of God, persons and institutions must reject the devil and all his works. 

This does not mean any kind of impossibly perfect standard of behaviour - but repentance - which is the correct detection and identification of sin as sin -and the 'in principle' willingness to discard it. 

Perfection of thoughts and values is impossible in this mortal earthly life; but repentance is always and everywhere open to any person or institution. 

Residual Unresolved Leftism is a serious problem because sin is unrecognized, is indeed defended and advocated; and the consequence is that perception of discernment as difficult and uncertain - in a world where in fact evil is more naked and extreme than ever before. 

So, if you are confused, and find evil difficult to discern; look within for those unrepented sins which are probably the source of the problem. 

One great and immediate advantage of eliminating Residual Unresolved Leftism is that we attain clarity about the spiritual war of this world; and can set-to on the task of fighting that war instead of being enmeshed in confusion. 

Such clarity of discernment is liberating, exciting, and motivating! Which is just what most-people most-need in a world such as this. 

I came across this Message in a Bottle video at Adam Piggott's blog, under the title A Christianity Without God. It is forty minutes long and (mostly) in Italian (with English subtitles); so I realize that not many readers will want to watch it. 

I did not intend to watch a foreign documentary on the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) - but having seen the beginning, I was gripped enough to jump to the conclusion - and then realized that I did not want to miss anything, and so I ended-up watching the whole thing. 

The subject matter is vast in scope. It includes the 'resignation' of Benedict XVI that was not a resignation; the 'papacy' of Francis I and its relationship to the centuries old agenda of Freemasonry; the RCC's reaction to the birdemic. 

Also there are several extended interviews with men who strike me as impressive representatives of (what seems to me) Roman Catholicism at its best. These are discussing our crucial need, now, for metaphysical truth and spiritual nourishment; and the official RCC's catastrophic failure to provide them from 2020.  

On the one hand there is convincing evidence of serious and strategic corruption in the RCC; on the other hand there is evidence of continued powerful spirituality. The one is a bureaucracy working for demonic, globalist, leftist, materialist evil; the other side is composed of groupings of thoughtful, intensely faithful individuals - rigorously and courageously working for divine Good.

The Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination, it contains both great evil and great Good - and these are why it remains very important to all types of Christians. 

Another value of this video is to emphasize that these are exciting, epic times; when the war of Good and evil has come to the surface and encompasses all of life. I felt quietly-inspired by watching it. 

We are called upon to recognize and acknowledge the nature of this era; to discern and to pick which side we fight upon. 

And this recognition, acknowledgment, discernment and enlistment is just as important within churches, as it is in the secular world.  

One vital insight I got from William Arkle is that God primarily wants us to do what God wants us to do - and not to be always 'thinking about' God. 

This related to another insight that God primarily wants us to work-out for ourselves what to do. And not, therefore, mainly be-guided or controlled in what we do...

Although there is a back-up possibility of being-saved by God, when we have got into a situation where our capacity for working-things-out has become hopelessly impaired. 

This contrasts with 'traditional' teaching that emphases God's active role, and Man's helplessness (or Man's necessarily malign choices, due to the supposed innate and core wickedness of original sin). Traditionally, a Christian ought primarily to be obedient; and conversion itself was visualized as a yielding to the external grace of the Holy Ghost.  

Yet the way the world is set-up (here and now, in 2021), and the way that we personally are set-up, is that we are obviously meant to do as much for ourselves as possible; make our own discernments and decisions. 

And this even applies to Christian conversion - because (in 2021) if someone does not make a positive choice, nor expend any effort towards becoming a Christian - then it is very unlikely that he will become a Christian.  

Likewise, as a Christian; if someone does not take an active and personal role in his Christian faith and life - it is likely that he will be led away from faith by the dominant influences and forces in his church and generally. 

Theologically speaking, it remains true (as always) that it is the existence of God the Creator which makes everything Good possible; and that we are God's children (thus partly divine - we have God within-us) which makes our own good choices and efforts possible. We must follow Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost will give us comfort and guidance. 

But this does not imply that an attitude of passivity and obedience towards the divine is appropriate or effective. 

It is just an empirical fact that modern Man must be active, discerning, and take the lead in the efforts of his life. The default condition is that we create an evil world of rebellion against God; but if we want instead to sustain God's creation, and if we desire heaven - then that impulse needs to come from within-us. 

Such is the nature and challenge of these End Times. 

It is interesting to consider how the relationship between sleeping states - deep sleep and dreaming sleep - and the awake state may have changed through the evolutionary development of Men. 

If we start with the historical (and early childhood) conscious state termed Original Participation by Owen Barfield; then it was a striking idea of Rudolf Steiner that this is characterized by what we would consider a less complete difference between sleep and waking. The awake person was not so fully awake is the case now; and aspects of deep and dreaming sleep remained active throughout the daytime. 

This would be a more passive and unconscious form of waking; whereby we were involuntarily influenced by the sleeping states; immersed-in them. In Original Participation Man's consciousness was integrated, but dominated by sleep.  

A suggestion is that the sleep states are (in some fashion) in communication with the divine and spiritual world; and therefore in Original Participation awake Man has direct experiential knowledge of the gods and spiritual reality. This may be why all early Men and all young children assume the reality of gods and the spiritual realm - because the experience and know it; not just when asleep but all of the time.

The idea is that, as Man's consciousness evolved through history, the division between sleeping and waking states became more distinct; until with modern Man it was complete (the phase called the Consciousness Soul). We are not aware of our sleeping and dreaming consciousness while awake (although they continue); and indeed we almost never remember anything from deep sleep, and even dream memories tend to be absent, partial or uncertain.   

It struck me that presumably the same applies in the opposite direction: that waking consciousness has probably lost access to deep and dreaming sleep. Perhaps in earlier phases, waking consciousness could affect dreaming sleep, and even deep sleep; and therefore in original Participation these sleeping states were more conscious, more subject to waking motivations, and probably more memorable. 

Whereas nowadays (for many people) dreams are characterized by their own crazy illogic and irrelevance; perhaps for early Men they were coherent, useful, memorable - by the waking Man. And maybe something analogous applied even with the slower, simpler, 'tidal' consciousness-world of deep sleep. 

(Steiner suggests that in dreaming sleep, ancient Man - and children - are in communion with the lower angelic powers; and in deep sleep, the higher angels - or, I would guess, perhaps even the simple and basic aspects of the knowledge of God, Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Ghost.) 

So, modern Man's consciousness states are not integrated; but instead divided, alienated, encapsulated. 

And what of the goal of Final Participation? We might assume that the division between sleeping and waking would again become crossable, 'permeable' - but this time dominated by waking consciousness and by its capacity for free agency, for conscious choice. 

Thus we may be able to choose to bring our waking consciousness and cross into dreaming, and even deep sleep; there to both gain conscious control of these states, and to remember better what happens in them. 

So we may again become integrated in our consciousness; but this time with awakeness dominating. 

However, this state is voluntary - not automatic; conscious not unconscious; and is subject to the constraints of Final Participation - which is, after all, an attainment of divine consciousness (albeit usually partial and always temporary) even when we are mortal on earth. 

Therefore, we might be able to choose to bring awake consciousness into dreaming and deep sleep; but only insofar as we our-selves are aligned with God's purposes, meanings and mode of thinking. 

If a person has chosen the side of Satan against God, then Final Participation is not (at that time) possible. 

Furthermore sin interferes with Final Participation. Un-repented sin blocks FP in the long term (because we are not aligned with the divine); while currently-active sin in thinking will curtail FP for its duration; which is surely one reason, albeit not the only reason, why Final Participation is always temporary - indeed usually very brief.  

Nonetheless, even with all these provisos, this gives an idea of what to aim for in Final Participation how to go about it; and how to know when it has happened. That is, we can aim towards more frequent and fuller integration of the waking and sleep states; do so consciously; and within a Christian context.