Bruce Charlton's Notions

Self-identified Christians are among the worse offenders - trying to prove their compassionate non-judgmentalism etc. 

But this is not about 'loving your enemies' - this is about refusing to acknowledge God's enemies - and thereby taking the side against Him. 

This is not about 'hating the sin but loving the sinner' - rather it is about failing to acknowledge the reality of demonic affiliation and service - and therefore indirectly loving the sin. 

The UK Prime Minister has recently (apparently, sort-of) been forced to resign; and much of the discussion leading-up-to and following this is rooted in the absurd assumption that BoJo is a normal human being; rather than a humanoid husk channeling Satan's instructions.

I speak with some authority as having met and talked with Boris when he still was a human being - so I can see with absolute clarity that the body and mind currently thus identified is merely a corrupted shell, a crude simulation of a human person. 

Yet, surely this ought to be clear to the meanest intelligence?  BoJo is not a normal human being, and nor are the other snake- or zombie-eyed personnel who inhabit the world of public discourse. 

What they actually are varies: some are perhaps not even human, some are possessed by evil spirits to varying degrees, others are burnt-out and shriveled, ineffectual human souls powerless to resist the evil influences they agreed to allow access. 

So let us, once and for all, stop trying to pretend that we are dealing with normal human beings, who have normal motivations and responses, capable of normal emotions...

(Not that 'normal' humans are any good nowadays; just not so directly-connected to devils' simulations and instructions.) 

I continue to be amazed that so many people get drawn into trap-debates in which somebody pretends not to understand the obvious or to believe the absurd. 

These things cannot be debated, because when an antagonist has adopted this level of dishonesty; then evidence and logic will be ineffectual.

Meanwhile, the real debate ought to be conducted at a higher level- the metaphysical level of assumptions; where it might be understood how it is that the obvious is being-denied, or the absurd is being-asserted.   

I first saw and recognized this tactic when Bertrand Russell debated F.C Copleston concerning the existence of God. Russell's main tactic was repeatedly to claim that he did not understand what Copleston meant by his questions and concepts relating to God; despite that these issues had been mainstream human discourse for millennia. 

Russell was - dishonestly - debating from assumptions that ruled-out any possibility of coherent argument at the level of generality capable of addressing the question. He was forcing discussion down to a level of technical micro-specialization that - however resolved - left the main question untouched. 

We can see exactly the same tactic used every day in the mainstream Big Lie, globalist policies relating to the birdemic and its peck, climate, mass immigration and all the rest. 

Because the obvious is being denied, and the absurd is being propagated - debate is forced down to the level of technical-micro-issues; where only specialists can operate - and where the conclusions are too small scale to affect the broad policies - and where the debate can be moved back and back interminably.

For instance, the birdemic phenomenon has almost nothing to do with whether the germ (if indeed it is A Specific germ, rather than a fluid and broad class diagnosis of many germs) was lab-created. That the inferred viral structure must have been lab generated has been known since very early 2020. 

But, after a period of denial and shut-down; the debate moves on to where it was done, who did it, why they did it - and then, the structure was itself not discovered from isolates; but merely inferred on the basis of computerized predictive modelling and from non-rigorous methods of clinical sampling...

My point is that this debate can run forever - and in the end we are no closer to acknowledging the obvious fact that the birdemic was obviously (obviously from Day One) a deliberate sham, and the actions 'against' it were political not medical, and did vastly more harm than even the imputed good; and that the peck was unnecessary, ineffective and harmful. 

The simple obvious question is why certainly-harmful measures were coercively applied worldwide; without any coherent evidence of need in the first place; and absent evidence that they would, even theoretically, have any significant compensatory benefit. 

We now get the same crude tactic applied on a global scale when people claim not to understand what is 'a woman', or understand why real marriage is between a man and a woman. Or they simulate the conviction that Of Course men can change into women, and vice versa; and can reverse the process... at will. 

And therefore, people have a fundamental human right at any time, and fluidly, to assert any sexual identity and have it universally recognized with sanctions against those who disagree or err. 

Or when people demand 'evidence' that open-ended mass immigration from alien and hostile cultures will be lethal for the host nation. Evidence!

Or affect not to comprehend why it is A Bad Thing that the most intelligent, wealthy and healthy women choose to reproduce at about a quarter of the minimum replacement level. This fact tells us some horrific home-truths about our civilization; but only if we can recognize mass reproductive sterility and extinction as A Bad Thing. 

This simulated dumbness is therefore a powerful tactic when used by those with power. 

It also blends and synergizes with psychological sickness; because there are those who really do not comprehend what it means to ask "Does God exist", and who really do not understand the difference between men and women... and so forth.

As Rudolf Steiner tellingly remarked; atheism is an actual sickness. It is a profound denial of purpose, meaning and genuine relatedness in our-selves and the world; that cannot but do actual harm to thinking, discerning, understanding, basic social functioning - and indeed to merely biological surviving and reproducing. 

Thus; in a world where atheist assumptions are built-into all public discourse; we have an actually sick world. 

In sum we have, on the one hand, a sick mass world in which thinking, discernment, understanding - the ability to learn from experience - are all self-crippled; and on the other, top-down - active and dominant demonic powers who are expanding and increasing the damage by deliberately dishonest denials of the obvious that demand proof, and assertions of the absurd demanding disproof...

And where proof and disproof are placed in a context where the most important issues are relativized and subdivided out of existence; and where proof and disproof have zero acknowledged meaning and no necessary implications... 

And the global masses re-set ready for the next one.  

Never gets old.

(The amnesia dust employed in the world today is usually termed Mass Media.) 

A problem I have seen among US 'pro-life'/ anti-abortion Christians is a false assumption about the universality, the 'natural law' validity of their intuitive sense of abortion - and indeed infanticide - as evil. 

Christians talk as if it could be assumed - for instance - that non-Christians regard abortion as morally equivalent to murder. 

And when Christians argue that especially late abortion is equivalent to infanticide (i.e. killing of a newborn by his or her mother) - the assumption is that non-Christians regard infanticide as morally equivalent to murder. 

Yet I think it is a simple fact that the equivalence of abortion and infanticide with murder are not spontaneous human intuitions, but are rather specifically Christian convictions. 

It seems that these convictions and intuitions have not been shared by many or most people in history, as they are not shared by many people in the modern world. 

The 'pro-life' intuition and stance is distinctively (if not exclusively) Christian - and this insight ought to be the assumed basis for interactions between Christian and non-Christian regarding these matters. 

In The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark describes how the immortality of abortion and infanticide was part of a variety of pro-natalist doctrines that characterized the early Christians, and which operated within the burgeoning society of Christians - but distinctively in that sub-group of society.  

Thus, ancient Christianity grew rapidly by exponential natural increase (as well as by conversions), in a Roman society where women increasingly strove to avoid childbearing and families were kept small or absent. 

It is easy to find many other example of ancient civilizations that were also anti-natalist. But more pertinently, perhaps, records of pre-civilization, simple hunter gatherer societies also frequently practice infanticide - usually by 'exposure' (abandonment of the new born child by his or her mother); and therefore would presumably practice abortion if the technology was available.  

My factual point is that humans are not innately/ spontaneously/ naturally averse to abortion or infanticide - the wrongness of these activities is not a universal moral prohibition as with murder (although that prohibition of murder may not include strangers). Pro-life is not a human universal morality. 

What does seem to be a human universal is that abortion and infanticide are regarded as a 'bad thing' - although not as bad as murder: and therefore something that naturally makes the mother feel bad...

And therefore something to be avoided if possible, and done only when it is the lesser of evils. Abortion/ infanticide are certainly not something to celebrate or to advocate. 

My moral point is that Christians should not assume that non-Christians feel the same abhorrence at abortion or indeed infanticide. 

The strongly-motivated avoidance of such behaviour is part of being a Christian, but not part of being human. And the difference is one reason for the intransigent nature of these policy disputes.  

Another problem is that there is a difference between setting up and justifying laws - which must be clear and categorical, especially in alien, massive and bureaucratic societies such as ours - and the specific, distinctive moral realities of exact situations and circumstances. 

Real morality is about specific issues - each unique; not about absolute and generic prohibitions of broad categories of events. This is why all truly just systems of law have provision for the interpretation of categorical systems by the 'judgment' of a wise and good human judge. The ideal judge bridges between legal categories and the unique circumstance.

Failure to recognize this specificity of morality in religion leads to cold-hearted, anti-Christian 'legalism' or Pharisee-ism in Christianity. And this insight ought to apply to abortion and infanticide, just as it does to arson and murder. 

Our ultimate problem is that we almost-wholly lack wise and good judges, as we ourselves ("the masses") lack wisdom and goodness. 

And bad Men (wrongly-motivated, cowardly Men) cannot be made good by system, by imposing laws or regulations - nor by abolishing them. 

System can make us worse - which is why it is a major tool of Satan; but System cannot (here and now) make us better. 

Given that the world is dominated by demon-serving (mostly-) human beings; it is likely that - in the spiritual war - even apparently-good policies are of evil intent; and may have net-evil outcomes. 

Thus what looks like a demonic defeat may be turned into their partial victory. 

As CS Lewis explains from the perspective of a devil in his Screwtape books; getting people damned is a difficult business, because ultimately they must want to be damned. 

Expressing evil ideas, doing evil acts is insufficient - the demons need to ensure that these are not repented.  

In other words; people must think or do something evil, and then double-down on it. 

This may be the correct interpretation of those rare, 'good', public policies that are approved by Christians. 

Such policies probably do not make a difference to those who are already on the side of God. And their effect on the undecided could go either way.

But the primary demonic intent in such cases is probably to ensure that those who oppose good policies, become active in their opposition to good - that they convince themselves that evil is actually good. 

For instance; the recent US change to abortion rules does not affect Christian attitudes; but seems to have led to a highly-significant doubling-down on pro-abortion attitudes; to the point that abortion is apparently seen (by more people than ever, more strongly than ever) as a core moral principle; a positive, desirable thing that ought to be encouraged and facilitated in every possible way. 

Such is the nature of public discourse in these end times: specific good may be turned to encourage overall evil outcomes. This does not mean that we should resist good policies; but it does mean that Christians need to discern the intent and effect such policies actually-have (and are meant to have) on those already affiliated to evil. And adjust our public responses accordingly. 

World War III is not only here, it is the better option for humanity. Submission is not an option and will avail those who do literally nothing. Even the proverbial Rider on the Red Horse is preferable to global enslavement to the very worst and most wicked members of the human race and their spiritual masters.

Vox Day

My understanding is that the collapse of world civilization is inevitable. If true, and the die is cast; this means that the outcome is unavoidable, and our choices are (merely!) between short-term versus long-term considerations. 

We now know that a dominant part of the global establishment wish to make a totalitarian world of spiritual (via physical) enslavement - of omni-surveillance and micro-control; motivated by the objective of mass spiritual damnation. 

Physical enslavement leads to spiritual enslavement only in an ideological (not religious) world where materialism is regarded as true - which is why materialism has been built-into our civilization.

Totalitarianism is thus the worst option for the world now (and, conversely, the preferred option - Plan A - for the purposively-evil Beings that (mostly-)control this world.

We should therefore be prepared to suffer and die - if necessary, and it will be for some - to avoid that outcome. 

Ideally, the best and most positive prospect would be a mass Christian awakening; leading first to stopping, then rolling-back and replacing, the worldwide progression of this totalitarian vision...  

But there is no sign that this is happening - quite the reverse; and anyway, it is probably too late. 

The System is vast, and what seems like lethal damage is in-place. 

The likeliest prospect is that The System will collapse - at first gradually (already happened), then accelerating (that is where we are now), and then with breakneck rapidity as positive feedback sets-in. 

The Global Establishment have done their best deniably to inflict fatal damage on the world economy at a macro-level, but especially the Western economy; especially food and fuel supplies, trade and transport...

And at a micro-level all social institutions (manufacture, law, administration, education, health, military, police, the churches etc) have been top-down degraded, made grossly inefficient (by bureaucracy), and repurposed to leftist-political rather than functional - ends. 

If a divided (multi-polar) world does ensue, and if the non-West survives the collapse of The West; then the collapse in the non-West will be ameliorated and delayed - but not by much; unless there is a Christian awakening. 

Let's assume that these Establishment plans come to fruition and that soon there will be a social breakdown without sufficient food, heat, transport, medical supplies, manufactured goods etc; and probably with increased violence and high levels of disease, poisoning etc. 

At this point The System will offer itself as Saviour - to provide the frightened, suffering and dying population with... well, at least partial solutions to the problems that they themselves have created. 

Partial solutions, but at a price....

At this point; The System will offer what may be the only immediately-available possibility of food, electricity, protection etc... But it will offer these at a minimal level, and at a high cost. 

And that high cost will not just be in money, nor just in personal freedom - there will be a spiritual price to pay.  

There will be encouragement for people to be grateful to a System that provides shelter and warmth, a little food, some more-or-less potable water, a few medicines for a few days... 

Indeed, people may be encouraged to love The System! 

I saw this during the birdemic, when the imprisoned population of the UK were allowed outside for a few minutes in order voluntarily to applaud en masse (with gratitude, and a kind-of love) The National Health Service! 

This really happened, I saw it myself several times. 

Indeed, the weird loyalty and quasi-love that so many British people feel for The NHS - such that people refer to the NHS as if synonymous with medicine and "health-care" - is a pioneer instance of the kind of System-love   

Meanwhile; this same System is propagating and enforcing a negative ideology of pure materialism; of of the ultimate evil of value-inversion; and leading to a life of officially-inculcated fear, resentment and despair; and (They hope) terminated by death embraced as welcome annihilation. 

Meanwhile; anyone who resists the ideology, who protests against the evils of The System, who embraces the way of Jesus Christ - will be demonized, excluded, punished;  for subverting that which provides - taking the roofs off our heads, the gas from our heating, the foods from our mouths, essential medicines from those who are sick.

Some such choice will comes to all of us - if it has not already done so. 

This is why we simply Must understand the purposive evil of our rulers. 

We must understand in order to reject. 

When we are freezing, starving, in pain - it is unlikely (and unnecessary) that we should refuse the short-term 'help' of The System for ourselves and for our loved-ones. After all, there are always grounds for hope - we do not know the future. 

Yet it is spiritually-vital that we do not take the further step of defending, supporting, sustaining The System; as if it really was our Saviour... We must not fall-into neglecting, denying or forgetting that the demons and their human servants and slaves actually desire and have planned-for our suffering; want us dead and damned; and that the totalitarian New World Order is their Plan A for achieving this goal.   

This is what Vox Day's quote above refers to; that grasping at short-term security is spiritually the worst possible option; worse even than a world war - given that war often brings out the best in some people, as well as facilitating the worst. 

War, indeed, may be the best available spiritual possibility for some individuals who have consistently refused to learn from pleasant experiences and have fallen-into evil - and who may respond to harsher lessons from their mortal lives in order to clarify their choices for eternity. 

And a war may be the necessary price to pay for some of the world to have a better outcome; and (on some, rather unlikely, scenarios) it is also possible that the incomplete domination of the New World Order may be a source of hope for an enslaved West. 

We probably cannot prevent or escape global civilizational collapse; and sooner or later will have the physical consequences inflicted upon us. 

But we each of us can (and nobody else can) discern and reject evil. 

We may also ensure that we trust in God, learn from whatever experiences come to us, and die with the determination to follow Jesus Christ to resurrected life in Heaven. 

The possibility of salvation is open to anyone who is prepared to do what is necessary; and open only to such persons. 

And then, mortal life ceases to be the ultimate value; and (whatever it may do to our mortal bodies and to this physical earthly world) The System loses its ultimate power over our spirits. 

It is stunning to observe the moral blindness of people, of Christians and (self-identified) Christian churches; when it comes to evil motivations among the leaders of social institutions, nations and corporations. 

Experience has no effect. It is apparently impossible for people to recognise that those with most power in the world are ultimately motivated by evil.

Part of this is that evil is not understood. Greed for money is the only generally accepted evil attributed to leaders, and the idea that people could fundamentally be motivated by a desire to do harm to others seems merely fanciful - a "conspiracy theory".

This applies mainly when there is a somewhat plausible excuse for the long-term and systematic inflicting of harm - as with the birdemic or climate stuff; but people are willing to accept even ridiculous non-excuses for massive harms, such as sanctions/ WW III and the transagenda.

But people remain self-blinded to even explicitly stated evil, such as the Agenda 2030 or Great Reset... We are at a point when those with the greatest power and of evil intent, can publish detailed evil plans... and the masses will refuse to take them seriously.

What are the mass motivations behind such wilfully self-destructive mass attitudes?

In the end, I am forced to admit that the only plausible explanation is that people desire their own destruction; that evil finds a gullible audience among the masses exactly because the masses have taken the side of evil -  and in an ultimate sense, want for themselves what their evil leaders want to do to them.

Indeed, unless this was the case, spiritual harm would not be possible; because (like a vampire) evil must be invited-in, and may be expelled by repentance and the commitment to follow Jesus Christ.

It is an unprecedented characteristic of these times that we create our world. We cannot help it, since our self is cut off from spontaneous immersion in the spirit.

We therefore choose because we must.

But most choose to deny responsibility for choosing. Usually, they passively accept the mainstream ideology, which is secular leftism. Sometimes they actively choose, passively to accept a religion... but deny the choosing!

Yet we are choosing, have chosen.

Is the specific choice then arbitrary? No, because we inhabit divine creation. Our choice will, or will not, harmonise with creation.

If our choices do not harmonize, then they oppose, contradict creation. This is, precisely, to be affiliated with the agenda of Satan and the demons.

We then have zero possibility of purpose, meaning and coherence in our lives.

So... many choices are possible, but they boil down to a single choice: with or against God.

 I find it striking how utopian "spiritual people" were, right into the 1990s, and with a much diminished group struggling on until 2012... After which I judge that nobody Really believes in a better future.

My understanding is that this is because a (more or less) good future was possible up to the Millennium - but not beyond. 

After 2000, the triumph of global evil, collapse and apocalypse was baked in... 

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, successful new "romantic" religious movements - such as Mormonism, theosophy, ritual magic and anthroposophy - very rapidly developed into complex, comprehensive and highly prescriptive systems. 

It seems that this was necessary in order to attract adherents from within existing religions (which is where most people were). A case of like for like.

But now, people are located in situations of spiritual "absolute zero". What used to be necessary now seems an absurd level of detail. What seemed helpful guidance is now experienced as arbitrary external micro-control.

What is necessary here and now requires to be graspable as a whole that can intuitively be validated.

That much is clear - All strategies and schemes will come to evil, and most are evil by motivation (being worldly, hedonic = leftist)... Here and now, at any rate.

Bottom-up, interpersonal, creative-loving,means not ends... These are not necessarily, nor even usually, good - but at least allows for that possibility.

If we desire revelation, divine knowledge and guidance; it seems best to recognise that we already have it. But inaccessible. Our problem is becoming aware of it, recognizing it (then, of doing it). 

This is a problem of expectation. We expect to be overwhelmed and compelled, whereas to modern adults revelation needs to be sought and chosen. We expect revelations to come as language or visions or signs... But these are symbolic and indirect, and easily explained away by modern Man.

Now, revelation comes directly into thinking, whenever we are motivated and aligned in harmony with God... Whenever we ask the right questions and acknowledge the given answers.

Since our God is parent and we God's child, revelation is bespoke... for our exact life - very seldom for the use of others. Seldom is there need to formulate in words, or discuss, debate, argue.

Seeking confidence or clarity is merely by continuing revelation, which either affirms and is consistent with, or else contradicts and refutes.

The key point to bear in mind is that God - continuing creator - has ensured that all his children have what they need spiritually for salvation and to learn lessons towards Heaven. Any significant long term problems about accessing revelation are coming from us.

A valid understanding of "clairvoyance" would be clear-seeing; which could be translated into the concept of direct-knowing. 

And this is part of the idea that our divine destiny - if not in this mortal life, albeit very partially, then in resurrected eternal life - is to move-towards a knowledge based on direct, experiential knowing. 

This is a consequence of the dawning recognition that what might be termed public knowledge - all quasi-objective forms of indirect, societal communication, mediated by language or other symbols - cannot and should-not be relied upon. 

(Of course; this 'cannot/ should-not be relied upon' applies to science, and mathematics, as much as to all other forms of public knowledge.) 

Aside from the ultimate and insoluble problem that we can never be sure that we are validly receiving and understanding symbolic truth - we can in addition (and especially since 2020) see how easily public knowledge is manipulated and exploited; how quickly and effectively lies and other types of untruth can be incorporated into public knowledge and enter 'history'... 

...Such that we cannot any more regard public knowledge as objective; and are thus pushed towards what God actually wants from us; which is to rely (as bottom-line) on directly-intuited knowing - from God within, and from the Holy Ghost. 

Of course (if you think about it!) such knowledge is only objectively valid in its original form - as directly known; and as soon as it is systematized, as soon as it is made-into language or other symbols and communicated... then that primary truth and validity is lost, and we are back in the realm of manipulable public knowledge. 

This is why it is unwise, and sometimes fatal, to try and persuade others of the validity of that which has been directly-known. Whatever we say, write, or otherwise notate; will always fail to be that direct knowledge which we actually-received - plus; how our communications are received by other people is subject to their own prior perspective and motivations.   

For Christians; the age of argument, polemic and persuasion is passing; the age of clear and personal, individual statement is upon us and growing. 

We need, above all, to achieve clear-seeing of-and-for our-selves; and if we then choose to render it (imperfectly)  symbolically/ linguistically - it is up to 'other people' to receive it by direct knowing... or not, as the case may be. 

There is, I feel, an artificiality about the common Christian idea that this - my mortal life - is bounded in one direction only; that is in the past by conception, while eternally unbounded in the future. 

I think this artificiality contributes to modern mainstream atheism. 

On the other hand; I am sure that this is my first and only mortal life. 

And, however things may have been before Jesus; I am pretty confident that the divine plan since Jesus is for as many as possible to make a permanent choice of where we go and what we do after this life: the permanent choice of salvation. 

We are (as a general rule, probably with some exceptions) supposed to (i.e. God hopes that we will) choose resurrected eternal life in Heaven. That is the divinely-desired permanent choice. 

Or...otherwise. And that 'otherwise' may not necessarily be permanent (although it can be - i.e. Hell) and 'otherwise' may in theory include the possibility of reincarnation. 

Yet to desire reincarnation (and therefore to reject the opportunity of Heaven Now) may be rare in reality in these days. It may be (I suspect) that most of the people who say they want reincarnation are saying so for spiritually-bad reasons; and that reincarnation may be a superficial cover-story for some other motivation such as refusal to repent a particular sin (or sin-in-general); or a fear-motivated refusal to choose to align-oneself with God, creation and The Good. 

i.e. For a modern Western person to say he desires reincarnation may in practice be another way of saying that he has rejected Heaven, and may well prefer Hell. 

Yet; when I look back before conscious life, my assumption is that I (personally) was continuously experiencing, learning, participating throughout - as a spirit-being, not incarnated. 

And I think it likely that it is memories of these personal experiences that may well lead to the phenomena which are usually interpreted as 'having experienced reincarnation'. 

In other words; some of my time before incarnation was - I'm pretty sure - spent in types of involvement with particular times and places of human history. Therefore it is quite natural for me (and others) to be very interested and concerned by the past, by ancestors, and also by other places than this earth... 

Such interest and concern may be rooted in actual experience and involvement - from before incarnation; when we were spirit beings. 

But, another vital understanding is of Time. 

I regard it as a potentially serious error that Christians adopt some version of the idea that all Time is present at one time, that past/ present/ future are actually all one. Such an idea (derived, apparently, from ancient Greek philosophers including Plato) is all-but standard and official theology among Christians; and probably has been since not long after the death of Jesus. 

On the contrary (by my understanding); I regard it as intrinsic to the Christian world-view that Time is real; i.e. directional, linear, sequential, cannot be reversed etc... 

So past really is past, future is not yet realized - and so forth. 

In other words, the 'common sense' idea of time, held by the uneducated and by children, is true.

Such a straightforward understanding of Time is necessary if we are to avoid paradox and incoherence when it comes to the idea of eternal beings that undergo change, development, evolution, transformation - salvation. 

If such changes of Beings are to be real - Time must be real. 

...Because Time is intrinsic to a Being - a Being is a dynamic thing, because Being is alive and conscious, and motivated. 

Plus; the deepest understanding of Freedom entails that our future is Not fixed; but may be changed by our free choices; and this agency is intrinsic to the chosen nature of Christian salvation. 

OK. I am making here the point that:

It would be A Good Thing if we became aware that this earthly mortal life we now experience is a stage in an unbounded continuum or sequence of experience in both directions. 

We each experienced a real past going back and back; and we confront a real future without limit.

The issue is what we do about this? 

Part of it is choosing the future; yet equally, part of it is acknowledging the experiences of our past (recent and remote) - because it is these from which we may learn, and which may transform our being. 

And that transformation may - potentially - be positive, and eternal.  

From the Tyrannosaurus Rex album - Unicorn - 1969. 

 Read aloud by John Peel

It was an ancient insight (going back to the earliest recorded philosophy) that Men as we are in this earthly mortal life; cannot be truly happy. 

Because; if Men (as we now are) were placed into 'Paradise' - then it would not be Paradise. 

We would not be fully happy there - and might even be more miserable. 

Furthermore; even if it had been Paradise before we arrived - we (as we now are) would soon wreck the place, to at least some degree -- in which case it would no longer be Paradise. 

Therefore; we our-selves are to blame for the ultimate unsatisfactoriness of mortal life on earth. 

Therefore, we have need for transformation before we can be truly happy; we our-selves must be first transformed before Paradise could be Paradise. 

Interestingly, this is recognized by the most advanced form of materialism so-far: transhumanism. This recognizes that Men need to transcend their current nature if they are to be fully happy, and free from suffering. 

But the transhumanist sees this as a material problem; and envisages Men as being transformed by physical means: drugs, surgery, implants, genetic engineering etc. But physical interventions can only operate within the constraint of this mortal world, which is entropic by nature; such that the desired order is always being-corrupted by chaos and any desirable state of being is temporary. 

Thus, even by its own lights - transhumanism can only at best yield amelioration of our condition - not Paradise. 

If Men are to be happy in Paradise it requires a spiritual - as well as material - transformation; indeed it requires that we understand the material to be part-of the spiritual, with the spiritual as primary. 

The Christian transformation that enables us to be wholly happy is termed resurrection; which can be understood as primarily a spiritual transformation to 'fit us for Heaven'/ Paradise - as well as the necessary physical transformation for such a life; such that we will have bodies, and yet also be immortal.  

Since Christians are called upon to have hope, and to follow Jesus to salvation; it seems to me that we need to be able to imagine what Heaven is like - sufficiently in order to desire it. 

Can we imagine the transformation of resurrection and a fully happy life in Heaven?

Some of us can. Those who recognize that some-times, at our best, this mortal life on earth is indeed Paradisal; thus wholly happy - albeit briefly. 

And we may also be able to recognize that these moments are also those times when we are most our-selves...

We may therefore be able to imagine, hence understand, that - in principle - we could be transformed such as to remain our-selves at our best; and become fit for Paradise. 

We may also be able to infer from such moments (and their basis in love) the nature of paradise. 

In sum - we may be able to know both that we require transformation to be truly happy; the nature of transformation needed; and that this kind of transformation is exactly what was offered by Jesus Christ. 

(After which we only need to determine whether Jesus's offer was valid.)

Note added. This post approaches the question from the bottom line moral assumption of mainstream modern secular materialist leftism - which is (roughly) that that is good which is most conducive to happiness - especially the elimination of suffering (the conceptualization of what-ought-to-be-happy vacillates, incoherently, between the individual - especially oppressed, victimized - person, and some abstract group entity that is regarded as oppressed/ victimized. But the scope of happiness is assumed to be that of this mortal life; and eternal life is disbelieved or disregarded. Thus all secular ideologies, including those that regard themselves as of The Right (conservative, republican, libertarian, alt-right etc), only differ in terms of suggested means to the same end: i.e. optimizing mortal earthly happiness.  

When the assumption is that we live eternally, the main rival to Christianity is that 'Oneness' spirituality which the West has extracted from Eastern religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, and which is promoted via the New Age, Perennial philosophy, and officially-approved 'mindfulness' exhortations. These locate suffering in consciousness, and consciousness in the-self (plus/minus the-material); and aim at the alleviation of suffering (plus/minus the maximization of happiness) by the annihilation of The Self into immaterial spirit, and assimilation of that which was separate into the oneness of deity. 

My point is that there is a sense in which all religions and ideologies can be reduced - and this is a reduction - to the nature of their concern with happiness. And that these differ irreconcilably about the proper scope of happiness, and how it can or should be attained. In other words, there is no possible coherent way of creating a single spirituality/ religion/ ideology from these three fundamentally differing assumptions. 

Leftism, Oneness and Christianity cannot be combined coherently - neither as pairs nor as a single unity. All attempts to combine them are actually subordinating one or other; or else alternating between incompatibles. 

We must therefore actively and consciously choose what kind of happiness we really want - or else the choice will (passively unconsciously) be imposed upon us. 

Dominant, top-down evil is changing from bureaucratic-media/ totalitarian enforcement of value-inversion; towards nihilistic and spiteful destruction of God's creation (i.e. turning what I have called Ahrimanic to Sorathic). 

This means there will be a reduction in the capacity of the evil Establishment to enforce value-inversion (by regulation, law, education, propaganda...by its general saturation of communications. 

At one level, this will be regarded as 'wins' for the side of good - because the capability of demonic powers to impose evil behaviour - and also to an extent, to impose evil thinking - will diminish. It will be easier for Christians to do Christian things that were previously sanctioned. 

This may be spiritual gain; but only if it leads to more people being more motivated to take the side of good (=God and divine creation). 

However; a degree of collapse in the apparatus of surveillance and control does not - of itself - make people one-whit better; does not of itself bring a single person from the side of evil to good. 

A diminution in (necessarily evil) totalitarianism is permissive of greater Christian activity; but that's all. People must and will still be motivated and choose; one way or the other. 

And meanwhile the world will (unless present trends are reversed by something like a mass Christian awakening) continue to descend into nihilistic chaos via increased mutual hatred, spite, resentment, and delight in suffering, despair and death.

Except in our private lives and at a small scale - there is nothing substantive that most Christians can do to prevent such an evil-affiliated-Establishment-led civilizational collapse; because attempting to do so will instead serve to reinforce the greater evil of totalitarianism (since - as of now - they rule all major institutions, corporations, organizations). 

So; a great deal (and everything essential) will depend on how each of us, personally, understands and reacts-to such a descent into Apocalypse; how we choose spiritually to believe and behave, in a collapsing world civilization. 

In other words; spiritually winning victories in the fight against evil totalitarianism, might feel very much like losing - in terms of physical suffering. 

And this is why it is vital to discern and distinguish-between this mortal life, and the resurrected life to come; and to keep our hope pinned firmly on what is to come; which requires strong faith and deep trust in God. 

Our proper faith is in God's love for us as persons, as immortal souls; and not (therefore) for our institutions, nations, or civilization - nor even our planet. 

The great tales never end: Essays in memory of Christopher Tolkien. Edited by Richard Ovenden & Catherine McIlwaine. Bodleian Library Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2022. pp. 231. 

I feel enormous gratitude to Christopher Tolkien (1924-2020) for the extraordinary work he did in editing and making available his father's unpublished works, and the drafts of his published works. These have vastly enhanced by enjoyment, and depth of appreciation, of JRR Tolkien over the past several decades. As Tom Shippey puts it in this volume:

It may be said without any qualification at all that no author has ever enjoyed a better or better-qualified literary executor than Tolkien found in his son Christopher.

Yet, although I 'know' and like his literary persona as well as almost anybody; I have until now been able to discover very little about Christopher's life. The Great Tales Never End at long last provides some of the key information I sought. 

My main criticism of this volume is, indeed, that there is not more focus on Christopher's life, and I would have liked more detail about the work he did in the decades before he began to edit his father's unpublished papers. 

I would also have appreciated extra in the way of memoirs of Christopher from friends and relations. TGTNE gives us a poem and a short memoir from sister Priscilla; but I would have enjoyed a lot more of this type of material (which could have been supplied by several of the contributors to later chapters). As things stand, Christopher's real-life personality is still rather obscure to me.  

The book takes the loose 'form' of a Festschrift - with work by eleven authors. It opens with a biographical introduction, timeline and bibliography of Christopher's life by Catherine McIlwaine. This was excellent, and included exciting quotes from thus-far unpublished correspondence; although I would have wished it several-fold longer!  

The information here confirms what I had previously heard but in confidence, and was implied by some remarks in a memoir; that Christopher's academic career was hampered and delayed by his third class bachelor's degree, when a first class was usually expected and required (and might lead swiftly to a permanent academic position). The unexpected failure to attain 'a first' is here explained by depression and ill-health following a failed love affair. 

Christopher then took the longer route to academic security of obtaining a BLitt degree, the research for which led to his only solo book - an edition of Heidrek's Saga. After which he published very little, according to the bibliography (although Google Scholar mentions a paper omitted here, called The Battle of the Goths and the Huns, in Saga-Book of 1953-7). 

As long ago as 1973 I myself studied The Nun's Priest's Tale in the excellent edition that Christopher produced with fellow ex-Inkling Nevill Coghill. It was an inspiring volume, which I have kept all these years - covered, as it now is, by my micrographic schoolboy pencil annotations.

Indeed; Christopher's academic reputation seems to have been based on a reputation for excellence as a teacher. He was a 'lecturer' (presumably on fixed-term contracts) for several years before being elected a Fellow of New College, Oxford in 1963 (at the rather late age of about thirty-nine). He remained in this secure and prestigious post until 1975 (aged about fifty one) when he resigned to work on editing his late father's works. 

From that point onwards, starting with his father's translation of 'Sir Gawain', and for the next 45 years - Christopher certainly 'made up for lost time' as a prolifically publishing scholar! 

In the end, Christopher Tolkien lived to complete his self-imposed task with The Fall of Gondolin in 2018 having been responsible for twenty-five books (according to the bibliography here); all of interest and importance to lovers of Tolkien; many of them containing the fruits of intense study and deep thought.

I shall now focus on particular aspects of a few of the chapters of TGTNE which made a particular impact on me. 

Vincent Ferre presents a detailed analysis of Christopher Tolkien as 'a writer' - whose role (especially in The Silmarillion of 1977) was sometimes required to go beyond 'normal' editing; to include selection from very different versions, rearrangement of passages, and composition of linking passages of prose (although presumably Guy Gavriel Kay - his helper for The Silmarillion - should also be credited with some of this). This gave me a new insight into what Christopher actually did, his process; in relation to the materials he had to work from. 

I took from Verlyn Flieger's chapter a fresh realization that the poetic description of the beginning of the world - as described in Ainulindale or Singing of the Ainur - comes to be reflected in what was originally the final words of The Lord of the Rings outside of Bag End (later moved to the Grey Havens) - where  "Sam heard suddenly the sigh and murmur of the sea on the shores of Middle Earth". 

The significance is that, slightly to paraphrase what the Silmarillion tells us: in water there yet lives the echo of the Music of the Ainur; so that later Men still hearken to the voices of the sea, but know not for what they listen. In a nutshell: The Silmarillion legends and LotR constitute "one long saga" - an arc from creation itself, to the eternal echoes of creation. 

John Garth's chapter reinforces the importance of this concept to Tolkien by describing the process of his meticulous earlier re-dating of this section of Lost Tales - which locates the Music of the Ainur as among the very earliest examples of Tolkien's creative flowering. 

Another example of the process of literary scholarship is in the chapter by Carl F Hostetter, who illustrates four examples of just how Christopher Tolkien - and himself - work on JRRT's primary manuscripts to provide vital information on dating; and therefore the compositional sequence, of drafts. This sequencing has been especially important in the case of Tolkien's draft material; since it often changed radically; spanning years, or sometimes decades, of composition. 

I was fascinated by Stuart D Lee's chapter on the 1955-6 BBC Radio dramatization of The Lord of the Rings; which used the letters between Tolkien and the BBC, drafts, and annotated scripts to provide a background to these - long lost - audio-broadcasts.  I was particularly struck by Tolkien's comment on the accents that he believed should be used to distinguish the characters. 

It was pleasing to see my own inferences confirmed that Merry and Pippin should not have 'rustical' accents, because they were "two young hobbits of the highest birth in the land". Tolkien suggested that the genuine rustic accents (e.g. for Sam or Butterbur) ought to be characterized mainly by the 'burred' pronunciation of 'r'. 

And further that elves (and other high folk) should 'trill' their 'r's in all positions of the letter (but not as much as do the Scots); whereas the dwarves should use a guttural 'r' from the soft palate (more like the Northumbrian dialect). 

Aside; I noticed that in 1956 the part of Ioreth (the wise woman of Gondor) was played by the young actress Prunella Scales, who later married actor Timothy West - who (some sixty years later) was the editorial voice of Christopher Tolkien himself in the recent audiobooks of Beren and Luthien and The Fall of Gondolin! (Their son Samuel West reads the actual texts.) 

Tom Shippey's chapter is titled King Sheave and the Lost Road; and discusses the especially powerful linked-concerns of Tolkien of a divine/ faery land in the west across the ocean; the once-existing sea-path to that land which is now lost but might be found again; and the idea of a 'higher/ nobler' Man (or Men) who came from the West by boat; bringing (for a while) gifts of good government, peace and prosperity in harmony with the gods' will. 

Shippey argues that the King Sheave character of (?) legend was seen by Tolkien as related to Jesus Christ in some spiritual fashion - perhaps as a partial vision of Jesus for the then-pagan North? 

Yet, as Shippey says, although this group of ideas haunted Tolkien through his life, and although he several times tried to incorporate it into his imaginative fictions (for example in Lost Tales, The Lost Road, The Notion Club Papers, references to Earendil and the Great Wave in The Lord of the Rings, and the published poems of Imram and Looney/ The Sea Bell) - in the end Tolkien never succeeded in finding a satisfactory narrative form that would capture this deep emotion. 

I hope have said enough to indicate that there is a lot of 'good stuff' in this enjoyable, albeit heterogeneous, volume. 

At its recommended retail price of forty pounds Sterling; TGTNE is perhaps too costly for the general reader; but this is presumably due to its specialized nature and probably modest audience; as well as to its superb quality as a hardback volume - with good paper, stitched binding, and very impressive maps and colour plates. 

But if you are sufficiently wealthy, Tolkien-obsessed, or can get hold of a library (or secondhand, or review) copy of The Great Tales Never End; you will find a great deal of inspiration, valuable information, and plenty of fruitful novel perspectives; concerning both Christopher Tolkien and his father.

Yesterday I listened to the first movement of Mozart's Paris Symphony 31 for the first time in a while; and was absolutely delighted by it - and found that I remembered almost everything. 

The piece was tailored for maximum impact on the Parisian audience, who apparently liked their music to be noisy and spectacular - and a large orchestra (with clarinets) was provided for the purpose. 

Mozart succeeded in this objective, and far beyond - because he wrote an utterly delightful piece, always interesting and masterly in structure - with many characteristic touches (especially with grouped-woodwinds contrasted with strings; something that he later did all-the-time). 

For me, this is the first symphony in which Mozart achieved first rank, and equaled the best of his predecessor Haydn. 

This performance is conducted by the Austrian Karl Bohm (1994-1981) who was - for me, when at his usual best - the best conductor of Mozart I have encountered.