Bruce Charlton's Notions

At the time of circa 2000, I would have said no, nothing much has changed; but I have since changed my mind.

Nothing happened at the exact time of the millennium (AD 2000 or 2001), and I am not a numerologist - so I see no special significance in the number of 2000 years...

But, as many people perceived in the previous century; that approximate time was indeed a qualitative transition, the millennium was indeed a threshold that we in The West were crossing.


The millennium was the threshold at which there was a generalised inversion of values. And this was apparent in the areas of life with which I was most involved over the years preceding and following the millennium.

For example, truth disappeared as an ideal. People were Not Even Trying to seeks the truth or to speak the truth, but instead truth became a rhetorical manipulation.

Truth was was replaced first by 'hype and spin' (to use the buzz words of that era) and then increasingly by virtuality - the 'real'-reality constructed by the mass media which was being amplified and extended vastly by the nascent social media.

Functionality was replaced by management, that is bureaucracy; i.e. totalitarianism - which is the attempt at complete surveillance and control at the micro level of individual ideas and behaviours in pursuit of universal damnation. 


So, in the areas of my own public activity - medicine, scientific research, and teaching - there was at about this time a tipping point.

These all became - in parallel, but in the same way - dishonest, dysfunctional, and evil-motivated.

For the first time, increasingly and irrevocably, bureaucratic mechanisms (committees, protocols, management...) took over both power and responsibility is the actual clinical practice of medicine (face to between doctor and patient); the specific themes, methods and reporting of scientific research; and the details of in-the-classroom teaching.


All of these are now thoroughly brought into the single-bureaucracy, which has been extended nationally and indeed multi-nationally; to become minutely controlled by a linked managerial system...

A system motivated by an ideology of value-inversion - in pursuit of corruption, lies, disgust, self-hatred, slow-suicide, nihilism and despair... but all regarded as positives.

And this became first dominant and official, then ubiquitous and mandatory, with an inflexion point somewhere-around the millennium.

I have discussed this before, but in retrospect it is ever more clear to me that the years around the year AD 2000 really were the crossing of a threshold of possibility. 

The strange thing is that I recognized this at the time - despite that I was not a Christian, and indeed my attitudes and beliefs were much closer to the opposite (pro-modernization, pro-specialization, optimistic about the future). 

If you look at my publications in the years before and soon after 2000; you will see that I was very active in public debate concerning the future of medicine, academic generally and science in particular. I was an atheist, broadly libertarian/ anarchist, and had distinctly transhumanist sympathies - which was why my main publications are located on hedweb.com. 

And yet - even from that opposite perspective to now; I could see that what I valued most was on the cusp of being lost - that if the trends were not reversed then there would soon be a world of medicine indifferent to health and happiness, universities and schools without education, science without truth. 

I strongly felt the approaching end of Western Civilization - if serious steps were not rapidly taken to save its distinctive values. 

As the millennium approached; I can remember being psychologically-driven by the conviction that 'this is our last chance'; that if 'we' (that is doctors, academics, scientists) did not act decisively Now, then the balance of power would soon have shifted decisively towards the total-dominance of generic bureaucracy, and no effective action would again be possible.  

At the time, I did not link this to the millennium as such - indeed I was very dismissive of millennium-talk.

Two things I especially disliked. The first was that something special would happen because of the number 2000; and would therefore happen at the exact time when the number 'clicked into place'. The idea that history would be divided by whether it came before or after the arrival of 2000. 

I was also especially dismissive of what I regarded as wishful-thinking in the New Age prophesies of a more-spiritual, more-good, Age of Aquarius. This new and better life would, it seemed, be imposed upon us (without serious need for activity on our part) by high-frequency influences/ forces/ powers beamed-down-upon us from the heavens. 

We would all of us, they seemed to be saying, passively be-made better...

But, on the contrary, I saw no positive impulses incipient; but instead the approach of a doom. A time after which it would be too-late to escape sinking into a swamp of general societal collapse into leftist bureaucracy that would harness fake-medicine, fake-scholarship and fake-science to its parasitic and destructive agenda. 

I now suppose that the demonic powers of evil - or, more exactly, those 'Ahrimanic' demonic powers that have been dominant in recent centuries - do make their plans and schemes in accordance with specific numbers (and that they also deploy symbolism and ritual). 

In particular they strategize around 'decimal' numbers (They, of course, have tried for generations to impose a universal decimal system); and - for Them - certain numbers have special significance.

Another decimal year, 2020, was far more obviously a watershed year than was 2000 (although I suspect that 2020 may have been more of an opportunistic, and perhaps Sorathically motivated, work of spiteful destruction than of coldly-Ahrimanic System building). 

And now the demonic powers are working towards 2030 for the 'completion' of their current phase of global subjugation and corruption.    

Well, it all happened, and worse - just as I feared/ predicted it would.

Although now I perceive the evil to have been deliberate and of supernatural origin; rather than merely a consequence of the innate tendencies of the systemic structure of bureaucracy - combined with the weakness/ demotivation of functional specialist groups such as universities and professions.  

What interests me now, is that I was able to perceive this crossing of a threshold despite having, in so many ways, an opposite belief system. 

Currently, I tend to suppose that the year 2000 was indeed significant - and not as being accidentally clustered around that number; nor as the approximate time when certain adverse features of the industrial revolution era 'just happened' to reach a stage sufficiently advanced in destructiveness. 

Although I was not sensitive to this at the time; I now regard 2000 as primarily a spiritual watershed in terms of the possibility for a large-scale Western Christian - specifically Romantic Christian - revival.  

Having missed this 'deadline'; the possibilities of a genuine and necessary kind of Christian revival became much more limited, much less complete; and this is the reason why it became impossible to save Western Civilization. 

After we failed to grasp our last chance at the millennium; the End Times became inevitable.  

Aha! - that is a trick question. The trick is that c2000 we were supposed-to recognize that the world was Not objective and external - and that instead we, each and personally, participated in creating the reality of the world. 

We were supposed to recognize that this participation in creating the 'objective, external world' needed to become active. 

And that this active-participation needed consciously to be chosen.  

And for our creative contribution to be Good, entailed that we also chose to be aligned with God's creative destiny. 

The problem was and is that a failure to choose this active embrace of God and creation led to an evil default - which we see all around us today. Instead of actively/ consciously-choosing Good -- Mankind has passively and unconsciously (and in-denial) chosen evil. 

This choice and its consequences was, indeed, prophesied in some detail before it came upon us - it was in the nature of Man's destiny that this choice must and should arise; because the millennium approximately marks the transition from Man's spiritual adolescence to adult maturity - and spiritual maturity can only be chosen, not compelled. 

Instead Man chose spiritually Not to become adult; and instead to arrest development at the adolescent spiritual stage - with predictably adverse consequences. 

Yet, so much of the spiritual expectation of the millennial era was focused around one or other possibility that Man would-be-transformed; that this transformation would come from outside, would happen-to Man... that the world would change for the better. 

People were talking about a vibrational or frequency change, an Age of Aquarius or some other astrological phase change, about moving into a new and more spiritual world and so forth. 

There was a limited recognition that people would need to cope with this beneficial change for it to have maximum value - that we should go-along-with it; should not fight against it; that people would need to recognize and accept the transformation around them. 

There was indeed a change around the millennium - in Men's minds, and also (necessarily) in the world that is not Men's minds (the environment, the outer world) - and this was an 'objective' change - and it was also apparently universal: nobody in the world seems to have been exempted. 

But what does not seem to have been considered as that the good-ness of the change would depend not just on recognition, but also on the activity of men's thinking - on a positive embrace of the divine destiny behind the changes. 

In other words; the millennial change was about the objectivity of a freedom and necessity to choose. The better world was available to those who chose to participate in the world - primarily by the thinking of their real self, by direct knowing of an intuitive kind. But it could not passively be absorbed, and would not be attained without actively wanting it.  

Positive change entailed (among other things) recognizing that this universe is God's creation, that the created world consists of living Beings that are purposive and conscious and in-relationships, and that this world is a place of learning for those who intend to resurrect into Heaven.  

But for those who chose Not to recognize and actively participate-in the millennial change, but instead remained willingly locked-into the prior assumptions that the world is only material, there is no God, the universe is full of not-alive/ dead objects interacting impersonally, and death is annihilation of the self... 

...Well, for such people there was Nothing Objectively Good about the millennium. 

So, despite that the millennium did see a significant change in the human mind, in human consciousness - and that therefore 'the world' was also changed (because the world does not exist independently of consciousness) - this change was Not Good.

Although the millennial change might-have-been a great spiritual Good - in the event it was evil in effect. 

Because by failing to work with the millennial possibility of Good, was also to choose evil; and willingly to accept the value-inversions of an increasingly anti-God, anti-Jesus, anti-life and demonically controlled world System. 

In sum; there was no objective change for the better in the external world around 2000; instead the external world got worse - objectively worse - in response to the Man's wrong choice, and the subsequent worsening decline and corruption of Man. 

And that is why the world really is worse - to the spiritual eye - and keeps getting worse. And why this worseness includes the world that is not Man - 'the environment' as it is post-millennially conceptualized. 

Man's evil choices have affected the reality of creation, which is itself being-corrupted.

The damage cannot be undone, but the trajectory of spiritual corruption can be escaped at any time by Christian repentance and active embrace of God, the Good, and by choosing actively to participate in the living creation. 

I keep recurring to the idea that, starting around the millennium, there was a progressive change in human consciousness that led to our present situation in which people choose what they believe. 

This means that people no longer believe what they perceive - and therefore personal experience and common sense have disappeared. 

Instead (to put it crudely) people perceive what they believe - and this is inevitable and unavoidable. 

Tis can be explained on the basis that perceptions get meaning from the concepts by which we understand them. If we suppose that past Men had mostly innate, instinctive and unconscious concepts, then their beliefs seemed to be determined by perceptions, by external facts. 

In other words; concepts always drive perceptions - but when concepts are innate, instinctive, unconscious - then 'the facts' seem to be dictated by the outside world. 

Because we will 'automatically' understand by means of concepts we are not aware of - so the facts alone seem to contain understanding. (This error is the basis of 'empiricism.)

But as men - through history - became more aware (more conscious) of the concepts by which they understood reality - then the time came - around the millennium - that Men needed to choose these concepts.

And when a new concept was adopted, then the facts and perceptions changed in light of that concept.  

This situation of Men choosing their own reality has been obscured by the fact that most people simply, passively, believe what they are told by a vast apparatus of bureaucracy and the mass media - and what they are told is essentially uniform. 

So that, although each person is passively choosing what he believes in accordance with whatever concepts are prevalent and most strong emphasized and incentivized. 

And, in the end, almost everyone chooses to believe the same thing - while being largely unaware of having made that choice.

What almost everyone believes I have termed the Virtuality - which is the 'official' reality created and endorsed by a bureaucracy and media that have since the 2020 coup become ever more monolithic, and coercive. 

This is why people believe whatever they are told, no matter how many lies, how incoherent, and how evil the motivations of the 'programmers'. 

But once someone has realized the above situation - he instantly escapes from the Virtuality. 

The millennium made a change such that we are just-are responsible for what we believe - in each and every respect; and to believe The Establishment rather than taking personal responsibility is itself a choice. 

The possibilities for personal influence in the direction of Good or evil are therefore greater than ever before. (As was prophesied by Rudolf Steiner and Owen Barfield.) 

It is a really exciting and hopeful time - albeit shot-through with tragedy - when this 'reality' is grasped and has been embraced!

Throughout the twentieth century orientated towards the millennium, and spilling over somewhat up until the 2012 'delayed millennium', there was a significant sub-culture of 'channeling' among spiritual-but-not-religious people - those who from the 1980s were gathered under the New Age label. 

The phenomenon was essentially a development of the spiritualist mediums from the 19th century; but instead of focusing on contact with the deceased on behalf of their surviving spouses and relative, the mediums of channeling purported to be contacting what might be termed 'spiritual teachers'. 

These channeled-teachers were of a wide range; from God and Jesus Christ, through angels, down to 'ascended Masters', prophets, and famous people of the past - or sometimes named, but imperfectly identified, spiritual authorities. Others were quoting from spiritually perceived sources (e.g. "The Akashic Records").   

I would regard Madame Blavatsky (Theosophy - late 19th century) then Rudolf Steiner (from about 1900 - Theosophy, then Anthroposophy) as probably the major precursors and originators of New Age style channelers. Steiner, in particular, exemplifies both the possibilities and pitfalls of the business. 

I have been investigating the literature on channeling for about 8 years - since I became engaged with the work of William Arkle and the circles he moved in. In his later years, Arkle took a serious interest in several of the channeled books which came out from the early twentieth century, and which were especially abundant in the 1980s and 1990s (Arkle died in 2000). 

Since I respect Arkle, and have learned so much from him, I thought this phenomenon was worth a look; even though Arkle's best work (in my opinion) comes from the period before his late-life engagement with the New Age and channeling.  

I got-hold-of - or took a serious look-at - all the books Arkle mentioned; including his particular favourite from 1931, an anonymous production called The Book of El Daoud, the Father-King, Which is the Gospel of Simplicity given unto his own. 

Others books included a series from 'Lord Mikaal' (i.e. St Michael) including Winds of Truth (from 1950s onward); The Only Planet of Choice from Phyllis V Schlemmer; MAPP to Aquarius by Nada Yolanda; Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsh - still ongoing. 

I also listened-to/ watched some famous channelers in audio or video.    

To keep matters brief; I was overall very much un-interested and un-impressed by the authority and accuracy of channeling; as a way of gathering objective spiritual information for the benefit of Mankind.

There were - of course - some bits and pieces of what seemed like valid and helpful perspectives, usually of a very general (indeed obvious) nature. And there was also some indication that the process may have been somewhat helpful to some of the people involved - at first. 

But overall, teaching-channeling seemed like a net-harmful activity - especially over the longer term, and the prophecies - especially relating to the millennium - were wrong both in general and in detail. 

In particular; in the 1980s-90s; it apparently became normal in New Age circles to expect a millennial raising of human consciousness - often described as a raising of vibrations or frequency - which would raise-up the entirely of mankind; or at least those would would accept it. 

The process was primarily something done-to (rather than done-by) humans - it involved varying degrees of eagerness or acquiescence - but was envisaged as an external intervention (sometimes from extra-terrestrials, who - in this kind of scheme - took on many of the traditional qualities of angels). 

Included was a general idea of the expectation increased 'spiritual help' such as paranormal activity (or awareness of paranormal events) such as UFOs, Crop Circles, channeling itself, synchronicities etc. 

And also an increased presence-of (and contact-with) helpful spiritual beings of various kinds including ETs, angels, Masters; and the birth of a new generation of especially spiritual children (sometimes called 'indigo' children - or some other colours). At its most mainstream - in 2008; plenty of people believed that Barack Obama was an elevated spiritual guide called a Light Worker - who would lead the world into the New Age. 

In the event; none of this stuff happened but the opposite. Especially after the deferred millennium of 2012 (supposedly the end of the Mayan calendar and a new astrological cycle.  

The New Age dwindled, and Men got much less spiritual and more materialistic, this-worldly and nihilistic. 

And (especially since social media) the masses have handed-over their minds to the Global Establishment, rather than to spiritual authorities. 

So - is channeling completely bogus? No - because I know of at least one valid example; which is William Wildblood's experiences, described especially in his book Meeting the Masters. 

A comparison with the mainstream New channeling shows why. Wildblood's experiences were personal and private, and not revealed until log afterwards. The teachings were personally directed - tailored to the young Wildblood's needs and development. The teachings were also relatively low volume, and simple.   

This contrasts with the (more or less) famous channelers - who address 'the world', make everything public ASAP; and generate a large amount of highly detailed 'information' on... every subject under the sun! There is also a strong flavour of pandering to the audience about these messages - they say what will play well with the kind of soft-leftists who make-up nearly all of the New Agers. 

Furthermore, the New Age channelers/ mediums (or their sponsors) adopt a 'careerist' moeny/ status. publicity-seeking stance - and some of them also espouse and practice sexual 'liberation'/ promiscuity/ revolution.  

In conclusion; I regard channeling as probably a real thing, a kind of spiritual experience, that happened to some people in the 20th/ early 21st century; and was probably related to that particular phase in the development of human consciousness. 

But it was meant to be a personal and private type of communication and intended to be understood in a Christian context. 

Channeling was Not a kind of objective information, nor a quasi-scientific form of 'knowledge'; understandable, learnable and applicable for adoption by 'the world'. 

To return to Steiner; in his early years, and intermittently thereafter; Steiner made major contributions to understanding our situation in the world. 

But in becoming a professional, addressing 'the world', building a movement, and channeling a vast body of quasi-objective Spiritual Science (which has since been learned and - mostly - applied like cook-book recipes by his followers); Steiner became mostly (but never wholly) a producer of pseudo-knowledge - as did the later channelers. 

(Indeed; a great deal of Steiner's purported Anthroposophical cosmology, history and prophecy comes from Blavatsky's Theosophy, or is modified ad re-shaped from her - naturally, as Steiner was an official Theosophical leader for many years.) 

William Arkle - on the other hand - never seemed to go all this way. 

He was apparently misled, by the consensus of channelers, into a false spiritual optimism - and his hard prediction of a massive enhancement of human spiritual consciousness around the millennium did not happen. 

But his reading and understanding of channeled sources was so selective and idiosyncratic, that mostly it functioned as a confirmation of ideas he had already arrived-at himself - from personal and private intuition/ direct-knowing. He kept his 'teaching' simple, stuck closely to what he had tested and affirmed; and therefore it was largely valid.  

In a nutshell; I think the main value of the channeling phenomenon - as evidence by William Wildblood, was insofar as it was a direct and experiential confirmation of the reality of the spiritual. 

By experiencing genuine channeling either at first or secondhand; some people were lastingly convinced that there was more to the world than the material.  

Thus, true-channeling is probably more a matter of form than content; therefore it is best regarded as properly a transitional spiritual phase, or step towards Romantic Christianity. 

In the years approaching 2000 there was a great deal of expectation in New Age circles that this time was to be a spiritual threshold crossing; and I myself first became interested in such matters at this time - initially focused on hunter gatherer beliefs. 

Yet, the first impression as we went into the early 2000s was that 'nothing had happened' - certainly there was no significant spiritual revival: there was no clear raising of human consciousness to a higher level. The New Age movement continued - but as an increasingly commercial, psychological, 'self-help' activity. 

Meanwhile, materialism began to take-off with an accelerating expansion of bureaucracy and managerialism - and the solid domination of increasing-leftism through the entirety of mainstream politics, law, churches, the media, academia, arts, science, health services - and then into the police and military. 

There was not the expected re-enchantment of life; but instead more and more dis-enchantment.  

So - did anything happen? Was a threshold of human consciousness crossed?

I now think that yes, something happened: something Big; and yes there was a change in human consciousness. And that change was (approximately): more and more people began to live in a world of their own creation. 

This was, in its form, exactly the consciousness transition that had been foreseen several decades earlier by Rudolf Steiner and then Owen Barfield. They foresaw that Men were going to become so detached from 'nature' that they would 'make their own reality'. 

But, the reality that Men chose to make was not the one hoped for by 'spiritual people' - it was instead the made-reality of the mass media and the pervasive, extensive, unifying bureaucracy (which was  linked-up globally by early 2020 - as was first evident from the birdemic-response). 

From 2000; Men came to inhabit a willed world (a virtual world) - yet this was not the 'spiritual' world of high consciousness that had been hoped-for, nor was it a world that individual Men had personally discerned and chosen. It was instead a matter of millennial New Man passively-absorbing a dominant, mainstream 'official world' - devised and propagated by those with the greatest power and influence.  

The millennial change in consciousness was 'about' Men having a new capacity to create their own reality; in other words to 'choose what was true'. It was hoped by some that Men would use this new power to choose to live in a world of meaning, purpose and personal involvement with nature and the divine spirit world - and that Men would therefore create such a reality. 

Because Men could now choose what to believe, and could make these beliefs real; they might have chosen to acknowledge the reality of God, creation and Heaven. Of course, as a Christian, I know these to be really-real - but since the millennial transition the really-real needs to be chosen and self-created in the same way as the false and evil.

Since the millennium; Men have overwhelmingly chosen to co-create a reality without meaning, purpose or humanity; a reality based on fear, resentment and despair; a reality which denies their own capacity (and right!) to choose. 

In effect men have chosen a world of alienation, futility, and inescapable death; and then chosen to deny that they have chosen!

And they have chosen to regard their choice as inevitable, the only possibility that ever-was real. 

Why have so many Men made this choice? A choice which had led directly to the current (and unprecedented) world government of evil and systematic destruction based on fear, resentment and despair?  

Why, to put it differently, have so very few Men chosen to co-create (as they could have) a world of faith, hope and love? 

...Rejecting the chance of a world where reality really-was enchanted. 

The reasons are many - but I focus on two. 

The first was leftism - which by 2000 had infected and become established in almost everyone; and leftism is intrinsically evil; being anti-Christian and metaphysically materialist, built-on and incorporating many Big Lies. 

The entire spectrum of mainstream opinion was, by 2000, merely variations on leftism. All significant political parties and movements - left and 'right' were leftist. All New Agers were leftist, in one or other respect - and many were very leftist. 

Leftism was assumed to be the bottom line of any 'good' morality - anything else than leftism was rejected as abhorrent. Reality was fitted-into leftism...

The second was passivity. New Age expectations of the millennium were that something would happen-to people. There would be some kind of shift - which was conceptualized in terms of raised frequency, vibration, energies or the like - and this external change would would raise humanity. 

Humanity, consciousness, would be lifted by external forces; and the primary act of choice was consenting to be thus raised. 

Yet, the truth was that Men needed to make an active choice to benefit from the millennial transformation. All the good options (God, Creation, Jesus Christ, a living conscious and personal universe...) required positive, active choice. 

By remaining passive, and by regarding leftism as the fundamental truth; when the millennial threshold was crossed; Men made the world that was all around them, the world that was easiest. The world that was everywhere, powerful, persuasive, fun, socially-high-status. The world view that brought in money and led to most pleasure - that is, the world of the media, or leftist socio-politics, of materialism...

So Man did cross the threshold at the millennium, and with new powers of consciousness to create his own reality...

And then Man chose to use these new powers to make the whole world a locked-down, hope-less, dead prison - for himself and everybody else. 

*
I have been reading and listening to Rudolf Steiner for a few months, as if I was searching for something but I did not know what. Today I found it! It is an astonishing, inspired and prophetic essay entitled, rather tangentially, The Work of the Angel in our Astral Body.

The months of rather desultory and aimless exploring served to prepare me so that I could understand this very difficult and concentrated and jargon filled piece - which, as is usual with Steiner, contains much that is bizarre and apparently arbitrary - but my attention was arrested initially by this astonishing passage which foresaw exactly our current situation.

The reason we are in this situation, according to Steiner, is the wrong exercise of our free will to ignore (by sleeping through - in an attempt to return to the immersive spirituality primal animism) or refuse (in the name of a scientism that disbelieves the spiritual altogether) what should have been a step forward in our human evolution: a conscious spirituality focused on Christ.

*


http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/19181009p01.html

There are some fascinating and important reflections on this vital (literally vital) subject from William Wildblood, and following-up from WmJas Tychonievich. 

Wildblood states the basic idea:

It would be my contention that just as there is a divine plan for mankind so there is also a demonic plan... Their aim is to absorb the energy from human souls for their own benefit and use. They have cut themselves off from the source of life and need life energy to maintain their existence. So they seek to corrupt souls.

Tychonievich amplifies:

Pure spite just doesn't seem like enough of a reason for the devil to keep working tirelessly, millennium after millennium, for something that brings no benefit to him personally. It seems plausible that the devils must in some way need human damnation, that they must be soul-predators, vampires.

I comment:

This would be an extremely valuable addition to understanding positive demonic motivation. Perhaps we could look at our own evil acts and those of others - in this mortal life - to see whether an assumption of some kind of life-energy vampirism fits what we have observed. I think it does. 

Of course we can't actually perceive or physically measure what is going on - in terms of energy transfer - but it certainly seems as if this can happen. 

Furthermore, from what I have read of the dark side of the ritual magical societies of the late 19th, early 20th centuries (including what found its way into Charles Williams novels - who knew this world from experience) energy-vampirism seems to be almost exactly what dark ritual magicians were trying to do - and almost certainly sometimes did. 

This certainly supports the idea that it is what demons do; as does what I have read in (for example) David Icke and elsewhere about the kind of rituals that the Global Establishment engages in. A great advantage of knowing this is that it means we can get away from discussing 'demonic psychology' - what they like, what they want etc - which all sounds (as you say) too mushy and superficial to lead to the long-term planning and work They engage in. 

If demonic activity is seen as something more like a technological process or making a 'drug' maybe this models gets a bit closer. However I think we also need to guard against making it a one-sided 'materialist' thing as if human souls could really be treated as drugs or a fuel... 

Clearly, there must be some kind of 'consent' induced for this to happen - for the energy/ vitality transfer to occur. The victim must be induced to consent. 

 That, of course, is the Big spiritual problem of these times - the apparent large majority who consent to the evil vampiric operations being performed upon them.

Many people realize that They lie to Us; but there is a residual belief that there are places, times or situations in which They tell the truth to each other. 

Such ideas have various levels. It used often to be said that the mainstream newspapers were dishonest; but the 'in house' media such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, and Economist were basically honest - because (supposedly) in such places They were talking to each other - and the information exchanged need to be valid... 

This may have been true at some point in the past; but has certainly not been true since around the millennium; since when such journals are as deluded as, or even more so than, the rest. 

It seems clear that now there is just as much manipulation and brainwashing going-on among the Establishment; than there is of the masses by the Establishment. 

Yet there is a residual hope that we may discover "what They are really up-to" by examining off-the-record or internal communications; perhaps leaked, illicitly recorded or hacked memos, conversations, or accidental revelations... 

The image is of Machiavellian thinkers who, among themselves, deal with solid facts and reliably tested mechanisms; make explicit plans, and then objectively monitor their outcomes with rigour. 

And who only then invent lies in order to keep these secret and make them more effective.  

This leads to the assumption that when the secret communications are discovered and published, the resulting 'gotcha' will reveal the truth, will undeceive the masses, and thereby undermine and thwart wicked plans.  

But such excited hopes rest on the assumption that They are ever honest; when in reality liars nearly-always lie primarily to themselves - and indeed, self-deception is the basis of other-deception. 

(Furthermore - which is another matter - such hopes rest on an assumption that the masses care mainly about truth, are capable of recognizing the truth, and will adjust their evaluations accordingly.)  

I began to realize that this was a false model as a result of my own inner dealings with bureaucracies and those who head them. I worked in both Regional and District levels of the National Health Service Public Health services; and was a member of a university senior academic committee (Senate); and an editor in a multinational publishing corporation. 

In all of these, expedient untruthfulness was normal, expected, and insisted-upon. Everybody on the inside lied (but deniably - that was the skill of it) to each other, and they lied to their audience. They just lied All The Time!

I also had multiple experiences (and experiences of friends and colleagues) in relation to the conduct of science - which I know had once been a haven of honesty and truth seeking. 

Again, it was clear that - however things had been in the middle 20th century - by the millennium, the relationship between science and truth had been severed and discarded; and - exactly as with other bureaucracies - expedient and deniable untruthfulness was normal, expected and insisted-upon. 

Such experiences gave me the clue that nowadays - no matter how high-up and secret the level one is dealing-with in the Establishment; there is no place or occasion when it is the practice to be honest and where (which is necessary to this) honesty is enforced, and dishonesty exposed, repented explicitly, and sanctioned. 

We ought therefore to be wary of assuming that the latest revelations give us a window into how things really are - whether these come from leaks and hacks, private documents, recorded interactions or whatever. 

These covert sources may reveal Establishment attitudes that They would prefer to keep secret; but then again these attitudes may be faked inter-Establishment bragging, posing, virtue-signaling, or manipulations - rather than genuine revelations of motivations. 

In a world of pervasive dishonesty - truth is not available in public discourse, nor in private discourse among the Establishment. 

Truth is not Their currency. 

And whatever is connected bureaucratically to the System, shares System imperatives - of which one is that interactions must be untruthful in-line with the currently-dominant ideology. 

And this applies to all the major churches - including those institutional Christian churches that are employers, have workforces, gather in public spaces, have property, pay taxes (or claim exemptions) etc. - just as much as it does elsewhere. 

The mechanism proposed by Steiner was that there were certain changes that needed to be made, spiritual steps that needed to be taken, by Western Man in a fashion that was willed, conscious, explicit - and if such steps were not taken (and they were not taken) then the desired changes would appear in a distorted form as instincts post-hoc interpreted rationalistically...

I have edited parts the lecture to focus on the parts relating to what-turned-out-to-be the sexual revolution, now mainstream and dominant in the West - I have ruthlessly 'translated' some of Steiner's idiosyncratic terminology - so this is an interpretation as well as an edited version. Some of my comments are [in square brackets].

The whole lecture can (and should) be read here - but, be warned, it is difficult: 

What if humanity on earth should persist in sleeping through the momentous spiritual revelation of the future? 

Then the Angels would have to try different means of achieving what the pictures they weave in the consciousness of man are intended to achieve. If men do not allow this to be achieved in while they are awake, the Angels would, in this case, endeavour to fulfill their aims through their sleeping bodies. 

Here lies the great danger for this age of the Consciousness Soul. [That is, the era in which consciousness, self-awareness, is intensified to the exclusion of contact with reality - the age of disenchantment, alienation, materialism.] This is what might still happen if, before the beginning of the third millennium, men were to refuse to turn to the spiritual life. The third millennium begins with the year 2000, so it is only a short time ahead of us. 

But what would be the outcome if the Angels were obliged to perform this work without man himself participating, to carry it out during sleep? Firstly, something would be engendered in the sleeping human bodies and Man would meet with it on waking in the morning ... but then it would become instinct instead of conscious spiritual activity, and therefore baleful. 

Certain instinctive knowledge will arise in human nature connected with the mystery of birth and conception, with sexual life as a whole; and this threatens to become baleful if the danger of which I have spoken takes effect. 

The effect in the evolution of humanity would be that certain instincts connected with the sexual life would arise in a pernicious form instead of wholesomely, in clear waking consciousness. 

These sexual instincts would not be mere aberrations, but would pass over into and configure the social life, would above all prevent men from unfolding brotherhood in any form whatever on the earth, and would rather induce them to rebel against it. This would be a matter of instinct.

So the crucial point lies ahead when either the path to the right can be taken — but that demands wakefulness — or the path to the left, which permits of sleep. But in that case instincts come on the scene — instincts of a fearful kind.

And what do you suppose the scientific experts will say when such instincts come into evidence? They will say that it is a natural and inevitable development in the evolution of humanity. But light cannot be shed on such matters by natural science, for whether men become angels or devils would be equally capable of explanation by scientific reasoning. Science will say the same in both cases: the later is the outcome of the earlier ...

Natural science will be totally blind to the event of which I have told you, for if men become half devils through their sexual instincts, science will as a matter of course regard this as a natural necessity. Scientifically, then, the matter is simply not capable of explanation, for whatever happens, everything can be explained by science.

Man would pride himself upon the growth of his instinctive knowledge of certain processes and substances and would experience such satisfaction in obeying certain aberrations of the sexual impulses that he would regard them as evidence of a particularly high development of superhumanity, of freedom from convention, of broad-mindedness! 

In a certain respect, ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness. 

Yet, nothing of this would be perceived because it would all be regarded as natural necessity. But it would actually denote an aberration from the path which, in the nature of humanity itself, is prescribed for man's essential being.


Comment: In other words, our true destiny is for each of us deliberately, by choice, consciously and explicitly to make the next step in the evolution towards divine consciousness.

But if we do not make this choice and take this step (and we have-not done so in the past century since Steiner gave this lecture), then we will instead have...

What I find especially impressive about this prediction is that insight that the sexual aberrations would come to configure social life; and would be explained-away by 'science' as natural and inevitable developments: "Man would pride himself upon the growth of his instinctive knowledge of certain processes... and would experience... satisfaction in obeying certain aberrations of the sexual impulses"; and would see these as "evidence of a particularly high development of superhumanity, of freedom from convention, of broad-mindedness"; amounting to a mainstream societal adoption of value-inversion - "ugliness would be beauty and beauty, ugliness".

Well, we will have exactly what we actually do have: Steiner's prophecy regarding the sexual revolution has-been fulfilled; explicitly and to the last detail.

I have often written about the (approximate) millennium - when so many people felt there was an approaching spiritual breakthrough, yet the spiritual changes that actually happened were the opposite of spiritual. 

So that we now live in a shallowly hedonist, materialistic, short-termist, gullible world - more evil than ever in history, because of widespread and officially-media encouraged (increasingly even mandated) value inversion. 

I have suggested that the millennial spiritual change was a change of consciousness (endogenous, primary and presumably divinely-destined); by which that which had been innate, instinctive, spontaneous and (often) traditional - lost their grip on our minds. 

We found ourselves cut-off from our previous immersion in a kind of general consciousness; and therefore both gifted and forced to choose. 

We must now choose; whereas in the past our values came naturally: partly inbuilt, partly absorbed from society (and most human societies shared most of these values).

We became able to choose our fundamental values: but more, we were (and are) compelled to choose them. 

We might therefore have chosen to believe and live-by almost anything! 

We might have chosen some purposive, meaningful and hopeful assumptions and values! We might have chosen to live in divine creation, with a god/s who loved us personally, and took an interest in each of our lives. We might have chosen to believe in Jesus Christ who enabled us to have a resurrected and everlasting life in Heaven; by following Him on the other side of death...

 

But instead, overall and overwhelmingly; we of The West (in particular) rejected these possibilities. Going from my own responses and efforts, and what I have seen in others; here is my best guess as to what happened. 

Instead of making positive and hope-full choices, (and en masse) we chose rather to believe that both the reality of the universe, and our personal lives, are causally-determined and/or random; and that our own life will be objectively arbitrary, a temporary blip, and therefore objectively futile in the larger scheme of things. 

Consequently the mood of our times is one of fear, resentment at our situation; at best barely staving-off a suicide-seeking despair by continual distraction and projection.  

What went so badly wrong? 

Why did so many people choose so self-destructively, so miserably - to believe everything to be pointless? 

Why have so many people doubled-down on this decision?

 

Looking back at the end of the twentieth century and the hopes and expectations of a better and more spiritual world to come; I think the main reasons were passivity and the refusal of responsibility. 

The hope for a global spiritual transformation and awakening; were passive hopes that this would be done-to-us. Indeed, the idea of un-sought yet profound change was (and often still is) regarded as a hallmark of validity, authenticity. 

So people hoped and expected that everyone would be made more spiritual; everybody's consciousness would be raised-up by some external force or change. People's attitude was one of waiting for this to happen-to-them. 

The most we would need to do, for this to happen, would be to assent to its being-done: we would need to agree to being spiritually uplifted, but would not need to seek it out (and indeed, there was a feeling that to seek it out would be to open oneself to self-deception) . 

The other big factor is a refusal of responsibility. This operates at many levels, and may masquerade as humility, or public spiritedness. 

Thus people may decline to take full and personal responsibility for their spiritual and religious evaluations because they defer to "The Church" as contrasted with "mere little me". Meaning whatever church they already believe is true, must be right. Or when (as usual) the whole church is not united; then deference is due to whatever particular authority within that church is regarded as primary. 

Or personal responsibility for belief is set aside in favour of some supposedly pragmatic benefit; such as a belief that some-thing ought to be believed because it is beneficial for raising children; or perhaps regarded as beneficial for society at large or in the long-term. 

In other words; my sense is that some people shape their religious convictions around what they choose to sustain on the basis of what they believe to be a socially-helpful fiction; rather than taking ultimate responsibility, and then discovering that they have (apparently) thrown-out some valued social benefit.  

But this kind of deference and pragmatism are, ultimately, to put the cart before the horse; since (for Christians) what is most authoritative and/or beneficial can only be decided on the basis of real truth. 

And when we have pre-decided against taking personal responsibility for discerning and determining real truth, we are not able to evaluate if it is truly better to defer and decline, rather than to make a stand for our inner convictions. 

In sum; I think that there really was a change of consciousness that progressively (and over some years) swept-through The West (and maybe the world?) at around the millennium. 

This transformation pretty-much closed-off the remnants of that spontaneous, traditional and often-unconscious modes of religiosity which had been in-place throughout Man's known history; such that we can now only become spiritual by a conscious choice, by actively seeking, and on the basis of taking very personal spiritual responsibility. 

That means aiming to make ultimate choices from our-selves and for ourselves.

And only after that has been accomplished, should we turn our personal attention to potential social benefits.  

Given that I regard theocracy as the inevitable ultimate state of human civilization - of course chance has a huge role to play, but theocracy is the strongest, most cohesive social form over the long term - then the question arises of which theocracy.

The correct answer is, of course, that theocracy which is true: or at least true-est given human imperfection.

But how do we recognize truth?

***

*One* way that we might expect to recognize truth might be in contemplating our response to that kind of society as actually established, at some point in human history.

It was this consideration which (as I recall) first pointed me towards Eastern Orthodoxy, because of all the theocracies in history of which I knew, the Byzantine was that which exerted by-far the greatest appeal to me, at a gut level.

I will try to describe my thought processes.


***

Obviously, non-Christian theocracies have negative appeal. That leaves a variety of Roman Catholic and Protestant theocracies.

There have been RC theocracies in Europe until quite recently: for example Ireland and Spain approached that ideal - and there was of course the European Middle Ages.

I must admit that (although I have tried) I find it very difficult to be attracted to the recent RC-dominated societies of Ireland or Spain; and about the Middle Ages I have a strong reservation which I find hard to pin-down.

There seems to be a thin-ness or a flat-ness about this kind of theocracy - a kind of literalness. A legalism - which portrays life in abstract, philosophical, logical terms - and somehow leaves out the human spirit.

And, at its height, Western Catholic monasticism does not seem to know exactly what it is trying to achieve (either on earth or in heaven) - so there is a greyness and gruel about it, in my mind, that I cannot rid myself-of (despite effort): epitomized by what I experience as the chill of Gregorian chant.

I assume this is down to the intrinsic division of Church (Pope) and State (Monarch, dictator or secular republic), and the mutilation of the human spirit which this entails.

***

There have been many Protestant theocracies too - the 17th century puritan republic in England, or the New England puritan theocracies.

While hugely admirable in so many ways (and as a young man my spontaneous sympathies were always with the Roundheads against the Cavaliers), the monochrome *dryness* of these societies is what comes through for me.

There is precious little spirituality - in the sense of approaching or communing with God, and a heck of a lot of rule-following, transgression-detecting and -punishing. Life and worship are alike extremely *secular* in nature: no mystery, no magic; only an austere poetry and the release of communal activity and resistance.

Protestant theocracies seem to me dull; I feel sure that life would (after the first overwhelming flush of conversion) seem alienated, meaningless, superficial, routine, mundane: a hope-less drudgery in this world, awaiting rescue in the next.

***

While I would probably, in practice - given my personality and socialization - hate living in Byzantium, or in Holy Russia (its nearest equivalent); there is a gut level appeal to these societies for me - a wholeness, a colour, a richness, an integration of all aspects of life (aimed at as ideal, whether or not being achieved at a particular time) that I find massively attractive.

(Leaving aside uncomfortable aspects such as ancient cruelties, slavery, and the vital presence of a eunuch imperial and ecclesial bureaucracy...)

In Byzantium I have an image of gorgeousness and colour, of daily (more than daily) ritual, of pervasive devotion and awe-inspiring worship, of heavenly music and art, of self-confidence and religious ambition, of community, of decisiveness, of courage beyond our imagination, of extraordinary asceticism in pursuit of sainthood, of great wisdom in spirituality.

***

Having made these harsh criticisms of RC and Protestant theocracies, I hasten to add that there were huge compensations of many and varied kinds, including individuals who reached the highest levels of human achievement (Michaelangelo and Rembrandt; Verdi and Bach; Medieval cathedrals and Milton; Galileo and Newton; Aquinas and Adam Smith - and on and on).

I just wish to emphasize that they do not overcome my sense of repulsion and fear at the thought of such societies.

***

In sum, I believe that Byzantium succeeded - at times and for many of its community - in being a foretaste of heaven on earth and preparation for heaven after death.

And the Eastern Roman civilization was destroyed after a millennium - but not by suicidal self-hatred, nor by hedonistic decadence, nor by lack of will to defend that which it most valued: it was simply overwhelmed, step by step, over several centuries, by ill-chance and superior force.

No civilization is proof against the vicissitudes of the world.

***

If actual theocracies can be taken as at least indicative of the ideal theocracies which they attempt to embody, then it is only the Byzantine Christian variety which has any genuine, spontaneous appeal for me. (I cannot answer for others.)

For what it is worth, I therefore see Byzantium - in its contrasts with Protestant and Roman Catholic theocracies - as a validation, a token validation, of Orthodoxy.

If you are with me so far; Man now has not just the capacity to imagine his reality - but he simply does, necessarily, imagine actual, current reality. 

It is our fate and destiny that our reality Just Is imagined. 

This was/ is the millennial change which was prophesied by some and felt by many more - albeit it has not worked out at all as the optimists supposed (those who felt a New Age approaching; which they supposed would be imposed-upon Mankind from the spiritual realm). 

The optimists supposed that when Man imagined reality, Man would (they thought obviously) imagine a better reality... The problem was with what 'better' was supposed to be. 

At first (late 19th, early 20th century) Man tried to imagine a 'utopia' in this mortal earthly life (a utopia perhaps including - what is not possible - immortality): a world without misery or suffering; a world of pleasure and stimulation. 

But this was never possible - no plausible utopia was ever imagined, none were believed-in; and all attempts to do think or make utopia ended in dys-topia - which was a dominant popular art form from the later 20th century

(By contrast with utopia; believable imagined dystopias were ten-a-penny - and most of them have already come true - to some significant extent.)  

By the millennium; Man had developed and decided-upon such an idea of 'better'; that it led to this trivial, bureaucratic, totalitarian world of incoherent and value-inverted ideology - a world of imaginatively-encouraged and officially-implemented resentment, fear and despair. 

In particular Man made the primary decision to imagine No God - specifically that there was no God who was the creator, and our loving parent - with us God's children. For millennial Man; a better world meant first imagining a world without God; and that meant always dystopia (or one kind of another). 

And having imaginatively ruled-out the reality of creation and the relevance of this world to each and every person - Man imagined a world of meaninglessness, purposelessness and isolation. 

So far, so bad; but can we do better - starting from here? 

The answer is Yes; so long as 'we' means our-personal-selves; and not collective humanity. 

And so long as we do not repeat the mistake of trying to imagine a utopia in this mortal world - which is not made to be perfected; but was made as a (temporary) place of experience and learning to prepare us for eternal Heavenly life beyond biological death. 

...Which does not-at-all mean that this mortal life is trivial -- on the contrary we are here, we remain alive (reading this, thinking about its implications) exactly because this temporary life is so important - forever. 

What we imagine from here on, and with what motivation, is crucial - and by 'we' I mean you, and me. Since our life Just Is imagined; and since imagination (intuitive, from the heart's thinking) acts directly on creation. 

Therefore I can think of nothing more important, immediately, than that we encourage and allow ourselves to imagine The Good. 

The Good is that which is in harmony with divine purpose and 'methods'. Such is what we are here to learn and practice - albeit partially and  intermittently - in face of many challenges and experiences. 

Start Now!

Another of the lessons of the birdemic year of 2020 was that leftism means conformity. The more leftist a nation, region, or person - the more conformity to the global agenda. 

While this is now, officially, One World under Satan - the variation in degree of Satanic conformity within this One World correlates very obviously with leftism - the more leftist, the more Satanic.

Indeed, leftist extreme/ hardline/ activism since the millennium (such as MLB-antifa/racism or Climate-Rebellion-Extinction-Emergency) has come to mean aggressively demanding that the global billionaire elites do exactly want they already want to do; only more and faster. 

Leftism just is actual cowardly and expedient conformity and careerism; while indulging a self-gratifying fantasy (sustained by the media and officialdom) of bold independence and revolutionary originality. 

(Thus the shoals of supposedly 'shocking' and rebellious popular UK public figures who end-up wealthy powerful, famous; and with medals from the Queen, knighthoods, peerages and 'prestigious' awards - while simultaneously being officially labelled as marginalized, excluded members of an oppressed minority.)  

One interesting side-effect is that the word 'radical' - which was until recently a cheer term for idealistic-leftism; has been redefined as anti-left. What used to be called left radicals are now 'activists'; as above. 

In retrospect we can see a vast con; gong back to the middle 1960s when leftism shifted from a focus on class resentment and the economy (equal opportunities, nationalization etc.) to personal resentment - with the sexual revolution, women and race as the basis of multiple 'victim groups'. 

Leftists were labelled as the bold, independent minded radicals - even as they were being groomed into the managerial and bureaucratic class - expressing their 'radicalism' in terms of obedience to fashions - in hair, clothes, sexuality, 'good causes' and so on and on, always changing - always being-changed from above. 

Activism is now the willing embrace of whatever is current and approved - whether that be anti-white antiracism or the birdemic-peck scam; mutilation and poisoning of children in the trans-agenda; or looting and micro-managing the world economy to reduce CO2 and kill viruses. 

Whatever the twists and turns, lies and tortures of the current, Globalist-approved agenda - leftists will embrace it, enforce it - will hate, demonize and try to destroy anybody who does not. And those who do not (i.e. those 'radicals' who have-been 'radicalized') are - increasingly - just a minority of individuals who have personal conviction of the reality of a personal God, and that this is God's created world.   

My world of public discourse - or, at least large-ish sections of it - used to be mostly-honest; such that the lies could potentially be detected and worked-around. 

But from around the millennium, the lies took-over all public discourse - including those special areas that were especially supposed to be about truth: such as science, academia, education, medicine, law. 

And soon the lies took-over. What this means is that people were "not even trying" to be honest - but only, aimed not to be caught being-dishonest, and when they were caught - covering-up their lies.    

From then onward we were living in a discourse-of-lies - and yet the discourse continued...

I experienced this myself in science (especially medical science) as a scientist, editor, and teacher. 

The discourse of science continued - indeed it continued to grow very rapidly; yet the 'new' claims within the fields had zero validity since they were woven-from from material that included many lies, and woven-by people who were not primarily concerned with honesty. 

It became ever less possible to teach, research or write honestly; except using only (selected) historical or personally-validated information, and dedicated to historically important matters - utterly avoiding new work and current issues. 

And, in fact, such practice is not allowed; therefore honesty is excluded. 

In such a situation, truth is not discernable; because truth does not 'stand-out' when evaluations and evidence are dishonest - quite the opposite. 

Yet the discourse continues... Examples: We know that the mass media discourse is a tissue of lies; and yet people continue to take it seriously, discuss and analyze it as if the truth could be sifted-out. State and Corporate controlled research - wholly orientated towards the expediencies of the state and corporations - continues to claim special validity, and indeed increasingly demands and enforces unquestioning/ enthusiastic obedience. The law is become a weapon of leftist totalitarianism; and yet is taken to define 'justice'. 

In all the areas of public discourse - and increasingly in private, among friends and in the family - the lies have taken-over; yet the discourse continues as if the lies were rare and exceptional! 

The identification exposure of specific 'frauds' in 'science', or lies in journalism, or corruption in politics; all reinforce the assumption that these are exceptional; when in fact these whole-systems (science, media, politics - add law, military, universities etc.) are built-on lies and function dishonestly.  

The truth is that we cannot participate in dishonest discourse, without ourselves being corrupted by dishonesty - and this means that we then need to acknowledge and repent our own dishonesty, as often as it happens. 

...Which repentance rarely happens - and therefore the corruption remains and accumulates. 

This, I believe, is a major reason for the corruption of the Christian churches. By increasingly participating in the dishonest discourse of politics, economics, finance, law, the media, 'science', education etc - by therefore being dishonest but not acknowledging or repenting this dishonesty - churches have themselves become a part of the discourse of lies; the leadership lying to- and among-themselves, as well as to laity.   

Thus all institutions are corrupt; and aid in the corruption of each other, and of individual persons. 

The only possible escape from general and increasing corruption and untruthfulness, is to detach oneself to a situation which is sufficiently honest that dishonesty stands-out and can be repented; and this means either small (family-like) groupings (if we are fortunate); or else (if less fortunate) to escape to the discourse of one's own self (which is, after all, for a Christian not alone, never alone).

 

The idea of crossing the spiritual threshold seems to be associated with such ideas as initiation, enlightenment; and the attainment of higher levels of consciousness. 

Much spiritual teaching of recent generations has been about the satisfactoriness of  typical modern consciousness; and the need, therefore, for us to cross a threshold to a higher level. This need has often been regarded as urgent, and related to the millennium. Failure to attain such a transformation has been linked to many undesirable personal and societal outcomes. 

I broadly accept this analysis. However, while these concepts (threshold, initiation, enlightenment) have value; they can also be misleading: creating false expectations, disappointment and disillusionment. 

Such ideas seem to imply a once-for-all personal spiritual attainment - that by crossing a threshold/ being initiated and becoming enlightened - a person moves into a new way of being. Having attained these; a person is expected to be lastingly-transformed - he (presumably) 'will never be the same again'.  

And yet it is seldom (or never) the case - at least not nowadays, with modern-developed consciousness - that someone has an experience by which he is transformed - qualitatively and permanently - to a higher spiritual state. 

By contrast; in the past (at various times and places), it seems clear that permanently-transforming initiation was a Real Thing; and that a cadre of such persons could be prepared and assembled (i.e. a 'magical' priesthood). 

This was possible when Men's individuality was less and his capacity to immerse into the group was greater; when Men were already half-in (and therefore only half out-of) the spiritual world. 

Under such circumstances; it seems that a suitably sustained effort, prayer and meditation, rituals, learned-symbolism, and extreme physical experiences etc. - could indeed lead to a threshold-crossing that lasted the rest of that persons' life.  

But modern Man has developed such that (from adolescence) he is completely detached from the spiritual, and he experiences himself as an 'alienated' individual - cut-off from the group-mind. 

Such Men as us cannot attain lifelong 'enlightenment' from a single spiritual experience. 

 

Nonetheless; many modern people do have experiences during which (or after which) they believe themselves to have attained a higher state of spiritual being. Those who value such experiences, and are open to them; may have many such - perhaps daily. 

Yet typically, and often very quickly, such states wear-off, and the person reverts to something very similar to what they were before. 

The profound experience becomes just-a-memory (and that memory may be indistinct, and may fade). 

So, if permanent-lifelong higher spirituality/ initiation/ enlightenment is being sought - failure is apparently certain. 

If crossing the threshold is to be judged by remarkable spiritual consequences - then it begins to look as if the whole idea is bogus! 

Are such spiritual experiences - then - illusory, or even delusional? Are such claims mere wishful thinking, or an attempt to manipulate or exploit others? 

My understanding is that such spiritual experiences are potentially valid and indeed vital to modern Man: they ought to be a focus of our lifelong striving. Also that such experiences may be quite usual, even common, among those who value them, are open to them, and consciously seek to live in such a way that they happen. 

The problem lies with the expectation of 'permanent' spiritual transformation. 

This mortal life is characterized by change, and that change is often 'entropic' in nature: a matter of decay, degeneration, disease - and eventually there will be death. 

So it is a mistake to expect the consequences of spiritual experiences to be 'permanent' within mortal life. 

When someone crosses a threshold and attains a higher level of consciousness, the expectation should be that this will not last, and - since human memory is biologically-based - we should not be surprised if memories of such events are insecure. 

I find it valuable to recall that our actual, lived mortal lives are set-up by God for our personal benefit. From which I infer that - overall - we our-selves and this earthly world are such that higher levels of consciousness are not, and should not be, a constant and life-long way of living. 

The inevitable times in-between spiritual experiences (which is most of life) are necessary and of equivalent (albeit different) eternal value... If, that is, we do indeed learn from them those lessons what God intends us to learn.

In sum - we should learn one kind of thing from spiritual experiences; and other kinds of things from our (long!) periods in-between living at a higher level of consciousness. 

This puts the discussion into another framework. We may acknowledge the truth and validity of spiritual experiences - but we should not look for their significance within this mortal life. We should instead look for their significance in the life-to-come: specifically in resurrected, eternal, Heavenly life. 

(This carries the implication that if one has Not chosen to accept Jesus's offer of resurrected, eternal life - if one rejects Christianity; then spiritual experiences are Not of lasting significance: they are merely more or less pleasant, but transient, psychological events.)

To me this is an altogether healthier and more optimistic way of regarding qualitatively-enhanced spiritual experience. 

We need not worry about remembering them, need not worry about communicating them to others (which usually proves impossible anyway) - the thing is to have such experiences: to live in such a way that we value higher spiritual states, and know when we have had such an experience...

And then leave it at that. 

Because: the value is the experience, the value is located beyond death.

Therefore we have done our work by living such as to have a spiritual experiences; after noting which, we move on to living well henceforth in hopes of more of the same. 

Although commercials are clearly a 'minor' art-form, at best; in the UK it used often to be said - from the 1970s and up to around the millennium - that "the adverts are the best thing on TV". 

This was not literally true; but certainly the best adverts were masterpieces of their kind; almost miraculous in their compression, and variety; and one of the best modern directors - Ridley Scott - began by making some iconic TV ads.  

They were also very effective at selling their product. 

Indeed, it was precisely that they needed to sell the product, which made them so effective. Constraints of this kind are good for art - just as Shakespeare was the most popular playwright of his day. 

Nowadays - not only are there zero good adverts, there are only bad adverts. 

TV commercials are not merely un-enjoyable, but actively unpleasant to experience. 

Why? because they are not even trying to sell the product; but are always, and primarily, trying to operate as propaganda for the evil value-inversions of the globalist Establishment. 

Indeed - this is mandatory as a bureaucratically-imposed factor in their corporate role: advertising political correctness, the leftist-woke ideology, is the core institutional role of modern commercials and PR. 

And bureaucratic imperatives are not, and never can be, the basis for high quality, or or even enjoy-ability in anything; because bureaucracy is intrinsically evil - and evil is ugly, as well as dishonest.   

Eight years ago on this blog, in my review of a book about Christopher Dawson; when at the peak of my immersion in Eastern Orthodoxy, I stated: "As Rome dies over the centuries, so civilization-as-such dies, and is not replaced. Rome or nothing or something altogether alien and unChristian - these are the only civilizational alternatives."

I have now changed my understanding so much that I regard a continuation of Rome (its civilisation and religion) and not only un-desirable, but impossible. 

What brought about such a change?

Well, it was a sequence. First of all, from around the turn of 2012-2013, I began properly to understand Mormon theology, and soon became convinced of its superiority, its rightness. Then, about a year later  I got to grips with William Arkle. And soon afterwards, began my encounter with Owen Barfield. So, within a year of writing the following, I had begun the transformation of my understanding - and within a couple of years it was complete in its main features; after which there have been only relatively minor tweaks. 

**


Christopher Dawson - 1889-1970. Once very famous Roman Catholic historian of ideas, now all-but forgotten. Admired by Tolkien, C.S Lewis (who knew him) and TS Eliot.

See Sanctifying the World: The Augustianian mind of Christopher Dawson by Bradley J Birzer.

Excerpts from Progress and Religion, 1929 pp 157-166.

Dawson in italics - my comments [in square brackets].



It cannot be too strongly insisted that the victory of the Church in the 4th century was not... the natural culmination of the religious evolution of the ancient world, It was, on the contrary, a violent interruption of that process which forced European civilization out of its old orbit into a path which it would never have followed by its own momentum.

It is true that the classical culture and the religion of the city state ... were losing their vitality, and that nothing could have arrested the movement of orientalization which ultimately conquered the Roman world. But this movement found its normal expression either in the undiluted form which is represented by the different Gnostic and Manichaean sects, or in a bastard Hellenic syncretism.

[So, 'a bastard Hellenic syncretism', or 'orientalism' is how Dawson characterizes the millennium of the Byzantine continuation of the Christian Roman Empire! The coherence of Byzantium - as I see it by far the most coherent Christian society which ever existed on earth - is dismissed as a weird or exotic (yet centuries-long) suspension of crudely-mixed Judueo-Christian an Greek elements in asolvent of 'orientalism'.]



...the Byzantine culture does not simply represent the fusion of the Hellensitic-Roman tradition with Christianity. It contains a third element of oriental origin which is, in fact, the preponderant influence in Byzantine civilization. It is to be seen in the social and political organization of the Empire which borrowed from Sassanian Persia all the external forms of the oriental sacred monarchy.

The rigid hierarchy of the Byzantine state which centres in the Sacred Palace and the quasi-divine person of the Holy Emperor is neither Roman nor Christian, but purely oriental.

[This is just name-calling! For Dawson, 'Oriental' is clearly a bad thing in and of itself, and 'rigid' added as a meaningless adjective to 'hierarchy'; 'quasi-divine' as a sniping and inaccurate characterization of the concept of the Emperor. The ideal Emperor was actually conceived as an Apostle, God's representative on earth, and an intermediary with Christ Pantocrator (that is Christ as active and Heavenly ruler of all, ruling Earth via his intermediary). But actual Emperors were judged against this ideal, and deposed when their behaviour showed they were not the real Emperor and a mistake had been made in choosing them. Anyway, Dawson doesn't like this kind of thing, and he needs to distinguish The West from it. But in doing so he is actually taking a pro-modernizing stance. Because 'orientalism' is the ideal of unity, fusion or harmony of church and state - and in attacking this, Dawson introduces - not just as a pragmatic reality but as an alternative ideal - a distinction between the realm of God - the Church, or City of God; and the secular realm of the state - politics, military and economic activity. In other words, functional specialization: modernity. Once begun, unstoppable.]



And the same influence is to be seen in Byzantine religion in its tendency to neglect the historical and dynamic elements in the Christian tradition, and to become absorbed in theological speculations regarding the nature of the Godhead.

This tendency reaches its climax in the writings of the so called Dionysius the Aeropagite, which probably date from the close of the 5th century, and have exerted and incalculable influence on the religious life of the Byzantine world. Here we may see the most extreme assertion of the Divine Transcendence and the negation of all finite modes of being.

In fact, Byzantine 'theological speculations' were mostly reactive to heresy and criticism from Western Christianity - and were not core to Christian life. Byzantine Holiness was not 'absorbed' in theological speculations, its purpose was for the human spirit to be 'absorbed' with (in communion with) the Godhead itself: so that man becomes Saint, who lives partly in Heaven in communion with God, partly on this earth to learn, teach, and act as intermediary. The 'neglect' of historical and dynamic elements actually meant that for Byzantium at its best, Christianity was a living presence in daily life, which tried to create (by ritual, arts, ascetic practices, devotions, prayer) model itself upon and emulate Heavenly life. A moment-by-moment earthly copy of the permanent Heavenly ideal. Naturally, historical and 'dynamic' elements were subordinated to this timeless task (not 'neglected'). Dawson accepts the modern secular revisionist history that Dionysius is the work of a late author ('Pseudo' Dionysius) - when for many centuries the ancients accepted the identity of the originator of these teachings as the disciple of St Paul. I believe the ancients.



Thus abstract mysticism [of Dionysius] is linked up with a fixed ritual and ceremonial order which is its earthly and sensible counterpart...

Again this harping on Byzantium as fixed, ritual, ceremonial!... yet ultimate reality is fixed, surely? So why should not earthly copies be fixed? If the Byzantine fixity was unreal then the Empire could not have endured as it did! And why does Dawson, a pre-Vatican II ultramontane Roman Catholic, criticize Byzantium for its use of devotional ritual and ceremony? In seeking to distinguish, positively, Western from Eastern Christianity - he has drifted into anti-Catholic sentiment.



...the moral ideal of the Byzantine world found its expression in the uncompromizing other-worldliness of the monks of the desert which represents the extreme development of the oriental spirit of asceticism and world-denial within the boundaries of orthodox Christianity.

[But elsewhere, and rightly, Dawson is unstinting in his praise of the Irish, later Scottish and Northumbrian ascetic monks and hermits who maintained the last Western outpost of Christianity in the remote 'deserts' of the British Isles. St Boniface - who Dawson regards as perhaps the most important figure in the whole of European Christian History - was a Lindisfarne product of this non-Latin tradition. What were these if not example of uncompromizing other-worldliness of precisely the type that Dawson brands as 'oriental'? The 'Celtic Christian' church of Anglo Saxon times was precisely Byzantine or Eastern Orthodox - albiet not 'Greek'!) in all its distinctive respects. The whole Synod of Whitby dispute was a prefiguring of the Great Schism in terms of the Latin Christians (Pope as supreme bishop, a church led by priests) versus Byzantine Christian (Emperor as supreme authority, the bishop of Rome as having precedence but not authority over other Patriarchs, and led by monks)]



Nevertheless, even this radically oriental version of Christianity did not satisfy the Eastern world. With the coming of Islam it reverted to a simpler type of religion (etc)  

The drawn-out and bitter conquest of the Byzantine Empire by Islam is represented as having happened merely because the 'orientals' were not 'satisfied' by Eastern Orthodoxy, and wanted something 'simpler'... I wonder why so many Byzantines bothered fighting to the death to resist something that supposedly satisfied them more than what they had? And why so many of the conquered over the next centuries, even until now, continued to practice Byzantine Christianity despite its entailing subordinate status?]



In the Roman West, in spite of its lower standard of civilization, the conditions were more favourable to the development of an original and creative Christian culture.

[This is true: Western Catholic Christianity is indeed much more original and creative than Eastern Orthodoxy, and thus much more satisfying to creative geniuses. Unfortunately, being creative and original does not imply or entail its being more true, or more Holy. Indeed, if ancient Christianity during its first millennium had as much Christian truth as was available in the fallen world; then everything that came since - no matter how original and creative - has been deviation from that truth.]



In his Byzantine blindspot, Dawson is typical of most historians.

Indeed, I believe that our whole understanding of the modern world, the nature of civilization, and the human condition is distorted and perverted by a vast and pervasive Byzantine blindspot.



Constaninople was the second Rome, the capital of the Byzantine Empire was the Christian Roman Empire.

The core, essence, and highest manifestation of Christian Rome was Byzantium; of which the Latin West was - spiritually speaking - a pale and fragmented outgrowth. Rome was (in its variants and descendents), the only model and pattern of Christian civilization we can ever know.

As Rome dies over the centuries, so civilization-as-such dies, and is not replaced.

Rome or nothing or something altogether alien and unChristian - these are the only civilizational alternatives.



The Third Rome was Moscow - and Orthodox Russia was the lineal descendent of Byzantium: the Tsar (in ideal) was the continuation of the Byzantine Emperor. The Russion revolution a century ago was therefore the end of Rome as a cohesive spiritual-political organization; the fragmented Holy Roman Empire in the West ended about at the same time. It was the end of Rome which marked the qualitative rift with the Christian past - the Great War was only a mechanism. The twentieth century was then unleashed in all its various horrors. The end times began.