Bruce Charlton's Notions

Perhaps because I was an atheist then a deist before I was a theist then Christian; I have experienced from-the-inside quite a wide range of philosophies - spiritual, theological and otherwise. 

I spent most of my 'professional life' as a theoretical scientist within the field of biomedicine; and what I sought (the lack of which motivated me) was a clear and simple understanding of whatever I sought to know; because only when an understanding was clear and simple was something truly understood - such that the explanation could be communicated, evaluated, or used within science. 

In practice; genuine understanding can only be reached when the situation has been made sufficiently simple to be clear; graspable in a single act of comprehension and not by some chain of reasoning. 

That way, when we are wrong, the fact can be discovered. Clear and simple error soon reveals itself. But for someone whose false-'understanding' is complex and cloudy... well, he can never be brought to a point when he realizes his mistake.

Anything short of this meant that I did not really understand, but was just taking-on-trust; and if I communicated something I did not understand I was just 'parroting' it. 

That's how nearly everything in the public realm - including the discourse of Christian churches - strikes me: like the sound of parrots quoting parrots. 

Participants in Christian discourse sometimes believe that this parroting is what a Christian ought to do - as a sign of reverence and trust. People quote-and-believe those who they have been told are authorities, using words they have been told are profound - and so forth. 

I am prepared to accept that parroting was an acceptable path, in the past; when traditions remained true. Indeed - mere-obedience to (not-understood) church authority was a 'safe path' to salvation in some times and places. 

This kind of behaviour rooted in un-comprehending (maybe un-conscious) institutional-obedience was one common way of good living; at times and places when 'the authorities', in particular the Churches, were overall well-motivated and God-seeking. 

But nowadays, when 'Christian'-churches are only truly serious about pushing the evil agendas of totalitarian globalists -- well, deference to any major Western institution (up to and including any major Christian church) is to choose obedient service to a master who has taken the side of Satan in the spiritual war of this world. 

Nowadays, we must know for-our-selves if we are to know at all. 

Sometimes people claim to understand what they are saying - but all this means is that they have a low bar for that claim of 'understanding'! 

Often, it is simply that people have stunned-themselves with deference to authority such as they cannot really pay necessary attention to what is being asserted. 

Or that they bewildered themselves with abstractions - so they cannot keep track of coherence. 

Or they may have terminated the process of learning by declaration of 'mystery' - yet without becoming clear what they mean by mystery - and that such primary assumptions are necessarily foundational, not expedient. 

Well, each ought to lead his life in accordance with his primary convictions... 

On the other hand, for Christians dishonesty is a sin, and dishonesty with oneself is one of the most dangerous of sins (a sin that surely leads to other sins, without a tendency for self-correction) - as we see all around us.

And at the root of such dishonesty often lies a false claim of understanding. 

 

Some variant of the phrase "Hearts must begin to think" is scattered throughout Rudolf Steiner's work, including his very late summary Anthroposphical Leading Thoughts - which are bracketed by this assertion*.

My understanding is that it Steiner meant that the divine destiny of modern Man is to become a thinker with 'the heart' primarily: that is, an intuitive thinker; and with the feeling that our thoughts are located in the chest.

And the 'must' comes in, because Steiner also predicted that 'Head thinking', intellect, the thinking that we feel is located behind the eyes - would decline.

Therefore, if Men failed to to be hearth-thinkers, failed to embrace our destiny; then we would after a while hardly be able to think at all.


I feel this is demonstrably the case, here-and-now, very strongly.

It has been building-up, or rather crumbling-down, through my life. By now, people simply can't think: by which I mean think for themselves (because there is no other kind of thinking).

What passes for thought is just channeling and parroting mass media talking-points which themselves are dictated by a Global Agenda. All over the world, people are discussing the same things, making the same points, 'appropriately' emoting to order.

There is no use of analysis, comparison, memory; no learning from experience. No discernment about sources. No memory of lies and betrayals. Just empty chambers, echoing noises...  

It is as if almost-everybody has disengaged their thinking, switched-off their brains - or else become demented; yet absolutely refused to develop their intuition - their primary thinking of the true self...

The result is: the pitiful state of uncomprehending, directionless, passive helplessness that apparently afflicts almost everybody in the developed world!


It seems to be absolutely futile to try and get people to think. Whether they really can't think, or whether they simply refuse to think; the fact is that they Will Not think; and especially not the formally-educated and educationally-credentialled managerial and intellectual classes.

They all-but stopped brain-thinking from about half a century ago; they have since had many chances and inducements to start again - but the situation deteriorates, inexorably.

Now, the minds of Men are empty, they do not select, do not process, do not analyse, do not compare, do not discern.


Such Men must begin to think with their hearts; or else they have no hope and will kill themselves, whether directly or indirectly, from (understandable) despair.

And Satan will have won their souls.

*Heart thinking was brought to my attention by Stanley Messenger in a recorded lecture I have mentioned before.

AI - so-called Artificial Intelligence - is (just) the latest version of a phenomenon I have spent most of my working life understanding and arguing against: that phenomenon appears in various guises including bureaucracy, voting, statistics applied to understanding, quality management, guidelines...

I have given-up on trying to explain why all of these are wrong when used to make decisions, to achieve insights, to monitor and regulate practices, in government. 

I have given-up; because it has become evident that the belief in such technologies is a matter of faith; it is an expression of deep and self-destructive (as well as socially-destructive) ideals. 

Their wrongness is innate and objective, and can be proved - but first we need to understand these phenomena - and extremely few genuinely wish to understand. 

(If you are sufficiently interested to make the effort, word search these on this blog and read the links. But, really, this stuff would not need explaining; if Men were properly orientated.)  

Most people are happily under the spell cast by these technologies/ methods  and their apologists. They believe because they want to believe; therefore they are strongly resistant to understanding. 

This is a civilization that is killing itself; and one major manifestation of this 'death wish' is that people persist in seeking some kind of technological or methodological technique of making judgments. 

Thus; people under the spell of AI are obviously enchanted by the idea that we can have computers/ machines/ systems which will make judgments, do learning, create poems/ pictures/ stories, discover, 'implement' values, organize people etc. etc. 

Behind such claims, and the eager credulity that welcomes them, there is a not-so-covert desire for human self-annihilation. A lot of people apparently want to hand-over all the highest, greatest, most divine aspects of being a Man - and they are prepared to give their faith to anyone who claims that this can and should be done. 

Because all this is ultimately a matter of faith. 

We now have a world of bureaucracy, with most major decisions made by voting; because that is where people have put their faith - their ultimate faith! 

People's faith is to believe - without any coherent logic, or honest 'evidence', and contrary to vast experience! - that bureaucratic organization and voting are superior to the judgment of individual human beings. 

And so the world is organized; and whatever happens to the world, that faith remains intact. 

Our desire to be rid of human judgment is, at root, an expression of our rejection of God.

This is why it is so pervasive, why it is a matter of faith, and why it will destroy us. 

We cannot be awoken from a spell that we have chosen to succumb to. 

Note added 30 Sep 23: It strikes me that with the advent of AI we have (as it were) officially entered a world in which public discourse consists of parroting: of uncomprehending computer-parrots speaking to other parrots (some computers, some 'humans') who cannot comprehend the parroted stimuli (because, strictly, there is nothing to comprehend), but which generate even more parroted responses... On and on, until the night comes. 

So many of the cleverest and most creative people nowadays are wrong about the most fundamental things that it is tempting (and I have in the past responded to that temptation) to try and explain why the intellectual elites are so very wrong about almost everything.

But I now see that this question falsely assumes that we should expect clever and creative people - I mean people such as writers, artists, musicians, performers, directors and actors, scientists, philosophers, academics, lawyers, theologians... - to be correct about fundamental things, or at least more likely to be correct than the average person.

Yet there is no reason to assume that clever and creative people are correct about fundamental things - since there is zero evidence to suggest or support that idea.

Clever and creative people have no greater insight into fundamental truths than anybody else; probably because fundamental truths are precisely what a person does not need to be clever in order to understand.

Therefore, the proper assumption should be that the intellectual elites are simply part of the modern cultural mainstream, just like (almost) everyone else.

*

When it comes to culture, clever and creative people are passive absorbers; just like almost everybody else.

This means that in a Good or insightful culture, the intellectual elite's work will be Good and insightful; but in an evil and deluded culture, such as the modern secular West - then the clever and creative people will (almost all of them) peddle evil and delusions.

(Why not? In the modern West, most of the dumb and unimaginative people also peddle evil and delusions, just like the intellectual elite - it is just that dumb people aren't very good at it.)

*

But the interesting aspect is that when the mainstream culture is as shallow, insufficient and incoherent as ours is; then the intellectual elite are galvanised to greater energies.

The elites lack any special insight, therefore they absorb as axiomatic whatever culture feeds to them; but they are clever enough to perceive that it does not make sense.

*

However, this shallow, insufficient incoherence of what they passively regard as axiomatically true; does not lead elites to reject the mainstream culture but instead to redouble their efforts to make sense of it.

Hence the vast outpourings of silly-cleverness and evil-propagating creativity which characterise the modern mainstream mass media culture: this is the sound of an intellectual elite doubling-down on wicked nonsense.

**

Note: This is, of course, almost the opposite of how the intellectual elite would like to see themselves.

When Shelly described 'poets' (implicitly the intellectual elite) as the 'unacknowledged legislators' of the world; he was fuelling this elite fantasy that culture is created and shaped by clever and creative people such as themselves - who are the only 'real' agents who lead change, while the masses merely follow where the 'poets' lead.

But if clever creative people are merely parroting, but not devising, their fundamental assumptions; then such 'poets' are redefined as merely diligent administrators: bureaucrats who operationalise and implement principles derived from elsewhere.

This seems obviously correct, once described. The Goodness and wisdom we find expressed so perfectly in Shakespeare is really just mainstream Tudor wisdom - as revealed by the fact that it is mixed with gross Tudor errors and evils. The mainstream culture Shakespeare's era had many deep  insights into reality - although it was somewhat contradictory, as evidenced by the vicious religious wars; our modern culture is mostly composed of wicked inversions and lies, shallow distractions, superficial sensations and temporary intoxications - with only relatively few fundamental truths remaining and made explicit. 

And this is exactly the mixture (mostly wrong and silly, yet with flashes of depth and wisdom) purveyed by modern masters of their arts, and by the bulk of clever contemporary commentators.  

   

Don't publish comments from, or debate with, the dishonest (and where somebody is dishonest is a thing you will need to judge for yourself).

The dishonest have an agenda, a reason for commenting - and they are using your blog to propagate it.

What is the point of a traditional Christian blog publishing comments that seeks to undermine and subvert its blog posts? What is the point of overwhelming the Christian blog posts with following comments that are anti-Christian - and pro some secular agenda that is nearly always secular Left, nearly always pro-sexual revolution?

That would be taking one step forward and two steps back.

You may believe that you are publishing comments to refute them - but that may not be how the exchange appears.

When a commenter is dishonest, and when his aim is destructive, he has a massive advantage in debate - He can raise problems and doubts more simply and easily than they can be dealt-with; he can ask questions faster than you can answer them (a short and easily-understood question often needs a long and involved answer that is difficult to follow and needs concentration to follow - hence your answer will - often - not be followed).

When a commenter is parroting mainstream mass media opinion, he also has the advantage that his view is backed-up by what people (usually unconsciously) regard as 'evidence' (i.e. 1001 things they have heard, seen or read, somewhere - they aren't sure where - and sort-of accept as presumably valid).

A dishonest and subversive commenter can destroy certainty, belief and hope much more readily than you can patch-them-up.

Don't give them space and airplay, don't give them attention, don't waste your time on them. It will do more harm than good.

It is a very striking aspect of the 2020-21 situation that has become blazingly obvious to those capable of discernment; is that 'brain-thinking', reason, logically-coherent thought - the kind of processing typically associated with Science (in its largest conception as procedural systematic knowledge) - has all-but collapsed, very nearly disappeared; almost everywhere - and at every level of society from top to bottom. 

From the tiny minority of globalist planners in their invisible but totalitarian planetary government, down to the increasingly ignorant and credulous masses; and through the supposedly expert class in-between - all are unable to think coherently or in a sustained fashion.

All that happens now is an ignorant 'parroting' of the superficial forms of brain-thinking - such as managerialist flow-charts and checklists - whose application is rigid but whose content is increasingly arbitrary and incoherent. More exactly, people can do single-step thinking - "if we do this, then that should happen; If A then B" - but they cannot continue their thinking beyond a single step to address what will happen next, what will be C after B. 

People cannot connect or relate even as few as two facts when they occur in separate one-step sequences; so that 'knowledge' now consists of isolated, atomic 'facts' which have no discernible relationship or pattern (and any suggested pattern that relies upon two-step - or more than two-step logic, is regarded as crazy/ wild/ speculative 'conspiracy theorizing'). 

Life seems impossibly complex to nearly-everyone; because they have rejected the heart thinking/ intuition which is the only thing that can make sense of it. 

Even if you can guide somebody through thinking, in a one-step-at-a-time fashion, from A to be and beyond to C and perhaps D; reminding them continually of the validity of each step... by the time they have reached the conclusion, they have long-since lost their grip on the process. They (accurately) no longer trust their own capacity to reason. 

So, after the detailed explanation, they simply reset to... whatever was their prior assumption. 

Thus - once established - error is intractable. 

I say unable to think, because that is the problem. It is not that they can think but are too lazy, or too distracted, or are prevented by their ideology; nor am I talking about a quantitative decline in thinking ability (due to reduced intelligence and increased mutational accumulation) - I am talking about an actual incapacity to think. 

Why? Well, at the deepest explanatory level I believe this is because Mankind has rejected destiny, has rejected final participation, heart thinking and the primacy of intuition - has rejected a life based upon the reality of God and the spiritual realm. 

Instead, Man has chosen to remain in what was supposed to be a transitional 'adolescent' phase of the 'consciousness soul' - which state is innately self-destroying. 

When proper development is rejected; we cannot just choose to stay as we are - because what we are is non-viable. 

Insightful individuals foresaw that if we did not move onwards from the alienated state of positivistic, reductionist, scientistic, materialistic thinking, then we would cease to be able to do even that. 

This has come to pass, and is all around us. 

People have given-up on understanding because they have rejected meaning and purpose in life; without which there can be no understanding. 

Thinking can only be purposive, and without purpose thinking will wither and die. Has died. 

So, although many of the Global Establishment envisage a single international society of monolithic ideology and socio-economic control; they cannot achieve this, because their inability to think (compounded by their compulsion to lie), is continually sabotaging their own desires. 

The same inability of the expert class and the masses, then further ensures that any System will be incoherent and ineffective, continually self-corrupting, collapsing faster than it can be built.

On top of which there are now increasingly powerful and influential 'Sorathic' Beings (whether human or demonic) whose purpose is almost-wholly negative and destructive; and who delight in corruption, collapse, fear and suffering - and who add a positive purpose to the down-trend established by negative incapacity.   

But even as the corruption and collapse happen as a matter of daily experience; the capacity to recognize it has declined even faster. As individuals are submerged beneath the tsunami of accumulating chaos, they will remain utterly puzzled and clueless about what is happening to them, and why. The just cannot think it through...

*
http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/learning-to-parrot-modern-intelligence.html
*

*
It has been a fascinating, and I must admit horrifying, three-and-a-bit years since Michael Woodley and I first discovered the first objective evidence that there has been a very substantial decline in general intelligence ('g') over the past two hundred years - the evidence was posted on this blog just a few hours after we discovered it:

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/convincing-objective-and-direct.html

Since then, Michael has taken the lead in replicating this finding in multiple other forms of data, and in a variety of paradigms; and learning more about the magnitude of change and its timescale. His industry has been astonishing!  

*

We currently believe that general intelligence has declined by approximately two standard deviations (which is approximately 30 IQ points) since 1800 - that is, over about 8 generations

(Note added - I now regard 2 SD as overstating it, also that an SD is not of fixed size over generations. More correct would be to say intelligence has declined since 1800 by more-than-one modern SD.).

Such a decline is astonishing - at first sight. But its magnitude has been obscured by social and medical changes so that we underestimate intelligence in 1800 and over-estimate intelligence now.

On the other hand, magnitude and rapidity of decline in world class geniuses in the West (and of major innovations) does imply a decline of intelligence of at least 2 SDs - so from that perspective the rate and size of decline is pretty much as-expected.

*

Two hundred years ago, and for many decades afterwards, performance of the population in a wide range of tasks was substantially impaired by things like malnutrition and high rates of serious endemic infectious diseases. On any particular day, many or most people would have been ill, and their ability to do skilled activities (including examinations - or IQ tests, if they had been in existence) was significantly impaired.

Furthermore, two hundred years ago there was much less information around, and people had to think things through for themselves.

However, general intelligence is buffered against environmental change - it is hardly affected by disease, or even malnutrition - until these are of such severity as to result in death (under pre-modern conditions).

So even very sick and/or malnourished populations, who may be living in simple cultures at a subsistence level, or under conditions of multi-generational malnutrition and near starvation, may have high g - and this will become obvious in terms of high performance as soon as their environment becomes more favourable (for example the migrant Norsemen and the Chinese).

*

Wind-forward to today, and the general health and nutrition are much improved; and in a thousand ways it is easier for people to give a falsely high impression of their ability by deploying technology and 'parroting' the hard-won knowledge of other people. This does not represent g-driven intelligence, but a multitude of specialized, task-specific intelligences.

To caricature,  in 1800, the average Man (when we was not impaired by illness) had a very deep kind of abstract reasoning and problem solving ability which was spontaneous and almost independent of education - his intelligence rose-up powerfully and unstoppably from below, rather like a geyser.

By contrast, Modern Man has a much weaker subterranean spring of intelligence and instead a 'mosaic' of separate and trained abilities, superficially 'studded' onto him by culture and education.

Modern Man has relatively very poor abstract reasoning and problem solving abilities; but can be trained to learn and can quote (or parrot) the reasons and solutions across a wide range of things - but without understanding what he is saying.

(And, indeed, without even knowing that he does not understand - since he equates 'knowing the right answers' with intelligence.)

*

Michael and I immediately recognized that the rate of change in intelligence that we were observing was too fast to be accounted for my natural selection favouring lower intelligence; although this does have a significant role.

We soon began to recognize that the primary mechanism was likely to be mutation accumulation due to the decline in child mortality rates from more than half to about one percent - child mortality having, through human history, served as the main (but not only) selective 'sieve' to remove the spontaneous fitness-reducing mutations which occur with every generation.

We also discovered the biological concept of 'mutational meltdown' - which sometimes leads to the extinction of a species, especially when combined with a reducing population: mutational damage accumulates so fast in a population that organisms cease to reproduce and become extinct.

Michael has gone on to confirm the plausibility of this mechanism of mutation accumulation in rapidly reducing general intelligence, and to make the first steps in quantifying it.

*

But our story which had begun with declining general intelligence then began to take on a much larger scope.

Because if mutation accumulation was the main mechanism for declining intelligence, then this had implications for the total fitness, indeed the viability, of the human organism.

General intelligence can be regarded as an index of reproductive potential or 'fitness', because high g depend upon a highly efficient brain, which depends on multiple genes coding for multiple and complexly-interacting brain systems. Any randomly occurring mutation has a high probability of impairing brain efficiency, so intelligence will be expected to decline incrementally with accumulating mutations.

So, declining g due to mutation accumulation only represents the tip of an iceberg of genetic damage to the fitness of an organism, or a population of organisms.

*

In a sense, the reduction of intelligence may be one of the lesser concerns about this world of what looks increasingly like a mutational meltdown. Because mutations will also damage what might be termed the 'basic instincts' of the population or species.

In particular, mutation accumulation will be expected to affect social and sexual instincts of the kind we used to call 'common sense' and 'human nature'.

So, common sense could be considered the normal, standard behaviours which enabled humans to function in groups, and to survive; while sexual instincts refer to the basic sexual orientation and attraction of humans; and the suite of adaptations that lead to 'pair bonding', fertile matings, raising of offspring etc.

These basic instincts used to be taken for granted; but in fact they are highly complex adaptations, and represent the product of multiple generations of natural selection. Indeed, social and sexual instincts are perhaps the most sensitive of all human traits to damage of any kind - it is change in social and sexual behaviour which is most sensitive to any form of disease or disorder affecting the brain.

This applies to genetic and chromosomal disease, which always show-up in social and sexual differences; but also to trauma. For instance the residual effect of a stroke is much more evident in terms of subtle psychological changes to social and sexual behaviour (personality) than in terms of physical function. And, even small amounts of many drugs - such as alcohol; or hormones - such as testosterone or oestrogen; will observably change, and derange, social and sexual behaviour.

*

In conclusion, since there has been considerable mutation accumulation over the past two hundred years - enough to cause a very large reduction in general intelligence - this must also have caused considerable damage to human social and sexual adaptations.

Therefore, both common sense and sexual instincts are impaired in modern Man.

Our basic instincts have been damaged.

*

Once that is realized as being necessarily entailed, then the evidence for such impairment is all around us.

The most fundamental measure is fitness, i.e. reproductive potential - and it is probably the most remarkable fact about modernity that it leads to impaired reproductive success - indeed to below-replacement fertility.

The 'demographic transition', interpreted as plain biology, is therefore strong prima facie evidence of mutation accumulation; indeed it points to incipient mutational meltdown, since the (age-adjusted) post-industrial Western population has been declining for several decades.

Mutation accumulation would also be likely to lead to the lack of common sense, the lack of basic self-preservation, the lack of what would be expected as normal and adaptive social behaviours that are so striking a feature of the West.

And, even more significantly, the lack of any concern about this lack of common sense - damage to social mechanisms has been so profound that the Western population has lost the ability to notice or feel that there is damage - that our situation is pathological.

Indeed, the obvious pathology resulting from damaged instincts is vehemently denied - and to point it out is punished. This is exactly what would be expected when the lunatics have taken-over the asylum, when disease is endemic. Disease is the new health.

Look around. We live in a profoundly weird world socio-sexual , yet there is near zero response to the fact - just a kind of bland, bewildered, vague approval that socio-sexual change means 'progress'.

*

The same applies to sexual instincts. What is striking is not so much the high levels of disordered sexual behaviour; but the widespread loss of the ability to notice and feel that sexual behaviour is disordered.

Past generations did not need to depend on education and were immune to propaganda when it came to sexual instincts - but modern attitudes reveal that these basic instincts have been severely damaged - so that sexual attraction, evaluations, and motivations are all - very generally - disordered.

The Western populations have suffered such extremity of damage to their evolved human nature, that they have lost even the innate sense that there was any such things as human nature to begin with.

To be in the situation of arguing about the necessity of 'common sense', or the reality of sexual instincts and other attributes of human nature, is itself strong evidence that human nature has been substantially destroyed - as would be entailed by two centuries of mutation accumulation.

*

And more of the same is to be expected - because it is not clear that anything substantive could be done about this problem except over a multi-generational timescale - even if there were an understanding that there is a problem, and any motivation to do anything about it; neither of which is the case.

**

Some extra reading and references:

http://iqpersonalitygenius.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=mutation

I become more convinced that "direct knowing" is required of us (unmediated intuiting, the sharing of common thoughts...); and indeed the only way of knowing that 'works' in a world where language, symbols, visions, and all kinds of perceptual experience are corrupted as well as weakened. 

Probably, you are hoping that this can be done in such a way that your new, chosen, Romantic Christian-type assumptions will become automatic, habitual, pervasive...

The bad news is that what you want is not possible; the good news is that the impossibility is part of the divine plan...

Romantic Christian assumptions must (to make a sweeping generalization) be consciously-chosen and will therefore happen in thinking. (Because thinking is the mode of conscious choice.) 

We usually, spontaneously, want our lives to be 'effortlessly good' - including effortlessly purposive, meaningful, deep and rich. 

But then, when we are learning something, some skill or practice (for me that was various types of academic work at school - then medicine, biology, systems theory, Christian theology...) we want that learning process to be effortless. 

Yet we soon learn that learning is only learning if it is effortful - if 'learning' is not hard work, sustained and focused; then there is no learning (but, at most, only parroting). 

(No insult to parrots is intended by this expression...)

We do not want to make mistakes - to err. But all that means in practice is that we deny our errors and double-down on them - and/or we curtail our ambition to much less than it should be, in our desire to avoid mistakes. 

Thus the 'imaginative living' of successful Romantic Christianity has characteristics of deliberate-day-dreaming - in that (because it is a kind of thinking) we know we are doing it, while we are doing it.  

'Magic' is thus contained within thinking. 

It is therefore necessary to value conscious thinking - and to repent our spontaneous desire to be overwhelmed by 'romanticism breaking-in upon us such that we are passive and helpless to resist.

We need to acknowledge that thinking is (or can be) real, and value our consciously-chosen thinking more than the unconscious and spontaneous. 

Then we may be able to intensify that imaginative thinking - so it becomes more satisfying and dominant within our lives. 

Yet, this mortal life is one of learning from experiences; and we should not expect to make cumulative-progress in our life project. We should not expect the desired mode of thinking to become habitual and spontaneous - but always to require conscious choice. 

After all we Will die, sooner or later - and before then, probably lose our higher faculties to disease, degeneration or just irresistible distractions. 

Yet - on a timescale of eternal Heavenly life - that does not invalidate what learning we do achieve; nor does it invalidate those (perhaps brief) times when our thinking is as it should be. 

It is in overcoming difficulties, and despite them attaining (for a while) - and in thinking - the desired mode of being; that we live in accordance with divine creation. 

In short - we can attain Heaven on Earth in our thinking - but we are not supposed to reach that state automatically. 

Our mortal 'job' is consciously to choose salvation - and keep on choosing. 

At a certain point, we have to acknowledge that (over and above Establishment manipulation) what is happening is what masses of people want to happen; and to try and understand why - and then, what is the alternative for those who do not want to share in the world of despair. 

If there was any doubt before, there is none now that this is a world without hope. Without hope then the only concern is with short-termist survival - whether physical or social.

Thus we have seen (over the past couple of weeks) a sharp transition from a cowardly mass concern short-termist physical survival of the body; to a short-termist focus on social survival, on status, on publicly affirming the Big Evil Lies.


Because people lack hope (which is an inner motivation) therefore people are passive; they do what they are told (because they are afraid of dying), they believe what they are told (because they are scared of, and want to be on the side of, the masses like themselves).

Thus another day is negotiated... and nothing matters beyond the day, because there is no hope for anything better.


Beneath this hopelessness is a despair that is blazingly evident as what economists call 'revealed preferences'. In other words, the despair of our world is shown by our choices, by what we choose to do - rather than by what we say (which is, after all, just a matter of parroting).

En masse; the people of the world chose social isolation and the destruction of all social systems, and are now choosing to active destruction of... well, whatever the mobs have a motivation to destroy.

The people of the world overwhelmingly cheered-on and zealously enforced social isolation and passive cessation of nearly all functional activity; now they cheer-on mass mobs and active destruction of stuff. 


In other words; the revealed preference of the world is for short-term (one day at a time) survivalism, and in the long-term the destruction of The System by which the world operates.

More precisely the Leftist world view that has dominated for two generations has created a world, a system, an ideology - that the people of the world have taken-on-board; but now find intolerable, hateful, and want to destroy (and themselves along with it).

And this process is being led by those who have the greatest power in The System, those who run the economy, finance, multinational corporations and agencies... (call them the Global Establishment).

This is what is happening, yet how could this be?


The answer to all of this is clear (albeit not obvious, because unprecedented) from a Christian perspective.

Hope depends on Christianity - there is no other, there is now not even any pretence of other hope.

Our Christian hope is for life eternal after death, and during this life of a life of purpose and meaning with the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

A hope rooted outside of The System (beyond death), ramifying through all of daily life...


From this perspective; we can see that this modern Leftist System - that is based on hatred of real Christianity, denial of the spiritual (i.e. materialism, positivism), and promotion of a negative ideology of despair, suicide and the embrace of chaos; is of Satanic origin - and that the Global Establishment are merely serving their demonic masters (in pursuit of their short-termist survival, pleasure and status; and at the cost of their own long-term dispossession, suffering and death).

The People of the world have been induced to build-up a world System of evil, upon which almost everyone relies for survival; and which almost everyone supports in word and deed - although simultaneously hating it - due to the cowardly demoralisation that results from this ideological embrace.

And these same People are now being induced to tear-down this System of evil, this Thought Prison that they have themselves laboured to construct and maintain. To resist today would be costly, here-and-now; so everyone goes-along because - why not? What else is there?

But at some level these People know what they are doing, hate themselves, hate their situation, and desire their own annihilation - that death-as-an-end which Satan promises (yet does not deliver). 


So this is our situation, and I have described the answer. We each need to take personal responsibility for our-selves, for our souls (if we believe in our souls - which most don't) - responsibility for deciding what to believe.

Do you want hope, can you believe in hope; or not?

In this world; only if you want, can you believe.