Charities are evil!

It is supposed to be an innately Good Thing to give money (or time and labour) To Charity - but no activity is intrinsically Good - and in a totalitarian evil world all charities are conformed to that evil. 

I used to keep searching around for a charity that was not operating in net-support of the global agenda of evil. I sometimes thought I had found one or a few. But over the years all of these have serially been revealed as merely less-evil than average - yet qualitatively still motivated by the prevalent evil motivations; for example as revealed by the 2020 Litmus Tests. 

This ought not to be surprising, because charities are institutions, and all institutions are now linked to the global bureaucracy by many links (e.g. legal, financial etc.). All bureaucracy is intrinsically evil; and the global bureaucracy is the primary instrument by which evil attitudes are encouraged, Big Lies are disseminated, and evil actions are implemented by rewards and sanctions. 

(...Because although no action is intrinsically Good - in practice some actions - such as the classic sins - are strongly-likely to induce evil. As so often the situation is asymmetrical. On the side of Good motivations are primary; but Good may be opposed by many things; including, but not restricted to, motivations. For instance the beauty of some aspect of divine creation may be destroyed, and this destruction may be done without the motivation to destroy divine creation - and yet such destruction is still an evil.) 

So charities are evil; and, since 2020, even 'church charities' - as is clear if you read the boastful lists of "good works" that churches claim to have done - many of these are actually evil-works, and an organization that does evil-works when claiming these to be good is on the side of evil.  

This is not a difficult discernment! 

...Yet people allow themselves to be confused (fatally) by what charities (and churches) used-to-be; rather than noticing the obviousness of what charities (and churches) actually are, here-and-now. 

Of course this is yet another personal loss from the possibilities of life. (That's what evil does when triumphant!) 

Much of human gratification used to come from working with people in good causes; and from the sense of solidarity which brings security. These are things that we are now called-upon to do-without - if we are to remain on the side of God, divine creation and Jesus Christ. 

With The System now under the thumb of Satan, and with the infection of evil spreading perceptibly; only that which is outwith The System may be Good - and the need for discernment never sleeps.

Of course, all sins and evil we may do may be cancelled by repentance - that is a great gift of Jesus Christ. But repentance requires that we repent! 

Which means we need to recognize evil, and recognize evil as evil - then reject it as such.  

The continual difficulty is that we all must engage-with evil in the Systems of this world if we are not to die - now including charities, now including church charities. 

Therefore - to stay alive while avoiding self-chosen damnation, we need to avoid being seduced into cozy assumptions that any organization or activity is intrinsically Good. 

There will be some Good in any institution - but we personally can only do net-Good via a charity when we recognize that 'the institution itself' - in its bureaucratic character - is motivated by evil. 

"Charity" = strategic evil; and this applies to All charities, whatever they call themselves

Nowhere has the "convergence" of institutions into a single strategic programme of totalitarian, bureaucratic evil, been more evident than among "Charities". 

I've just had inflicted on me (by YouTube) an advertisment for the organization that calls itself "christian AID" - the "c word" is nowadays in lower case and forced into the background of the logo. 

Their globalist totalitarian perspective is encompassed by their mission statement: Christian Aid exists to create a world where everyone can live a full life, free from poverty. 

(Which was, after all, Christ's main message... Errr, well, maybe...)

And their number one current campaign (linked with the Satanic-themed Paris Olympics, is "Join the race to beat the climate crisis"... 

You get the pun on "race"? And the in-built assumption that there actually exists a thing called the "climate crisis" which is the number one threat to the world today - and is specifically the primary cause of poverty. 

And that climate is a thing that can, and should, be "beaten". 

But my point is that all charities (of any size - increasingly even very small and local ones) are the same in this regard. 

It does not matter what their name is, what they were founded to do, or what they pretend is their core concern. 

The bottom line is that all charities really do is global totalitarian leftism; and therefore, there are no Christian charities. 

Whatever may be claimed otherwise: all charities have Satan as both patron and chief executive. 

But is it cricket? Renaming and repurposing as subversive strategies

Things change, and evolve, and sometimes - at some point - we have to say that they have become something different; even if they retain the same name.

Cricket evolved, and fused with rounders, to become baseball - and got a different name (justified, in this instance). Cricket evolved, and became T20 - and kept the name (which also, overall seems right... but moving towards the edge of plausibility).

In the modern world, where managers have taken-over from do-ers, there are two managerial trends - one is to rename things despite the fact they stay the same, and the other is to keep the name but obliterate what used to go by that name and do something almost-completely different.

Both are, of course, covertly motivated by the desire to destroy and disorientate everything and everybody.

In Britain many of the counties were renamed in the 1970s - names that went back to medieval, or even earlier, times were obliterated and replaced. In Scotland, Clackmannashire - named after a Celtic tribe - was renamed... Central Region. At a lower level, it is standard routine for bureaucrats to rename organisations - new signs, logos, letterheads etc.

Renaming is nearly always a sign of an organisation succumbing to BS management - the modern European Union is an exemplar, having begun as the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community.

Schools and Colleges that change their names are typically those that have decided to invest in PR rather than substance. Also school 'pupils' are now renamed 'students' by the media, even in the early teens - whereas until a dozen years ago this referred only to those in higher education.

(For all that , the names are often indicative of the true nature of what is going on. When the EEC became the EU is was a signal of aiming at a single totalitarian Euro state. And all the British places re-named 'Mandela' (after either Nelson, or his egregious wife) during the 1980s and 90s were a solid sign of Political Correctness and Leftist subversion/ inversion becoming The Establishment.)

Among Schools, Colleges and Universities; there has been a hollowing-out and near-complete replacement of what these institutions actually do; the same applies to science, medicine, law, the police... the phenomenon is very general, almost universal.

It is most obvious in 'charities' - where the trend has been for all national, wealthy charities to become almost-completely Left Wing lobbying and activist groups, with just a 'front' of their former functions kept-going. Oxfam was originally an Oxford-based organisation for providing famine-relief, 'Barnados' used to run orphanages, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds used to... protect birds, the Salvation Army used to be a Christian denomination. The Army Benevolent Fund used to assist wounded soldiers until shortly before it was renamed The Soldier's Charity...

But these and all other major national charities are now 'NGOs' - whose (astonishingly well-paid) leaderships are part of the we of The Establishment, and dedicated to the strategic and incremental demoralisation and self-damnation of humankind.

We live in a public world in which 'nothing is what it seems' - at least at the level of what gets into the mass media and official communications.

Yet to notice such obvious facts, is supposed to be cynical, negative and paranoid; despite that cynicism, negativity and paranoia in other contexts are the favoured modern attitudes; assiduously propagated by the mass media.

And many of these things are designed to create a background and continual state of angst and fear among the populace - a low-level of consciousness, a short-termist and reactive survivalism. 

Let us not, then, dwell upon such matters - but simply accept that this is how things actually are (no point in trying to persuade other people who don't want to know); personally ignore and reject the official and media agendas on the basis that they are always false in some important way - and get on with making ourselves more spiritual and religious people (people who who don't depend on being fed the agenda, who are not addicted to the day's talking-points); and deal with the stuff we actually believe to be important, and know from personal intuition and experience amplified with common sense.

Now the RNLI is corrupt!... Charities plus Mission Creep equals Leftism

*
I don't go looking for these things; but not long ago I reported that the Salvation Army, which was once one of the best charities in the UK (as well as being a Low Church Protestant Christian denomination), had fallen to Leftism -

http://charltonteaching.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/the-saddest-thing-of-past-25-years.html

Now I have to report the same for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) - which used to fund a 24 hour volunteer sea rescue service around the coast of Britain. This charity has some particular local associations for me since the Grace Darling story of Victorian times - described to all school-children of my generation - happened nearby; and Newbiggin by the Sea - where I spent most childhood holidays - had one of the earliest lifeboats, responsible for saving many of the inshore fishermen.


But 'Conquest's Second Law' proves itself true again: which states that that any organization that is not explicitly Right Wing, will become Left Wing; and the RNLI has now become 'just another NGO', run by the usual politically correct gang of professional managers class and public relations officials.

(It is due to organizational takeover by the lethal combination of volunteer workers with career professional managers, public relations advisers, web designers, and 'Chuggers' (i.e. charity-muggers - trained and paid street collectors), plus donation-grubbing spammers and junk mailers; all sensitive to and influenced by lobbyists, single issue fanatics, Social Justice Warriers, grievance-mongers, and organized activists of every stripe...)

(Actually things are worse than Conquest hoped, since many explicitly Right Wing organizations become Leftist over time - for example this happened to Libertarians and Neo-Conservatives.)


How do I know this? - simply because I saw a blog comment then checked the RNLI website to see how they present themselves, and came across this:

http://rnli.org/aboutus/International/Pages/International-development.aspx

It is not difficult to know when an organization of institution has become Leftist, because they are so proud of themselves that they cannot help but advertise the fact - indeed, if they did not advertise their politically correct moral posturing, there would be no reason to do it - so they can always be relied upon to out-themselves. In my experience, this method is never wrong.

The hyped-up, untrustworthy web pages delighted in describing how the RNLI are 'active' in a dozen third world countries scattered across the globe - apparently providing training in swimming, beach lifeguards and... whatever

- i.e. The usual ineffectual 'aren't I great!' stuff that Leftists like to fund themselves to do, so that they feel better about themselves and have something 'cool' to brag about at parties...


But the specifics of what the RNLI do in Africa, South America, South Asia doesn't matter to me, I am not interested - because they shouldn't be there: they are supposed to be running lifeboats around the coasts of Britain - that it what we pay them for!

We don't want the RNLI to do anything else at all!

Apparently, according to their own websites  they are now big on providing beach lifeguards... yes, that's right, the RNLI has expanded its portfolio away from the likes of oilskin clad volunteer car mechanics and shopkeepers risking their lives to haul people out of the deep sea...

...to a slinky wet suit clad version of the Baywatch babes and hunks.

So that is it! - so far as I know there are now no honest, decent national charities in the UK. Not one. (And if you told me about one - I would be inclined to disbelieve you.)

From now on all my donations go to the small remaining number of serious Christian churches - preferably local - especially for evangelical work.

But I shall need to keep an eye on them too - because as soon as they stop explicitly proclaiming Left-taboo anti-sexual revolution doctrines (and sometimes even before that time), they will soon and surely fall to PC.

*

The spirit of Antichrist in the Queen's Christmas Message 2019

One important factor in this era of things coming to a point, is the distinction between good and evil becoming ever clearer even in our own hearts - and even within Christianity. Among which, the very longstanding errors and false emphases of Christianity are being exposed mercilessly.

One such error can be seen when comparing the Fourth Gospel with Luke's and especially Matthew's Gospel's - and is related to the idea of Jesus as Messiah of this world, of being a socio-political saviour of his people. And the idea that this will be evident in terms of Jesus, and then of Christianity (and the purported institutional continuation of Jesus's mission) being a positive influence in the development of this world.

It is normal now - and has been from not long after Jesus died - to claim that Jesus made The World (this mortal life) a better place; just as it is common from the enemies of Christianity to claim the opposite. And often to claim this better world as the main 'benefit' for Christianity, the main reason why people should be Christians*.

But in our time, with our pervasive materialistic world view; the arguments for Christianity have become almost entirely this-worldly. And, to make this appealing to the mainstream masses, the effects of Jesus Christ are seen in terms of Christianity promoting the values and outcomes that are currently mainstream.


This can be seen in yesterday's Queen's Speech. Elizabeth II is Head of the Church of England - officially responsible for appointing the bishops who ordain the priests; so that having Christian references is normal and mandatory in her annual address; the question is: what are these Christian references, and what do they imply?

This year, the nature of these Christian references shows clearly the ways that the spirit of Antichrist is at work in this era, here and now; such that references to Jesus and to the Christian churches are framed in social terms quite alien to the spirit of the Fourth Gospel.

Of course, at the heart of the Christmas story lies the birth of a child: a seemingly small and insignificant step overlooked by many in Bethlehem. But in time, through his teaching and by his example, Jesus Christ would show the world how small steps taken in faith and in hope can overcome long-held differences and deep-seated divisions to bring harmony and understanding. As Christmas dawned, church congregations around the world joined in singing It Came Upon The Midnight Clear. Like many timeless carols, it speaks not just of the coming of Jesus Christ into a divided world, many years ago, but also of the relevance, even today, of the angel's message of peace and goodwill. It's a timely reminder of what positive things can be achieved when people set aside past differences and come together in the spirit of friendship and reconciliation.

This false idea of Jesus as primarily, essentially, the agent of overcoming differences and division, of offering a blueprint for harmony and understanding, and of instituting a society of peace and goodwill; is a modern version of the same error and distortion seen when Jesus was regarded as a Jewish political leader; whose primary mission was to inaugurate a new way of living on this earth and during this mortal life.

Whereas, in reality Jesus was essentially addressing the individual person; and any social changes were secondary to that person coming to believe-on Jesus, have faith-in and love-for him; and desiring to follow Jesus through death to resurrected life everlasting in Heaven.


The influence of Jesus, of Christianity, on this world and mortal life is therefore via the effect of transforming individual minds by the love of Jesus and the expectation of Heaven.  

The error of regarding Jesus's mission as primarily political is even more harmful now than it was at and around the time of Jesus's life; because we have (as a society) lost our ability even to acknowledge the reality of the spiritual - and this is also the attitude of the Establishment Christian leadership such as the Queen, Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Francis.

I call this the spirit of Antichrist, because the idea of Antichrist is to be a fake Christ who uses Christian language and concepts but whose covert motivations are evil; the spirit of those who affect to be on the side of God while operating on the side of Satan. This is done by incorporating selective aspects of Christianity with a false emphasis, and by leaving-out the essence. (Plus, of course, by lying.)


So, the actual religion of the 2019 Queen's Speech is, unsurprisingly, Leftism: we have a Leftist fake Christianity of social reform, and an overt Leftism of that modern 'climate' focused pseudo-environmentalism that has become merely an excuse for a wholesale, Global totalitarian power grab:

Since the end of the Second World War, many charities, groups and organisations have worked to promote peace and unity around the world, bringing together those who have been on opposing sides. By being willing to put past differences behind us and move forward together, we honour the freedom and democracy once won for us at so great a cost. The challenges many people face today may be different to those once faced by my generation, but I have been struck by how new generations have brought a similar sense of purpose to issues such as protecting our environment and our climate.

Here we have it, the Antichrist spirit; where it turns out that many 'charities, groups and organisations' are involved in (supposedly) promoting peace and unity around the world; with a special endorsement for that most immediately threatening evil of putting-aside-differences (ie. enforcement of sameness and elimination of borders) that is being pursued under the excuse of 'protecting our environment and our climate' [sic!]).


In sum, the Queen is explicitly making an equation between the aims of Christianity and the aims of mainstream charities, groups, organisations, environmentalists and climate change activists.

In other words, since Christianity and Leftism are being regarded as amounting to the same thing, and both are to be pursued by the same strategy of promoting peace and unity. Therefore, in practice: pursuing Leftism is claimed here also to be promoting Christianity. And the Christian message is transformed into eliminating inter-societal and inter-personal differences/ imposing uniformity of thoughts, attitudes and behaviours/ empowering international agencies with total powers of surveillance and control etc.

Thus we see the spirit of Antichrist at work. And, as always, the greatest danger is the failure to discern it; the failure to perceive that - whatever the Christian language - evil is the true motivation.


*Note added: Jesus came to offer the new possibility of resurrected Life Everlasting - which is the positive meaning of the double-negative theology of saving us from 'sin' - where 'sin' is being understood as 'the mortal condition', which is itself being understood primarily (but not wholly) to be death. That was what Jesus did, what his life and death was for; and Jesus succeeded completely in this objective with nothing of it left outstanding or still-to-do. And the further things that Jesus came to do are contingent; being secondary to this primary completed act of Jesus, and contingent upon the human individual and his circumstances, and to the society at that time and place. Of course, becoming a follower of Jesus necessarily affects your life and this world, but that is not the point of it. Nor can such societal effects be made into a checklist, code, blueprint or System - separable from the souls of specific Christian individuals.  

The bureaucratic solution to Life

I have previously blogged about the serious problem of loneliness in modern society - loneleiness as the modern 'poverty'.

Well, Problem Solved. (Edited)

Theresa May has appointed the country’s first minister for loneliness in order to tackle the misery endured by around nine million Britons. Tracey Crouch will take on the role on top of her current job as Sports minister.

As well as announcing the new minister, Mrs May said a cross-government strategy to find ways to stop people feeling lonely will be published later this year. She said: For far too many people, loneliness is the sad reality of modern life. I want to confront this challenge for our society and for all of us to take action to address the loneliness endured by the elderly, by carers, by those who have lost loved ones, people who have no one to talk to or share their thoughts and experiences with.”

…a ministerial lead for loneliness who will work with the Commission, businesses and charities to shine a light on the issue and pull together all strands of Government to create the first ever strategy. We should all do everything we can to see that we bring an end to the acceptance of loneliness for good.

The Office for National Statistics will help to devise a method of measuring loneliness and a fund will be set up to allow Government and charities to find innovative ways to deal with the problem across all ages, backgrounds and communities. 

Ms Crouch said: "I am sure that with the support of volunteers, campaigners, businesses and my fellow MPs from all sides of the House, we can make significant progress in defeating loneliness".

War is graft, government aid for war victims is graft... All government expenditure is graft (considered at one level)

War is graft, government aid for war victims is graft, all government expenditure is graft.

Celebrity charities are graft - all charities are graft (from the top, by motivation).

Celebrity (and political) autobiographies, lectures, and public appearances are bribes.

Honours and prizes and awards are bribes. 

...These are some of the more-or-less legal ways that the demonically-controlled, destructively evil Beings control the bureaucratic, managerial and intellectual classes. 

Totalitarian control of attitudes, thinking and behaviour are mostly done by such positive incentives; because they work. 

Fear of negative sanctions such as destruction of status, sacking, fining, prison, violence, torment, and murder - are real and necessary, but are a back-stop. 

    

 

Is it possible to do good things for bad reasons? Not for long...

*

Much of modern life is predicated on the assumption that it is possible, indeed usual, to do good things for bad reasons; that motivations are detachable from actions.

And, of course, in a short term and restricted sense the two are indeed separable.

*

For example, it is routinely assumed that health services, environmental preservation, feeding the malnourished... these kinds of things are assumed to be good in themselves, and worth doing without respect to motivation - most people would assert that it is more important that such things actually be done, than it is to focus on the motivations for doing them.

Because of this assumption that action and motivation are separable, we get government agencies that supposedly "do good" funded by coercive confiscation of resources; and also NGOs, charities, voluntary groups who are devoted to these 'good works' without reference to any motivation for these good works - or at least this is their official stance...

*

Modernity is about the specialization of works, in detachment from faith.

*

In practice, what is found is that individuals or groups which purport to do good works without motivation soon end up not doing good work at all - but being selfish (at many levels) while gaming a set of rules.

What is found is that, over the medium- to long-term, faith determines works.

And lack of faith generates indifference to the actual outcomes of works. 

*

Government agencies or charities set-up without faith and purportedly to alleviate poverty/ protect the environment/ pursue 'justice' without regard to larger motivation; instead create and sustain poverty/ destroy the environment/ implement systematic injustice while consuming their allocated resources in selfishness.

*

In practice, the necessity, the inevitability, of motivation means that it cannot be dispensed with - either by individuals or by groups - but faith either returns by another route, or else lack of faith generates an indifference to the actuality of works.

*

Why monetizing corrupts

Setting-aside arguments about economic necessity (which very seldom hold water*) it is surely a blazingly obvious fact that monetizing of blogs and videos, by whatever means, is corrupting. 

We can all see this for ourselves (especially if there is a before and after) - even when the scale of earnings is (presumably) negligible.

Indeed, this is what is striking; that even a small scale blog-video is distorted in predictable ways by monetization - in other words, monetization induces and enforces this-worldly short-termism in service to the mainstream agenda. 

The mechanism of corruption is analogous to that which leads to the "convergence" that afflicts all charities in the UK (and I mean All charities) - which is that engagement with The System (in this case the economy) is intrinsically corrupting. 

Which means, of course, that we are all (more or less) corrupted by the fact that we all depend on The System for our survival. 

That is true. But it is also true that every time we choose to increase our integration with The System, we increase our corruption. 

We can negate such spiritual harm if we explicitly acknowledge (to ourselves, in particular) that we have chosen to do what corrupted us because it seemed more expedient (i.e. if we take personal responsibility for our corrupting choice); and acknowledge too that we have actually become more corrupt as a result of our choices.

In other words; we are all sinners and cannot cease from sinning and indeed often choose to sin more and gratuitously.  

But what usually happens is that we lie to ourselves; first that we "have to" engage-with and subordinate-to The System in this particular instance; and that "it won't make any difference". 

With monetization - it takes the form of justifying that we "deserve" to be paid for the input of our time and effort...

OK; but that means we are selling our time and effort (even when we get very little back from that sale); and we cannot validly then claim that we are writing (or otherwise creating) in pursuit of truth, beauty and virtue.    

In sum: as of 2025 (with our national and global totalitarian system) - if you are writing for money then you are, to a significant degree, Writing For Money; writing so as to be more compatible with making money; hence you have chosen to place your writing and its content within the totalitarian system. 

One sign of corruption is when the writing engages with the monetization, another when the writing become PR for other system-affiliated activities: selling books or other merchandize, supporting your business; or promoting your-self, your career, your worldly-projects. 

All that's fine if you support the evil-motivated actuality and aims of the global totalitarian system. 

In that case you presumably want to become more corrupt, and selling your writing (or using your writing to sell) will help with this. 

But insofar as you desire to take the side of God, divine creation and the good; then the decision to monetize your writing is one that will surely have adverse consequences on you personally, relative to how you otherwise would have been - and more so insofar as you try to deny this.      

To put it the other way around; if you are genuinely serious in your motivation of wanting to align with the divine and enable good via your writing; then you should avoid (insofar as possible) inserting an economic interface between your writing and those who may read it. 

In conclusion; I think we have recently reached a point when the old possibility of valid compromises between this-world and the spirit, have broken-down. 

Things have come to a point. 

We must make choices - one way, or the other.

The choice whether or not to monetize one's writing is only one of these choices; but it is one of these choices.  

*If one is writing for money, in order to live; then it should be considered whether money may be got some other way - so as to liberate the writing. There are few less-efficient ways of making money than writing; so that a smaller amount of some other kind of work will nearly-always make money more reliably and efficiently than monetizing the writing. Also; most of the best writers in history have been "amateurs" who made money from some other work than writing; and their best writing was done without expectation of payment (even if that writing later made some, or a lot of, money). 

The destruction of civil society by the Left

Going back to the early 1990s, there emerged a considerable literature and a political movement concerned with Civil Society - which was the layer of organized social life between the government and the family: churches, professions and guilds, charities and clubs and the like.

This movement came in the wake of the fall of the Soviet Union and most of its satellites and colonies in 1989, and the break up of that empire into 'democratic' nations. The idea was that totalitarianism had been characterized by the destruction of civil society (either annihilation - as with many Christian churches, or take over by the state).

By contrast, civil society was seen as a vital characteristic of a healthy and free society - the idea that Men should have forms of organization that were substantially autonomous was seen as both efficient and also morally necessary.

The idea was that civil societies should be encouraged in the emerging nations of central and Eastern Europe - and indeed elsewhere - so that they might become Free as the West was Free.

What we have seen instead has been the near-complete destruction of civil society in the West - and the process has been all but un-remarked and un-noted as a general phenomenon. Almost all forms of human association have been brought under control of the state, most are irrelevant, participation in civil society is very low and feeble, many churches, professions social hobby groups been severely weakened or become extinct.

By the criteria of 25 years ago, objectively this means The West is not free, and is instead totalitarian.

It happened by a different mechanism than under Soviet Communism - which used direct suppression, making institutions illegal, confiscating their assets. imprisoning their leaders etc. In the West the imposition of totalitarianism was a mixture of subsidy-control and strangulation by regulation.

But if its implementation has been far more successful and complete; the motivation in the West was exactly the same as it was in the USSR - the motivation of Leftist totalitarianism - that there should be one ideology, and that ideology should be imposed by the state.

But of course the modern New Leftist, politically correct ideology is a very different beast than the utopian Socialism of a century ago. Both are destructive of good - destructive of marriage, the family, churches, professions, guilds, self-education, self-organization... all forms of voluntary autonomous cooperation...

But the Soviets wanted to harness the liberated resources and energies to build utopia; whereas the modern Social Justice Warriors have no utopia in mind - they simply want to destroy that which they oppose. And they have succeeded.

At first social institutions are indeed co-opted to the New Left project, usually by subsidies in return for conformity - but sooner or later the external takeover will destroy the institution, because once made-over to fit in with regulations over membership, politically correct objectives, and working in an environment increasingly onerous in terms of regulations and restrictions - the organization all-but loses its proper function, and instead operate merely as a branch of the state civil administration, just another organization dedicated in its essence to inclusion, equality, diversity...

So clubs are closed, churches and charities dwindle or disappear, organized group hobbies are abandoned - the population uses its leisure simply on being entertained, drinking, eating, plugging into the mass media.

The population are atomized, demoralized, demotivated, unable to think or act for themselves. Which is just how Leftism want them to be: because when there is no organization with autonomy - there is no threat.


Note: It needs to be recognized that inclusion, equality and diversity are negative and destructive concepts. They do not point to any end-point - there is no conceivable state of affairs which is inclusive, equal and diverse - so a 'justice' based on such ideals is always and necessarily destructive of whatever is.

Robert Graves as an extreme instance of "projection"

I have often written of Robert Graves, because - with GB Shaw - he was the first grow-n-up writer I engaged with after Lord of the Rings had opened the door to adult literature for me. Both Graves and Shaw were recommended by my father; Graves because of I Claudius and my burgeoning interest in history. 

I have - very gradually - come to realize that Graves was almost the opposite of what he claimed to be; but that his claims were believed (by me, and many others) because he was a superb (the word is intended descriptively) non-fictional prose writer. 

Graves claimed to be primarily a poet, a lyrical poet; in opposition to those well-connected and socially-endorsed Apollonian versifiers of intellect and scholarship that Graves contemptuously dissected and vilified in his critical writings. 

But in truth, Graves was not a lyrical poet, and was instead exactly the kind of poet his writings rejected. He was an upper class, academic, uninspired clique "poet" - one of a closed circle of mutual admiration and log-rolling.

Contrary to his own claims; he expended great energy on un-poetic/ anti-poetic activities such as wire-pulling, self-promotion, image-management and the like. He acted a part of an impoverished wild and Celtic bard; yet was actually a wealthy and influential - and hard-working - bohemian Norman; doing exactly the kind of stuff that bohemian Normans had been doing for generations.     

Outside this group of not-poets, none of Graves verses have achieve the spontaneous endorsement and love of those who are a part of the (now extinct, apparently) tradition of English lyrics (i.e. the Palgrave's Golden Treasury tradition) 

Graves has several great qualities - including an unexcelled prose style. In a sense he was a great critic of historical poetry - although his judgement of modern (20th century) poetry was so wrong as to be inverted.

But Graves was fraudulent in his nature; he lived a lie. At one level (although nothing like so deep as he claimed) Graves wanted to be something he was not, a poet; but pretended to be it anyway, and worked to persuade as many others as possible. 

In this respect he resembles Charles Williams - although Williams was lower middle class, not a Norman. Williams wanted to be a poet but wasn't; and expended great energies on literary, critical and educational activity to persuade others to endorse himself as a poet. And yet also, he did not want to be a poet as much as he pretended to himself, because he dissipated most of his time and energy on hack works - apparently undertaken so that he could have extra income for a more self-indulgent lifestyle. 

In sum; Graves was himself exactly the kind of pseudo-poet, fake poet; whose verse is not divinely inspired but instead the consequence of scholarship and intelligence; skeletal structures decorated with borrowed or stolen plumage taken from real poets.  

Graves's critical strictures were therefore projection; he publicly excoriated in others his own unacknowledged faults, deficiencies. And by this means Graves concealed from himself (?) and others  - his own innate nature, origins, workings, status, and stature.  

Graves's great advantage over his fellow not-real-poets came from his prose non-fiction - works such as The White Goddess, his brilliant and calculatedly-dishonest autobiography Goodbye to All That, or his critical lectures and essays such as The Common Asphodel. 

Critical and historical prose by which Graves created a mythology of which he was arbiter, and by which he was defined as a true muse-poet. 

It is, apparently, all there, all explained, all in-place... except for some actual real poems!

**

The lesson I draw from this is general. It is, I think, easy to be misled by propaganda, including self-propaganda; and especially when it emanates from a ruling class who control so much of the social institutions, and whose members often operate in mutually reinforcing cliques and factions. This misleading can go even so far as inversion: such that what is supposed is the opposite of what is actual. 

A supposedly beautiful person, building, or piece of music may actually be soulless ugliness; an alleged truth-breakthrough of science or medicine may actually be a tissue of invention and calculated;  distortion; a promoted pattern of virtue in a person (or institution) may be actual evil of a very extreme kind.  

And such inversions are often achieved by implication and projection; by such double-negations. Those who are most self-consciously the opposite of Good, have insider knowledge of the workings of that which opposes good; and can therefore provide convincingly detailed analyses of the projected evils of their enemies.

Political leaders, for instance; very often do in actuality precisely those things that they vocally and theoretically eschew; and absolutely do not do anything effective to deter or suppress those phenomena they rhetorically oppose. 

This is why it is so often observed that those active in charities against specific abuses; often themselves engage in exactly these abuses - and indeed use the organization and resources of their charities the better to prosecute these vices. 

In such a world as we now inhabit, this phenomenon of projection is very general in the high status officialdom and media; to the point almost of universality. 

Consequently, it is vital to look behind the rhetoric; to observe what is actually done (and not done) and consciously to deploy our innate capacity of intuitive inference. 

What Christian church for an Englishman?

Most English churches with historical roots are liberalised and secularised. This situation with churches is a microcosm of the larger social scene - all the traditional English institutions and organisations (professions, schools and colleges, social systems, charities, clubs... indeed pretty much all significant organisations) have been, in past decades, in effect hollowed-out from within - and their vocational leadership replaced by Leftist quasi-political careerist managers and public relations consultants... So which Christian church is suitable, natural, 'feels right' for an Englishman?

More at:
http://albionawakening.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/what-christian-church-for-englishman.html

Don't fight for Lawful Evil: It's way too late to restore institutional functionality

As I've long been expecting; the globalist totalitarians have belatedly noticed that their decades of escalating imposed institutional destruction, have led to... institutional destruction. 

In other words: supporting Chaotic Evil for three generations creates... more chaos.

So now organizations, corporations, professions... all kinds of social institution; have become dysfunctional. 

They are inefficient, ineffective, do not even have the priority of performing their jobs.

They don't do what is on the tin.

Corporations don't seek profits, charities don't help people (except their managers!), science doesn't try to discover truth, schools an colleges don't try to educate, churches are interested in anything but God, the legal system is hostile to justice, and (most significantly) the military is not bothered about fighting.

The inevitable consequence is that the globalist totalitarians can't progress their evil agendas.

Hence the current Establishment attempts to start trying to rebuild effective institutions - starting with the military.

"They" are attempting to roll-back chaos, and build a System of Lawful Evil - evil that sticks to Their rules, and obeys Their orders.

Is this good news? Is it A Good Thing if the military espouses military values again?

Well, only if you think it is a Good Thing for the totalitarian dictatorship to have a more lethal army, navy and airforce.

If you genuinely want the agents of demonic evil to have better weapons...

But, speaking personally; I don't find this a cause for celebration.

**

Note: Lawful Evil is the truth behind that idiotic slogan of M*A*G*A... The DT-dupes are deluded into supposing it's about making the US more like it was 75 years ago. The reality is attempting to weaponize the actual US of 2025.

Is Christianity selfish? Yes! But why is that a bad thing?

There is a very funny novel by Michael Frayn called The Tin Men (1965) - set in a computer establishment where one of the characters is attempting to construct a 'Samaritan' robot that is 'altruistic'; such that it will willingly sacrifice its own existence for others. 

The background assumption is that self-sacrificing altruism is the highest form of ethical behaviour - and this is indeed probably the mainstream assumption in all modern atheistic leftist societies (which, nowadays, means everywhere). 

Considerable humour comes from the problems of programming this robot - in particular the difficulty that when the robot is made to want to sacrifice itself, and seems to get 'satisfaction' from doing so - then this no longer counts as self-sacrifice because it is merely selfishly doing what makes it happy. 

The ideal seems to be a robot that will willingly sacrifice itself for others, or at least others who are also moral agents - if that can be detected - but will be made more miserable by doing so...

This is one of many paradoxes and incoherences that come from the common idea that altruism is the highest moral value and the proper guide to living. 

One frequent idea is that the greatest public moral exemplars are those who - supposedly - live for the benefit of others despite cost to themselves. 

(Or, at least, donate time or money to organizations that claim to facilitate this... hence the structural role of 'charities' in objectively validating the moral-superiority claims of the ruling classes: charitable work 'proves' that these are truly altruistic people who deserve their fame, wealth, power and status.)

But altruism merely kicks the can further down the road; because altruism fails to provide any meaning to life. 

If my life is to be devoted to preserving and enhancing the satisfaction of other lives, and if this ethic is general (so that society aims at being composed of people all and always doing stuff for each other - but never for themselves) - then this fails to provide any understanding of what all these other lives are For. 

Why is it good for me to 'help others' - help others to do what, exactly? 

What ever 'that' is - which altruism is directed towards - must itself surely be the primary reason for living? 

(I felt this strongly when I worked as a doctor. The left-liberal altruistic ethic reduces to reducing-suffering in others - since this is regarded as a self-evident Good - so medicine ought to be a perfect exemplar. But it did not feel like that. As I then was I knew of no purpose or meaning in life and denied P & M in the universe; so I found it strange that I was supposed to get maximum life satisfaction from keeping people alive and functional to live lives that they themselves mostly regarded as meaningless, futile and miserable (especially in psychiatric practice). Yet everybody apparently assumed that this 'helping people' was one of the best things about being a doctor, and why I was a doctor.)

Altruism is vacuous as a guide for living. 

Yet the nonsensical altruistic ideal persists - especially as the very basis of leftism - which claims to be the ethic of altruism; with society organized on that basis. Leftist ethics nearly all assume that it is the highest duty to live our lives (and donate our taxes) for 'other people' (or, at least, those 'other people' currently defined as worthy by the leftist Establishment). 

Leftist governments (ie. all governments) assume total power to monitor and regulate all human lives on the basis that this is necessary to ensure that everybody lives and works primarily for everybody-else - and to do otherwise is selfish and evil. Anyone who fails actively to support the altruistic authorities is thus selfish and evil. 

This leftist ethic of altruism is also used to attack Christianity; on the basis that (supposedly) Christians pretend to be more altruistic than anyone else, but are really super-selfish in their desire to sacrifice happiness in this world (including to allow preventable suffering in this world) in return for a promise of a joyous resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

(...Which is, anyway, impossible nonsense - hence merely a feeble excuse for callous indifference to others.) 

Perhaps in response, a weird kind of Christianized-altruism (which is not really Christian) sometimes develops; which, if taken seriously, leads quickly to immiseration and death - as shown in the misguided and self-destructive life of George R Price which ended in suicide

Suicide is, indeed, a rational response to the ethic of altruism; since it may be understood as helping others by removing one's own baleful influence, or by ceasing to consume scarce resources... 

Indeed, altruism suggests that it may be better never to be born in the first place; so that selfishness is not even a possibility, and others are left with more. 

(This is another commonly expressed view - buttressed by the contemporary fake-environmentalism which sees all living Men as undesirable CO2-emitters.)

In sum - altruism amounts to an ethic of self-hatred and death; which is probably sufficient to explain why it is so vigorously propagated by the modern Global Establishment.  

It is therefore vital to realize that altruism is not an ultimate ethic, nor indeed a good thing at all if taken as an abstract, general or universal commandment. 

By contrast; the Christian morality is based upon love, and focused upon Heaven - which is a place of love: a place that is entered only via an eternal commitment to live by love. 

And the reality of Christian love is seen, primarily, in the family; secondarily in marriage; and only much more rarely in friendships with unrelated people. And not all people are capable of love; and some people refuse it. 

Which fact means that actual mortal Christian love is partial, i.e. involving particular persons. Mortal love is not universal, nor meant to be - and love may be strongly bound up with the greatest knowable joy, as well as voluntary misery. 

"Abstract, universal love" ('of fellow Men' or whatever) is something other and not Christian love; indeed it often (not always) functions as an anti-Christian or indeed Antichrist phenomenon.

A Christian is one who believes that to love and to be loved is the greatest and most important thing in this mortal life (and beyond) - whatever emotions it brings. 

But in this mortal life love is usually partial, may be infrequent, and is always temporary because of death.

Thus, the greatest desire of a Christian is that this love we have experienced partially may be made full and eternal...

Which is why Christians want to accept Jesus's offer of resurrected life everlasting in Heaven; where this ideal state of love is realized powerfully and forever. A Christian has decided that he wants this for himself; and hopes that many others will want it too - but especially those people (and other Beings) whom the Christian loves. 

(And therefore - in its essence - Christianity has, indeed, nothing to do with altruism.) 

Was is Ritual for? Spiritually, and psychologically?

Ritual is about getting contact with the divine, especially when otherwise contact would not occur.

The great age of ritual was the long 'agrarian' period (after the invention of agriculture) - that period of increasing government and formal structures. The agrarian phase came between the original, fluidly and spontaneously organised 'hunter gatherer' type societies where people lived immersed-in spirit and in constant contact-with the gods; and 'modernity' where most people never experience the spirit world, and deny the reality of gods.

To put it another way - ritual is associated with priests; and priests are essential for contact with the  divine. The earliest societies did not need priests although their 'shamans' were useful. And in the modern period priests have dwindled to 'a job' - and been replaced by journalists, public relations specialists and similar commissars and ideologues.


Ritual formed a channel between the individual and the divine.

Without ritual there was no channel, and many or most people could not experience the divine.

Nowadays we think of this subjectively, in terms of psychology; e.g. that ritual trains concentration, and focuses attention, creates a particular and receptive state of mind. But originally, ritual was objective.

Done correctly - and by real priests, ritual changed the world.


As a general observation, it seems that in modernity and increasingly; ritual has lost its effect. Subjectively, people are alienated, cut-off and isolated from the divine and therefore from each other; they no longer experience concentration, focus, receptivity in response to ritual.

Much more importantly, ritual no longer opens an objective channel to divinity. Human consciousness has changed, developed; such that there is no spontaneous link to the divine and ritual is ineffectual.

In sum: we cannot passively experience the divine. To experience God and the spirit world is nowadays an active, purposive choice.


Therefore, as we develop from childhood, we moderns lose our original and spontaneous immersion in the divine; but ritual can no longer serve to keep us in contact with the divine - so most people are cut-off from spontaneous experience of the divine.

And people do not make the attempt actively to choose to re-establish contact; either because they think the divine is non-existent, the task impossible, or else they do not know how and cannot recognise contact when it happens.

Indeed, after a failed attempt at people living by personal ritual (from - say - the middle 1950s to the 1990s); ritual has nowadays becomes primarily evil and satanic in its purpose and effect.

It seems that the Global Establishment continue to deploy ritual (and associated symbolism) as initiations and to enforce loyalty. For the masses; major public events deploy media-peer pressure, crowd-effects, music, sound, intoxication - both to manipulate ritual participants to the desired hedonic and nihilistic materialist world view; and to appease guilt by orgies of mutual virtue signalling (e.g relating to 'charities', awareness, celebration, protest, mourning and other supposedly-good causes). 


However, as I have often argued on this blog, it is the contention of Romantic Christianity that there are truly-Good post-ritual, post-priest-mediated; chosen and individual-led ways that the modern individual can and should resume contact with the divine: specifically with God and the spirit world.

And, although these ways are done by the individual (and the individual must be responsible for them) - by reconnecting with the divine, they also re-open the doors to other people (living and dead) in a directly-experienced and un-mediated way.

The past is impossible and regressive, the present is intolerable (and 'progress' based in materialist modernity is purposively-evil); therefore we should turn our effort and attention to the future.

A world where all 'sides' are evil-motivated (but a world where Good is easily discerned)

We are moving towards (indeed we are already in, all-but) a world where all the sides are evil-motivated - that is they are overall, in net effect, operating against God/ Good and the continuing divine creation.

When we look at any large, significant, powerful, wealthy, mainstream institutions/ organisations/ corporations - we find that All Of Them are (overall, n net effect) on the side of evil. Political parties and government agancies and charities, law and medicine, hospitals, schools and colleges, artistic and scientific, military and police, journalstic and media, churches... all significant institutions are on teh side of evil.

We maybe grew-up supposing that there were some Good and some evil institutions, and our job was to discern and support the Good against the wicked - but now they are all wicked. Whoever we support, we are supporting evil; whenever we oppose, we oppose attributes shared by those we support.


Look within these institutions - there are inner groups and divisions; there is hierarchy and functional specialisation. We are used to a world when some of these inner divisions are Good and others not; when (say) doctors and nurses groups are Good and managers and public relations are wicked; when scientists and teachers are Good but administrators not...

Nowadays, all the significant internal groups are on the side of evil - overall, and usually by a large predominance. What may have been good sub-groups are by now long-since subverted.

Therefore, when we work-with, deal-with any significant institution, all significant institutions - we need to assume that every hierarchical and functional subdivision has by now, long since, been corrupted into the service of evil.

In sum: We Are On Our Own... It is us-against-the-world.


Fortunately, thought is free - if we choose to be free.

But of course, that is the exact problem - that most people, most of the time, choose not to be free. That is their decision, for which they only are responsible, ultimately.

Bu the fact is that we are free in our thought, and while discernment of good from evil was often difficult in the past, it is now very easy!

This World is devoted to value inversion - hence every institution and group is obviously evil in its intent, and obviously incoherent in its labile, tactical opposition to God/ Good/ Creation.

Why obvious? Well, we have built-in, natural spontaneous values - and these are contradicted by mainstream modernity. We have access to divine revelations from the Holy Ghost, and these are contradicted by all of the 'sides' offered to us in our lives.

Comparing the built-in and revelatory true values with those inverted values of The World, everyone can know for themselves (from themselves) what is evil.


It is a matter of compensation. As the world becomes more-wholly and more-extremely evil, that evil becomes obvious to the meanest individual. And, in a world where Jesus has offered salvation to all who love and follow him; simply to know Good from evil and to take the side of Good is sufficient.
 

This is not about what we Do but what we Know.

What we do may be coerced, what we know is our own business - unless we choose otherwise.

In the end we have no-one to blame but our-selves.

Best ever description of political correctness in a nutshell?

*

From John C Wright

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/03/thought-police-and-the-poets/

Excerpted and edited for emphasis:

*

Political Correctness is cultural Marxism, that is, the Marxist analysis of all human history into a single factor: the Darwinian war between oppressor-class and oppressed-class.

Everything is a power struggle; all human relations are power relations.

In the case of Political Correctness, it is culture rather than economics which is said to be determined by power struggles.

*

The idea that all cultural values and expressions, from literature to institutions to language to sacraments, are determined by power struggles means that anything, anything at all, can be accused of being a type of oppression.

A racial slur becomes not merely rudeness, but an act tantamount to thousands of years of violence against the oppressed.

A cartoon showing a teenaged superheroine using her mutant powers to do housework becomes tantamount to forbidding the women from entering the workforce, backed with social and legal sanctions.

Or, to use an example from the current headlines, Catholic charities and hospitals and radio stations who demur on religious grounds from paying for the contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs, or medical sterilization of their employees becomes tantamount to an attempt impose by force the laws of the Dark Ages upon women, when they were bought and sold like chattel.

The accusation is unanswerable...

*

Political Correctness is not merely false, it is moonbat-barkingly, outrageously, openly, in-your-face false...

But it is deliberately, knowingly false.

That is the significant fact to grasp.

*

Because it is false, it naturally lends itself to totalitarianism, that is, to the policing of every aspect of thought and life, and this for two reasons:

first, normal people will not utter endless falsehood about everything and anything unless they are forced or pressured;

second, normal people, once they yield to the force or the pressure and utter lies they themselves know to be false, naturally tend to lack the will to resist further impositions, and lack the strength to repent of the practice.

*

A third factor which also plays a role is that once everyone in your environment is a liar, and repeats whatever lies the Big Brother demands, the bonds of faith between individuals are severed, and a man has no family, no Church, no brotherhood, no community to whom he can turn for support. He is alone and naked before the stark power of Big Brother.

*

Because it is false, it can be changed at will.

The pious slogans repeated from yesterday become thoughtcrimes tomorrow. Yesterday, in the name of fighting sexism, the pious slogans denounced the hideous abuses of women under Sharia Law, because it was fashionable, but tomorrow, when the fashion changes, that same slogan is Islamophobia ergo thoughtcrime.

Because a falsehood can be changed at will, anyone can be denounced at any time no matter how pure his PC credentials.

*

Why should anyone volunteer for this bizarre system of make believe? There are several reasons:

First, the method of analysis sounds smart, and uses big words but does not require any brains to use, so a person adopting PC can pass himself off as a smart person while not having to do any thinking.

Second, and related, the answers are simple. The method of analysis always yields the desired result. The oppressor groups are simply devils and the oppressed groups are simply angels.

Third, the answers are actionable. The method of analysis cannot come to the conclusion that Man is Fallen, that his nature is utterly depraved, or that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. There are no necessarily evils or even opportunity costs. Every problem is soluble.

Fourth, the solution of problems is effortless. All we need do is change our language, and it will change our thinking; our thinking creates reality, and so politically correct language will create goodthink which will make all problems, economic and social and personal, vanish by magic.

Fifth, the motive is always benevolent. The motive for the deeply committed PCnik is to end all human suffering and bring about utopia. No one aside from a villain of the blackest heart or dimmest brain would oppose paradise, unless he were afraid. Consequently, the PCnik regard all their opponents as brainless dupes, gutless cowards, conscienceless henchmen, or as heartless villains...

*

Sixth, the system is infinitely flexible. Because anything can be deconstructed at will to mean anything, asking someone to call ‘marriage’ a ‘gay marriage ban’ and to call support for marriage sexism, and heteronormalism, and homophobia, becomes tantamount to asking someone not to call a Black man by a racial slur.

Better still, even a complimentary stereotype, such as saying Chinamen are hard-working or Jews are good at book-learning, becomes tantamount to a slur.

Even better again, perfectly normal words that have never been meant nor taken as offensive, such as ‘Oriental’, or ‘Native’, or ‘Indian’ become tantamount to slurs. Even when the spokesmen for the group involved say that word in question does not offend them, once the PC accusation is made, there is no defense and no trial.

*

Finally, the system always allows the PC-nik to conclude that he is the moral and not just the mental superior to all other men, and grants him the palm of the martyr without the mess of martyrdom, the halo of sanctity without the effort of being saintly, or even decent.

The Christians may have abolished slavery world-wide, but you refuse to use the word ‘Eskimo’ and refuse to condemn sadomasochism as a sexual perversion, and so this enables you to look down your nose at the moral teachings of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, and Christ.

http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/03/thought-police-and-the-poets/

***

Nice-Evil and Nasty-Good - the two major spiritual categories of 2020

Everybody already-knows, from innumerable fictional and historical examples, about Nice-Good people and Nasty-Evil ones. 

Good characters are currently depicted as kind, beautiful and with all the 'important' (litmus test) virtues. Evil characters, vice versa (always racist, anti-enviroment, denialist, *-ist etc.) 

But these unmixed-types are actually rare nowadays. Nice-Good people have never been common, and are very hard to find just at present; while Nasty-Evils are so obvious that they tend to have limited power to do harm. 

 

The categories are:

On the side of God: Nice-Good, and Nasty-Good.

On the side against God, and for Satan, Nasty-Evil and Nice-Evil.   

And of these the mixed types of most common, most significant.

If someone looks and behaves like an orc nowadays, he is unlikely to be given much power; such mooks are common enough, but destined to be used by nice-evil leaders as disposible weapons. 

 

The face of Establishment evil in 2020 is (more-or-less) nice. (except for the eyes, which are always a give-away) A middle aged housfrau-type, spouting compassion; a revolutionary-idealist, fresh-faced young women; a cool techno-charmer who seems to have 'all the answers'; a craggy old gent who will protect us... such are some of the faces of evil.   

Meanwhile the people on the side of God/ Good and Creation are seldom saints, and often sinners. They want the right things, but they cannot live up to their high ideals. The aim for Heaven, but fail - and repent their failures. 

Such are excoriated by the evil-mass-media as hypocrites - or mocked on the lines of Christians being people who allegedly are supposed to be perfect (or at least better than anyone else) but who have 'feet of clay'. 

 

In practice, the clay does not need to be very sticky nor very abundant. Even when someone is an example of Nice-Good; a single solitary lapse from what the Establishment, with their distorted and inverted pseudo-morality, regard as evil - is sufficient to lead to a firestorm of condemnation. 

For example Mother Teresa (Nice-Good) was roundly lambasted, and in many minds discredited, by revelations that her mission was not very effective when considered as a modern social work organisation. Her actual, overt spiritual aims being regarded as nothing more than sly propaganda, smuggled-in deceptively by connecting it with welfare.  

 

My point is that - as of 2020 - the side of Good will consist mostly of (more-or-less) Nasty-Good people; while the (much, much larger) side of evil will contain a majority of Nice-Evil characters. Indeed, the Satanic personnel who impinge upon you and me, are almost certain to be Nice people - e.g. those working for the (evil) bureaucracies, charities, NGOs; smart-naive-idealistic youngsters, solid family folk, retired professionals... 

That is the nature of our world. That is the task of spiritual discernment. We must discern the evil among the nice, and the Good among the nasty. And we should take the side of Good, wherever and however we find it; as against evil - no matter how charming, intelligent, kind, compassionate, or cute the agents of evil may be. 

 

Motivation trumps all - Good and Evil are the sides in our spiritual war (not behaviours nor dispositions). 

We are all sinners - and need to acknowledge the fact (and if we don't, we are on the side of evil).

And repentance (i.e. knowing the true nature of Good, recognising sin), with the committment to follow Jesus Christ, is limitless in its power.

Pollution redefined - from broad and humanly-evaluated to physico-chemical measurements

The corruption and inversion of the middle-20th century 'back-to-the land'/ arts and crafts/ distributist/ 'ecology' movement into what it is now (i.e. a massive modern state/ bureaucratic/ billionaire-CEO -led excuse for ramping-up total population, monitoring and control, while converting the environment into a built-up and soul-destroying suburbia) can be seen in the redefinition of pollution from something evaluated by individual human beings into a merely physico-chemical measurement.

Pollution used to be broadly understood as including the full range of the remote human perceptions: vision, hearing, and smell. The evaluation was how sensory inputs affected an average, normal, impartial human being.

So, several decades ago, pollution implicitly (and it did not need to be spelt-out) included vile, monstrous and gigantic modern architecture and institutions - yet nowadays the buildings are bigger and more brutal than ever, and the same applies by orders of magnitude to modern institutions, corporations, governments, charities, schools and colleges - all of them vast, depersonalised ant-hills of mindless/ spiteful/ selfish officials either 'following orders' or else lining their own pockets and gratifying their own appetites. The shrinking countryside is sliced with roads and blighted with houses, crammed with people, ever-larger trucks, ever-increasingly studded with gigantic 'wind farms'.

Pollution used to incorporate noise - the ideal was a quieter world. But now the noise of traffic (especially), building works, amplified music, low-flying aircraft is louder than ever. On a typical city street, one must shout to be heard (adding to the pollution). So depraved are we, that most people fill their brains with further noise from their mobile media - recorded music, conversations, anything will do... (Perhaps they are trying to drown out the pervasive noise?)  Anyway, none of this 'counts' as pollution nowadays.

Environmental damage used to include people - great masses, crowds, gatherings, concentrations of people.. But these are now defined as Good: modern Greens promote rallies, protests, and (especially) festivals - and the aim is to get many thousands of people together in one place; preferably shouting, chanting, making noise; and in general behaving as if they were a herd rather than as individuals. (Herds are much, much easier to control than individuals.)

Consider the idea of a polluted river - half a century ago a polluted river was one that was polluted as evaluated by a human being: the water was an unnatural colour, covered by froth, it smelled horrible - it sickened the stomach.

But now the paradigm of modern pollution is Carbon Dioxide! A natural product of all animals and a food for green plants; invisible, having no smell - and we have absolutely no idea of carbon dioxide concentrations unless we are told (whether or not accurately) by scientists working for state bureaucracies... But, wait a minute! Didn't they used to be The Problem?

And how about the monomaniacal obsession of modern environmentalists - Anthropogenic CO2 caused Global Warming? How do we know this is happening? Why, only because The Experts tell us it is happening. And based on their chemical measurements of carbon dioxide 'pollution' and the physical measurements - derived by vast teams of institutionalised technicians and statisticians, using various inputs of 'corrected' data from modern electronic devices, satellites and so forth. But, wait a minute! Didn't that stuff used to be The Problem?

In sum - pollution used to be obvious to everybody; now we are told what 'counts' as pollution and what does not, we are told whether it is getting better or worse - and we have to be told because otherwise pollution (by its modern definition) is imperceptible to human beings.

And the flip-side is that the blatant fact of you and I, as human beings, experiencing ever-increasing industrialisation, artificiality, manipulation and control, invasiveness, massification, brutality, visceral repulsiveness and vileness and the like; well, are these are ignored, trivialised or denied because they fall outside of the officially-defined, mostly chemical - but also physical, measurements.

Eyes without faces - on the current rampant demonic dehumanisation.

From Francis Berger: 

Lockdowns, social-distancing, work-from-home, church closures, face masks, and all the rest of it can all be rationally explained away at the temporal level; and this is exactly what most people appear to be doing as they passively accept whatever restrictions are imposed upon them. But can the same be said for the spiritual level? 

I view the birdemic response as an intrinsic part of our current spiritual war. Seen from this perspective, the demonically-inspired dehumanizing elements within most of the measures we have all been ordered to take become glaringly obvious. A trace of humiliation stains all of it. 

Humans are social creatures, yet we are being ordered to social distance; to limit all non-essential travel and meetings with others; to avoid gathering in groups of more than two or three. Even when we are in public, we are being mandated to keep a two meter distance between ourselves and others. 

And when we are out in public, what do we see? Masked people. Eyes without faces. 

All the while, less visible forms of pernicious dehumanization are quietly taking place in the background as people are deprived of their jobs, businesses, and livelihoods. 


As Francis says, the dehumanising intent behind this pattern is, one would have supposed, "glaringly obvious".  Any monomania is always and intrinsically evil - but perhaps a monomania of self-preservation from a particular illness is one of the worst - because more easily "explained away" and rationalised.


But it is not glaringly obvious. The evil intent is missed.

Indeed, most people cannot conceive that the largest, most powerful, most influential people and organisations can have evil intent - except perhaps some of the large corporations. When it comes to Western Governments, mainstream mass media, charities and NGOs, Global Establishments such as the United Nations and its World Health Organisation - people will not recognise evil intent; and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds; because they assume (metaphysically) that these organsations are necessarily well-motivated.


My understanding of this is two-fold. First is that extremely few people have an understanding that is rooted outside-of their finite mortal lives in this planetary world. In other words, very few are genuinely taking an eternal, immortal and Heavenly perspective.

In a single word, it is the lack of hope for Heaven that cripples us. We would need to perceive our lives in this world, imaginatively and with conviction, from the perspective of Heaven - in order correctly to evaluate it.

Therefore modern people cannot judge worldly things, but can only choose-between them - and therefore naturally (for reasons of self-preservation and status) they choose to take sides with power.

(And people are exceptionally astute at judging where worldly power really lies; even when worldly power disguises itself by claiming to be weak and persecuted 'minorities' - people see through such claims and take that side.)


Secondly is that modern evil is different from the evil of the past, and the evil we are taught to recognise and resist. Modern evil is Ahrimanic - that is, it is based in impersonal abstract systems, in bureaucracy, in laws and rules and obedience; in exactly that reductionistic, pseudo-scientific, materialistic, non-spiritual and anti-human perspective which Francis Berger sees as epitomised by the face mask.

It is the combination of a narrowly this-worldly perspective and blindness to the prevalent form of evil; which enables so many Antichrist phenomena to take-root and thrive in these days. And that is what we see: evil motivation successfully presenting itself as benign, totalitarian takeover masked as caring therapy; a calculatedly-impersonal reduction of individuals to statistics of disease vectors and victims.

All cheered-on by a populace whose hold on their own humanity is tenuous; and who increasingly regard-themselves as merely units in a Global System, benignly ruled by therapeutic dictators who work for "the good of all the world" - for which many, many specific person's well-being, health and life must therefore - and justly! - be sacrificed.