To return to an excellent observation JM made the other day in a comment over on the Orthosphere:
I’d make a distinction between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals since a co-opted institution has necessarily sold its soul. An individual can surrender control over the operations of his body while retaining possession of his soul, but a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body. A church that serves Leviathan is just a fully-owned subsidiary of Leviathan. Unlike the slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
The distinction JM makes between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals is vital in this time and place for the simple reason that virtually all institutions in the West have been co-opted into the overarching agenda of evil. Unfortunately, most individuals are also thus co-opted, or as JM puts it, enslaved.
One can argue over the degree of this enslavement as it pertains to certain individuals, but there is no denying that all individuals depend on the System to a greater or lesser extent. Some individuals can maintain greater control over the physical operations of their bodies and surrender less of it to the System than other individuals can.
Though higher levels of control over the physical operations of bodies may be good for individuals, it is by no means a deciding factor when it comes to being on the side of God and Creation. Being physically free within the System is no guarantee of good.
On the contrary, individuals may decide to utilize that physical control for spurious purposes or advance the evil agenda as free agents with little regard for retaining possession of their souls. Physical freedom is no guarantee of spiritual freedom.
On the flip side, individuals can be entirely enslaved to the System physically yet still retain possession of their souls. Put another way, individuals can remain spiritually free even when they are physically enslaved. They can separate what they think, assume, will, and believe from what they are forced to do.
Prof. Smith astutely points out that such dynamics do not and cannot apply to institutions. An institution that is physically co-opted has sold its soul. And once an institution has sold its soul, it stands practically no chance of buying it back.
The individuals who remain within the Ahrimanic institution can retain their spiritual freedom, but only if they recognize that the institution has indeed been co-opted. Although the individuals within co-opted institutions may retain their spiritual freedom, they are, in essence, as physically enslaved as the institution itself.
The spiritual freedom of individuals within co-opted institutions may help and serve other individuals in direct, concrete relationships but this does not translate into the physical operations of the institutions because such institutions no longer possess spiritual avenues or qualities receptive to such spiritual input.
At the same time, individuals who retain their spiritual freedom within an Ahrimanic institution should not delude themselves into thinking that they can use their spiritual freedom to “liberate” the co-opted institution because there is nothing spiritual within the institution's body left to liberate.
As Dr. Smith notes, a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body, and if the body is controlled by Ahriman, then it has immunized itself against spiritual freedom. Not only that, but it has calibrated its immune system to fight against or eliminate any traces of spirit or soul within its body.
When an institution “sells its soul,” it becomes Ahriman and can be nothing more than Ahriman, which is particularly troubling when it comes to co-opted churches.
Once a church surrenders its body entirely to the service of Ahriman, it actively seeks to make the body incompatible with the spirit or soul it formerly housed. This applies to the spiritual endeavors of the individuals in the co-opted church and any potential operations of the Holy Spirit.
To rephrase Dr. Smith’s observation a bit: A church that serves the System is just a fully-owned subsidiary of the System. Unlike the individual slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
Put another way, a church that serves Ahriman is just an extension of Ahriman. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the Holy Spirit can be co-opted into being Ahriman while remaining the Holy Spirit.
A co-opted church is not forced to be Ahriman; it is Ahriman because it wants to be and just is Ahriman. It is Ahriman because it can be nothing other than Ahriman.
This raises the question of why individuals might choose to stay in a church that can be nothing more than Ahriman. I suppose an obvious answer might reside in metaphysical confusion; that is, confusing Ahrimanic machinations with Divine operations, leading to the vehement insistence that Divine operations require Ahrimanic machinations to operate.
On the more positive side, voluntarily remaining within an Ahrimanic church may still offer opportunities to form concrete relationships with other individuals provided the relationships are based on spiritual freedom rather than on the bodily operations of the Ahrimanic church, but this is becoming increasingly difficult because most individuals within co-opted churches identify exclusively with the church’s bodily operations.
I don’t know. All I can say is that the reasons for choosing to remain affiliated with a co-opted church continue to dwindle, which is as it should be in this time and place, all things considered.
I’d make a distinction between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals since a co-opted institution has necessarily sold its soul. An individual can surrender control over the operations of his body while retaining possession of his soul, but a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body. A church that serves Leviathan is just a fully-owned subsidiary of Leviathan. Unlike the slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
The distinction JM makes between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals is vital in this time and place for the simple reason that virtually all institutions in the West have been co-opted into the overarching agenda of evil. Unfortunately, most individuals are also thus co-opted, or as JM puts it, enslaved.
One can argue over the degree of this enslavement as it pertains to certain individuals, but there is no denying that all individuals depend on the System to a greater or lesser extent. Some individuals can maintain greater control over the physical operations of their bodies and surrender less of it to the System than other individuals can.
Though higher levels of control over the physical operations of bodies may be good for individuals, it is by no means a deciding factor when it comes to being on the side of God and Creation. Being physically free within the System is no guarantee of good.
On the contrary, individuals may decide to utilize that physical control for spurious purposes or advance the evil agenda as free agents with little regard for retaining possession of their souls. Physical freedom is no guarantee of spiritual freedom.
On the flip side, individuals can be entirely enslaved to the System physically yet still retain possession of their souls. Put another way, individuals can remain spiritually free even when they are physically enslaved. They can separate what they think, assume, will, and believe from what they are forced to do.
Prof. Smith astutely points out that such dynamics do not and cannot apply to institutions. An institution that is physically co-opted has sold its soul. And once an institution has sold its soul, it stands practically no chance of buying it back.
The individuals who remain within the Ahrimanic institution can retain their spiritual freedom, but only if they recognize that the institution has indeed been co-opted. Although the individuals within co-opted institutions may retain their spiritual freedom, they are, in essence, as physically enslaved as the institution itself.
The spiritual freedom of individuals within co-opted institutions may help and serve other individuals in direct, concrete relationships but this does not translate into the physical operations of the institutions because such institutions no longer possess spiritual avenues or qualities receptive to such spiritual input.
At the same time, individuals who retain their spiritual freedom within an Ahrimanic institution should not delude themselves into thinking that they can use their spiritual freedom to “liberate” the co-opted institution because there is nothing spiritual within the institution's body left to liberate.
As Dr. Smith notes, a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body, and if the body is controlled by Ahriman, then it has immunized itself against spiritual freedom. Not only that, but it has calibrated its immune system to fight against or eliminate any traces of spirit or soul within its body.
When an institution “sells its soul,” it becomes Ahriman and can be nothing more than Ahriman, which is particularly troubling when it comes to co-opted churches.
Once a church surrenders its body entirely to the service of Ahriman, it actively seeks to make the body incompatible with the spirit or soul it formerly housed. This applies to the spiritual endeavors of the individuals in the co-opted church and any potential operations of the Holy Spirit.
To rephrase Dr. Smith’s observation a bit: A church that serves the System is just a fully-owned subsidiary of the System. Unlike the individual slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.
Put another way, a church that serves Ahriman is just an extension of Ahriman. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the Holy Spirit can be co-opted into being Ahriman while remaining the Holy Spirit.
A co-opted church is not forced to be Ahriman; it is Ahriman because it wants to be and just is Ahriman. It is Ahriman because it can be nothing other than Ahriman.
This raises the question of why individuals might choose to stay in a church that can be nothing more than Ahriman. I suppose an obvious answer might reside in metaphysical confusion; that is, confusing Ahrimanic machinations with Divine operations, leading to the vehement insistence that Divine operations require Ahrimanic machinations to operate.
On the more positive side, voluntarily remaining within an Ahrimanic church may still offer opportunities to form concrete relationships with other individuals provided the relationships are based on spiritual freedom rather than on the bodily operations of the Ahrimanic church, but this is becoming increasingly difficult because most individuals within co-opted churches identify exclusively with the church’s bodily operations.
I don’t know. All I can say is that the reasons for choosing to remain affiliated with a co-opted church continue to dwindle, which is as it should be in this time and place, all things considered.
RSS Feed
