Blog Archives

Ahriman Will Not Attempt to Set Things Right

1/30/2024

One of the most deluded lines of thinking I have encountered over the past decade involves the belief that the Ahrimanic leaderships within the System in the West will one day wake up to their errors, realize they have made a mess of things, and then frantically and actively seek to fix things by vigorously seeking out and recruiting all the competent and well-motivated people they have shunned, ostracized, and driven away from companies, organizations, politics, education, the media, the economy, etc.

This line of thinking is deluded for two reasons.

First, it defines Ahriman — the System — as corrupted but otherwise inherently good.

Second, it still holds to the belief that people maneuvering within the Ahrimanic System — blinded by errant ideology and enslaved by material obligations and debts— are largely ignorant of the havoc they wreak but will inevitably be forced to confront the havoc when “things get bad enough” and will thus be sincerely motivated to set things right.

Following this line of thinking, a company that hired unqualified people to appease the ruling ideologies of the day will eventually wake up and smell the coffee once their misguided hiring decisions begin to derail the company or reduce profitability.

After that, they will have no choice but to fire the unqualified and replace them with the genuinely qualified, conveniently pooled from the very people they previously rejected and considered discommodious.

Hence, the only thing that deplorable but otherwise competent people have to do is bide their time. Their moment to shine and reclaim what is rightfully theirs will come as soon as things “really begin to fall apart.”

As alluring as this line of thinking may be, it is utterly oblivious to the Sorathic elements permeating the Ahrimanic System. Unlike Ahriman, Sorath aims to destroy, not enslave.

The Ahrimanics are not blind to the destruction. It’s worse than that. Sorath has cast a spell over them. They sincerely believe they are controlling the destruction; that they are ultimately the masters of the desolation over which they preside.

This belief that they can keep the ruination “in check” will deter them from attempting to set things right.

The more things fall apart, the more they will convince themselves of their efficient and effective supervision, which will deter them from taking the sorts of actions and making the sorts of decisions needed to set things right.

7 Comments

The Motivations of Rooftop Screamers

1/29/2024

0 Comments

Perhaps the only thing worse than being wrong is being constantly reminded that you were wrong. Although some are right more often than others, no one is right all the time.

Thus, if you happen to be wrong, the best thing to do is publicly acknowledge the mistake, learn from it, and move on.

The same applies to being right. Acknowledge it. Learn from it. Move on.

Nevertheless, people who are right about something tend to scream it from the rooftops — this applies particularly to bloggers.

Rooftop-screaming bloggers also relish reminding the world of the people who got something wrong, regardless of whether those who got it wrong acknowledged the error.

Put another way, rooftop screamers have a penchant for rubbing it in.

On the flip side, rooftop screamers tend to be far less vocal about their own errors, mistakes, and delusions and pass these off with hushed mumbling, provided they acknowledge being wrong at all.

This is relevant because some of the bad calls that rooftop-screaming bloggers have made are real doozies and of far greater magnitude than the wrongs they incessantly berate others about.

Something to consider when you hear voices coming from the rooftops.

0 Comments

Religious “Motivation For” Is Not Contingent Upon “Motivation Against”

1/27/2024

7 Comments

Motivation is the drive, rationale, or reason for thinking or acting in a certain way. At the fundamental level, motivation is the quality and energy that shapes and defines being. The definition of being requires purpose — the impetus or justification that fuels and drives motivation.

Motivations generally have both a positive and negative side. Motivations to do, think, or be something positive are usually counterbalanced by equally powerful motivations to avoid doing, thinking, or being something negative. Put another way, motivations for something are also motivations against something.

With that in mind, it is worth considering that religious/spiritual motivations are only truly positive when the motivation for is far greater than any motivation against.

Taken further, positive religious/spiritual motivations for are never contingent upon motivation against.

This does not mean the against motivations do not exist — simply that the validity, cogency, justification, and effectiveness of for motivations of the spirit do not depend upon and are not subject to against motivations.

7 Comments

You Rarely Know What People Will Remember You For

1/26/2024

4 Comments

The other day, an old friend in Canada informed me that he has been watching Detective Forst — a Polish crime series currently available on Netflix — and that the main character, from which the series draws its name, reminded him of me.

I viewed the first three episodes to determine where my friend was coming from but could not understand how the protagonist was reminiscent of me.

I noted that the character is a bit of a maverick, somewhat taciturn, a creative thinker, suspicious of authority, and a little gruff and rough around the edges; however, this applies to a thousand other fictional characters.

At no point did I experience an Aristotelean “Ah, that is he” flash of recognition or discernment while watching the series.

Utterly puzzled, I contacted my friend. His response?

The character's hat and jacket resemble the kind I used to wear when I lived in Canada.

That’s it.

I spent three hours intensely studying the protagonist of an incredibly disjointed, dark, gloomy, disturbing, Silence of the Lambs-type serial killer series to learn that the only thing I had in common with Detective Forst was the hat and jacket I used to wear.

Note: Detective Forst is a six-episode series, but three shows were enough for me. My tolerance level for the serial killer genre is extremely low these days, and in all honesty, I did not find the series to be all that good.

4 Comments

The Reassociation of the Divine and Human Is a Matter of Consciousness; Or, Why Did God Create Man?

1/25/2024

0 Comments

Most traditional Christians yearn to return to a Medieval worldview, replete with its organic and hierarchical framework, because it provides something modernism has utterly failed to provide — a sense of human integration of being in Creation.

This integration began to dissolve with the advent of the Renaissance, which slowly distanced human creative energies away from the integrated organic and hierarchical structure and focused instead on emerging humanism. As humanism developed, it became increasingly domineering until it became estranged from God altogether.

Ironically enough, the disassociation of man from God was also humanism’s death knell. The breach between the Divine and human in consciousness marked the end of our collective understanding of what human "really" means, to say nothing of our collective understanding of what the world or the cosmos means.

The end of the human as a purely materialistic concept — with the supposed rights and duties ascribed to the concept— is already on the horizon in the forms of totalitarian statism and technology.

As noted, this alienation from God is fundamentally a matter of consciousness — the disunity is a perceived one rather than a “real” one. Whether he likes it or not, man is still very much associated with God, and this reality stands even when man chooses to deny the existence of God outright.

Yet man has some leverage in this via his agency and his consciousness. His rejection of God and Creation does not and cannot obliterate the reality of God and Creation; however, it can destroy God and Creation as realities within his consciousness.

Man’s turning away from God has created a state of disunified unity. The Divine and human remain fundamentally united by default, but man’s vociferous rejection of this unity in consciousness fissures and limits the operations between the Divine and the human.

God yearns to reassociate with man via consciousness, and he is waiting for man to reassociate with Him via consciousness, but He cannot impose this reassociation upon man’s consciousness. He can only meet man halfway; the other half depends entirely on man.

A return to the Medieval worldview and organic wholeness offers a potential path to reunifying with God via consciousness, but this is entirely contingent on the belief that human consciousness has not changed in any underlying or meaningful way since the Middle Ages — that alienated modern man is the same as unified Medieval man and that only way modern man can get back to God is by becoming Medieval man once again.

The answer to whether this kind of reunification/ressassociation is possible, let alone desirable, rests in the following overarching question — Why did God create man?

Expanded further, Why did God create Creation?

0 Comments

Painting the Devil on the Wall

1/23/2024

2 Comments

Here in Central Europe, if you come across as overly pessimistic about something, you may have someone tell you that you are painting the devil on the wall, or you may be asked not to paint the devil on the wall. In either case, the core message is simple — stop talking about it so negatively/stop being so negative or it may come true.

I say Central Europe because many nations — including Germany, Austria, and Hungary — have claimed the idiom as their own; however, the expression also appears farther to the east, in places like Latvia and Russia.

Don’t jinx it is the most analogous and simplest, idiom I can think of in English, at least as far as implied meaning goes, but in English it is usually reserved for keeping some positive prediction to oneself to avoid attracting bad luck or misfortune that brings about the exact opposite of the optimistic expectation.

In this sense, the English idiom and its Central/Eastern European counterpart involve the notion of cursing something by the mere act of speaking about it; however, there is a big difference between jinxing an optimistic expectation and being wary of a negative one manifesting in real life. For example, the Hungarian version of Don’t paint the devil on the wall sometimes includes, or he will come off the wall/he will appear!

Some English-language interpretations claim exaggeration of the negative, often excessive or unwarranted, to be the idiom’s core message. For example, Don’t listen to Jack when he gets all gloomy about the economy; he’s just painting the devil on the wall.

I don't know if this meaning within the idiom exists in other Central/Eastern European countries. It does in Hungary, where painting the devil on the wall sometimes refers to prophesying bad things that are untrue or unlikely to happen. However, in my experience, don’t make a bad thing even worse by talking about it is the more frequently implied meaning.

I am no prophet, and I rarely make predictions. Although I share negative views, I keep the bulk of my this-worldly pessimism and foreboding to myself because I wish to avoid accusations of painting the devil on the wall.

I don’t want to hear that my negative this-worldly views are excessive and unwarranted, and I would rather not be accused of making a bad situation even worse by simply talking about it.

Look closely -- no paintbrush. You see, I’m generally cheerful, daring, and optimistic, yet an unmovable earnestness underpins this positivity — and this informs me that most people have no sense of just how bad the situation in this world is.

2 Comments

Chalk It Up to the Rooster

1/22/2024

4 Comments

My first flock of hens numbered twelve, of which three perished — one to what I presumed to be heat stroke and the other two were victims of predation. Last spring, I purchased fifteen new hens and added them to my existing flock of nine.

I am happy to report that the nine remaining hens from the original flock are still around, as is every one of the fifteen “newcomers.” All twenty-four girls are laying eggs and appear healthy.

I haven’t lost a single hen in nearly a year, which is quite an achievement considering how vulnerable chickens are to predators and how susceptible they can be to mysterious illnesses, pests, and parasites.

A part of me wants to chalk this up as a testament to my improved chicken-keeping skills, but another part suggests it might just be good fortune.

Or…it could have much to do with Richie Ricardo — the oddball rooster my next-door neighbor gifted me in the spring by throwing him over the fence. Richie had a tough time with the girls at first, but after a month or so, he established his domain and has been a vigilant guard and caretaker since.

The rooster’s presence has greatly reduced aggression among the hens. Moreover, Richie is forever on the lookout and is quick to alert the flock of any potential risks or dangers. I witnessed this once when a bored hawk swooped down the hens toward the end of the summer.

And he does all of this without exhibiting aggression or pugnacity toward me. To claim that he enjoys my presence would be an overstatement, but he has yet to ruffle his feathers or attack me the way some of my neighbors’ roosters attack them.

For example, last summer, a hostile rooster chased a terrified four-year-old boy over a hundred meters down the street here in the village. Rumor has it that the poor fellow ended up in a pot the very same evening — I am, of course, referring to the rooster, not the boy.

So, here’s to you, Richie! May you live long and never see the inside of a pot!

4 Comments

Winning the Information War Entails Losing the Spiritual War

1/21/2024

8 Comments

“How can the public, regulators, and social media companies better collaborate to tackle disinformation, as information pollution spreads at unprecedented speed and scale?”

The quote above comes from The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation, a characteristically insufferable WEF panel discussion from last year citing misinformation and disinformation as the “biggest short-term global risk the world faces.”

As expected, the proclamation, repeated emphatically at Davos again this year, has sparked scoffing outrage among bloggers, independent media types, free speech defenders, and the like.

Though perfectly justified, the bulk of the sneering emanating from such circles amounts to little more than offering a different way to look at the situation without acknowledging that the core crisis, the clear and present danger, resides in the situation itself — that is, in how nearly all information pollutes the current state of human consciousness and how merely being informed only exacerbates this problem.

Before wading into the issue, it is worth considering what it means to be informed.

Inform stems from the Latin in (meaning into) and forma (meaning to form). Joined together, these become informare — to shape, fashion, give form to, describe. This eventually entered into Old French as enfourmer, which meant to instruct in some specific subject.

From the perspective of human consciousness, being informed involves receiving and internalizing external information in representational configurations, i.e., symbols, images, and language, and using these to augment or construct a sense of reality.

Form, from the Latin forma, is interesting because it communicates image, likeness, shape, appearance, outline, or pattern. One theory suggests forma may be from or cognate with the Greek morphe meaning form, beauty, outward appearance, and that it entered into Latin via Etruscan and the name Morpheus, who, according to Ovid’s Metamorphoses, is a son of Hypnos, the Greek god of sleep, who in turn, was the brother of Thanatos, the god of death.

According to Ovid, Morpheus populates dreams with human forms and his brothers Phobetor and Phantasus — two more of Hypnos’s thousand sons — are responsible for filling sleeping people’s heads with the forms of animals and inanimate objects, respectively.

Note that in all cases, the stuff of dreams is not internally self-generated, but enters externally, implanted by dream gods. Like language and symbols, the Greeks believed that even dreams came from the outside and were implanted, shaped, and formed by external divine forces rather than from within man himself.

But what existed before the advent of representational? In terms of human consciousness, Owen Barfield posits that early man existed in Original Participation, a state in which man was absorbed in and part of reality. Secondary thinking via symbols and language was all but absent or rudimentary. Though primary thinking dominated Original Participation, it emanated from a faint sense of self.

As we emerged from that form of consciousness, symbols, and language began to dominate, but that representational "world" was still infused with and supported by some semblance or vestige of primary thinking.

The use of symbols and language allowed man to participate in Reality differently. Secondary thinking separated man from Reality and granted the “space” needed for world discovery, self-discovery, and self-formation.

The alienation of modern man represents near-total submersion in the representational world, made all the more acute by the ever-increasing disconnect between Reality and representations of Reality.

This disconnection marks the virtual obliteration of primary thinking in favor of secondary thinking. Put another way, for modern man, secondary thinking via externally received symbolic information is reality because he is virtually incapable of connecting with reality in any other way.

Modern man now regards the symbols, language, and other representations used to shape, fashion, give form to, or describe as reality itself, both de facto (as in matter of fact) and de jure (as in legally and officially recognized).

Simply put, information used solely at the level of secondary thinking is now synonymous with reality. Whoever controls information at the secondary level of thinking also controls reality.

The fine folks at the WEF and the rest of what is often referred to as Clown World understand this explicitly, which helps explain why they seem so eager to eradicate any information challenging their web of symbols, images, and language, all of which aims solely at manipulation to shape thoughts, attitudes, and actions.

Like Morpheus and his brothers, Clown World aims to keep human consciousness dormant, implant shapes and forms into sleeping minds, and demand everyone accept these implanted shapes and forms as reality.

Those who oppose the totalitarian aims espoused by organizations like the WEF recognize the information manipulation and seek to counteract it with truthful information. Though far more noble in intent and motivation, the aim of disseminating such truth-seeking information misses the mark concerning the bigger picture of human consciousness and its relation to reality.

In short, the war we are in is fundamentally a spiritual war, not an information war.

Many recognize and understand the totalitarian push to control the narrative. They fail to discern that the core problem is the exclusive and obsessive focus on engaging with narrative through secondary thinking, thereby keeping consciousness firmly entrenched in representational reality as reality (or, in keeping consciousness locked in the Information Age and its related thinking).

Clown World is not simply striving to control information and secondary thinking; they want to ensure human consciousness remains trapped in a state of information overload and secondary thinking.

Though they claim otherwise, I suspect that at the deepest, most fundamental level, Clown World and the demonic forces it serves welcome information opposition to their secondary-level information manipulations because it keeps human consciousness firmly fixated on representations as reality rather than on Reality.

Thus, keeping people engaged in information wars not only helps to distract from the spiritual war but also helps to hinder the further development of human consciousness.

I am not implying that those waging the information war against Clown World are intentionally entrapping people at the secondary level of thinking. Unlike the WEF — which deliberately uses information to enslave people in secondary-level thinking via representations that are directly opposed to God and Creation — information warriors on the side of good share representations that often can and do act as intermediaries to Truth and Reality; however, many information warriors treat the intermediaries themselves as Truth and Reality, and this is where the problems set in.

The information warriors who utilize representational intermediaries or the people who engage with the intermediaries the warriors produce — be it in the form of writing, symbols, spoken language, art, video, etc. — contribute virtually nothing to the spiritual war or the development of consciousness if they go no further than the intermediaries in terms of thinking and knowing or, worse, regard the intermediaries as Reality.

Winning the spiritual war and connecting with Truth and Reality does not and cannot boil down to being informed, an essentially passive state in which one allows the external to shape, fashion, give shape to, and teach reality via representations presented and accepted as Reality.

Being informed in that manner keeps one asleep and the plaything of Morpheus and his dream-forming brothers. Informed people who regard representations as Reality are dreamers living in a dreamland.

I am not implying that the representational is dispensable.

On the contrary, it is vital, but only when we understand that it serves as a go-between and not a final destination. In this sense, the representations the good info warriors provide are far superior to the information promulgated by the likes of the WEF, which serves more as a go-nowhere rather than a go-between. Yet representations on the side of good can only do good if they are treated as intermediaries — that is, used to orient and/or connect to Reality.

That connection to Reality happens beyond the representational, in the realm of primary thinking — the realm of non-representational direct-knowing originating from and connecting to the primal self. Although representational, secondary thinking can inspire, motivate, and guide individuals toward primary thinking, it cannot substitute for primary thinking.

Berdyaev observed that “truth has two meanings: truth as knowledge of reality, and truth as reality itself.” In this sense, information via representations (language, symbols) is truth as knowledge of reality, while direct-knowing is truth about Reality itself.

Berdyaev offers another way to think about it, “I wish to know, not actuality, but the truth about actuality. And I may learn what this truth is, only because in me, the knowing subject, there is a source of truth and because I may communicate with this truth.”

Communicating with this source of truth goes well beyond the state of “being informed”, i.e., of knowing actuality. It requires locating an innate, internal source of truth that can connect with Reality directly, moving beyond the realm of representations.

Information is intended to serve as a bridge to Reality, not substitute Reality.

Information as reality is, at best, only partial reality. We see the bridge but do not understand what it is for or mistake it for something else. Like all bridges, information provides a means to get across from one side to another. Their purpose is distorted if they remain uncrossed or if the other side into which they extend is disbelieved or denied.

As Berdyaev notes, “Truth is not something given objectively, but rather a creative achievement. It is creative discovery, rather than the reflected knowledge of an object or of being. Truth ... is the creative transfiguration of reality.”

That creative transfiguration of reality occurs only in direct knowing, in utilizing secondary thinking to transcend secondary thinking and approach coherent metaphysical assumptions.

Barfield's Final Participation anticipates a state of human consciousness that is once again immersed in Reality, only this time with a fully formed and active awareness of self that stretches far beyond the realm of representation.

I don't think we are close to achieving that at any sustainable level now; however, I do believe we can experience direct knowing intermittently if we work at it, and that such experiences offer more for the spiritual war and divine providence than a thousand databases of information ever could.

Thus, winning the information war is not and should not be a primary concern. We will surely lose the spiritual war if we focus exclusively on the information war.

The war we need to win is on the other side of information. That is where we should be focusing and "fighting."

8 Comments

Bonald Offers Some Insights Regarding the System Living Between Us

1/19/2024

0 Comments

Well, just when I was about the throw in the towel on anyone learning anything from the birdemic or offering anything incisive regarding relationships, someone like Bonald comes along and has me fold the towel up and put it back in the closet.

If anything, I believe Bonald’s post is at least pointing in the right direction, which is more than I can say for a lot of Christian blog posts I have read in the past six months.

Excerpts from private cultures (bold added):

Two observations. First, I believe many of us have had experiences like the following. I look back on the objective facts and accomplishments of my life to date, and I at once intuit “there’s so much more to me than that”. What though? Perhaps my unactualized potentials? A young man might naturally think this, but one with more years behind than ahead no longer flatters himself for having worlds of unrealized potential and is driven to suspect that the problem is more metaphysical, rooted perhaps in some gulf between the subjective and objective.

Second, we sincerely believe that the most important things in our lives are our relationships with loved ones and with God, that our communion with them is more important than solitary pleasures, however elevated (e.g. thinking, creativity). However, we cannot just be with friends and family. For short periods of time, it is enough to be silent in each other’s presence. On dramatic occasions like a reunion after long separation or a deathbed, expressions of love and gratitude are in order, but again quickly run their course. If one is to enjoy the presence of a beloved friend or kinsman for any length of time, one must turn with him to some other subject; one must turn to chatting–about shared memories, hobbies, politics, fiction, or some other subject admittedly of less importance than the bond of the two discussing it–or to some sort of activity. “Well, we can’t just sit and stare at each other!” you’ll say. Still, I find it interesting that the bond of the two requires a shared attention to a third.

Each human soul is a whole world unto itself. But each family, as well as each deep group of friends, is also its own private world. This became especially clear to me during the pandemic years. My wife and daughters and I have always spent a lot of time together, but then we spent little time with anyone else. With what ingenuity we had turned inward, the stories and games (our games being mostly stories acted out) we made up for each other became ever more elaborate, with ever more layers of character development and backstory to our imaginary world, a dramatic collaboration that continues to this day. My wife and I were and continue to be the main conduits of the larger culture to our children. Some of what we read to them I’d consider great literature; some of what we exposed them to were television shows from our childhood for which I’d make no claim to objective greatness. Either way, carrying these books, movies, and television shows from the wider culture to our family’s culture meant them becoming parts of a new whole (for example, the game my wife and I have of trying to stump each other with obscure Star Trek quotes), probably taking on new contextual qualities. I know other families who had similar experiences of the lockdown years.

And later…

Totalitarian Leftism is devouring the public culture, replacing everything with itself. Those of us who have not internally submitted to Leftism find the public culture increasingly loathsome. At some point soon, we may cease to see any value in participating in it at all. That is, even the idea of contributing a great novel, musical composition, or scientific discovery to the wider culture will lose any sort of appeal (even supposing one had the talent to do such a thing); how could I desire any creation of mine, anything into which I have mixed my self, to be recognized by and incorporated into that? Leftists may still wish to contribute to the public culture that they own, but however talented they are, the requirement that their work serve the hegemonic ideology will make it more a simulacrum of true art or science than the real thing. The rest of us will come to prefer our audience of a few.

I encourage you to read the whole post over at The Orthosphere.

As for me, I’ll add to Bonald’s thoughts by including some excerpts from a post in which I argued that we must not allow the System to live between us and our relationships (bold added):

As I noted in a post the other day, the experience of relationships between Beings is a fundamental purpose of Creation.

Beings are not limited to people but encompass every Being in Creation. One of the ultimate aims of these relationships is the kindling and expansion of love – not because love is a spiritual activity that serves life but because love suffuses life with its highest meaning and value – which entails that the motivations driving relationships ought to be rooted in the primacy of the spiritual – a primacy in which all Beings participate, whether consciously or not.

A simple and easy way to describe a relationship is to call it a connection or the state of being connected that arises after initial contact. Relationships are essentially exchanges. From these, communication, correlation, and correspondence emerge.

If relationships between Beings is a fundamental purpose of Creation, then Creation must be acknowledged as the "medium" for relationships.

The powers aligned against God and Creation appear to be acutely aware of the ultimate significance of relationships in Creation – our relationship with God foremost among them – and one of their all-encompassing goals lies in the disruption and destruction of relationships between Beings, primarily by firmly wedging their System in-between Beings and Creation and insisting that the System be the only medium of relational exchange and communication between all Beings in Creation.

The 2020 global birdemic coup offers a recent and vivid example of this motivation to live between Beings and control relationships in Creation.

For about two years, the powers opposed to God and Creation succeeded in severely curtailing, disrupting, forbidding, and diminishing relationships.

Not only that, but they also dictated the rules of relational engagement. They monitored, recorded, surveyed, micromanaged, manipulated, supervised, controlled, and regulated all relationships at all levels.

Relationships became contingent upon the System’s bureaucratic machinations. Terms like social distancing suddenly became acceptable and common in human discourse, as did notions of transformed societies in which none are safe until are safe.

And let’s not forget that the churches – meant to serve as a direct social and spiritual connection to God and Creation – eagerly and actively allowed the System to eclipse Creation and live between congregations and God in 2020.

The birdemic was the most tangible exhibition of the dark powers’ yearning to have their System live between Beings and Creation. In many ways, it represents the culmination of an insidious and seemingly ubiquitous stratagem to obscure Creation as the foundation of all communication between Beings and replace it with the System.

Most of my interactions with most people amount to little more than System interactions. People everywhere relate to each other only through the System.

And this is not limited to interpersonal relationships between humans. It extends to all Creation. I struggle to remember the last time I heard someone speak about nature or the weather without referring to the climate crisis or environmentalism. Virtually all of organized, institutional Christianity has reduced itself to broadcasting System-dictated agenda items, issues, and talking points.

The System only lives between us and Creation because we allow it to. No, more than that. We actively desire that the System live between us and Creation.

Relationships in Creation require free, autonomous, thinking agents motivated by and capable of love and creativity. Only such agents can know Creation directly and form knowing relationships in Creation.

Very few people appear interested in forming relationships in Creation because most people seem utterly uninterested in freedom, autonomy, and thinking, to say nothing of love and creativity. It’s far easier to permit the System to live between us.

A few years ago, I made a case for something I referred to as system distancing by emphasizing that such distancing was primarily a spiritual movement motivated by the mostly internal aim of drawing away from the System and closer to God and Creation.

Such a spiritual movement within individuals remains imperative. Although it is largely an internal movement, it is impossible alone.

It requires relationships with other Beings in Creation. Above all, it requires a relationship with Christ because the only we can ever hope to reconnect to Creation now is through Jesus.

Everything else is just the System living between us.

0 Comments

Ahriman is Not and Never Was Essence

1/18/2024

1 Comment

The System is Ahriman — a soulless, oppressive, totalitarian bureaucratic force aiming to extinguish all vestiges of spiritual freedom in the name of collective safety, utility, and happiness. The System has eclipsed the West in much the same manner the West eclipsed what was once known as Christendom (also a system in its own right).

Neither Christendom nor the West exist anymore. The System — the Machine, the Matrix, the Black Iron Prison, or whatever other names you call it — has absorbed both.

Perhaps the only interesting thing about the System is its active undermining of its own operability. Although predictions are difficult, processes are readily discernible, and the process the System has initiated will inevitably lead to its self-destruction. It’s a matter of time — when, not if.

When the System implodes, it will take with it all the institutions it has corrupted and absorbed, including institutionalized (System) Christianity.

The seemingly inevitable death of System Christianity will strike most as the death of Christianity itself, just as the death of the System will strike most as the death of everything that has spiritually and historically comprised the West.

These deaths will occur. Yet, they will only mark the death of the Ahrimanic force that has hijacked, oppressed, and smothered the essence of the West and Christianity. That essence is not Ahriman, and it cannot reemerge at the collective level unless Ahriman collapses.

Yet the essence can emerge at the individual level regardless of whether the System collapses or whether the essence emerges at the collective level, but this requires spiritual, mostly internal, System-distancing at the individual level.

System-distancing entails the deep understanding that Ahriman is everything but a necessary evil. It is simply evil.

Spirit is the only way out of such evil. Spirit resides in the essence. We cannot find the essence if we remain fixated on Ahriman.

1 Comment

<<Previous