Francis Berger's Blog, page 107
January 9, 2021
We Beat Them By Not Joining Them
If you can't beat them, join them.
I was six or seven years old the first time I encountered this expression. If memory serves me well, it appeared at the end of a Looney Tunes cartoon featuring Sylvester the Cat who despondently uttered the phrase after the last of his many dogged ploys to capture and eat Tweety Bird ends in abysmal, near-fatal failure. After suffering through four minutes of high-voltage electrical shocks, falling pianos, and dynamite explosions, Sylvester finally throws in the towel. He acknowledges Tweety's ultimate victory by burying the hatchet - yes, I believe there was a hatchet in the cartoon - and becoming Tweety's devoted helper and follower.
In our modern world the phrase "if you can't beat them, join them" has morphed into somewhat of a doctrine embraced by nearly everyone including those who classify themselves as pragmatists and realists. Synonymous with expediency and opportunism, "if you can't beat them, join them" also shines a light on the modern obsession of ensuring one ends up the winning side, regardless of what this may actually entail. At its core, the "join them" philosophy sells itself as a positive doctrine because it promises to turn a potential win-lose into a win-win, which is great because there's nothing our modern world scorns more than a loser.
I got to thinking about all of this from the perspective of spiritual warfare, and I very quickly arrived at the conclusion that the "if you can't beat them, join them" precept marks the crux of the enemy's war aims. Unbeknownst to most, the enemy cannot really defeat us; it can only persuade us to defeat ourselves. And the most effective way it can ensure we defeat ourselves is to convince us to switch sides.
Though its arsenal is packed with weapons to tempt, demoralize, degrade, corrupt, entice, invert, and mislead, the enemy possesses nothing which it can actually destroy us.
Sure, the enemy has innumerable means through which it can destroy us physically, but nothing it wields from within its vast array of firepower can destroy us spiritually.
The best the enemy can do is persuade us to spiritually destroy ourselves, and the most efficient means of achieving this is to have us abandon the side of Good and consciously join the side opposed to Good.
The enemy very much wants us to believe that we cannot defeat it; that we are hypocritical, worthless sinners who don't deserve to be on the side of Good; and that joining its side represents the pinnacle of prudence and pragmatism. The enemy very much wants us to believe this because it knows it can do little else to prevent us from joining and remaining on the side of Good.
With this in mind, the best way to beat the enemy is to remain committed to the right side of the battlefield.
We beat them by not joining them.
Note added: Spiritual warfare is a confusing concept for many people, Christians included. In the brief excerpt below, Bruce Charlton lucidly and succinctly describes "the two sides" of the spiritual conflict and what it means to choose the side of Good.
*Note. It is absolutely vital to recognise that the sides of Good and evil are Not composed of what are usually termed 'Good people' and 'Bad People'; nor even of better and worse people. The essence of the two sides concerns whether a person gives their allegiance to Good (i.e. to God and creation); or joins the 'evil' side which opposes The Good (God and creation).
It is about there being only two sides, and a person's choice of which side he identifies-with. Matters of individual behaviour are a separate issue; so that some (or perhaps most) of the people on the side of evil will be better behaved, 'nicer' people than some (or perhaps most) of those on the side of Good. However, over time, those on the evil side will certainly become corrupted by their primary choice - as is currently very evident indeed.
I was six or seven years old the first time I encountered this expression. If memory serves me well, it appeared at the end of a Looney Tunes cartoon featuring Sylvester the Cat who despondently uttered the phrase after the last of his many dogged ploys to capture and eat Tweety Bird ends in abysmal, near-fatal failure. After suffering through four minutes of high-voltage electrical shocks, falling pianos, and dynamite explosions, Sylvester finally throws in the towel. He acknowledges Tweety's ultimate victory by burying the hatchet - yes, I believe there was a hatchet in the cartoon - and becoming Tweety's devoted helper and follower.
In our modern world the phrase "if you can't beat them, join them" has morphed into somewhat of a doctrine embraced by nearly everyone including those who classify themselves as pragmatists and realists. Synonymous with expediency and opportunism, "if you can't beat them, join them" also shines a light on the modern obsession of ensuring one ends up the winning side, regardless of what this may actually entail. At its core, the "join them" philosophy sells itself as a positive doctrine because it promises to turn a potential win-lose into a win-win, which is great because there's nothing our modern world scorns more than a loser.
I got to thinking about all of this from the perspective of spiritual warfare, and I very quickly arrived at the conclusion that the "if you can't beat them, join them" precept marks the crux of the enemy's war aims. Unbeknownst to most, the enemy cannot really defeat us; it can only persuade us to defeat ourselves. And the most effective way it can ensure we defeat ourselves is to convince us to switch sides.
Though its arsenal is packed with weapons to tempt, demoralize, degrade, corrupt, entice, invert, and mislead, the enemy possesses nothing which it can actually destroy us.
Sure, the enemy has innumerable means through which it can destroy us physically, but nothing it wields from within its vast array of firepower can destroy us spiritually.
The best the enemy can do is persuade us to spiritually destroy ourselves, and the most efficient means of achieving this is to have us abandon the side of Good and consciously join the side opposed to Good.
The enemy very much wants us to believe that we cannot defeat it; that we are hypocritical, worthless sinners who don't deserve to be on the side of Good; and that joining its side represents the pinnacle of prudence and pragmatism. The enemy very much wants us to believe this because it knows it can do little else to prevent us from joining and remaining on the side of Good.
With this in mind, the best way to beat the enemy is to remain committed to the right side of the battlefield.
We beat them by not joining them.
Note added: Spiritual warfare is a confusing concept for many people, Christians included. In the brief excerpt below, Bruce Charlton lucidly and succinctly describes "the two sides" of the spiritual conflict and what it means to choose the side of Good.
*Note. It is absolutely vital to recognise that the sides of Good and evil are Not composed of what are usually termed 'Good people' and 'Bad People'; nor even of better and worse people. The essence of the two sides concerns whether a person gives their allegiance to Good (i.e. to God and creation); or joins the 'evil' side which opposes The Good (God and creation).
It is about there being only two sides, and a person's choice of which side he identifies-with. Matters of individual behaviour are a separate issue; so that some (or perhaps most) of the people on the side of evil will be better behaved, 'nicer' people than some (or perhaps most) of those on the side of Good. However, over time, those on the evil side will certainly become corrupted by their primary choice - as is currently very evident indeed.
January 7, 2021
An Evil System. Any Questions?
My use of this clever Crowder meme is not meant as an endorsement of the man. In all honesty, I don't know much about him. Back in October 2019, I wrote a brief post in which I asked the following question: Do you see evil in a corrupted but otherwise good system, or do you see only an evil system?
It goes without saying that most modern people do not perceive any evil in the System at all. In fact, I will be so bold as to say the vast majority are oblivious to existence of the System itself. As you would expect, the question I asked in that 2019 post was not aimed at the majority, but rather at members of a small, perceptive minority whom I categorized into two distinct camps: those who regarded the evil in the System as mere corruption, and those who appraised the System as intrinsically evil.
The post was shared on several blogs and went on to be one of my most viewed of 2019. Surprisingly, the question I posed in the post proved rather contentious and sparked considerable debate - well, considerable for my blog anyway. Agreement about wholesale corruption within the System was unanimous among comments, but this consensus splintered once possible origins or causes of the corruption were put on the table.
As I mentioned above, I published the post in October, 2019. Repeating the question I posed then in light of everything that has transpired since strikes me as superfluous.
Peace be with you if you are among those who still maintain that the System is merely corrupted.
If you are among those who are inclined to think differently, be of high spirits!
Decisive recognition and acknowledgement of systemic evil was the whole point of 2020. We are now free to focus our energy and time on the Good, which, in the here and now, resides almost exclusively beyond the System.
Look there.
January 4, 2021
The Limits of Solzhenitsyn's Concept of the Line Separating Good And Evil
I have nothing but the deepest respect for Alexander Solzhenitsyn, but I have recently begun to question the integrity of the following - and likely most often quoted - passage from The Gulag Archipelago.
"It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience; how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful success I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments, I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart - and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains . . . an unuprooted small corner of evil."
- The Gulag Archipelago, Part 4, C. 1, The Ascent
Before going any further, I must stress that my use of integrity here refers to the completeness of Solzhenitsyn's insight, not its sincerity. Despite the ridiculous claims of some communist apologists, I have never doubted Solzhenitsyn's honesty, nor his strong moral and Christian principles. At the same time, I understand that, for many, the mere notion of criticizing or questioning anything the prophet recorded is akin to blasphemy. After all, who am I to scrutinize wisdom wrung from such unimaginable oppression and suffering?
Well, before anyone stops reading, let me quickly and emphatically state that I believe Solzhenitsyn's pronouncement is true. More specifically, I believe it is an accurate assessment of the human experience and, unlike other assessments, it also contains a profound Christian truth. Unfortunately, the Christian truth within the passage can be easily ignored, leaving the concept of the line separating good and evil in the hearts of men susceptible to poisoned relativist interpretations that sloppily conclude that the existence of good and evil in the hearts of all human beings demands increased levels sympathy and tolerance for evil as well as the suspension of moral discernment and judgement. After all, if what Solzhenitsyn says is true, then who are we to judge?
Many Christians view judgement as the Achilles' heel of their faith. Within this framework, the limits of Solzhenitsyn's "line separating good and evil passage" from The Gulag Archipelago become readily apparent. We are all sinners, and we are all capable of both great good and unimaginable evil. As such, we should demonstrate forbearance in our judgement, think twice before casting stones, and practice restraint in our condemnation.
The problem with the line separating good and evil in the hearts of men lies not in the concept itself, but in the confusion the concept generates as its oscillations blend and blur sin, virtue, vice, righteousness, morality, immorality, lawfulness, lawlessness, ethics, and a thousand other aspects of the human experience. Removed from a Christian context, the concept of the line separating good and evil becomes meaningless; the line fades and disappears. Inversions materialize. Sins are praised and rewarded; virtues, condemned and punished. Discerning good from evil becomes an act of open interpretation palm reading.
The line passing through human hearts obscures the distinctions between the philanthropist billionaire who finances a clean drinking water project in an underdeveloped, third world country - thereby saving thousands from death and illness - but who concurrently evades paying taxes in every part of the world he does business and loses no sleep as the non-profit organizations he funds enable and support the unsubtle machinations of a global totalitarian regime that seeks to enslave all in the name of human dignity; and the foulmouthed barfly who is bigoted against foreigners, frequently gets into pointless drunken brawls, but otherwise spends the majority of his spare time tenderly caring for his elderly, invalid aunt.
Who is evil and who is good? Who knows? And who cares? After all, who are we to judge?
Defending the Solzhenitsyn's concept of the line through the heart by focusing exclusively on contextualization - by correctly pointing out that excerpt cannot be accurately elucidated in isolation beyond the boundaries of Solzhenitsyn's massive tome - does little to mitigate the damage. Yes, Solzhenitsyn's insight is more lucid when the all three volumes of the work from which it has been extracted are taken into consideration, but who among those who tout the line/heart passage as proof of the relativity of good and evil have ever read even the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago to the end? And why would they bother? They relish the limits of Solzhenitsyn's observations concerning good and evil because it provides them with exactly what they need - ambiguity and doubt.
So, is Solzhenitsyn's line dividing good and evil in the hearts of men forever lost as a profound Christian truth? Not exactly, but any effort to reclaim it requires the support of another Solzhenitsyn's dictum to serve as a premise - "Men have forgotten God; that's why all of this has happened." Beyond being an open refutation of atheism and an explanation for the disasters that befell Russia in the twentieth century, "men have forgotten God" serves to remind us of the importance of motivation, alignment, and repentance when it comes to the line dividing good and evil in the hearts of men.
One need look no further than Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment to understand the significance of motivation, alignment, and repentance when it comes to discerning the good and evil within men's hearts. In the novel, Raskolnikov is convinced of his sound and rational motivations for killing the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanova. He is a man of reason; a man of will; a man unburdened by obsolete notions of good and evil. He would be doing the world a favor by ridding it of an evil, corrupt old wretch who caused nothing but suffering. He would use the money to continue his education, become a great man, better the world.
Raskolnikov's motivations are anything but rational, and his decision to commit the murder, which inadvertently morphs into a double murder, squarely aligns him with the side of evil. His actions put him in direct opposition to God's creation, an alignment that refuses to shift even after he confesses his crime to Sonya, who informs him that he must publicly confess and embrace his punishment for turning away from God. At the same time, Sonya responds with immense pity and promises to support Raskolnikov and not abandon him.
By the end of the novel, Raskolnikov is on the edge of true repentance and on the verge of realignment with God's creation through Christ. The bridgehead of good in which Sonya puts her faith begins to extend within him, but Sonya's faith in Raskolnikov's bridgehead of good does not imply any discounting of the inherent evil of Raskolnikov's motivations and actions. Nor does it discount the evil of his turning away from God. In other words, her affection for Raskolnikov and her Christian faith do not obscure her discernment of evil. On the contrary, both help her refine her judgment.
The line separating good and evil that passes through the heart of every man is the revelation of a simple truth, but the simplicity of this truth is only supported when it is set against the backdrop of motivation, alignment, and repentance. A man of good motivations aligned with God's creation stands a greater chance of controlling the oscillations of good and evil within his heart. Moreover, the same man will also tend to notice when the line has slipped and seek repentance rather than excuses and rationalizations whenever he falls into sin. Conversely, a man of evil motivations inevitably chooses to side against God's creation. Once there, he will find it difficult to repent and will quickly justify his choice with excuses and rationalizations. The bridgehead of good within him must not be dismissed, but it also must not serve as a defense or justification for evil.
Many of history's greatest atrocities were committed in the name of eliminating evil in the world. The impossibility of this task reveals the most profound truth in Solzhenitsyn's concept of the line separating good and evil in the hearts of all men. This impossibility must be acknowledged, but it cannot serve as justification for the tolerance and acceptance of evil motivations. Nor should it serve to blind us to the reality of those who actively and unrepentantly choose to work against God's creation. Yes, even in the darkest of hearts, the small bridgehead of good exists, just as the unuprooted corner of evil exists in the very best of hearts, but whether the line passing over the heart oscillates toward or away from either of these depends almost exclusively on a person's motivation, alignment, and capacity for repentance - that is, on an person's active and conscious choice to side with good or evil.
And now that things have reached the point, these are not only simpler to discern, but simply must be discerned.
Note added: This post was partly inspired by Bruce Charlton's clarifying remarks on the subject of motivation, alignment with creation, and repentance.
"It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience; how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful success I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments, I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either - but right through every human heart - and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains . . . an unuprooted small corner of evil."
- The Gulag Archipelago, Part 4, C. 1, The Ascent
Before going any further, I must stress that my use of integrity here refers to the completeness of Solzhenitsyn's insight, not its sincerity. Despite the ridiculous claims of some communist apologists, I have never doubted Solzhenitsyn's honesty, nor his strong moral and Christian principles. At the same time, I understand that, for many, the mere notion of criticizing or questioning anything the prophet recorded is akin to blasphemy. After all, who am I to scrutinize wisdom wrung from such unimaginable oppression and suffering?
Well, before anyone stops reading, let me quickly and emphatically state that I believe Solzhenitsyn's pronouncement is true. More specifically, I believe it is an accurate assessment of the human experience and, unlike other assessments, it also contains a profound Christian truth. Unfortunately, the Christian truth within the passage can be easily ignored, leaving the concept of the line separating good and evil in the hearts of men susceptible to poisoned relativist interpretations that sloppily conclude that the existence of good and evil in the hearts of all human beings demands increased levels sympathy and tolerance for evil as well as the suspension of moral discernment and judgement. After all, if what Solzhenitsyn says is true, then who are we to judge?
Many Christians view judgement as the Achilles' heel of their faith. Within this framework, the limits of Solzhenitsyn's "line separating good and evil passage" from The Gulag Archipelago become readily apparent. We are all sinners, and we are all capable of both great good and unimaginable evil. As such, we should demonstrate forbearance in our judgement, think twice before casting stones, and practice restraint in our condemnation.
The problem with the line separating good and evil in the hearts of men lies not in the concept itself, but in the confusion the concept generates as its oscillations blend and blur sin, virtue, vice, righteousness, morality, immorality, lawfulness, lawlessness, ethics, and a thousand other aspects of the human experience. Removed from a Christian context, the concept of the line separating good and evil becomes meaningless; the line fades and disappears. Inversions materialize. Sins are praised and rewarded; virtues, condemned and punished. Discerning good from evil becomes an act of open interpretation palm reading.
The line passing through human hearts obscures the distinctions between the philanthropist billionaire who finances a clean drinking water project in an underdeveloped, third world country - thereby saving thousands from death and illness - but who concurrently evades paying taxes in every part of the world he does business and loses no sleep as the non-profit organizations he funds enable and support the unsubtle machinations of a global totalitarian regime that seeks to enslave all in the name of human dignity; and the foulmouthed barfly who is bigoted against foreigners, frequently gets into pointless drunken brawls, but otherwise spends the majority of his spare time tenderly caring for his elderly, invalid aunt.
Who is evil and who is good? Who knows? And who cares? After all, who are we to judge?
Defending the Solzhenitsyn's concept of the line through the heart by focusing exclusively on contextualization - by correctly pointing out that excerpt cannot be accurately elucidated in isolation beyond the boundaries of Solzhenitsyn's massive tome - does little to mitigate the damage. Yes, Solzhenitsyn's insight is more lucid when the all three volumes of the work from which it has been extracted are taken into consideration, but who among those who tout the line/heart passage as proof of the relativity of good and evil have ever read even the first volume of The Gulag Archipelago to the end? And why would they bother? They relish the limits of Solzhenitsyn's observations concerning good and evil because it provides them with exactly what they need - ambiguity and doubt.
So, is Solzhenitsyn's line dividing good and evil in the hearts of men forever lost as a profound Christian truth? Not exactly, but any effort to reclaim it requires the support of another Solzhenitsyn's dictum to serve as a premise - "Men have forgotten God; that's why all of this has happened." Beyond being an open refutation of atheism and an explanation for the disasters that befell Russia in the twentieth century, "men have forgotten God" serves to remind us of the importance of motivation, alignment, and repentance when it comes to the line dividing good and evil in the hearts of men.
One need look no further than Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment to understand the significance of motivation, alignment, and repentance when it comes to discerning the good and evil within men's hearts. In the novel, Raskolnikov is convinced of his sound and rational motivations for killing the pawnbroker Alyona Ivanova. He is a man of reason; a man of will; a man unburdened by obsolete notions of good and evil. He would be doing the world a favor by ridding it of an evil, corrupt old wretch who caused nothing but suffering. He would use the money to continue his education, become a great man, better the world.
Raskolnikov's motivations are anything but rational, and his decision to commit the murder, which inadvertently morphs into a double murder, squarely aligns him with the side of evil. His actions put him in direct opposition to God's creation, an alignment that refuses to shift even after he confesses his crime to Sonya, who informs him that he must publicly confess and embrace his punishment for turning away from God. At the same time, Sonya responds with immense pity and promises to support Raskolnikov and not abandon him.
By the end of the novel, Raskolnikov is on the edge of true repentance and on the verge of realignment with God's creation through Christ. The bridgehead of good in which Sonya puts her faith begins to extend within him, but Sonya's faith in Raskolnikov's bridgehead of good does not imply any discounting of the inherent evil of Raskolnikov's motivations and actions. Nor does it discount the evil of his turning away from God. In other words, her affection for Raskolnikov and her Christian faith do not obscure her discernment of evil. On the contrary, both help her refine her judgment.
The line separating good and evil that passes through the heart of every man is the revelation of a simple truth, but the simplicity of this truth is only supported when it is set against the backdrop of motivation, alignment, and repentance. A man of good motivations aligned with God's creation stands a greater chance of controlling the oscillations of good and evil within his heart. Moreover, the same man will also tend to notice when the line has slipped and seek repentance rather than excuses and rationalizations whenever he falls into sin. Conversely, a man of evil motivations inevitably chooses to side against God's creation. Once there, he will find it difficult to repent and will quickly justify his choice with excuses and rationalizations. The bridgehead of good within him must not be dismissed, but it also must not serve as a defense or justification for evil.
Many of history's greatest atrocities were committed in the name of eliminating evil in the world. The impossibility of this task reveals the most profound truth in Solzhenitsyn's concept of the line separating good and evil in the hearts of all men. This impossibility must be acknowledged, but it cannot serve as justification for the tolerance and acceptance of evil motivations. Nor should it serve to blind us to the reality of those who actively and unrepentantly choose to work against God's creation. Yes, even in the darkest of hearts, the small bridgehead of good exists, just as the unuprooted corner of evil exists in the very best of hearts, but whether the line passing over the heart oscillates toward or away from either of these depends almost exclusively on a person's motivation, alignment, and capacity for repentance - that is, on an person's active and conscious choice to side with good or evil.
And now that things have reached the point, these are not only simpler to discern, but simply must be discerned.
Note added: This post was partly inspired by Bruce Charlton's clarifying remarks on the subject of motivation, alignment with creation, and repentance.
Maid of Heaven, Pray For Us
I offer the following in support of William James Tychonievich's remarkable and uplifting series of posts on Joan of Arc.
If you have not explored these posts over at From the Narrow Desert, I emphatically recommend you do.
Maid of Heaven, pray for us!
Note added: H/T to Heather and Bruce Charlton for mentioning this song via comments on William's blog.
If you have not explored these posts over at From the Narrow Desert, I emphatically recommend you do.
Maid of Heaven, pray for us!
Note added: H/T to Heather and Bruce Charlton for mentioning this song via comments on William's blog.
January 3, 2021
Undermining the Sanctity of Democracy
I seldom delve into politics on this blog, but I would like to make one brief comment concerning a rather alarming and disingenuous line of rhetoric that likens Donald Trump's "baseless" claims of election fraud to an open attack on "the sanctity of democracy." I'll make my point via a clumsy analogy to a real sacred element of human life - the sanctity of marriage.
Imagine a married couple. We'll call the husband Bob; the wife, Sue. Four years into the marriage, Bob begins finding clues that point to Sue's possible infidelity. He asks her about these, but she manages to explain all of it away, albeit unconvincingly.
Clues of a possible affair continue to surface as the days and weeks pass. One day, Bob reluctantly acknowledges that his wife is indeed cheating on him, and he decides to confront Sue about her adultery. He sits Sue down and painstakingly presents her with all the incriminating evidence he has gathered.
Sue's eyes browse over the videos, the mysterious motel bills, the unfamiliar necktie found under the seat of the her car, and all the rest of it. After a moment, her expression ices over. She stands up, dismisses the evidence with a callous wave of her hand, and then stares at her husband with slit-eyed scorn.
"None of that is evidence of anything."
Bob lifts a handwritten love letter from the table. "You're kidding right? What about this?"
"I never thought you would stoop so low," Sue seethes.
"Stoop so low? I didn't investigate you. You left all of this lying around for me to find."
"Where do you find the nerve and audacity to attack and undermine the sanctity of marriage?"
"What do you mean?" Bob asks incredulously. "You're the one who undermined our marriage."
"I'm not talking about our marriage," Sue responds coldly. "I'm talking about the sanctity of marriage, period. Your behavior demonstrates that you are openly hostile to the institution of marriage and all that is sacred within it! You monster! How dare you?"
Note added: Please feel free to make the husband the cheating spouse if you find this more appealing. I have no preference, either way.
Imagine a married couple. We'll call the husband Bob; the wife, Sue. Four years into the marriage, Bob begins finding clues that point to Sue's possible infidelity. He asks her about these, but she manages to explain all of it away, albeit unconvincingly.
Clues of a possible affair continue to surface as the days and weeks pass. One day, Bob reluctantly acknowledges that his wife is indeed cheating on him, and he decides to confront Sue about her adultery. He sits Sue down and painstakingly presents her with all the incriminating evidence he has gathered.
Sue's eyes browse over the videos, the mysterious motel bills, the unfamiliar necktie found under the seat of the her car, and all the rest of it. After a moment, her expression ices over. She stands up, dismisses the evidence with a callous wave of her hand, and then stares at her husband with slit-eyed scorn.
"None of that is evidence of anything."
Bob lifts a handwritten love letter from the table. "You're kidding right? What about this?"
"I never thought you would stoop so low," Sue seethes.
"Stoop so low? I didn't investigate you. You left all of this lying around for me to find."
"Where do you find the nerve and audacity to attack and undermine the sanctity of marriage?"
"What do you mean?" Bob asks incredulously. "You're the one who undermined our marriage."
"I'm not talking about our marriage," Sue responds coldly. "I'm talking about the sanctity of marriage, period. Your behavior demonstrates that you are openly hostile to the institution of marriage and all that is sacred within it! You monster! How dare you?"
Note added: Please feel free to make the husband the cheating spouse if you find this more appealing. I have no preference, either way.
January 1, 2021
A Turning Point Regardless
In yesterday's post I touched upon the much needed but unlikely development of what could be termed mass moment of truth; more specifically, a mass moment of spiritual truth. Any potential moment of truth at the level of the masses invariably involves a large, obvious crisis that the masses cannot avoid facing. Such a crisis then invariably leads to a "mass" test that forces a "mass" decision.
Well, 2020 certainly contained a large and obvious "crisis" that has indeed tested the masses. Unfortunately, the decision the majority of people have apparently made in response to the crisis has not led to a "moment of truth" in the strictest sense of the term. On the contrary, 2020 appears to have inspired a "moment of untruth"; more specifically, large-scale acceptance and confirmation of the Big Lies that culminated in "the point" the year 2020 revealed.
An authentic true moment of truth at the level of the masses would require widespread acceptance of the Truth, which in turn would require a self-generated shift in human consciousness driven by an extensive re-spiritualization of large groups of people. Confidently declaring that something of this nature is currently taking place at the level of the masses is, at best, wishful thinking. Nevertheless, I do believe that moments of truth have occurred at the level of the individual, and that the events of 2020 have inspired decisive changes leading to beneficial spiritual outcomes in the lives of individuals.
And that, in itself, represents a significant turning point - regardless.
Well, 2020 certainly contained a large and obvious "crisis" that has indeed tested the masses. Unfortunately, the decision the majority of people have apparently made in response to the crisis has not led to a "moment of truth" in the strictest sense of the term. On the contrary, 2020 appears to have inspired a "moment of untruth"; more specifically, large-scale acceptance and confirmation of the Big Lies that culminated in "the point" the year 2020 revealed.
An authentic true moment of truth at the level of the masses would require widespread acceptance of the Truth, which in turn would require a self-generated shift in human consciousness driven by an extensive re-spiritualization of large groups of people. Confidently declaring that something of this nature is currently taking place at the level of the masses is, at best, wishful thinking. Nevertheless, I do believe that moments of truth have occurred at the level of the individual, and that the events of 2020 have inspired decisive changes leading to beneficial spiritual outcomes in the lives of individuals.
And that, in itself, represents a significant turning point - regardless.
The Point As Potential Turning Point
In a post from earlier this week, I explored the idea that the recognition and acknowledgement of "the point" was the point of 2020. The point refers to C.S. Lewis's concept of 'things coming to a point', a concept Bruce Charlton has referred to and continues to refer to on his notions blog to describe a process in which
"
Good and evil are becoming so extreme as to lose the grey areas and be starkly separated; it means that there is no neutrality and every-thing of any possible public significance is now-and-increasingly either positively/ actively/ purposively-Good or positively/ actively/ purposively-evil."
A sound metaphysical understanding of good and evil is a prerequisite to recognizing and acknowledging "the point" reached in 2020. Without this sound understanding, individuals fail to comprehend the spiritual dimension of what transpired in 2020. Not only that, but they will also likely fail to make the right choice in terms of aligning with the side of Good.
Instead, they will be more likely choose to actively affiliate with Evil, which has rolled out its own inverted version of "things coming to a point" - one that contains its own potential turning point centered around the birdemic.
In this version, the birdemic has served to lay bare the great evils of climate change, racism, and inequality once and for all. These evils are so great that they can only be addressed and, ultimately, solved by the machinations of a totalitarian, technocratic, one-world government that will doggedly work to elevate the dignity of all human beings and manifest a materialist heaven on earth.
But what about individuals who recognize and acknowledge the evil inherent in this inversion - who understand the above as part and parcel of the real "point." How can they ensure they make the right choices and align with the side of Good? And what will such an alignment hope to achieve?
At the purely individual level, an active choice to align with Good is an active choice for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. It is also a conscious choice for salvation. It signals an awareness that much of the meaning of our mortal lives resides in believing in heaven after earth rather than the illusory promise of heaven on earth.
All of this certainly counts as a turning point in the lives of individuals. As such, each one is of infinite importance, but will these individual turning points add up to anything bigger? What about communities, societies, nations, and Christianity?
I am not currently an optimist when it comes to anything at the collective level, but mass recognition of "the point", were it to occur, would contain the potential for a larger turning point, one entailing a shift in human consciousness - the emergence of a new spiritual consciousness.
And what might this shift in consciousness comprise?
In his book Freedom and the Spirit, the Russian spiritual philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev describes the potential turning point in the following manner:
We are entering an epoch of new spirituality that will correspond to the new form of mysticism. It will no longer be possible to argue against a heightened spiritual and mystical life that human nature is sinful and that sin must first be overcome. A heightened spiritual and mystical life is the road to victory over sin. And the world is entering a catastrophic period of choice and division, when these will be required by all Christians, an uplifting and intensification of their inner lives.
The external, everyday, moderate Christian is breaking up. But eternal, inward, mystical Christianity is becoming stronger and better established. And within mysticism itself, a 'paraclete' type is beginning to predominate. The epoch of new spirituality in Christianity can only be an epoch of a great and hitherto unheard of manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
And what might this potential turning point bring about? In The Divine and The Human, Berdyaev states:
The new revelation is not at all a new religion, distinct from Christianity, but rather the fulfillment and completion of Christian revelation, bringing to it a true universality. This we do not have as yet. But we cannot simply wait for the revelation of the spirit. It depends upon man's creative activity as well. It is not to be understood as only a new revelation of God to man: it is also the revelation of man to God. This means it will be divine-human revelation. In the Spirit, the divisions and contradictions of the divine and the human will be overcome, while the distinction between them will be maintained. This will be the crowning of the mystical dialectic of the divine and the human.
Do I believe the kind of turning point Berdyaev describes may be at hand? That is difficult to say. But I do believe in the potential of it, and I believe this potential greatly depends on our recognition and awareness of "things reaching the point" in 2020.
A sound metaphysical understanding of good and evil is a prerequisite to recognizing and acknowledging "the point" reached in 2020. Without this sound understanding, individuals fail to comprehend the spiritual dimension of what transpired in 2020. Not only that, but they will also likely fail to make the right choice in terms of aligning with the side of Good.
Instead, they will be more likely choose to actively affiliate with Evil, which has rolled out its own inverted version of "things coming to a point" - one that contains its own potential turning point centered around the birdemic.
In this version, the birdemic has served to lay bare the great evils of climate change, racism, and inequality once and for all. These evils are so great that they can only be addressed and, ultimately, solved by the machinations of a totalitarian, technocratic, one-world government that will doggedly work to elevate the dignity of all human beings and manifest a materialist heaven on earth.
But what about individuals who recognize and acknowledge the evil inherent in this inversion - who understand the above as part and parcel of the real "point." How can they ensure they make the right choices and align with the side of Good? And what will such an alignment hope to achieve?
At the purely individual level, an active choice to align with Good is an active choice for Truth, Beauty, and Goodness. It is also a conscious choice for salvation. It signals an awareness that much of the meaning of our mortal lives resides in believing in heaven after earth rather than the illusory promise of heaven on earth.
All of this certainly counts as a turning point in the lives of individuals. As such, each one is of infinite importance, but will these individual turning points add up to anything bigger? What about communities, societies, nations, and Christianity?
I am not currently an optimist when it comes to anything at the collective level, but mass recognition of "the point", were it to occur, would contain the potential for a larger turning point, one entailing a shift in human consciousness - the emergence of a new spiritual consciousness.
And what might this shift in consciousness comprise?
In his book Freedom and the Spirit, the Russian spiritual philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev describes the potential turning point in the following manner:
We are entering an epoch of new spirituality that will correspond to the new form of mysticism. It will no longer be possible to argue against a heightened spiritual and mystical life that human nature is sinful and that sin must first be overcome. A heightened spiritual and mystical life is the road to victory over sin. And the world is entering a catastrophic period of choice and division, when these will be required by all Christians, an uplifting and intensification of their inner lives.
The external, everyday, moderate Christian is breaking up. But eternal, inward, mystical Christianity is becoming stronger and better established. And within mysticism itself, a 'paraclete' type is beginning to predominate. The epoch of new spirituality in Christianity can only be an epoch of a great and hitherto unheard of manifestation of the Holy Spirit.
And what might this potential turning point bring about? In The Divine and The Human, Berdyaev states:
The new revelation is not at all a new religion, distinct from Christianity, but rather the fulfillment and completion of Christian revelation, bringing to it a true universality. This we do not have as yet. But we cannot simply wait for the revelation of the spirit. It depends upon man's creative activity as well. It is not to be understood as only a new revelation of God to man: it is also the revelation of man to God. This means it will be divine-human revelation. In the Spirit, the divisions and contradictions of the divine and the human will be overcome, while the distinction between them will be maintained. This will be the crowning of the mystical dialectic of the divine and the human.
Do I believe the kind of turning point Berdyaev describes may be at hand? That is difficult to say. But I do believe in the potential of it, and I believe this potential greatly depends on our recognition and awareness of "things reaching the point" in 2020.
December 31, 2020
The Dreaded "Year in Review" Post
I'm not a big fan of 'year in review' posts and have never published one, but writing a meaningful post on this last day of this most significant of years has proven to be beyond my powers.
Bearing this in mind, I offer instead my selection for "best" 2020 post, followed by the top five posts of the year in terms of views.
Thus, my choice for best 2020 post is:
An Idea Concerning God's Unresponsiveness
And in no particular order, the five most-viewed posts on my blog in 2020 were:
The Religion of Hatred
Listen All Y'All, It's a Sabotage
The Right Thing For The Wrong Reason
This Easter, Escaping Raskolnikov's Delirious Lenten Dreams Involves Coming Forth Like Lazarus
The Great Reset: The Prime Objective of the Successful Global Totalitarian Coup
Thanks to all who visited the blog this year - and special thanks to those who took the time to engage with the blog via comments.
See you in 2021.
Bearing this in mind, I offer instead my selection for "best" 2020 post, followed by the top five posts of the year in terms of views.
Thus, my choice for best 2020 post is:
An Idea Concerning God's Unresponsiveness
And in no particular order, the five most-viewed posts on my blog in 2020 were:
The Religion of Hatred
Listen All Y'All, It's a Sabotage
The Right Thing For The Wrong Reason
This Easter, Escaping Raskolnikov's Delirious Lenten Dreams Involves Coming Forth Like Lazarus
The Great Reset: The Prime Objective of the Successful Global Totalitarian Coup
Thanks to all who visited the blog this year - and special thanks to those who took the time to engage with the blog via comments.
See you in 2021.
December 30, 2020
The Transition From Lockdown to Lockout
In 2020 we have lived through, and are still living through, what the fine folks at the World Economic Forum refer to as the Great Lockdown. The great thing about the Great Lockdown is that is has essentially set the stage for the Great Reset, but I get the distinct sense that the successful implementation of that comprehensive agenda to reconfigure life, the universe, and everything will depend heavily on the success one more "great" initiative - the Great Lockout.
Though my notion of the Great Lockout is mostly conjecture at this point, evidence supporting the possibility of a transition from lockdown to lockout is popping up in various places around the world through the form of proposed digital passes. So, what is the Great Lockout and what might it look like?
Understanding that question rests on the understanding that lockdowns were primarily a form of social control rather than a means through which to protect people from a horrible plague. Implemented under the guise of protective health measures, lockdowns succeeded in confining (incarcerating) the masses (prisoners) to their homes (cells) in states of relative isolation (solitary confinement; that is, punishment via anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and psychosis) while grossly restricting access to the outside world.
This has been the state of affairs - at least intermittently - in most of the world for the better part of nine months now. It goes without saying that the vast majority of people - even those who completely support lockdowns - have developed what some wags have referred to as lockdown fatigue. More plainly, people are growing sick of lockdowns. History has shown that when people get sick of things, they tend to get restless and rebellious.
Of course our totalitarian overlords are perfectly aware of all of this, which is why they have periodically relieved the pressure by easing a restriction now and then. Though lockdowns are an authoritarian dream-come-true, the globalist tyrants currently oppressing nearly every aspect of our mortal lives know that a state of permanent lockdown is untenable. At the same time, they have clearly shown that they have no desire to yield an inch of the power and control they have achieved through lockdowns. This situation presents our totalitarian rulers with a bit of a dilemma. They know they must lift lockdowns at some point, but only appear willing to do so if the power and control they have seized can be maintained or, even better, increased.
And this is where my notion of the Great Lockout comes in. The big success of the Great Lockdown was its ability to "suspend" individuals and society in the name of health and safety. In this sense, lockdowns can be equated to a push factor. People were informed that the birdemic made the functioning of "normal" society too difficult and dangerous to allow, and that the best course of action was to suspend nearly everything and seek asylum within the refuge of one's own home until the danger passed.
The Great Lockdown has, to some degree, made refugees of us all. Though some are perfectly content to remain within the borders of their shelters, most want to return to their "homelands" - that is, to some semblance of the normal, functioning societies they were forced to flee. For its part, the Establishment frequently states that it also desires a return to "normal", but only if and when the health and welfare of every single person on the planet can be safeguarded and guaranteed.
If the Great Lockdown served to suspend society, the Great Lockout will become the proposed lifting of this suspension. Put another way, lockdowns were meant to push people out and away from a frozen society; lockouts will seek to thaw society and pull people back in. But this pull factor will come with conditions, and it is through these conditions that the Establishment will not only maintain its iron grip of control, but increase it.
At the present time it appears magical medical juice will be the linchpin that keeps the totalitarian wheel spinning. Yes, the world can be your oyster again, but only if you take the magical medical juice and adhere to all the complex and intrusive bureaucratic and surveillance mechanisms installed to support it. Do that you, and the Establishment will ensure you are "locked into" the System.
Don't want the magical medical juice? No problem, but refusal will guarantee you are "locked out" of the system. You can then proceed to live the isolated and solitary life of a clam.
Given a choice like that, how many people will choose to be locked in rather than locked out?
It does not take an ocean of imagination to realize how quickly and easily the Establishment could effectively lock individuals in or out of the System. It also does not take a great deal of perspicacity to notice that the preliminary groundwork for a lock-in/lockout system is already in place. Whether or not the Great Lockout will be fully implemented remains to be seen, but many developments in the world today point in that direction. Whatever the case, the Establishment wants to ensure the lock remains in place.
And what will our response - mine, yours - be to such developments?
Best to leave that for a future post.
Though my notion of the Great Lockout is mostly conjecture at this point, evidence supporting the possibility of a transition from lockdown to lockout is popping up in various places around the world through the form of proposed digital passes. So, what is the Great Lockout and what might it look like?
Understanding that question rests on the understanding that lockdowns were primarily a form of social control rather than a means through which to protect people from a horrible plague. Implemented under the guise of protective health measures, lockdowns succeeded in confining (incarcerating) the masses (prisoners) to their homes (cells) in states of relative isolation (solitary confinement; that is, punishment via anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, and psychosis) while grossly restricting access to the outside world.
This has been the state of affairs - at least intermittently - in most of the world for the better part of nine months now. It goes without saying that the vast majority of people - even those who completely support lockdowns - have developed what some wags have referred to as lockdown fatigue. More plainly, people are growing sick of lockdowns. History has shown that when people get sick of things, they tend to get restless and rebellious.
Of course our totalitarian overlords are perfectly aware of all of this, which is why they have periodically relieved the pressure by easing a restriction now and then. Though lockdowns are an authoritarian dream-come-true, the globalist tyrants currently oppressing nearly every aspect of our mortal lives know that a state of permanent lockdown is untenable. At the same time, they have clearly shown that they have no desire to yield an inch of the power and control they have achieved through lockdowns. This situation presents our totalitarian rulers with a bit of a dilemma. They know they must lift lockdowns at some point, but only appear willing to do so if the power and control they have seized can be maintained or, even better, increased.
And this is where my notion of the Great Lockout comes in. The big success of the Great Lockdown was its ability to "suspend" individuals and society in the name of health and safety. In this sense, lockdowns can be equated to a push factor. People were informed that the birdemic made the functioning of "normal" society too difficult and dangerous to allow, and that the best course of action was to suspend nearly everything and seek asylum within the refuge of one's own home until the danger passed.
The Great Lockdown has, to some degree, made refugees of us all. Though some are perfectly content to remain within the borders of their shelters, most want to return to their "homelands" - that is, to some semblance of the normal, functioning societies they were forced to flee. For its part, the Establishment frequently states that it also desires a return to "normal", but only if and when the health and welfare of every single person on the planet can be safeguarded and guaranteed.
If the Great Lockdown served to suspend society, the Great Lockout will become the proposed lifting of this suspension. Put another way, lockdowns were meant to push people out and away from a frozen society; lockouts will seek to thaw society and pull people back in. But this pull factor will come with conditions, and it is through these conditions that the Establishment will not only maintain its iron grip of control, but increase it.
At the present time it appears magical medical juice will be the linchpin that keeps the totalitarian wheel spinning. Yes, the world can be your oyster again, but only if you take the magical medical juice and adhere to all the complex and intrusive bureaucratic and surveillance mechanisms installed to support it. Do that you, and the Establishment will ensure you are "locked into" the System.
Don't want the magical medical juice? No problem, but refusal will guarantee you are "locked out" of the system. You can then proceed to live the isolated and solitary life of a clam.
Given a choice like that, how many people will choose to be locked in rather than locked out?
It does not take an ocean of imagination to realize how quickly and easily the Establishment could effectively lock individuals in or out of the System. It also does not take a great deal of perspicacity to notice that the preliminary groundwork for a lock-in/lockout system is already in place. Whether or not the Great Lockout will be fully implemented remains to be seen, but many developments in the world today point in that direction. Whatever the case, the Establishment wants to ensure the lock remains in place.
And what will our response - mine, yours - be to such developments?
Best to leave that for a future post.
December 29, 2020
Lost To The Birdemic
Lost to the birdemic.
Commenter Michelle used a phrase very similar to the one above in a response to my post from couple of days ago. It caught my eye immediately. Michelle had not employed the phrase to refer to anyone she had physically lost to the birdemic "crisis", but rather in reference to a close friend she had socially/spiritually lost to the fear and terror of the nearly year-long totalitarian birdemic campaign.
Lost to the birdemic. The expression made me pause and reflect for a moment. Limiting the loss of life has been the supposed motivation behind every birdemic measure our technocratic totalitarian overlords have implemented since spring.
Yet, this apparently noble goal to minimize the loss of human life hides within it a pretext - the overarching demonic goal of maximum soul damnation.
The apocalyptic loss of life to the birdemic the Establishment forecast to tyrannize the world into submission has not materialized (and likely never will). Unfortunately, the devastating loss of souls has likely surpassed the Father of Lies' wildest estimations.
And the campaign is nowhere near finished yet.
Commenter Michelle used a phrase very similar to the one above in a response to my post from couple of days ago. It caught my eye immediately. Michelle had not employed the phrase to refer to anyone she had physically lost to the birdemic "crisis", but rather in reference to a close friend she had socially/spiritually lost to the fear and terror of the nearly year-long totalitarian birdemic campaign.
Lost to the birdemic. The expression made me pause and reflect for a moment. Limiting the loss of life has been the supposed motivation behind every birdemic measure our technocratic totalitarian overlords have implemented since spring.
Yet, this apparently noble goal to minimize the loss of human life hides within it a pretext - the overarching demonic goal of maximum soul damnation.
The apocalyptic loss of life to the birdemic the Establishment forecast to tyrannize the world into submission has not materialized (and likely never will). Unfortunately, the devastating loss of souls has likely surpassed the Father of Lies' wildest estimations.
And the campaign is nowhere near finished yet.
