Francis Berger's Blog, page 25

Garden Pics Because You Asked For Them

Reader Lucas is a bit incredulous about my claims of a relatively weed-free garden and suggested I post some photos as proof.

Note: The current scarcity of weeds is no guarantee of future weed scarcity! Tomato plants in the foreground; lettuce, swiss chard, peppers, and onions in the background. Sweet potatoes, corn, squash, and zucchini in the far back. There are a few weeds among the snap peas and onions. I'll get those out tomorrow. Last year, you could barely see the onions through the weeds.

Brace Yourselves - I Excel at Growing Vegetables

Long-time readers of this blog will remember that I excelled at growing weeds in my first year of serious gardening. A few years later, I joyously reported that I excelled at growing fewer weeds.

​Well, this year -- for the first time -- I am excelling at growing vegetables rather than weeds.

After years of arduous experimentation and work, I have finally mastered the art of managing a relatively weed-free garden.

Yes, the occasional weed does still sprout up here and there but I exterminate these rebellious intruders with extreme prejudice well before they foment an uprising culminating in a full-blown revolution and takeover.

I've learned that it's war all the time when it comes to weeds. There is no possibility of any mutually beneficial relationship. They do not negotiate and perpetually reject all notions of peaceful coexistence.

They respond to one thing and one thing only -- violence, primarily via the cold steel edge of a hoe or the sharp tips of a handheld weed puller. If that doesn't get them, then my bare hands inevitably do. 

Gardening as peaceful and relaxing? Maybe, but only after the full-scale land invasion of your territory has been repelled.  

Still My Favorite Meme Video

This is an old meme vid, but it remains my favorite for all the right reasons. Everything in the vid is so "perfect", that one suspects it may have been staged -- but it was not.

​Love the message on the big guy's sweater, to say nothing of the expression on his face. 

To See It Is Not Seeing It

I have recently returned from a short trip to Florence and Bologna, where I spent considerable time in art galleries and museums I have always wanted to visit, the world-renowned Uffizi Gallery and the Galleria Accademia among them.

At the Uffizi, I had the privilege of viewing many iconic paintings including Botticelli’s The Birth of Venus, DaVinci’s The Annunciation, Gentileschi’s Judith Beheading Holofernes, Caravaggio’s Sacrifice of Isaac, and countless others.

Although it was immensely pleasing to see these works up close and in person (assuming that the works on display are genuine and not replicas), I could not shake the feeling that I had not really “seen” the paintings. If anything, I had merely looked at them. Yet, that is all the world’s most notable art galleries offer -- the chance to look with very little space for study or contemplation.

If I stood in one place for too long, I inevitably ended up in someone’s way or getting gently pushed along with the current of the crowds that flow through the space like meandering rivers. Either that or my thoughts started tugging me toward the next must-see painting in the adjacent room while my eyes were still fixated on the must-see painting before me.

And then there is the matter of masterpiece overload or drowning in a veritable art deluge. So many paintings in one place at one time are simply too much for my mind, heart, and spirit to assimilate.
​
Considering the above, I now regard visits to art galleries as nothing more than opportunities to “see” great works — the chance to acknowledge that you “have been there and seen that.” The seeing part comes much later for me, usually at my desk in the familiar comfort of my study. 

Note added: The one exception for me was Michelangelo's David in the Galleria Accademia, which is exhibited so masterfully that it is difficult to imagine "seeing it" anywhere else (even though it was originally supposed to be on the roofline of a cathedral)! 

Short Break

I'm going abroad for a few days and will have limited/no computer access during that time.

​Regular blogging will resume on Sunday. 

The Piggery Is Biggery

One of the last remaining renovation projects around my house is converting the 4X12 meter brick building the former owner used to house and rear pigs. In all honesty, I don’t know what to call the building. Is it a pigsty? Or a hog house? Or a pig barn? Is it big enough to be called a piggery? I prefer pigsty because it derives from the Proto-Germanic stija, meaning hovel, which is an apt description of the building’s current state. 

Whatever the term, the building is an unbearable eyesore and has been ever since I bought the house, much like the henhouse had been before I renovated it. Although I did obtain hens for the henhouse, I have no plans to rear pigs in the pigsty.

It’s a shame I can’t pack the building into a box and ship it to Adam Piggott, who would probably appreciate the efficiency and functionality of the building despite its somewhat dilapidated state.

In any case, the time to finally fix it up has arrived, and let me tell you, I’ll have my work cut out for me. 

I will need to replace the roof, raise the back wall, tear down the interior pens, feeders, and enclosures — all made of brick and/or concrete — pour a new floor, demolish parts of the exterior walls, install new doors/windows, replace the electrical wiring, put up new lighting, and so forth. In short, this is a big project. Three times as big as the brick shed renovation I completed a few years ago. 

I plan to use part of the building as a garage and the rest as storage space, but my son has been badgering me to turn some of it into an at-home “kickboxing gym” (don’t ask).

I hope to start the project by mid-June, immediately after I finish the garden tool and equipment shed I have yet to start. Although I pegged the completion for mid-July, I have a sinking feeling that this pigsty conversion will bleed freely into August, maybe even September.

​We’ll see. 

It's Living Dangerously, No Matter Which Way You Go

​ I believe the underlying essence of Christianity involves individuals freely aligning themselves with Christ and God’s creative purposes through their personal spiritual freedom guided by love. At its core, Christianity is a religion of individual choice and discernment, one that cannot be coerced or imposed by external forces. 

Dr. Charlton has an insightful post up today about the ultimate purpose and meaning of Christianity at the individual level. I highly recommend it. I not only sympathize with what Dr. Charlton has expressed in that post but like him, regard salvation and theosis as the purpose and meaning of Christianity.

Traditionally, individuals aligned themselves with Christ and God’s creative purposes via churches. How uncoerced and free such choices were throughout history is debatable. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the choice to align themselves with the Divine was indeed the free choice of every individual Christian, and even when it was not, the consciousness of most past Christians rarely rebelled against the religion into which they were born. 

Aligning oneself with a church today — or leaving a church for another or abandoning Christianity altogether — is entirely a free, individual choice. Christians choose a church for many reasons, but one hopes the choice includes the purpose of salvation. (I have intentionally sidestepped theosis because, except for Orthodox tradition in the East, very few Christian traditions include or emphasize theosis as a “meaning” of spiritual life within Christianity.) 

Because Christians "just do" freely choose their churches, it is assumable that they are motivated to choose a church that offers what they perceive to be their best avenue to salvation.

For some Christians, this might be an uber-liberal church that is practically indistinguishable from the agenda of the external secular world. For others, it might be an ultra-conservative church that adheres to rigid, established doctrine and dogma. For others, the choice may involve a series of choices culminating in abandoning one tradition in favor of converting to another. 

Determining which path to salvation is safe, or at the very least, safer than the others, becomes challenging within such an environment, particularly when virtually all Christian churches have revealed themselves to be severely or terminally compromised, corrupted, and co-opted institutions. 

All the same, most Christians choose to align themselves with some church or other because they cannot conceive of Christianity or the path to salvation as anything but churches and other external factors. In this sense, the chosen church or tradition becomes the “safe” choice because it includes a path to salvation. 

Of course, not all Christians choose to align themselves with churches. Some choose instead to become solitary Christians who focus exclusively on interpreting the Bible or pursue so-called mystical paths. 

Church Christians tend to view such unaffiliated Christians as, at best, oddballs and, at worst, heretics or Gnostics that have either veered out of the “true” faith altogether or are engaged in needlessly dangerous and risky spiritual journeys that are more likely to lead further away from salvation than they are to lead the pursuers toward it. Fittingly enough, solitary Christians believe the same thing about church-affiliated Christians. 

There is no “safe” path to salvation today, neither within nor out of churches!

The conventional church-centered paths to salvation are just as fraught with peril as unconventional non-church paths may be, perhaps even more so! Moreover, no Christian tradition has revealed the full potential of theosis, entailing that individuals must reveal this full potential outside of church walls.  

The current state of human consciousness and the development of Christianity leads me to believe that the future of Christianity lies almost exclusively in self-discovered, personal revelations rather than established doctrines and traditions -- leading to higher spiritual achievements and to what thinkers like Berdyaev describe as “a new orientation in human consciousness.”

I am not implying that all Christians must take such a path. On the contrary, I accept that most contemporary Christians reject such a path outright, mostly because they deem it heretical and dangerous.

I, on the other hand, have embarked on such a path because I believe conventional, everyday Christianity has stagnated and dead-ended, which, ironically enough, makes it just as dangerous as any unconventional, individually chosen Christian quest or journey. 

All paths to purpose and meaning are fraught with danger and risk. I believe the danger and risks on the individual path are of a more positive sort, the sort that offer the potential reward of further development and new revelation, but I do not intend to force that belief on any other Christian. 

There simply is no safe way to be a Christian in today’s world! 

​We should all acknowledge that. At the very least, it would be a start.  

Sacred Stockholm Syndrome

The most bizarre twist of logic that I have encountered regarding the churches’ willingness and enthusiasm to not only comply with but actively enforce the demonic measures implemented during the birdemic in 2020/21 is the insistence that any ongoing criticism of the churches’ actions during that time or interest in the continuing spiritual ramifications of said action amount to little more than festering and resentful assaults whose primary motivations lie in subverting and weakening the churches. 

This strikes me as a strange and relatively new form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which individuals continue to hold nothing but positive feelings about institutions that abused them, dehumanized them — and in the case of churches specifically — denied them the services and processes essential to their faith. 

Unlike conventional Stockholm Syndrome victims — who errantly identify and sympathize with the agenda of human abusers who hold them hostage — church Stockholm Syndrome victims somehow convinced themselves that their beloved institutions were right in their actions or also somehow victims — that the abuse and dehumanization the churches liberally inflicted upon its congregations — to say nothing of the utter abandonment of the spiritual and religious principles the churches proclaim to hold, preach, supposedly defend —had nothing at all to do with the churches themselves; that the churches are somehow absolved of all responsibility for their actions because in the end, the institutions are "good" or "Divine."
 
This goes far beyond the birdemic and can easily be applied to other issues the churches openly or clandestinely support, such as mass migration, gay marriage, or secular altruism. Church followers are prone to treat criticisms of such church agenda items as “malevolent assaults against the church,” even when they — the followers — agree with the criticisms. 

Of course, for many (most?) churchgoers, the institution itself is an incorporation of the Divine. As such, it is sacred and transcends the actions of its leaders and priests, and retains aspects that are simply beyond the reach of human knowledge and criticism.

I posit that if church leaders and churchgoers believed that, I mean, really believed that , they would not have behaved in the way they had back in 2020/21, regardless of how fallen or imperfect they, as human beings, happen to be. 

Evidence of manipulative and disingenuous tactics continued after the churches reopened. Instead of acknowledging any wrongdoing, most church leaders opted instead to shift the blame and responsibility of the closures onto their congregations by gaslighting them and guilt-tripping back into attending what were ultimately revealed to be “inessential” services. They also continued to convince churchgoers that any criticisms of the churches’ actions must be interpreted as attacks against the churches themselves.

I guess you could call this Sacred Stockholm Syndrome or something to that effect.

Note added: I acknowledge that the above does not apply to all churches/members; however, it does apply to most, which makes me sincerely wonder just what the most vociferous defenders of the churches' actions during the birdemic are really defending.

I also recognize that some readers will accuse me of being obsessive about this issue, but obsession has nothing to do with it. The spiritual ramifications of 2020/2021 are ongoing and still spreading despite "appearances" to the contrary.    

Note added: The idea the churches actively participated in a direct assault on themselves and the religion they purport to represent and serve rarely occurs in the minds of true believers. That the assault extended to the Divine, even less so. 

A Co-opted Church Is Not Forced to Be Ahriman; It Wants to Be Ahriman

To return to an excellent observation JM made the other day in a comment over on the Orthosphere: 

I’d make a distinction between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals since a co-opted institution has necessarily sold its soul. An individual can surrender control over the operations of his body while retaining possession of his soul, but a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body. A church that serves Leviathan is just a fully-owned subsidiary of Leviathan. Unlike the slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does.

The distinction JM makes between co-opted institutions and enslaved individuals is vital in this time and place for the simple reason that virtually all institutions in the West have been co-opted into the overarching agenda of evil. Unfortunately, most individuals are also thus co-opted, or as JM puts it, enslaved. 

One can argue over the degree of this enslavement as it pertains to certain individuals, but there is no denying that all individuals depend on the System to a greater or lesser extent. Some individuals can maintain greater control over the physical operations of their bodies and surrender less of it to the System than other individuals can. 

Though higher levels of control over the physical operations of bodies may be good for individuals, it is by no means a deciding factor when it comes to being on the side of God and Creation. Being physically free within the System is no guarantee of good.

On the contrary, individuals may decide to utilize that physical control for spurious purposes or advance the evil agenda as free agents with little regard for retaining possession of their souls. Physical freedom is no guarantee of spiritual freedom.

On the flip side, individuals can be entirely enslaved to the System physically yet still retain possession of their souls. Put another way, individuals can remain spiritually free even when they are physically enslaved. They can separate what they think, assume, will, and believe from what they are forced to do.

Prof. Smith astutely points out that such dynamics do not and cannot apply to institutions. An institution that is physically co-opted has sold its soul. And once an institution has sold its soul, it stands practically no chance of buying it back. 

The individuals who remain within the Ahrimanic institution can retain their spiritual freedom, but only if they recognize that the institution has indeed been co-opted. Although the individuals within co-opted institutions may retain their spiritual freedom, they are, in essence, as physically enslaved as the institution itself. 

The spiritual freedom of individuals within co-opted institutions may help and serve other individuals in direct, concrete relationships but this does not translate into the physical operations of the institutions because such institutions no longer possess spiritual avenues or qualities receptive to such spiritual input.  

At the same time, individuals who retain their spiritual freedom within an Ahrimanic institution should not delude themselves into thinking that they can use their spiritual freedom to “liberate” the co-opted institution because there is nothing spiritual within the institution's body left to liberate.

As Dr. Smith notes, a co-opted institution is nothing more than the operations of its body, and if the body is controlled by Ahriman, then it has immunized itself against spiritual freedom. Not only that, but it has calibrated its immune system to fight against or eliminate any traces of spirit or soul within its body.

When an institution “sells its soul,” it becomes Ahriman and can be nothing more than Ahriman, which is particularly troubling when it comes to co-opted churches. 

Once a church surrenders its body entirely to the service of Ahriman, it actively seeks to make the body incompatible with the spirit or soul it formerly housed. This applies to the spiritual endeavors of the individuals in the co-opted church and any potential operations of the Holy Spirit.

To rephrase Dr. Smith’s observation a bit: A church that serves the System is just a fully-owned subsidiary of the System. Unlike the individual slave, it cannot separate what it wills from what it does. 

Put another way, a church that serves Ahriman is just an extension of Ahriman. To believe otherwise would be to believe that the Holy Spirit can be co-opted into being Ahriman while remaining the Holy Spirit. 

A co-opted church is not forced to be Ahriman; it is Ahriman because it wants to be and just is Ahriman. It is Ahriman because it can be nothing other than Ahriman. 

This raises the question of why individuals might choose to stay in a church that can be nothing more than Ahriman. I suppose an obvious answer might reside in metaphysical confusion; that is, confusing Ahrimanic machinations with Divine operations, leading to the vehement insistence that Divine operations require Ahrimanic machinations to operate.

On the more positive side, voluntarily remaining within an Ahrimanic church may still offer opportunities to form concrete relationships with other individuals provided the relationships are based on spiritual freedom rather than on the bodily operations of the Ahrimanic church, but this is becoming increasingly difficult because most individuals within co-opted churches identify exclusively with the church’s bodily operations.
​
I don’t know. All I can say is that the reasons for choosing to remain affiliated with a co-opted church continue to dwindle, which is as it should be in this time and place, all things considered.  

The Turdemics of Birdemicry, Cries Wood

Perhaps not all progress is bad. Anyone who unironically says “Birdemic” goes in the basket of deplorables.

Thus opines the Catholic blogger who goes by the name Wood.

I am not sure what the criteria for the dismissive declaration above are. It seems to have something to do with being a retarded heretic. Wood has confidently assured me that I am one of those retarded heretics. 

In retrospect, I should have resisted the temptation to wander into the comments section on Wood's turf on the topic of the birdemic, and I confess that I was not on my best behavior during our -- ahem -- meaningful exchange, but declarations like the one above press at the boundaries of my charity.

Don't get me wrong, Wood seems like a good guy and a committed -- dare I say -- zealous Catholic. If you relish the thought of having a blogger smugly inform you that his Catholic beliefs and only his Catholic beliefs pass muster when it comes to life, the universe, and everything and that everyone else is dead wrong, then Wood is your man.

If you enjoy bloggers who liberally and generously apply labels like heretic, gnostic, and retard to any other Christian who does not celebrate or conform to their assumptions, then Wood is definitely the blogger for you.  

As for me, I think I'm done talking to Christians about the birdemic. Most appear to have made their choices. And for better or for worse, they are adamantly sticking to them.  

All I can say is this -- to fail the birdemic litmus test is evidence of self-subordination to some aspect of the overarching, dominant, external agenda of evil. Can you guess where Wood's self-subordination lies?

By the way, Wood calls his blog  Wood Faileth .

​Perfect.

I could not think of a more apt name if I tried. Unless of course, it was something like Wood Faileth Epically. 


Note added: Posts like this bring me no joy, but the level of vitriolic absurdity some Christians consistently display needs to be exposed and challenged from time to time.