Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 14

Three kinds of magic in stories

When magic occurs in stories it has various flavours: here are three of them. 

One is the low magic of "sword and sorcery" stories, and indeed most stories that feature magic - in which magic functions as a technology of power. This ranges widely across spells, and conjurations, summoning of powerful beings, seeing the future, controlling others etc. 

But this is not a very "magical" use of magic - indeed it reduces the magical to the mundane. 

Indeed, such stories are often cynical, reductionist, intended to dis-enchant. 

There are also stories in which magical elements function to indicate a hidden world - the magic enables perception of what would otherwise be imperceptible or hidden: this is the "occult revealing" function of magic. 

Such magic may reveal a world of spirits behind the material world, that "the dead" are alive and can be communicated with, that there are invisible manifestations (such as auras), that telepathy is real - and such like. 

The general impression is that there is more to life than commonly acknowledged, and this can impart an enchanted atmosphere.

The third kind of magic is pure enchantment - and this is (pretty much) how the magic of elves is depicted in The Lord of the Rings. 

There is very little use of magic as a technology - although there is some (the Mirror of Galadriel; and elven swords, cloaks, and ropes for instance). There is also the occult trope, in the hobbits often comment that the world turns-out to contains much more and strange phenomena and entities than the commonplace experiences of the Shire would suggest.   

But the main use of elf magic is related to an atmosphere of enchantment; a different quality of attitude, experience, motivation among elves; a feeling that is both joyous and sad, supremely good and perilous - here-and-now and yet backward looking across vast expanses of time.

 As implied - these uses of magic have somewhat different narrative functions in stories, and presumably different intent. When magic is used as a technology, there may be an element of intending to induce wishful thinking in the reader; but on the whole the magic is just a narrative device, among many. 

When magic is used to indicate occult realities, this may have the intent of indirectly encouraging the reader to take the same attitude to his ordinary life - the story may be encouraging the reader to assume that behind the mundane world is another reality... if only a different attitude were adopted to perceiving it, or particular abilities were available.   

The purpose of pure enchantment in a story is - I take it - religious - in the sense of a whole-world view.

The magic of enchantment in a story carries - to some degree - the implication that "reality" - our life, nature - really is a more wonder-full and inspiring thing than we generally assume. 

Are you still in thrall to the dishonesty of Primary Institutional Wisdom?

Primary Institutional Wisdom is a belief which is part of our society, and has been for centuries - indeed probably for millennia. It is the assumption that authority lies with institutions and not with individual persons. 

At its most fundamental, it is the assumption that spiritual goodness is primarily to be found in that human institution The Church or Religion ("the" Church or Religion that we personally believe to have such authority) - and individual spiritual goodness is derivative from that Church or Religion. 

That is the default and thought-habit, and long has been - and it is something which is hard to escape. 

The alternative assumption is that ultimate authority, including spiritual goodness, is primarily to be found in an individual person. 

This means all institutions - all possible institutions - are secondary in authority and goodness...

And that institutional authority, truth, goodness etc. is primarily and ultimately (albeit not exclusively) derivative of the individuals from-which an institution is composed.    

I believe that ultimate authority - and therefore necessarily ultimate responsibility - resides in the individual person. 

And I believe it to be false to knowledge and experience, hence dishonest, to assert (and pretend to believe) that ultimate authority, truth, goodness etc is located in any institution.

That this dishonest falsehood is so common I therefore put down to wrong motivations - fear, laziness, shirking, and other sinful motivations that require to be acknowledged and repented.   

**

NOTE: I also believe that things have changed over recent human generations, and that in the past (the more anciently, the more this was the case) it was not possible mentally or spiritually to separate the individual from the group in the way that now seems almost unavoidable to many people. And that therefore (in the past) it did not make sense (i.e. it was not humanly comprehensible) to ask whether authority resided in the individual or the group. Now it does make sense, and therefore the question is honestly unavoidable, and demands an answer.  

All US Presidents are now Big Liars because they are all themselves A Total Lie

The US President is - and leaders of all Western-orbit nations are and long-have-been an intrinsic lie - a lie in-and-of themselves - consequently we observe that they are all untruthful all the time and about everything. 

It is several or many cycles since the US President has been anything more substantial than (to put it kindly) a puppet; more accurately a human autopen - when it comes to the issues regarded as important by those who hold the real material power of this world.  

If this wasn't obvious by the contrived election and four-year term of a dementia victim; then it is surely obvious now. 

The "President" has presided over two gratuitous war-acts of gross wickedness (and, for what little it's worth nowadays, treachery and illegality) - first against the Fire Nation the second against modern Zoroastria. Either (but especially the first) might well have, and I believe were intended to, precipitate all out world war.

And this outcome is very might a live and continued possibility. 

And it is clear either that the President foreknew and approved, and lied about this at the time; or did not know or approve beforehand, and then lied about that. 

And either way - the operations originated before the President, were conducted by other persons and institutions; and would very probably have happened whether or not Presidentially approved. 

Both of these supremely significant events were planned and executed on a timescale which spans US Presidents, and in collaboration with institutions of other "nations" -- and the planning, execution and decision to implement were very clearly indifferent to whoever might currently be acting the role of US President. 

So, for those who are actually making and executing these supremely significant plans - why bother with a President at all? 

Well, we can see the reason - in that the vast news and social media coverage and discourse is almost-exclusively about... the US President: what he has or has not said and done; what decision he may or may not make; whether he approves or not... and the rest of it.

(We have often seen the same puppet show focused on UK and EU "leaders" wrt each increment of the Western-derived anti-Fire Nation escalations over the past three years.)  

In this media circus; the US President plays a role analogous to the proxy-nations used by The West (= US = ultimately the demon-serving globalist-totalitarian Establishment) in warfare. 

I mean proxy-nations such as CHOAM or the corn-growing Western region of the Fire Nation. These nations have been armed, trained, equipped, and resourced to go to war against current enemies of the globalist totalitarians - to take the bulk of battle casualties, provide a focus for retaliation, and absorb most of the damage. 

And in process, often be destroyed as (even potential) nations. 

US Presidents, British PMs, EU Presidents and the like are in a closely analogous position. 

As proxy agents in the war of demonic evil against God and Creation, such pseudo-leaders may be rewarded lavishly in the short-term - but ultimately they are disposable tools; that will inevitably (later if not sooner) be disposed-of. 

So why do these pseudo-leaders make so much noise; why lie all the time and about everything? 

Why don't they just shut up? 

Well, firstly in order to serve as a focus. 

A focus for idealism, discourse, and dissent - just as the nation proxies and their "leaders" are admired and loathed, praised and criticized, sympathized-with and blamed - for doing... whatever it is that their totalitarians masters tell them to do.

We all keep our eyes on the puppets and their antics, seldom asking who is working them.  

More extremely, these leaders are like mass media commentators; whose job is to observe whatever happens, and cheer it or boo it according to editorial instructions. 

They have no control of what is happening, and indeed are often not even officially informed of what has happened - but they passionately desire to sustain the illusion that they are significant. 

So they lie. They pretend that they have personal power over the most significant events - when in reality they are victims of these events...

The most expert politicians are like surfers, riding the breakers of whatever is happening - but nobody with sense would suppose that the surfer actually makes the ways - whereas a majority are deluded that the US President is the ultimate wave-maker.  

Meanwhile; those with real power are willing to let Presidents act Presidential roles; and provide them with the needful pomp and circumstances; because the real-rulers put the Presidents in place to do exactly this. 

Sometimes a President knows explicitly that a puppet-role is what he does and must do; sometimes (apparently) a President convinces himself he is a real and significant origin of power. 

The inverted-beauty of the scheme is that it works either way!

Whether the President is a sincere fool, a conceited bloviator, or a self-aware and evil-embracing slimeball - doesn't matter to the effectiveness of the system. 

So long as people are looking at, talking-about, and treating seriously the cut-out cardboard-leader - then they aren't thinking about and recognizing the reality of a world so deluded that we never even ask who is making the major decisions - and what They really want, what Their motives really-are. 

Note added: These thoughts were crystallized by some of the analysis of Brian Berletic at the New Atlas vlog channel. BB's analysis is (I believe) correct at the supra-national geopolitical level - but he does not consider the ultimate spiritual war of this world; therefore his understanding of the ultimate motivations of geopolitical power is incorrect. 

Is the triumph of good inevitable?

Since the triumph of any specific person in this-world is obviously Not inevitable, "the triumph of good" is asserted for groups, not individuals... 

The assertion is that "my" tribe, nation, religion, ideology Will Win (in the end) is meant to compensate for the risk/ probability that I personally will not be around to see it.

The idea is that our "real" identity lies in the group, that we are primarily "members" of a greater and realer unity; and we ought therefore to think of ourselves as expendable servants to that group interest.

Bit is this true? Is it not, rather, primarily the case that each Christian is an unique child of God with his own relationship with the divine... His own destiny?

We Cannot believe that God operates at the level of tribes, nations etc - not least because here and now these are all corrupted, all on the side of evil, all aligned with totalitarianism.

But also we simply cannot - ie do not in fact - believe this as of 2025.

A supposed future triumph of "our" group is experienced to be of secondary relevance. We ask: Don't I personally matter to God, here and now?

The answer is yes, but Not in terms of optimizing our emotional state: God's ultimate priorities are eternal, not temporary and palliative. 

Since all things are ephemeral, and death is the terminus; it cannot be God's first priority to  make us as happy as possible now, or minimize our suffering. 

So; if not, then what? 

What matters most about each of us to God, is the eternal. God wants us to choose to follow Jesus to eternal resurrected life in Heaven ("salvation"), and our current situation needs to be related to that goal - otherwise it does not make sense.

Once we have accepted and embraced salvation, this provides the proper context from which we may spiritually-learn from our actual experiences...

This is what matters most to God, and we can choose to.make it matter most for ourselves.

So yes, the triumph of good is indeed inevitable, and that is our own personal good - not merely the good of some group. 

That good is inevitable insofar as we choose it: it must be chosen, and if chosen it will happen.

Because this good really is inevitable for us personally and without regard to other people and circumstances; it necessarily applies only to life after mortal death, and only for those who have chosen it.

Think about it.

Why does Christian Heaven makes modern people so scornful and angry?

Modern people, including most self-identified Christians, are usually scornful and often angry, on the subject of Heaven.

This is because modern people see the world through spectacles of the leftist and utilitarian ideology, which regards relief of suffering - here and now, in this mortal life - as the highest value. 

From such a perspective, Christianity is (or ought to be) about Helping People and "Making this world a better place".

When such modern people hear about the idea of a post-mortal Heaven for those who choose to follow Jesus -- they perceive this scheme to be a vile action of withholding immediate relief from those who are suffering, and making that relief conditional. 

They perceive a cruel God who chooses to allow the world to suffer; in order to blackmail Men with a promise of relief but only after death, and relief only on condition of subordination to a church.

That's why Christian talk of Heaven is regarded as not just unbelievable, but actually horrible: evidence of the evil of Christianity.

The perception is that even-if Heaven was real and true and attainable by the procedures described by some Christian church; this is evidence for a cruel and manipulative God who cares more for his own power, than He cares about the sufferings of his children. 

And this would be a just criticism, If God really was omnipotent in the way described by mainstream Christian theology...

Which is one big reason why the false and destructive (as well as un-Biblical) insistence upon God's omnipotence, needs to be abandoned by real Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

They don't do what is on the tin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**

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

Taking sides - power game or spiritual war?

 A flaw, a deficit, shared by all political commentators (else they would not be that) is a fundamental blind spot concerning the spiritual war of this world. 

Either they don't believe it is real; or they misunderstand and think the war is about good versus evil people (to believe which is actually to serve evil).

But the spiritual war is about people taking sides, either for or against God (and divine creation)... 

More exactly, good and evil relate to which side is being served. Many serve evil unwittingly... at least to a substantial degree.

(At some point the ultimate choice against God was made, but subsequently the details follow automatically, from expedience and habit).

When someone has taken the side of evil, is serving the agenda of evil - then his long term strategy will be rooted in spirit, demonic, supernatural goals.

These goals - over the long term - do Not serve personal, national, human interests. 

The strategy Uses people. Everyone loses.

The strategy of evil needs to be recognised, because it cannot be appeased or intimidated. It cannot be bargained with. 

This is why we Must recognize the phenomenon.

(It isn't rare. It is almost normal.)

When people, nations, organizations etc behave thus - we should recognize they serve the agenda of supernatural, demonic evil.

The right (and most effective) action can only come from a correct understanding, and this is very rare indeed.

The future cannot be foreseen

The future cannot be foreseen - that is, we cannot know the future in the sense of perceiving the future as if it has already-happened, and cannot be changed. I am solidly convinced of this now. 

Firstly on metaphysical grounds; in the sense of the nature of reality is such that the future is not predetermined. 

For many reasons. 

If reality consists in Beings, then beings are free by their nature (not as a gift of God). And in an ultimate sense, reality is indivisible, bits of foresight are not really viable - not least be the context of the bits of foresight is not knowable, so the future is not knowable. 

I have explored in some detail accounts of several people who claimed, and had some evidential grounds for, to foresee the future - and none of them could do so - in the sense that they were often wrong about matters about which they were confident. 

And I have myself experienced exactly this: I have been convinced about what would happen in the future, in a specific and timed way (although I didn't regard my sense of conviction as necessarily true - nonetheless I "felt sure"). And it did not happen. 

I take this to have been a learning experience. 

I conclude that the future just is not the kind of thing that can be foreseen, foreknown. 

We only know the future in the usual way of "probabilistic" prediction, informed guessing etc.; based on the nature and motivations of things (i.e. the nature of Beings), extrapolation, understanding of causality and the like. 

 

Why Right Men are wrong - or, Learning from experience is more important than making the right decisions

I have often thought about the Christian reason for continuing living - what it is that we live for - given that Heaven is on the other side of death. 

I conclude that there is no compelling reason for living in many religious or for mainstream materialistic atheism (which is why so many people are so keen to die by "assisted suicide"). 

For Christians it is two assumptions that make the experiences of this mortal life valuable: 

Firstly, faith in a loving creator God - who would not sustain us alive without good reason;

Secondly, the prospect of resurrected eternal life - which means that we shall personally carry through to the after-life, whatever valuable things we have learned in mortal life. 

In sum: salvation is the aim of this mortal life; and spiritual learning is its meaning. 

One consequence is that:

It is more important for us to learn the spiritual lessons of our life-experiences than it is to make the right decisions in life. 

This is fortunate (!) because we all make wrong decisions - and very frequently; and this is not going to stop.

In an ultimate sense, there is not much virtue in making the right choices in life! There are many possible reasons for making right choices (e.g. heredity, family, external pressures etc) that do not reflect personal virtue.

And, on the flip side, we can see that people who boast about their own right-choices, and who thereby claim special merit (and there are many such online), are among the most odious of pseudo-Christian hypocrites and Pharisees! 

Such people are primarily concerned to assert that they are always right about everything; and this prevents them learning the spiritual lessons of mortal life. 

They are "Right Men" (even if a woman). 

People who take pride in having made the right choices are therefore sometimes people who are more concerned about being right (and bragging about it) than learning from experience - indeed, their attitude of not-making-mistakes means that they cannot ever learn*. 

So why are Right Men sustained alive by God? 

I think because God hopes that, before they die, they will set aside their compulsion to asserted themselves as right; and will discover that repentance is ultimately and spiritually more important than "good behaviour"...

Because, after all, even the best of good human behaviour is no more than relative; and the rightest of Right Men is inevitably wrong about many things, for much of the time. 

*This also applies to the Litmus Tests. What is vital about the Birdemic, for example, is Not that we got it right first time, and immediately understood it to be a fake rationale for totalitarian evil - but rather that we learned from the experience. That we came to recognize from our personal experiences (e.g.) the mass manipulations, gross and systemic lying, incoherence of policy that served an agenda of surveillance and control, strategic misrepresentation and felt encouragements to sin... It is the failure to learn-from, and repent, personal actual experience that has been so damaging; and much more so that any initial failure to discern rightly.  

1.22 million page views in a week? I don't think so...

One Million pageviews...

The Page Views reported for this blog (by Blogger) have been going crazy over the past few days - officially 400,000 yesterday - the most ever; and 1.22 million in just one week. 

Of course, only a very few of these are human beings (maybe one to three thousand a day?); but I just mention this to demonstrate how utterly worthless are these blog metrics in an era of "AI".