Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 17

Occult and Esoteric - what do they mean? How to approach them?

Occult means hidden, and often refers to hidden knowledge. Typically, this is knowledge that has been kept secret (e.g. by being sustained in a closed society) - or perhaps knowledge encoded, so that only those who know the code can discover it. 

But hidden knowledge may instead be clear and simple, not secret but instead "hidden in plain sight" - not encoded but simply ignored by the majority. 

Ignored perhaps because it is no interest, in some way unwelcome (opening a "can of worms" they'd rather not deal with); or indeed so clear and so simple, that most people regard it as necessarily wrong, because the knowledge strikes them as embarrassingly childish and simplistic. 

Esoteric means "for the few" - and mostly refers to groups to human societies. The term often refers to exclusive groups characterized by rigorous selection and prolonged training; and typically includes groups that claim to posses secret occult knowledge or the keys to understand encoded occult knowledge. 

But, analogously with the possible meanings of occult; esoteric groups "for the few" as such are not confined to the holders of occult knowledge; but characterize almost many types of functional human institution - such as some universities or colleges, and legal and medical professions - and these also implicitly claim to possess occult knowledge which is not understandable except by those who are trained, and have the "keys".

More significantly; there is the question of why some groups are "for the few" - which might be because only few regard the matter as real and important, or who have an active interest. An esoteric grouping may happen (or be attempted) because "the many" are indifferent or hostile to the subject. 

When the majority believe that which is false, and are evil-affiliated; then the possibility of allying with good is necessarily restricted to "the few" - or even to a single person.   

When it comes to evaluating occult knowledge or esoteric groups, it seems evident that the terms are descriptive rather than intrinsically evaluative. 

As usual; the valuation depends primarily on matters such as purposes and motivations, and whether these are on the side of God and creation - or against them. 

Whether the real and underlying motivation is for this-worldly power, wealth, sex, success and the like - or to manipulate others and nature? Or instead to seek potentially good-aligned goals such as self-knowledge, experiential understanding of reality, encouragement in pursuit of salvation etc.  

It seems to me that (as of 2025, in The West) most of the people who are explicitly involved in esoteric groups and engaged with occult knowledge are badly-motivated: they are on the wrong side of the spiritual war of this-world. 

But the same applies to most Christians; and to most Christians in any particular church or denominations: they are badly-motivated. That is most self-identified Christians are (overall) on the side that opposes God in the spiritual war. 

In this mixed world, by its very nature; all Men are sinners, all groups are corrupted and all knowledge is impure. 

It is not our task to attempt the impossible of redeeming, or even reforming, The World; but to navigate our way though our life by discernment and in accordance with our intuition and divine guidance; as we desire and commit to following Jesus Christ.

This may (and it seems likely, given the nature of the world, en masse, here and now) lead us at some point to some degree of engagement with explicit or implicitly occult knowledge and the esoteric: 

So be it.  

**

Note: The above was stimulated by re-reading Gareth Knight's biography of his great friend the Reverend Canon Fr. Anthony Duncan: Christ and Qabalah: or, The Mind in the Heart (2013).

One Heaven, many hells

There is one Heaven; the Second Creation that we inhabit by following Jesus Christ through resurrection to eternal life. 

But it is not a homogenous Heaven - almost the opposite. 

Heaven is "unified" by love - every "inhabitant" lives only by love. 

That means that Heaven contains as much variety as there are inhabitants. Every new person who ascends to Heaven adds to its variety. 

Some people - including Mormons - conceptualize Heaven as subdivided, or having "many mansions". 

That's not it; because it implies restrictions upon the saved, among the resurrected. 

And it is wrong insofar as it implies any homogeneity among the inhabitants of Heaven's supposed subdivisions. 

But there are many hells - in fact, they can't really be numbered. 

Hell is not a place, but wherever there is anyone (or any group) who oppose divine creation.

Only insofar as there is cooperation among those who oppose divine creation could there be said to be "one" hell; however; members of hell are unified only by their hatred of God; what they want is selfish - so there is endemic latent conflict within and between all hells. 

Hells are all in "this world"; all in the primary creation that you and I currently inhabit. 

Those "in Heaven" can go where they please, including this world, and any of the hells in it. 

Heaven is barred against all inhabitants of hell - unless they repent, and follow Jesus to resurrected eternal life. If they can't or won't repent and love, they will not experience Heaven. 

Only those who have made an eternal commitment to live only by love, can be "in Heaven". 

And that is one Heaven.

We can think of Heaven as like an ideal extended-family - every member is different in abilities and interests, and are at different stages of maturity; and indeed members each have personal preferences among the family. 

But just one family.   

Evidence depends on theory, theory depends on assumptions

If this is how it all began - then purpose, meaning and personal significance are merely trivial "optional extras"

Evidence depends on theory, theory depends on assumptions.

So; he who controls our fundamental assumptions concerning the nature of reality - controls everything that ultimately matters.

(Just a reformulation of an old thought.)

We live in a world of public discourse that pretends to be determined by evidence; but evidence is not determinative - and cannot be.  

Because what counts as evidence, and what an item of evidence means, is dependent on theory. 

And all theories depend on assumptions concerning the nature of reality. 

So that our assumptions concerning the nature of reality - i.e. metaphysics - determine all knowledge. 

And this is why totalitarian, materialist, atheism rules the world of public discourse, why all "evidence" seems to support it, and why there seems to be no evidence to support the spirit and the divine. 

It is why all "serious" theories acknowledged in public discourse lead in circles back to themselves; why "there is no alternative" and "resistance is futile".

It is why all discussion of purpose, meaning and personal significance seem arbitrary and feeble - and why hedonism, nihilism and despair are the pervasive moods of modernity...

Purpose, meaning, and the significance of the individual person are all excluded from the accepted and propagated picture of the nature of reality in this life and universe. 

For us; the ultimate assumptions of real-reality are of abstract impersonal particles, forces, processes, fields, energies, randomness... operating unknown and mechanically, algorithmically, in a world without consciousness, or life.   

These assumptions are built-into our public life, our pubic institutions; and from such ultimate metaphysical assumptions, any purpose, meaning, personal significance is arbitrary.  

Even for the self-identified religious; the purposeless, meaningless universe - indifferent to life and Men; is the real picture - much realer than that of God. 

Indeed God is regarded as having primarily created such a dead and futile world, without values: only later inserting some living beings, and finally humans. 

So, according to the mainstream and institutional reality; the purposeless, meaningless, impersonal world came first, and existed without our consciousness; by this we know which is most fundamental, which is most important - and is is not us.     

Thus the assumptions of our underlying metaphysical picture combine to rule-out the primacy and seriousness of  purpose, meaning, personal significance, and values in the universe and in our societies and individual lives. 

These are not regarded as fundamental, but merely "optional extras" - even for the religious. 

Public debate and discussions about evidence or theories relating to God, creation, good and evil etc. are all rendered necessarily trivial. 

Our motivations are poisoned at source. 

Those who controls our fundamental assumptions - control everything that ultimately matters.

This is one reason why the "alternative" internet makes no substantive difference; why those political animals who regard themselves as opposed to mainstream leftism make no difference; why even the most serious types of institutional religion make no difference.

Dig down; and they share the same deep assumptions as the globalist totalitarians - such that dissent is merely superficial, and ultimately irrelevant.

"Soft" totalitarianism in the Third Reich: or, How many Germans did it take to control three million Danes?

During WWII, the Third Reich invaded and occupied Denmark; and for the first few years (c. 1940 into 43) this was a classic example of what people nowadays call "soft" totalitarianism - meaning, totalitarianism imposed without use of violent coercion. 

Denmark had a population of about three million - so how many Germans do you think were needed to control this population?

The answer from military historian Rowland White's recent book (Mosquito: the extraordinary true story of the legendary RAF aircraft...) is... eighty-nine. That is 89. 

Averaging one German to administer more than 30,000 Danes.  

I found this very interesting; given that the Third Reich has (for obvious reasons) become a bye-word for the most purposively-aggressive and physical form of totalitarianism. 

Of course, the handful of Germans were backed by the threat of German military might and the rest of it; yet the numbers tell us that the imposition of totalitarian rule - even during a world war! - can be and was accomplished by "soft" methods...

Presumably some mixture of factors such as effective ideological propaganda, tacit support of the regime, and the calculations of fear and expediency in a situation where "there is no alternative" and "resistance is futile". 

The value of this insight is that most people doubt that we of The West inhabit a totalitarian system of governance, because we do not see the apparatus of violent physical coercion that we have been taught is a necessary feature of such politics. 

Yet, the example of Denmark proves that rigorous and efficient "soft" totalitarian rule is possible, and effective (at least, for a few years) by a tiny number of alien controllers; combined with the cooperation (or "collaboration") of sufficient natives of the national leadership class, and the tacit consent of the bulk of the remainder.

It also seems to prove that totalitarianism works best when it is "soft" - when it deploys soft-ideas rather than hard-violence. 

How many "outsiders" does it take to rule a UK of 60 million? 

Does it just scale up proportionately to... a couple of thousand aliens? Or are the economies of scale and fewer than 2K aliens are needed. Or do the difficulties multiply exponentially and maybe... tens of thousands are needed? 

Either way, it is salutary to realize that a thoroughly totalitarian system need not deploy large numbers of external-rulers, nor physical coercion, to be a very complete and effective mechanism of mass control. 

And, of course, this is exactly what we find, here and now - could we but recognize it.

Note: Rowland White's books tells a story of how this peaceful state of soft totalitarianism was deliberately subverted by British military intelligence by developing a sabotage network, that eventually grew to provoke violent German reprisals, and "hard" totalitarianism - which led to much greater Danish resistance; and the intended transfer of many more German personnel and resources to control Denmark. This effective intervention by another alien power - i.e. the UK - is also a demonstration of how a very few people who want to destabilize a system by guerrilla methods, can do so. The whole narrative seems to me one of elite external powers manipulating the Danish masses for their own ends.   

The magic of human institutions: Now absent, once always present; but never wholly sufficient

For most of recorded history until recently; many human institutions (organizations, formal groupings) were magical * - to some degree. 

The further back we go, the more magical they could be. The earlier in our life we go, the more likely that we would experience this magic. 

However, there were also not-magical groupings; and, no matter how magical the institution - there have always been those people who do not participate in it; being are either immune to that magic, or those who are susceptible but reject it. 

Furthermore, the innate magic of pre-adolescent childhood; means that - even now - groupings of such children often have a strongly magical ambience. 

The big difference across the generations relates to adult institutions - which used often to have a significant magical quality - but now are likely to be (almost entirely) soulless, dead, mechanical - and indeed purposively anti-magical: zealous in their active destruction of any such qualities by means of abstract and generic systems of bureaucracy and computerization. 

For instance; many educational institutions used to be strongly magical in their nature. This applied especially to small and localized institutions, or those with a mutually-selective character. 

Through my adult life I experienced educational institutions with considerable variations in the magical qualities; although I was also aware that most people were not consciously aware of such differences even when they spontaneously responded to them. Most people would speak against the reality and significance of such aspects; and would cheerfully erode or eliminate magical aspects whenever this seemed expedience, or sometimes from sheer spite. 

Looking back, I could see that this institutional magic had, overall, been both more pervasive and common, and stronger (at least potentially stronger) the further back one went. 

Enchantment was never complete. Human life was always and for everybody to some degree - marred by the "mundane" - this being the nature of our mortal state. 

The magic of institutions was therefore at its height (as I understand it) probably the major source of enchantment in human existence; wile at the same time the very nature of institutions meant that this magical quality was always both incomplete and contradicted.

 

And, through may adult life (from the 1980s) I could also see that this magic was continually ebbing and also being expunged from the educational institutions of which I knew. 

The difference across the decades was extreme: in my childhood and early adulthood the magical quality of (for instance) universities was (to me) palpable. By the time I retired from academia, magic was very completely destroyed. 

Perhaps especially when a soul-less, and indeed actively soul-destroying - institution, would attempt to cloak itself in the enchanted mantle of earlier generations. This would dishonestly be attempted using the mind-manipulating procedures of modern advertising and public relations; and would therefore fail to attain magic, but reduce it to ideology, false promises of hedonism, and covert-appeals to snobbery.  

While I devoted considerable energy to fighting this anti-magical trend, I now believe that a decline of that kind of spontaneous, largely unconscious, institutional magic was inevitable - due to the innate developments of human consciousness.

In the later twentieth century, adults reached an "adolescence" of consciousness, so that spontaneous and unconscious magic receded - and if we were to continue to live any kind of enchanted life in our institutions this would need explicitly to be acknowledged as good, and purposively pursued.  

In sum: as we approached the millennium, magic needed to become self-conscious; or else there would be no magic.      

We know by now which of these happened! So complete has become the disenchantment of institutions, that (it seems) most people deny that things ever were otherwise; and assume that all institutions were always as they are now: spiritually-dead, exploitatively manipulative, habitually dishonest...

But such retrospective denigration is projection of our evil onto others; as can be seen if historical sources are experienced sympathetically. 

From where we actually-are; I find it hard even to imagine how institutions can be re-enchanted; because there is neither recognition of the problem, nor will to solve it. 

Furthermore; I am pretty sure that institutional re-enchantment can only be only the basis of Jesus Christ - yet in a context where the churches are themselves very thoroughly disenchanted - including by assimilation into the ideological materialism of totalitarian bureaucracy. 

This means that the source of enchantment must primarily (i.e. as a first step) be sought outwith the Christian church institutions - and Christianity regenerated from that basis. 

From the spiritual place we now inhabit and the people we actually are; I cannot see any way that a Christianity rooted in institutional affiliation (to any kind of institution, no matter how idealized) can succeed in doing what needs to be done.

On the other side; the attempt to do without enchantment; to construct a religion that operates at the level of the mundane, rational, functional (a religion providing for "human needs") - this will surely fail; because it will inevitably assimilate to the existing mundane, pseudo-rational, quasi-functionality of that system of totalitarianism that characterizes our civilization.  

The only path ahead is the right path ahead. 

**

*Magic does not mean Good - since there is black magic (intended to manipulate people and creation), as well as white (in harmony with God and creation). But magic is, of itself, good; in the sense that it recognizes the reality of our participation in creation; and by magic we are aware of this participation. Whereas the exclusion or elimination of magic is intrinsically an evil because rooted in falsehood and the intent to cause spiritual harm.   

Bullied by Bullocks

Bullocks with attitude (Or maybe bulls? I can't tell.)

Bullocks are what we Brits call castrated male cattle, bred for beef. They may lack gonads, but they seem to have a good deal more testosterone than the females of the species.

I am not afraid of cattle as such, since I was raised in a dairy farming area; so I got used to repelling Frisians, when they were in my way. As a rule, a confident shout and waving the arms is easily adequate to disperse herds of cows. 

But bullocks are a different matter. They resist intimidation until one is almost on top of them, and even then glare at you, and only step back a couple of reluctant paces. After which they work together, and crowd around, with apparent intent to...

Well, I don't really know what bullocks are trying to do. I have never hung around to find out. 

They clearly want to surround - but to what purpose, exactly? 

They, after all, are herbivores; so presumably it isn't to devour; but maybe to stampede into pulp? 

So far, I have managed to get to a gate in time; unlike a friend of mine who was corralled by bullocks into a stream with steep banks in order to escape their attention. But as he stood shivering, up to his thighs in cold water; the evil beasts just continued to loom over him, refusing to go away. He was eventually compelled to wade half a mile downstream in search of a fenced-off field that would be safe. 

*

This is topical, because yesterday we were menaced by black bullocks, twice - when in Northumberland en route to the site of Stagshaw Bank Fair.

This once famous festival was founded in Anglo Saxon times, and for many years it was the largest fair in Britain; with people coming from all around the north of England and south of Scotland to sell livestock, have a wild time, and make an incredible mess. 

So that "like Stagshaw Fair" became a local term for anything in a state of chaos. The event was eventually closed down by the British government in the 1920s, after about a millennium of drunken disorder.

But now, like Shelley's Ozymandias, nothing much remains, except a bleak, tussocky wasteland, boundless and bare, stretching far away; enlivened only by some electrical pylons.

Not really worth the risk of death by hooves. 

   

Note: To the right of the pylon, you can see a whitish line - which is a shallow bog consisting of farmyard slurry (liquid manure mixed with urine), laced with diesel oil contamination. Our path consisted of large stone slabs, carefully laid a few inches under the surface of this poisonous morass (despite being an official public right-of-way). That was when I discovered that my waterproof walking boots had sprung several leaks.

Following Jesus - literally

As readers may know, I feel a need to understand Christianity so simply and clearly that it can be grasped as a whole, by a single act of thinking. 

I have previously explained what Jesus meant in the Fourth Gospel ("John") when he requires people to "follow" him; and I explained it in terms of the Good Shepherd leading his sheep from the front. 

I have also explained following in terms of us meeting Jesus post-mortally and being led by Him through the process of resurrection into Heaven.  

It now seems to me that Jesus might have meant  by "following", something even simpler and clearer because more literal.

We are enjoined to follow Jesus where he went. 

That is: if we want resurrected eternal life; we should follow Jesus to Heaven. 

That is: we should follow Jesus through the process of resurrection to get to that place or state of Heaven. 

But the main thing is to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

And we do that by wanting it. 

By wanting Heaven more than we want anything else, so that we will do... whatever is needful to get there; what is needful to achieve Heaven; and we will know what that is, when the time is right.

Following Jesus to Heaven is something we do after death, just as Jesus went to Heaven after his death.  

Here and now; what is required, is to be known in the context of having decided that we want to follow Jesus to Heaven. 

How we personally should live, is in expectation of following Jesus to Heaven.  

+++

*Note: "Following is Not therefore meant as instructions to follow a specific path or rules, nor modelling our life on Jesus's life, nor a matter of following any purported intermediary such as membership, words, rituals or symbols. In the past it was different since Men in those days were groupish by nature; and responded spontaneously in the right way to words, symbols, rituals. For us, here and now, we must follow Jesus specifically and personally - or, probably, we won't be following him at all.

The successful totalitarian global coup of 2020 has been breaking-up since - but world politics is still totalitarian

In 2020 those with the ability to perceive and learn, realized that we inhabited a totalitarian world: which means an evil world. 

In other words, our world is rooted in atheist, materialist, leftist assumptions; where all significant social institutions are interlinked and bureaucratically-subordinate to this ideology. 

This is why so many people have "politics" as their fundamental value; and why so many people behave as if everything is (at root) "politics". 

By "politics" they means the System of totalitarianism - "everything is politics" means that, bottom-line, everything in the public realm - discourse and behaviours, communications and actions - is part of this totalitarian system.

Since 2020, this unified world government has broken-up into two or more increasingly hostile factions; but the components are still totalitarian in their nature. 

This does not mean that all the totalitarian units are as bad as each other - they aren't, some (e.g. ours) are purposively worse than others. Some have hope of becoming better, more socially-Christian to be exact - while still ultimately totalitarian. Other factions are actively hostile to Christianity and its legacy. 

But all factions are bad in the way that totalitarianism is bad - which is a modern way (post 19th century): totalitarianism is only possible in a post-religious society, with highly developed and pervasive bureaucracy and mass media.  

What this means for religion is that all churches are part of the totalitarian system, therefore - insofar as churches are this-worldly institutions - churches are net atheist, materialist, leftist - and overall part-of-the-problem of institutional evil.

This implies that church-led "Christianity" will, overall and by net-effect, be totalitarian hence anti-Christian.

And so will church-rooted Christian people.    

Against this, and because of the nature of evil and its progression, there is an accelerating trend for the ubiquitous totalitarian societies strategically to self-destruct. 

The most evil parts of totalitarianism are those that are most pervasively and strategically orientated towards destruction in many forms - such as destroying nature ("the environment"), functionality (within and between social systems - i.e. destroying science, law, education, etc), agriculture, the health and lives of masses of people - and so on and so forth, right across the board. 

Destruction is not an explicit goal, however (except, presumably, at the power level above global totalitarianism); but instead totalitarian sub-groups are manipulated into mutual and internal destruction by their ideologies of opposition/ negation and value-inversion. 

The totalitarians are therefore induced by their ideological assumptions into incoherent sub-strategies, that accomplish the opposite of stated goals, and lead always to accelerated destruction. 

So, we find ourselves in a world where politics is everything, hence everything is politics; yet/ consequently politics is all evil - and political discourse is a clash between totalitarianisms.

It is extremely tempting to be drawn into politics, precisely because it is all-pervasive in functional discourse. This ubiquity makes it seem that politics (debate, analysis, choice, action etc) is fundamental and necessary.  

From inside The System anyone who refuses to share the assumption that "politics is primary and everything" is seen as shirking ultimate responsibility. 

Therefore we find, on the one hand, an expressed cynicism at politics; on the other hand - in practice - politics matters more to most people than anything else... 

Politics usually forms the basis of a person's world-view; and typically shapes all their other convictions and choices - including religious... 

Under totalitarianism, religion becomes primarily and mandatorily political - both in the mainstream and in dissenting groups.

Thus, subjectively; my life, my self, seem inescapably captured by The System - and the only way out seems to be political: a politics to end all politics, perhaps? 

My point is that we default to "political" discourse and convictions - under totalitarianism politics seems more important than anything, and more important than ever. 

But there is No Hope in this.

Spiritually, we must break out from the loop, which means we first need to disengage sufficiently to understand the nature of our situation: this understanding of our situation is the first and necessary step; and it is spiritually valuable in itself. 

What happens after understanding, is mainly a choice of affiliation; and when all the options in this world are evil-by-nature; then a Christian affiliation must be outwith this world.   

To me, this seems the only Good way to escape-from and subordinate the totalitarianism of "politics is everything". 

Corrupt the word associations: The best way to subvert Tolkien?

People often talk about how recent "adaptations" of JRR Tolkien's works and his world, seem to be attempting to divert or subvert his message into something qualitatively different; with devices such as Mary-Sue Girl-Bosses, nasty "hobbits", and sympathetic orcs. 

But probably a more potent subversion is less recognized: which is the use of Tolkien's names to label "tech companies" - corporations whose mission and activities are inversions of JRR Tolkien's personal values (and this applies whether it is good or evil names that are being deployed). 

In so far as such corporations achieve high visibility, this must have an effect of weakening and tainting, if not actually usurping, the nomenclature, when it is encountered in Tolkien's works.  

Is this just deranged fanboys cashing-in? Is the inevitable harm to JRRT an accident? Or maybe the corruption is intentional; because Tolkien is a threat to the corporate totalitarians? 

Well, make up your own mind. 

When it comes to phenomena like search engines and AI; we are being *strategically* manipulated - and this has major life-implications

What I find extremely important about things like search engines from the 1990s onward, social media from the mid 2000s, and AI currently; is that, from a high level, we are being manipulated strategically. 
By strategically; I mean over a timescale of many years. 
For this to be possible, the manipulation must be done by persons that have access to very large amounts of money. 
Money and other resources - including the ability to manipulate laws to permit - whatever they want to do, to reshape national/ multi-national policies, and to prevent competition.

For instance, the development of the best search engine/s was colossally funded and subsidized, for many years, by invisible (presumably military and intelligence) sources... Many years in which the technology cost a great deal of money, and made - no money at all. 
This is simply not possible without very long-term backing from very wealthy patrons. 
Then the unique status and power of this search engine was protected by laws and (presumably) other means - so that no superior competitor could emerge or was allowed. 
Regulations were shaped to allow exemption from all kinds of restrictions that applied to written material; and immunity to laws that had regulated publishers. 
Income without visible sources. Power without responsibility. 

And there is a closely analogous situation with respect to social media platforms; and with post-November 2022 "AI" systems. 
There was again colossal financial backing and investment for many years, from unknown sources, without visible or remotely commensurate sources of income adequate income. This transcends any "market". The consumers are not customers.  
With AI; laws have been changed (or tacitly side-lined) to allow industrial scale plagiarism with immunity from prosecution. The entire electricity generation system of the USA, and energy policy generally, has been re-shaped to accommodate AI. 
And all this must have been known and guaranteed up-front, in advance of implementation.  

So - someone, somewhere, with vast money resources that are not derived from customers; and having the power to make and break laws; is working across a timescale of more than a decade to provide these "tools" such as search engines, social media platforms and now AI. 
We don't know who these people are, we don't explicitly know what is their real motivation. 
But the motivation does not seem to be money; at least not primarily; because these technologies take unimaginably vast amounts of money to develop across long periods before there is any possibility of beginning to recoup expenses (and by then, there will be another, similarly vast project afoot).

At the very least, such giga-investors must be sure - i.e. totally confident - that they can reshape the laws, national strategies, and media coverage so as to ensure the success of whatever technologies may (or may not) eventually emerge. 
And this means that the investors in search engines/ social media/ AI; essentially Rule The World, already.   
My inference is that they indeed already rule the world, substantially - insofar as it can be ruled; and these technologies are (or were) therefore strategically intended to monitor and control the world...

But maybe now the investors are being hoodwinked, and there is a higher level of strategy than this - and that strategy is to destroy the world. 
**

H/T to a comment by NLR for triggering this post.