Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 34

Captain Hastings on Jazzy Flute

Hugh Fraser, the actor who so definitively portrays Captain Hastings in David Suchet's ITV Poirot, and is a superb narrator for many Agatha Christie audiobooks; was a musician in younger days, and played jazzy flute - and guitar (below) - on the theme tune of TV's Rainbow programme, for pre-school kids in the 1970s. 

Rainbow is probably most remembered for the legendary, "naughty" and boastful, character of Zippy. 

(Note: Zippy is the one above, with the orange head... and zippable mouth. 

Zippy was the instigator of most of the trouble that led to the plotlines (his abrasive character being refreshing and necessary, given how soppy and insipid were his co-stars); and he had an distinctive throaty and whining voice - somewhat like a deeper-toned, and English, version of Kermit. 

Miles Mathis's "credo": On Jesus and Fear

Miles Mathis has written his "credo" - a long, somewhat sprawling, but honest and probing examination of his guiding principles and assumptions. 

Most interestingly, to me, this focuses on the nature of Jesus - especially in relation to an overarching theme that Mankind has been manipulated by Fear primarily, for many centuries and continuing. 

(This is something I have also become convinced of - including that fear should be known as a sin.)  

The essay also describes how, despite Jesus's teaching and example to the contrary; the Christian churches have all too often been co-opted as agents of this evil agenda.  

I have written about Mathis before, on a couple of occasions, and my mixed feelings concerning his writings. 

But when I say "mixed", I mean that there is a significant amount of very good stuff in his writings, as well as plenty that I regard as wrong. The test being that I keep returning to read his articles. 

And his personality, too, seems a mixture of admirable traits, with other attributes I find off-putting. But the strengths are more important.   

In this latest essay, I found a good deal to appreciate. It strikes me as an exceptionally honest and self-revelatory piece of writing; and such writings are rare, and always of considerable interest to me. 

Because such writing is well-motivated, his  particular current conclusions are less important to me than than a particular revelation of the process of an individual person earnestly trying to sort-out his understanding of the basic human condition. 

Caveat: MM's interpretation of Jesus, Jesus's example, and Jesus's core teaching; misses-out the single most important fact - i.e. that Jesus claimed to offer resurrected eternal Heavenly life to those who followed him. 

I think this is because (unlike me) Mathis is not interested by resurrection and everlasting life in Heaven, apparently because he is one of those (apparently rare) people who regard this mortal life as ultimately sufficient... He is satisfied by his life and by life in general; as it has been and is. 

Of course this overall satisfaction may, or may not, survive to the end and into post-mortal existence - but it seems clear that as of now, MM has no desire for a qualitatively different way of being. 

Consequently, Mathis genuinely (it seems) wants nothing more or other than to have more of the same-kind-of-thing, recurrently, forever - i.e. a continuation of the cycles of reincarnation, not resurrection. 

MM himself wants repeated mortal lives, not eternal Heavenly life. 

Accepting this difference of desire and motivation as real and valid; Mathis has some excellent (and clearly heartfelt) comments to make about how Men must strive to overcome fear - or else be manipulated and tormented by the powers of strategic evil...

Powers that he here calls the Phoenicians (and which I would regard as Satan and the demons, and their servants among Men).  

It is, of course, necessary to "read the whole thing" to appreciate its qualities - even if some parts of the essay are at a lower level, this is a necessary part of any honest exploration. 

But here are a couple of excerpts, that may whet your appetite: 

**

What are people most afraid of? Death, torture, loss. 

Well, of course Jesus and the other prophetstaught there is no death, since your spirit lives on. 

Like matter, spirit cannot be destroyed. It simplychanges forms. 

The Modern definition of death as a stark and final end was invented by thePhoenicians, and it was invented on purpose to scare you and control you via that fear. Jesus wasamong the first to counter that definition, reminding you we have no evidence for that and a lot ofevidence against it. 

Tribal and pre-Phoenician peoples never believed that, and it wasn't because theywere ignorant savages. It was because, given everything we knew then and everything we have sincelearned, the default assumption was for continuance, not a final end.

*

Same for torture, which Hollywood shoves down your throat year after year to keep fear high. Abouthalf the movies now released have an nearly unwatchable torture scene. 

One problem: in reality,torture isn't very successful, due to a little thing called shock. The body can only take so much pain orstress before it goes into shock. 

Shock is another gift of Nature, and you can understand it most easilyby again looking at animals. A zebra in the jaws of a lion almost immediately goes into shock. 

What isshock? It is the disassociation of the animal from the pain. The mind separates from the body, so thepain never makes it to the brain. It is sort of like a dream state. 

So in real life (not Hollywood), tortureis generally more stressful for the torturer than the tortured. The torturer has to stand there and watchthe proceedings, while the tortured has drifted into a dream state and doesn't even feel it. 

When youwatch a torture scene in a movie, it is far more stressful for you, the viewer, than it would be for thevictim, because you aren't in shock. So if you think about it that way, many Hollywood movies are aform of successful, low-grade torture of the audience. And you are so messed up from a life of that,you pay for more of your own torture. I suggest you stop doing it.

*

The Phoenicians learned a lot from Jesus. . . namely how to most efficiently prevent people fromdeveloping that character. They could see that character was dependent upon being fearless, and thereverse, so job one for them became instilling fear of death and loss, and inverting everything Jesustaught. 

Some of that they did by rewriting and bastardizing scripture directly, but most of it was doneover the centuries by infiltration. Within a few decades or centuries they had infiltrated the Church,and in this position they didn't need to rewrite scripture. They could achieve the same thing bystressing some things and downplaying others. 

They sold Jesus as the Prince of Peace to further pacifythe masses, while importing a hell of tortures into the afterlife, to make sure the fear remained. 

Jesuswas trying to dissipate the false fear of this life, but the Phoenicians brilliantly transported that tortureinto the after-death, making it almost universal. In that way, even death was no escape from thePhoenician gaslighting: they could frighten you retro-actively, from beyond the grave. 

Overnight,Jesus' good news or glad tidings had been flipped into an infinite future of dread and punishment, onethat many Christians still believe in. The fear hadn't been mitigated, it had been magnified a thousandtimes, while seeming to keep Christianity. 

Surely the greatest reversal in history.

I am Not a relativist about Christianity - Here's an explanation why

I have recently been having some discussions in the comment sections at Derek L Ramsey's blog, initially in relation to The Trinity (as conceptualized in mainstream Christianity); interactions that have been helpful to me - and apparently to him as well. 
In particular, I responded to his question about whether my brand of Romantic Christianity would become relativistic in practice, if it were to become common. He found my answer helpful in clarifying my beliefs - so I reprint it here, edited somewhat:

Question from DLR: 
It isn’t that you hold an explicitly relativist philosophy—you obviously don’t—but that, IMO, the consequences of your beliefs lead to relativism, despite your intentions or stated beliefs. 
Imagine there were 100 copies of you, scattered throughout the world. Each one would be gaining divine knowledge directly, but unless you were historically unprecedented, they’d all come to a set of (ultimately) mutually incompatible positions. Without any objective standard, there would be no way to determine what knowledge was correct and what was imagined.
This is ungrounded. Each one of you would think they were right. This is indistinguishable from relativism where truth, morality, and knowledge are not found in the absolute. I don’t see how you avoid this problem. 
Am I explaining myself well enough?

Answer from BGC:  
Oh yes, I understand you perfectly – and I asked myself the same question. 
Recall that when I converted I did so because I thought Christianity could be (and was the only hope of) the basis for a good (or at least good-seeking) society. That was my priority for a few years, and why I found it hard to find a church (either within, or outside, the CofE), why I changed direction a few times. 
It’s a matter I have addressed in my blog scores of times; but my answer is not acceptable – nor even regarded as a real answer! My answer is apparently invisible. 

One answer is to consider the primacy of motivation. 
I believe that, insofar as Christians are honestly motivated, there will be sufficient convergence on the essence of truth to enable salvation at least, and probably a good deal more than that. 

Another answer is that this line of questioning derives from a world view that seems the truth of Christianity, the truth that Jesus provided and taught, as bound-up with social organization – that it is bound-up with mechanisms for ensuring (or at least incentivizing) uniformity of beliefs. 
In other words; a world view that sees Christianity as church primarily – then state. That sees Christianity as primarily social not individual. 
Like the Judaism of the OT – such a Christianity is tribal – the tribe is the nation. For the Ancient Hebrews, the Messiah was understood as primarily a tribal/ national leader. The individual’s spiritual job was merely to serve the tribe. Salvation was of-the-tribe. 
And this role was externally forced-upon Jesus during his life, and after (especially by the evangelist Matthew) – pretty successfully!
I do not believe that this Christian tribalism or groupishness is any longer possible; my evidence being – look around and consider the past couple of centuries! 

I also believe, more controversially, that the attempt to reintroduce mechanisms for unity of belief can (here-and-now) only lead to evil. 
In other words, it is possible even nowadays in The West to enforce unity of belief (e.g. 2020) but this Will Be evil. 
Good (i.e. taking the side of God) can no longer be enforced top-down. 

I suspect that the only path to good (at least in The West, for you and me) is therefore non-institutional, much more like a family than an organization or nation. 
This must develop bottom-up, and from love. 
What such a human society would look like if it happened, I do not believe can be foreknown – because there can be no blueprint for it, just as there is no blueprint for a loving family.

On looking like "other people"

All through my adult life, I have "suffered" from being mistaken for other people. 

Friends and acquaintances claim that they have seen me in places where I have never been, that they waved to me from passing cars but I did not wave back, that they went up to somebody on the street and spoke to them - but they turned-out to be... somebody different. 

This is, I presume, due to having a somewhat nondescript face with rather indistinct features - a type common enough among grey-eyed, fair-haired, light-skinned, North Europeans and Scandinavians. 

It has also led (especially during the nineteen eighties) to people saying that somebody or another in the public eye looked "exactly" like me. 

For instance, Andy Partridge - lead singer of the pop group XTC: some giggling teenage girls on a train once thought I was him; and sang "Senses working overtime" at me, as I walked past.

Watching life of Bryan with friends, when the Michael Palin character who keeps saying "Crucifixion? Good..." came on screen, my pals simultaneously turned towards me claiming that he not only looked but was "exactly" like me:

Then was Ghostbusters, when Dan Ackroyd was another, supposed, lookalike:

And later still, Kenneth Branagh in the TV series Fortunes of War, was again "exactly" like me:

In later decades, there were no celebrity comparisons; just unfortunate bystanders and blokes in corridors, on pavements, in workplaces or social gatherings; who got mistaken and variously accosted. 

(At this point the problem was exacerbated by the fact that (due to baldness) I always wore a hat - preferably with a broad and shading brim. Any rubber-faced chaps in a big hat in Newcastle, might then expect to be assailed.) 

The moral is that some people look distinctive (once seen, never forgotten), while others Do Not - apparently I am, or was, one of the latter. 

And, with the advent of bogus "face-recognition" software - I suspect that my troubles are just beginning... 

US public opinion being successfully prepped for war

The current patriotic mania apparently escalating among so many of the erstwhile disaffected US population of anti-leftist instinct and European descent - so far fits with my hard-timeline geopolitical prediction of an imminently upcoming fake pennant event being used to trigger massive US involvement in a Middle Eastern war. 

If so, this has been a clever manipulation - because just a few months ago there would have been little enthusiasm for a "Patriotic" war (for "US interests") among the class of Americans who are most inclined to support the military. 

But currently, these oh-so-recent cynics about state-led political projects, have become wildly enthusiastic supporters of the government; and pin great hopes upon the capacity of official power to turn-around the nation, and recreate the kind of conservative-materialist-utopia of prosperity and accomplishment that they associate with the 1950s, or 1980s. 

The ex-cynics would, in this prevailing mood, surely support their adored Leader in whatever military venture he regarded as necessary.  

Time will (and soon) tell whether or not the prediction turns-out correct. 

Where are the earwigs and red ants?

I was born and brought-up in the opposite corner of England from that I now inhabit - in the South West. And, even though England is a small nation, there are differences in the animals perceptible across its length and breadth. 

In childhood, there was a fear of red ants and earwigs - but we don't see these in the North East (or, only very rarely). 

We were afraid of earwigs in case the pincers at the back might be able to nip us*; and red ants were (although tiny) supposed to be keen on biting or stinging (I was never sure which). 

My instinctive response was to kill these beasts at every opportunity - which is rational; although some of the ways that I killed them entailed a deplorable mixture of curiosity and sadism. 

Anyway, I had been living up here for many years before I realized that I hadn't seen any earwigs or red ants for ages; whereas in Somerset you just had to sit down on some grass and they would come swarming - or so recollection informs.

I hated them, but I sort-of miss them. 

(Same with Starlings.) 

Thus nature balances itself...

+++

*We also vied to spook each other with stories about how "a man" once had an earwig crawl into his ear, and "they" couldn't get it out, and it ate through into his brain, and made a nest which was only discovered after he was dead and "they" cut his head open. Or something. 

Baseless Conspiracy Theory!

One famous BCT claims that the NASA moon landings were staged in a TV studio 

I love that phrase "Baseless Conspiracy Theory" - which is used by the mainstream mass media to label any attempt to challenge the (always false and misleading) Official Narrative regarding anything The System regards as important. 

It's that "Baseless" which is so delicious - so nakedly pompous; so assertive of illegitimate and unearned authority; emanating from such dishonest and incompetent toadies to power! 

Except, of course, that the mainstream media realized that they were making things too easy for the masses, by labelling every more-honest, more-truthful, more-competent alternative interpretation to their Big Stories as a BCT. 

So nowadays the Mass Media and State Bureaucrats have begin pre-emptively labelling a few of their own genuinely-baseless conspiracy theories as... BCTs. 

A sort of double-bluff; a "bizarro world" version of "opposites day", a game beloved of small children. 

At least, I believe that to be the case; albeit this particular conspiracy theory may indeed be baseless. 

New Today: The greatest and most successful case of Controlled Opposition in recent history

In other news... In the United States today (apparently, according to mainstream news); Donald Trump was sworn-in as President. 

Controlled opposition, obviously - And Yet, the jubilation of many/most of those online who oppose totalitarian leftism seems unbounded - even among some serious Christians. 

Distinguishing Christianity from a/The Church

We just have to learn to distinguish Christianity from Church - whether that be "A church" - churches in general; or The Church - which is your particular choice of church to believe-in and serve. 

This is a Must Do - or else, soon, there won't be any followers of Jesus left in the West (there are exceedingly few already, as it is). 

When Church is mandatorily (and willingly, apparently) incorporated into the bureaucratic and therefore value systems of globalist totalitarianism - Churches are (overall, on average, by general intent) part of the Satanic agenda. 

So, obviously we must stand apart from, and discern, and judge, our Churches! 

Non optional - of you are serious about being a Christian. 

And if you are doing this, then you also need to be clear and honest about the fact of it - and not pretend you are a "faithful servant" of the-real-true Church which is in fact a product of your discernment. As when somebody (or some small minority) define and redefine what the real-true church really is, such that they (the tiny minority) are the only real-true adherents of the real-true church...

That is plain dishonesty. That is actually standing outside of Church; it is personally discerning and judging that Church - but then dishonestly claiming that you are merely, being obedient to that real-true Church's objective and eternal divine authority!

So, if you are a serious Christian - you are already doing this. You are already half-way to being what I term a Romantic Christian...

But you are not all the way, because you are lying to yourself and other people about the core principles of your faith. 

Why do people say these lies? Partly from worldly motives. They want an objective and external Church as the basis foe a decent society. 

I understand this desire - but it is not on the table, it is not an available option - so it needs to be put aside. 

They also lie to themselves because they can't make sense of how to be a real Christian without objective external authority that demands obedience. They think that Christianity Must Be like that, because that was how it was regarded in the past.

These people need to do some hard thinking - about God. They need to make themselves believe what they say, that God is the creator and our Heavenly father - we are all his children; And that Jesus Christ really has offered us resurrection to eternal Heavenly life. 

They need to go back to this kind of deep and fundamental Christian conviction, and then try to see the world in that light; in the light of how such a creator must have made things, and how Jesus Christ must have set-up salvation so that all who desired it (i.e. who primarily wanted that which he actually offered) could achieve it. 

It's a stark choice between fundamental personal reflection on the essence of Christianity; and joining the side  of the devil - which is now, I'm sorry to say, the ultimate and spiritual side which has been taken by your Church... However much your Church pays lip-service to the language and concepts of Christianity.  

 

Instant Christian!

Over the centuries, the business of becoming a Christian has been made ludicrously complex and difficult - compared with the examples portrayed in various parts of the New Testament. 

There are - apparently - several instances of people becoming "instant Christians" in the Gospels. Jesus meets somebody, has a short conversation, that person makes a decision - and he or she becomes "a Christian" - spiritually, a follower of Jesus. 

Even in the descriptions of Acts of the Apostles, after the ascension of Jesus, when baptism seems to have been inserted as an extra requirement - there is the (implicitly permanent and transformative) conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch in the course of a single conversation. 

There are clear, simple, and apparently obvious lessons from this we ought to learn, concerning what is - and what is Not - necessary to be a Christian. 

To be a Christian, you don't need a priest, don't need a church, don't need to know the Bible. 

Do not need to do anything in particular - do not need to be baptised, nor perform any sacrament, nor subsequently follow a specific life-path (indeed, it is implied that Jesus's followers included continuing "sinners" - i.e. those regarded by the Jewish Law as beyond the pale). 

We do not need to adhere to any specific metaphysical doctrine (such as The Trinity, or regarding the nature of God). We do not need to affirm any particular philosophy 

There is no requirement to be a particular kind of person, not a Jew, nor to know anything at all about Judaism - such as the Old Testament books, commandments, laws, rules of living. 

The simple inference from the actual "conversions" seems to be that anyone can become a Christian by wanting what Jesus makes possible, and by the commitment to follow Jesus to attain it. 

This primary requirement is, indeed, the only necessity - but it is also a thing, the nature of which is not obvious to our modern minds. 

We do not grasp what it means to follow Jesus - and in trying to articulate this, we are often led into vast needless complexity and spurious difficulty. 

This means that we need to set-aside the truly vast weight of accumulations that by-now hems-in the idea of being-a-Christian. 

But it also means that, in setting aside the colossal superstructure of the unnecessary, distracting, and inverted; we do the work of thinking and discernment for ourselves. 

When we (rightly) reject the authority of "other people" and of institutions to dictate our salvation and mortal destiny; we must instead do the work ourselves - otherwise we will not truly have set-aside the needless, but will simply become manipulated by a different (and probably worse) set of external authorities...

As when apostate Christians, who reject the authority of their church/ theology/ tradition - instead, and typically, become servile Leftist-materialist socio-political activists. They merely switch their unthinking-obedience from their church, to the totalitarian demonic agenda.  

This matter of following Jesus is therefore a thing we each need to work-out for ourselves. 

But work-out in a way that recognizes the true answer needs to be recognized as clear, simple and obvious... 

Such that its meaning can be conveyed sufficiently in the course of a single, brief conversation with a stranger.