Bruce G. Charlton's Blog, page 39

Collapse/ Suicide of the West: Everything seems to have been tried, and failed

As a cheery reflection! - as I read through histories and early accounts of the problem of the collapse of The West; it does begin to seem that everything has - by now, somewhere or another - been tried and has failed as solutions. 

The problem seems to lie too deep to be addressed - it lies, indeed, in changes in the nature of actual human beings, en masse; and it has to do with the nature of human groups, the relation of the individual with the collective. 

Humans used to be effortlessly, because intrinsically, semi-collective beings - like it or like-it-not, we participated in the life of the group; and conceptualized ourselves thus.

Such participation was inevitably religious - except for a brief (one generation?) transitional semi-religion that could be called "nationalism". 

That doesn't happen any more. The 20th century replacement of group participation and religion was totalitarianism - which is top-down brainwashing, surveillance and group-control by massive propaganda, censorship, with bureaucratic linkage of all institutions/ organizations/ corporations etc (including treating the family, legally and in public discourse, as if it was an institution). 

Totalitarianism has been, increasingly for about a century, the basis of Western Civilization - yet totalitarianism is visibly failing, by the week.

Thus, totalitarianism is no longer an option. yet all suggested and imaginable alternatives are tried-and-failed (as well as being essentially unwanted by the masses - who have by-now lost all positive and strong life-motivations).

Western man (and increasingly all human beings) just are individuals - that is the fact of it: that is how we are built to experience the world and ourselves. 

The collective is feeble, and getting feebler - because it cannot positively motivate us - and double-negative motivations are destroying the civilization with accelerating rapidity. 

So -- collapse of The West (and maybe world society) is baked-in, accelerating; and attempts to avert it make things worse in the long term (indeed, often immediately); and there are no valid alternatives that will sustain The West - even in theory! 

It might seem obvious that it is time to move on to other themes! 

With zero possibility of large scale communal life - then we ought to be orientating away from it, surely? 

Instead; the search for a political-communal answer gets more desperate - even as it gets lazier, less rigorous, less truthful - more superficial. 

Hand-waving doesn't being to describe the pathetic plans and schemes that are floated, propagated, defended - with an aggressive emotionality that (quite obviously!) merely disguises a deep weakness of conviction. 

Yet, honestly conceived, all this is extraordinarily liberating; and points towards the necessity of a life that is more wholly creative in its fundamental nature, than anything that was possible (or desirable) at any earlier point in human history. 

But (it seems to me) that this is only possible in the context of a Christian faith that has itself discarded the assumptions of earlier, top-down and bureaucratic religion. 

In other words, we first need to recognize in our hearts that Christianity is/ salvation is/ theosis is (and always was meant to be) ultimately, a personal and individual and creative matter. 

We are not only much freer than we realize, we are much freer than most people want or are prepared to acknowledge; nonetheless, incrementally, the reality of that freedom is being forced upon us by circumstance.

That is partly because people have become distractible and dishonest about regarding freedom as a political - hence external - concept... As some-thing that can be taken-from-us. 

But the freedom that matters eternally, is the kind that cannot be taken away; or, to put it positively; we are free whether we like it or not. 

The profound freedom of the creative life or "genius quest" emerges naturally and irresistibly from that recognition. 

"If I do it, then it can't be bad..." (The example of "AI")

A recurrent theme - in everyday life and online, in mundane matters and in philosophy - the "argument" that if I (of all people) do it, then that proves it can't be bad. 

Such reasoning can be, and is, used to justify (and normalize) almost anything; especially new things; especially new evil things.  

For the past two years, since the globalist totalitarians simultaneously media-launched and bureaucratically imposed several new text and image technologies; it has been Artificial Intelligence or "AI". 

Suddenly, this was pervasive, hyped, and all-but unavoidable - therefore most people were compelled to "use" it, whether driven by sheer omnipresence, peer pressure, curiosity, or the demands of the workplace. 

Having used AI, then the assumption of many people seems to be that "it can't be bad" because, well, "look at me!". 

The assumption behind the argument is that "I" am obviously a Good Person and I use AI; or that "I used AI, and it did me no harm...". 

The argument is made; but there is no feedback-loop of asking or waiting for confirmations that A: You really do regard "me" as A Good Person; or B: You agree that I have not been changed for the worse by my usage of AI. 

In fact, most of the people who regard themselves as Good People, I would regard as (whether unwitting or willing) servants of the agenda of evil.

Furthermore, I have observed plenty of people whose discernment and sensibility has apparently been coarsened, and their motives corrupted, by usage of AI. 

But such feedback evaluations of character and trends are not sought; and if they were known they would cause offence as being obviously (and necessarily) unjustified, hence clearly dishonest and/or intended to hurt.

Thus is evil normalized, and rendered into an invisible background. 

     

Instead of this worldly material sociality - what should we seek?

There is no outer thing, group, institution, organisation or even religion, in our world that can protect against the dissolving qualities of the end times. That is because they are all affected by those qualities. Some more than others but all are affected. Your only recourse is to go within...
From William Wildblood.

As the collective world of human groups is corrupted, and over many generations, so the "collective unconscious" becomes increasingly corrupted. And this means that "going within" is increasingly hazardous. 

If we just descend into the inner depths, in a passive state and with the attitude of absorbing whatever is encountered; then it is ever more likely that we will be deceived and manipulated by evil entities that desire to exploit us. 
This seems to be the fate of many sixties counter-cultural types and their New Age descendants; whether they took the route of hallucinogenic drugs, induced trance states, or of some Western variant of meditative Hinduism, Buddhism or Sufism.
It may also be a factor in the general unhelpfulness (and sheer tedium) of most dreams for most people; and the subjectively aversive nature of the experiences of psychotic illnesses (including dementia - nowadays by far the commonest cause of psychosis). 
In other words; nowadays, taking the advice of Jung, Aldous Huxley, Timothy Leary or their modern successors; may indeed lead to a degree of "participation" - that is of reconnection with The World of other beings - yet this participation will likely be of an unpleasant and/or spiritual harmful nature. 

The main thing, as Wildblood says, is for each of us to forge our own link with God - perhaps best conceptualized as an active relationship with the Holy Ghost. 
But God does not want Men to be continually subordinating their freedom to the divine - we are here to learn, after all; not merely to do as we are told. Help is there when needed and asked for; but we are meant to do as much as possible for ourselves.  
Furthermore, this relationship with the divine is insufficient on its own to compensate for the loss of this-worldly society. Most people will need, and benefit from, a variety of inner "companions". 
This implies looking within for spiritual friends, comforters, advisers of many kinds - and fortunately there are indeed many such among the resurrected dead. 
Some are deceased ancestors, family and friends; others are those who are concerned by us and we with them, perhaps due to some shared love and commitment. 

I think it is important to consider this in terms of relationships with specific spiritual persons. I do not think it wise to seek spiritual relationships with generic categories of beings - as when people advocate contacts with (for instance) angels, fairies, elementals, Masters and the like. 
In almost any category, some individuals will be malign (demons instead of good-angels, bad fairies instead of good etc); and most will be indifferent to us - and we to them.
(After all, Christian love is personal and specific.) 
In this, as in so many things, we need to reject the abstracting spirit of our age, and keep things personal. The needful spiritual companions are likely to be personal to each of us, and the relationship would need to develop in the same kind of unique and reciprocal way that relationship do in mortal earthly life. 

Furthermore, in recent generations, it was normal to seek the group guidance from a spiritual being; as when there was an attempt to make a contact and form a link with (for instance) the spirit of a nation or organization; with the intent that this being shall then instruct that group what to do.    
But in this time and place, the groups are mostly spiritually feeble, and all are significantly corrupted. 
So this seeking of group guidance seems to be increasingly ineffectual or even malign with every passing decade - from what I can perceive.

In sum: I think we need to take on-board that our spiritual life needs to be mainly an inner life; but it should not necessarily thereby be a solitary life. As well as the comfort and overall guidance of the Holy Ghost; we might consider seeking personal contacts and relationship of a specific, discerning, and perhaps unique, nature.   

Heaven versus escape fantasies - positive versus double-negative

More than ever, it seems important to distinguish Heaven from fantasies of escape - whether that escape be into "peace", sleep, unconsciousness; or into some kind of bliss state of semi-awareness; or into a paradise of hedonic gratification ("whatever turns you on"). 

This not-Heaven fantasy is a double-negation; because mostly a matter of escaping from earthly mortal life - from its pain, loss, futility, despair...

Heaven is, by contrast, a dynamic kind of place, a place of high conscious awareness, and a place where we all have positive "work" to do - so long as "work" is understood in the most creative and self-fulfilling, and valuable sense. 

The "work" of Heaven is at an opposite pole from modern work - which is enslavement to the totalitarian project of mundane, materialistic, meaningless dehumanization - merely moving stuff around. 

The work of Heaven is spiritual work: it is creation. Creation in Heaven can be understood as each individual contributing to the totality of divine creation from himself; and also doing this with others - this whole thing being (quite naturally and spontaneously) from the spirit of love. 

(Love of God, love of people and other beings, love of the purposes of creation...) 

So the work of Heaven is a contrast with mundane work on this mortal world, because in mundane work we stand outside of the work, and Do It - we manipulate things, arrange things, process things, swap things and the like...

Whereas in Heaven we live "in" the work; the work is part of us and of creation. The work done then come back into us, in a kind of cycle - as when we are in-love: when what we do, its result, and what she does and its effect on us... all combine in a mutual, reciprocal, halo of magic. 

That's the normal state of Heaven - but it applies to all kinds of creative work, which means everything we do and that needs doing. 

In Heaven, creating is continuous with loving personal relationships - distinguishable, but inseparable. 

And this is a positive and higher state - taking the best of our experiences and aspirations of this temporary and evil-infused mortal life; and raising it clear of evil, freeing it from decay; taking what is here partial and temporary, and transforming it into the complete and everlasting.  

Note: I say Heaven is made from the best of mortal life; but of course, not everybody agrees that this is indeed the best! Some prefer passivity, unawareness, diminished consciousness. Or others get the most satisfaction from the successful and gratifying manipulation and exploitation of others; that's what they regard as "best"... Thus Hell is a dynamic situation - although dynamically-destructive, because framed by its negation of creation, its opposition to the divine. Only Heaven is dynamic and positive. Neither those who seek diminished consciousness, nor those who seek power over others, will choose Heaven; because to do so would entail leaving behind that which they value most. Much of mortal life is the business of deciding what we value most - and that choice is what determines our eternal situation.  

What was the divine plan of giving Jesus a claim to be King of the Jews?

It is possible, perhaps even likely, that by descent - either or both from his Father and/or Mother - Jesus had a claim to be the King of the Jews. Yet Jesus stated clearly by his deeds, as well as his words to Pilate that "my kingdom is not of this world, that he was not willing to press his claim, nor to be involved in attempting to restore the earthly kingdom. 

If so, we might ask why it was that Jesus incarnated to parents that gave him a claim to earthy kingship, yet Jesus refused to press that claim - why the one, if not the other? 

What, in other words, was the divine plan? 

It seems reasonable to speculate. And further, if we can make a plausible guess at that plan - did, or did not, the divine plan work-out as God hoped and intended it would?  

Perhaps the intent was that Jesus would be born as a potential earthly king, in order that he would have a claim to be the Messiah awaited by the Jews, which would gain Jesus a much larger and more attentive "audience" than would otherwise have been the case. 

But maybe the divine plan was always that Jesus would re-direct this-worldly and political expectations of a Messianic and Kingly nature, into his message of his new gift of resurrected eternal life in Heaven. 

The divine plan being that Jesus would be able to argue that although he could be a King of this earth and Messiah to his people - he had a much greater and everlasting gift to offer the Jews and indeed the world. 

Instead of merely a temporary (because mortal) ideal Kingdom; Jesus would save the Jews from the miserable prospect of Sheol, and the Romans from their miserable pagan after-existence; and show the way to a new and better Life. 

If so, it seems that the plan failed. 

Well, as Burns wrote: The best laid schemes o' mice an' men - and presumably God - Gang aft agley. 

Most of the Jews wanted their King and Messiah ASAP - or nothing; and very few people (not even all of the disciples) understood or believed-in what Jesus offered. 

Men are free agents, and plans don't usually work-out as expected. 

Even Jesus's closest followers after his ascension, seemed to want an imminent, then delayed, second coming - with the "promise" of earthly fulfilment of their desire for an ideal mortal Kingdom - more than they wanted resurrection after their present lives.

And things still haven't changed, yet. 

Nothing new here, but I still can't perceive the shape of a good future

It is facile to perceive that none of the proffered options about the future are good; all are shades and types of purposive evil; plus they are not possible, and will be harmful to attempt.

But; if what is wanted is a global, or national, or even local utopian vision; then I can't do any better than a few comments about the need for acknowledging the primacy of individual discernment, and a different set of metaphysical assumptions...

These including a mantra ABC of Animism (this living world), Beings (as the irreducible units of this living world), and Creation (the purposive divine basis of this living world of Beings). 

I cannot do better than to highlight the nature of Jesus Christ's gifts to us; gifts that make possible a coherent and hope-full life in the ABC universe. 

These gifts include resurrected eternal life into a heaven that is a Second Creation - a Second Creation that is wholly and everlastingly loving and eternal, because entropy/ death and that which is evil in beings' nature is left-behind at resurrection...   

But where does this framework for life leave us in a world where public discourse is defined by our "opinions" and choices between only-evil alternatives? 

One direction is in our understanding, which is always very incomplete. I don't mean that people need to be "better informed" - that can't be it (it represents a further and deeper engagement with the vast world of lies and inversion that is actual public discourse). 

Understanding must instead be a recognition that the whole range of public values is grossly deformed by unexamined assumptions; and this recognition can (surely) only arise bottom-up from each person developing his own innerly-originated discernments;

And his own relationship with the only valid source of external discernment - which is direct contact, mind-to-mind, with the Holy Ghost.  

Then - the rightness of our inner impulses will (by comparison) "automatically" discerns the wrongness of any number and combination of external discourses.   

Furthermore is the question of what happens to this understanding; if or when we achieve it? 

It is tempting, but futile (and increasingly so) to suppose that our positive influence must or ought to be via public discourse. If that is necessary, we can be sure any positive effects will be insignificant, or won't happen at all. 

I think there must be a faith that whenever we accomplish something good in our thinking, in our understanding, in our motivations, or doings; that it will be divinely recognized and made-available. 

We are each unique beings, and therefore can (in principle) make unique and unforeseen contributions to divine creation. It seems right that God, the prime creator, will be aware when this happens, and will be able to build our personal contributions into ongoing creation - without our necessarily knowing about it, or how, or the consequences thereof. 

It is, indeed, something that is happening all the time.  

Once our contribution, our new understanding, has been built-into creation; it is then available to other Beings; by direct knowing, by mind-to-mind contact between Beings. 

On this basis; we ought not to worry about whether or how we speak, write, disseminate our insights and other contributions; because that is taken care of in an ultimate and permanent sense. 

Our proper concern is, rather, whether our speaking, writing etc is helpful to our own spiritual condition - whether it encourages us, clarifies or extends thinking etc. in terms of our ultimate orientation and motivations. 

We ought to do the right thing by these lights; which are idealistic and individual. 

Anything that may be accomplished, whether positively in terms of informing or inspiring others, or in terms of being misunderstood or twisted by others, is secondary - and "out of our hands".

Therefore we should not worry over it.  

On thinking the worst of people

I am inclined, absolutely sincerely - not as a pose! -  to "think the worst" of people; to an extent that maybe as much as anyone I know. 

Yet I am not at all "cynical" - I don't judge "everybody" to be on the wrong side of the spiritual war; but I do judge that a very large majority are on the side of evil. 

To anyone who might complain at my adverse discernment - I can say that you are in "good" company; in the sense that almost everybody in public life who has a high status is someone that I evaluate as an unrepentant servant of the agenda of evil.

Those currently on the wrong side (so far as I can infer); include nearly all nice and kind people, most people who are most altruistic, most people who do a good job, most of the most talented and creative people, most of the religiously devout and well-behaved - and indeed some of the people I love! 

That's just factual: it's the way it is in the world here-and-now. 

From where I am, and by my best estimate: Service to the side of the spiritual war that is against God and divine creation; is normal, approved, rewarded, and the default. 

The point is that people are unrepentant servants of evil, which means in practice that they do not regard their stance as evil - they are aware of the many reasons and explanations for their own attitudes and behaviours - they see plenty of people worse than themselves... 

So in the end they see nothing to repent. 

What are the prospects for all these souls? Mostly it is up each of them, and is mainly a matter of what each wants for himself or herself after death, on an eternal basis. 

I hope that many will choose salvation when they know it is true and not just a wishful day-dream; and will repent accordingly. This path is open, simple, easily done, and instantaneous. 

So there are always grounds for hope. 

But it seems likely - from what people say, as well as how they behave - that a lot of people don't want resurrected eternal life in Heaven; and it also seems that this "wanting" is not really something about which people seem to be open to persuasion.  

There are those to whom Heaven does not appeal, who simply prefer something else - some other state of being, or non-being. 

And there are those who really seem to believe that Heaven is evil, Jesus is evil, creation is evil, and God is evil: Those who are (from my POV) value-inverted. 

I don't know that these value-inverted people in The West constitute a majority, and they aren't as overwhelming a majority as those who are simply on the wrong side -- but there do seem to be many such people in the Western nations, far more and more obviously than ever were recorded in the history of the world. 

Christian Seeker: Deal with individuals, stick with individuals

Something struck me about modern "seekers" who are dissatisfied with mainstream atheistic materialism, and want something not just better, but a real answer to the questions of life and reality. 

Often this search is self-sabotaged or hijacked by assumed constraints that make it impossible ever to find an answer; and one of these wrecking assumptions is that The Answer will be found in a "tradition": that is, a large group of many prestigious persons, an ancient group (believed to extend back centuries, perhaps millennia).

What too often seems to happen is that some seeker comes across an individual person, one Man, who interests them strongly, evokes a sympathy or empathic identification, "speaks to them" - but this one Man describes himself as speaking on-behalf-of and from a tradition. 

And then the seeker finds that he is supposed to believe and affirm not just the particular person whose work, and perhaps life, has so inspired him; but a whole bunch of other people - perhaps in many times and places - and to say that the whole bunch of them are good, true, coherent, and worthy of obedience. 

An example might clarify what I mean. 

I became interested in and attracted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity via the specific and (to me) inspiring personage of the US monk Seraphim Rose 1934-1982. I read a good deal of Rose's work, thought about it, tried to understand it and tease out the implications... 

Of course, as always (for me) I disagreed with much, thought much of it was wrong - nonetheless I was deeply impressed and attracted by aspects of the spirituality he described and lived.

But the next step is the killer, which is that Rose regarded himself as an ordinary and "orthodox" member of the Russian Orthodox church (overseas branch - he lived during the USSR era, and he knew mostly exiled Russians and their descendants), and a representative of Eastern Orthodoxy generally. 

The Man Seraphim Rose affirmed a world-view that regarded The Man as of little significance, and The Group as primary. 

So I was pretty much compelled to read and experience more widely, more generally - I was pushed into reading Seraphim Rose - not as A Man but as a representative of a domination/ church/ tradition - and it was that group (across many centuries, in many places) which mattered most. 

I began with a fascination and sympathy for one Man, and I soon ended-up pushed towards pledging belief and obedience to a vast group of many people, of many nations, with several warring factions and schismatic groups. 

My attention was diffused to many writers, many nations, many times, many disputes and schisms, many policies and actions...

In one sense I was supposed to join with a vast, ancient and extremely heterogeneous church - all of which I was supposed to approve in a general way (even bizarre perversions such as "stylites")... 

But in another sense the almost-constant reality of internal disputes, (even warring schisms) meant that the actuality of what I "ought to do" was inevitably something much smaller, more local, and more modern. 

In the end of the process, when rigorously pursued (so far as I could tell) most of Eastern Orthodoxy was too modernized, lax and corrupted to satisfy those who took Seraphim Rose seriously. So that there was just one specific monastic church, 300 miles away, in schism with the Moscow Patriarchate; that it was right and necessary for me to join, support, attend and obey. 

In microcosm, I think this is pretty typical of a serious, rigorous, Christian seeker in the West of 2024.

We might be attracted to Christianity by the work or life of a particular person, alive or dead - and then there is that horrible realization that we are supposed to set aside what attracted us, and instead subordinate to a vast nebulous group...

A group that (to all appearances) includes all kinds of apparently unappealing and seemingly evil people, doing apparently stupid and terrible things, in all kinds of times and places, and with all sorts of (what look like) contradictions - and we are supposed (with solemn oaths) to pledge to all this...

Yet, the facts of 2024 in The West also mean that this big, messy, vision of a "universal church" will - if taken seriously - ultimately lead to some very small, very recently formed, very localized and minority (even within The Church) grouping of a handful of Christians. 

What I draw from such experiences (of myself, and what I have observed in others) is that in our time and place, and when we are really serious about things: we ought to deal with individuals, not with groups - and stick with individuals. 

Even though this contradicts what these same individuals advise and argue!

Thus, the engagement must be critical. The ideal relationship is not that of an apprentice to his Master, nor even a student to his teacher - but more like getting to know an older, more experienced and able friend.  

It would (for instance) be better to stay-with Seraphim Rose - a specific individual that I benefited from reading - or whoever it might be; stay as long as there is benefit, and work to develop an intense and sustained relationship - in which you do not merely absorb the ideas, but engage creatively with the ideas... 

Not in a submissive, obedience-orientated fashion; but kind of dialogue pursued in a free, positive and personal way, as between two mutually-respecting persons. 

In some ways, I'm amazed that anyone ever converts to the theology of church Christianity

Sometimes I find myself in a frame of mind in which I experience evangelical rhetoric as an outsider to Christianity - and then it strikes me, with greater and greater force each time, how extremely complicated, implausible, and indeed contradictory it all seems. It doesn't convince, and it just doesn't appeal. 

The classic service pre-Christmas of nine lessons and carols is probably the main way in which most non-Christians are exposed to the Christian message; but If one actually tries to make sense of the readings and put-them-together... Well, if they make any converting appeal to the alienated atheist in search of meaning and purpose - it is not clear to me. 
(I accept that the nine lessons services are not meant to convert atheists; but nonetheless, they are probably the only scripture and sermon to which most atheists get exposed in the course of a year.)  

And when Christianity is summarized briefly but in terms of its primary concepts; the philosophical explanation of what it's all about, seems to require all kinds of assumptions that aren't at all natural or obvious - or even good! 

Not obviously right, confusing and incoherent stuff, from my perspective, is:
That God (and then Jesus) are in practice mainly interested in judging us for our sins, and will inevitably find us deserving of punishment - probably horrible and everlasting punishment... 
Yet Jesus, as saviour, seems to be saving us from a situation that (by definition) has been entirely set-up by God. 
But God and Jesus are essentially the same - yet "the Jesus aspect of God" was somehow necessary for the work of salvation to happen. Apparently; God needed to become Man (while remaining God) in order to save us from a God-created situation...  
But that the fact this world is full of sinful people is not God's fault, despite that he created absolutely everything that exists - instead the universality of sin the fault of some combination of inherited original sin (hence the Genesis reading in the nine lessons) plus our own freely-chosen individual sins. 
It seems that, faced with the sinfulness of His Creation; God would - because of justice - condemn every single person to damnation - except that Jesus (who, by some selection or combination of his birth, life, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension) somehow negated this damnation* - on certain conditions (which conditions vary between different churches and denominations). 
(*Various theories are offered; maybe God punished or sacrificed Jesus instead of us; maybe Jesus experienced the totality of suffering that otherwise would have been experienced by us... there are various theories, none of which fit common sense ideals of good relationships or virtuous behaviour among people.) 
Most of being-a-Christian is about these conditions required for salvation: what we must do (and not do) to satisfy our judge/s, and avoid the punishments of Hell. 
But Jesus (for reasons which aren't clear) did all this is a two-phase process - beginning the work during his life as a Man some 2000 years ago, and ending the process at some future date when Jesus will (in some sense) return and finish the job.  
It is not terribly clear what we (and all humans of the past) are supposed to be doing in the meanwhile...


I can only suppose that all this business is utterly bewildering to most people (insofar as they take the slightest notice of it), and that it does not amount to something that one would obviously endorse as a way of setting-up and running things. 
I also think it is factually wrong in many important respects, and that reality is not really structured thus. 
But you all know what I think already. My main point here is to point out that - quite apart from whether the teachings are true - all this doesn't come across as anything like as self-evidently appealing as some Christians seem to think it is... 


(I know all this can be and is nuanced into other and more positive and appealing stuff by the many and complex abstractions of official theology... But Christians need to ask why it is that they are so utterly unable to explain their religion concisely and lucidly, what it "offers", what is its appeal, how it "works" - even when they have the attention of a captive audience.)

There is no excuse for smooth peanut butter

The best of the best

Smooth peanut butter is, of course, fine; yet the point is that crunchy peanut butter is objectively better - so why does smooth peanut butter even exist? 

The fact that we have all eaten smooth Pnut B when nothing else was available begs the question as to why the crunchy was not available? And the answer is that resources had been squandered through diverted into making smooth. 

If the smooth had not been manufactured in the first place, then there would be no shortage of crunchy!

It might be objected that "some people" actually prefer smooth peanut butter... 

But firstly I doubt if this is true (have you ever actually met such a person? And would you admit to it if you had?). 

Secondly I would ask: should we be pandering to such people? They need psychological help, not to be encouraged in their delusion by the continued availability of smooth peanut butter.