Demons

 A large part of the world is currently possessed by demons. I realise this statement would be regarded as, at the least, outrageous and more probably neurotic or just plain insane by most people, including many religious people, and it is one I have reluctantly accepted after quite a long time. But it is clearly true. The degree to which we have embraced falsehood is just too great for any other explanation.

When I say people are possessed, I don't mean in the traditionally understood way of a demon actually taking over and inhabiting a person's body. That is an extreme case and probably rare. But there are other forms of possession including that of thought. On the plane of ideas demons can influence the mind, and when an individual mind inclines towards the distortions of reality that the demons have concocted, often with enough elements of truth incorporated to make them plausible to the unwise, then that mind does become possessed to an extent. It's like an infection by a parasite, and if you are not properly inoculated against this infection (by a sound religious doctrine, for example, though a pure heart would also serve the purpose), then you become infected. You effectively become possessed. Sometimes this is even noticeable when you talk to a person afflicted in this manner. He or she might be impervious to reason, aggressive, argumentative, with eyes showing an underlying hatred. Not everyone infected is by any means that bad but some are as can be seen most noticeably perhaps in public demonstrations by leftist agitators.

The demons can only infect us to the degree that we let them do so. We have to have something in us that corresponds to the poison they wish to spread to become their victims. Hence there are no innocent victims in this regard. The social justice warriors are examples of people animated by hatred and the desire for power, and this is why they are such suitable victims for the demons who obviously inspire them in their behaviour. But even milder people who wouldn't dream of behaving in this bullying, aggressive manner have been infected by the current plague. And it is a spiritual plague that is sweeping through the world and contaminating thought. Only those who have developed the protection of a valid spiritual practice and faith are properly placed to resist it.

The left is demonic. This might seem to be a classic case of a prejudiced individual demonising (literally) his enemies. However I do not say that leftists are demons but that demons are behind the left and influencing its advocates. What is the left actually based on? Stripped back to its fundamentals, it is based on hatred of the good and resentment of the superior. That is why leftists will ally themselves with anyone who is an opponent of the Christian West. It is the Christian West that the demons behind the left wish to destroy, and you have to admit that they are doing an excellent job. Their long-term strategy has been most professional. They have used lesser truths to attack greater ones, for instance putting material improvements above spiritual priorities and then using the excuse of love and freedom to justify constant attacks on the natural order. They have moved in small incremental steps but always in the direction of greater corruption, more undermining of the truth and subversion of the idea of what is good. They have taken the idea of unity and used that to attack quality, the idea of better and worse, which inevitably brings the better down to the level of the worse. 

Even people whose minds are not possessed by the leftist parasites directly are not immune. When society's intellectuals and the media are largely on the side of the demons (not knowingly in most cases but they are) then everyone else will find it harder to hold out against the infection. It will be in the air they breathe, and their exposure to it will be constant. Their resistance to the infection is weakened and they will succumb unless they have some powerful medicine to fortify them. That medicine will have to be religious in nature to be strong enough to effect a cure. Secular resistance will hold out for a while but is unlikely to stave off eventual submission, especially in the case of those who have grown up in a world of materialistic leftism. Older people with connections to the past may survive but they will increasingly be prone to despair unless they have recourse to spiritual help.

We must exorcise these demons from the human mind. That is what this blog is about, and this exorcism is a prerequisite for any true awakening. The first step is to acknowledge God but it is crucial that this acknowledgement be a spiritual one by which I mean that it must, it absolutely must, be made in the context of spiritual not worldly good. That means that it must see humanity in the light of its spiritual purpose and destiny and not as creatures of this world.

The corruption of romanticism - Wordsworth and Coleridge versus Byron and Shelley

It is salutary to compare the character and achievement of the first and second 'generations' of English romantic poets and philosophers - of whom the leading spirits were Wordsworth and Coleridge (born 1770/2) and Byron and Shelley (born 1788/92).

In terms of achievement we could say that W&C were each first rate of their kind - Wordsworth ranked behind only Shakespeare and Milton as a poet; and Coleridge being the leading all-round intellectual of the early 19th century as well a a poet of the second rank. Byron was extremely famous/ notorious/ influential - but a far lesser poet than W; and Shelley wrote some important essays (and great poems) while never matching the extraordinary depth and range of C.

In terms of virtue - there is no comparison. Wordsworth was a good man, and Coleridge a repentant one. While Byron and Shelley pioneered the inverted morality of the modern global celebrity elite - especially in terms of exploitative promiscuity and self-gratification.

Politically, after the transitional experimentation of adolescence; Wordsworth and Coleridge were conservative Christians; but Byron and Shelley were radical leftists and atheists. (Byron - as licentious aristocrat - being an archetype of the later communist leadership.)

There, in a nutshell - compressed into four persons and a gap of less than two decades - was the decline of Romanticism into modernity; and the point at which the developmental evolution of human consciousness took a wrong turn into incoherence, self-hatred, despair and active self-destruction.

Those who affected to live For the people and poetry were lesser people and poets than those who lived for God. When God had faded even from memory - then so did poetry. 


Note: A further comparison might be made between the women: Dorothy, William's sister; and Mary, Shelley's second (de facto polygamous) wife (until the first had been driven to suicide). Dorothy was surely one of the kindest, most generous and most loving of people I have ever encountered in literature; as well as one of the very greatest diarists. Mary was an important pioneer of Gothic fiction (with Frankenstein) but spoilt and selfish; the precociously seductive wild child of notorious radical atheist celebrities. 

The Robin Hood Option

Let us understand that we live in a day of election, and not of universal conversion. There will be no universal peace until the Prince of Peace appears. There will be no universal holiness until Satan is bound.

J.C. Ryle, Are You Ready for the End of Time?

*

One can never be certain. We are dealing, after all, with a 'God of Surprises.' But it seems increasingly unlikely, to my eyes at least, that there will be a mass, instantaneous awakening in (or of) Albion any time soon. Things are too far gone for that. What has been set in motion needs to run its course. We will have to drop down a bit further, it seems - like Dante descending the circles of Hell - before we can start to look upward again.

'Lantern Bearers' is a phrase I have often used to describe our role and vocation in this age of civilisational decline. Now, however, I am beginning to feel that 'seed planters' might be more apposite. We are probably at the outset of a centuries-long endeavour, but what is absolutely crucial - right here and now - is that we make a start on the renewal of our culture, refreshing it at its deepest wellsprings, radically reorientating it towards the Sacred, the fount and source of everything true and good. 

Our immediate problem is that the times we live in appear more and more inimical to any notion of  the Sacred or Divine. Secularism is becoming strident and militant. Liberalism is growing increasingly illiberal. Christians are squeezed out of the public square and are finding it harder to work with a clear conscience in fields such medicine, law, government and education. How to respond to this burgeoning intolerance has been a topic of much debate, spurred to a great extent by Rod Dreher's book, The Benedict Option (2016) and his pugilistic column for The American Conservative. 

I have been reflecting on these matters during a recent reread of Roger Lancelyn Green's, The Adventures of Robin Hood (1956). As well as some superb storytelling, Green gave me several springboards for thought pertaining to the themes of resistance and renewal and where the two meet and intertwine. Green portrays Robin as an Arthurian figure, bringing succour to Saxons suffering under the Norman yoke as, centuries before, the original Arthur had inspired the Britons to resist their invading ancestors. As Green evocatively puts it:

Then, in that wild and lonely glade, while the owls screeched over the dark forest, and an occasional wolf howled in the distance, they all knelt down together and swore their oath - a pledge as high and as sacred, though they were but outlaws and escaped felons, as that sworn by the noblest knight who, in the days when the Saxons themselves were the conquerors and oppressors, had sat at King Arthur's Table.

'We take for the general good,' Robin declares, 'and it shall be as much our duty to seek out the poor, the needy, the widow, the orphan and all those who have suffered and are suffering wrong, and  minister to their wants as far as we can.' This going out to the poor and needy is, I feel, of central importance to our predicament today. Robin's merry men have bigger fish to fry than mere self-preservation. They are engaged on a societal mission. Their rapport with people outside their group earns them kudos and affection and saves them from the hot-house insularity which often bedevils focused, intentional communities and can lead, at best, to a climate of gossip and backbiting and, at worst, physical and spiritual abuse. 

Robin Hood is an intensely charismatic figure. So are his closest followers - Maid Marian, Friar Tuck, Little John and Will Scarlett. They radiate goodness and nobility. People see and feel those qualities in them, and their hearts are lifted. Can we say that truly about ourselves? Does the Gospel show itself in our body language and demeanour? Do our faces shine with love of God and love of Albion? If not, why not? Are we spending too much time mulling over culture wars and not enough time in prayer and contemplation? I think often of Karol Wojtyla in this respect who, as Archbishop of Kraków between 1964 and 1978, began each day with an hour and a half's silent adoration before the Blessed Sacrament. From a worldly, administrative point of view, this is time which would have been better spent breakfasting with colleagues, arranging meetings or answering correspondence. But Wojtyla, like Mary of Bethany in John's Gospel, chose the 'better part', simply spending time with Christ. I am convinced that this practice gave him that palpable aura of holiness that helped him to play such a decisive role on the world stage when he became Pope John Paul II in 1978.

We also have to take into account the nature of our particular era. What might have been an appropriate response to spiritual and cultural crisis in former times might not be so today. We don't live in first century Palestine, for instance, where religious questions were of paramount importance across all strata of society. Nor are we trying to convert fifth century European pagans either, who were already, in their own way, open and responsive to the Sacred. Our post-Enlightenment epoch is entirely different - desacralised, deracinated and disenchanted. The supernatural has been safely walled off and the numinous banished to the demi-monde of fancy and subjective imagination. We need to see ourselves, therefore, not so much as 'Preachers of the Word' but 'Evokers of the Sacred.' Without this basic receptivity to the Sacred, the Word will fall on barren soil. 

This is important because twenty-first century Westerners still experience encounters with the Holy; as much, if not more so, than in the past. But the post-modern world has divested itself of the religious terminology which sets them in their proper frame. My experience, talking over these things with friends, tells me that they often take place in childhood. As the years pass the visitation fades from the conscious mind but remains embedded in the heart, waiting for the right moment and the right person, perhaps, to reinvoke it and call it back to life.

That person could be your or I. With this in mind, we should posit a Christ who holds the keys to a wider, richer realm of possibility than that offered by the currently dominant paradigm. Materialism does not satisfy the deepest longings of the human soul. Those trapped in its limiting vision, whether materially well-off or not, are truly the 'poor and needy' of our day, robbed of their spiritual heritage and the deepest knowledge of their hearts, just as the English of Robin Hood's day were defrauded of their ancestral homes and lands by the Norman aristocracy. 

So, what would a 'Robin Hood Option' church actually look like? Something like this, I feel - Michael De-la-Noy's account in his book, Church of  England (1993), of an evening visit to St. Patrick's Anglican Church in Hove in the late 1980s, at a time when the local bishop had recently invited a nearby monastic community to help reinvigorate the Liturgy:

I wandered into church at 6.45. An assortment of tramps, alcoholics and the mentally ill were all jumbled up with parishioners in pews arranged around a free-standing altar in the nave, and vespers was underway, the plainchant being led by a young estate agent. Father Sharpe, in alb, sat in the centre ... 

No account of the liturgy could by itself convey the unselfconscious devotion of the service. For the consecration everyone gathered in a strange intimacy around the altar, within feet of the celebrant. A home baked roll was consecrated; the patten and chalice were modern earthenware. Yet there was nothing folksy about the occasion. At the peace everyone moved round to kiss or shake hands. Everyone, including many of the down and outs, received Communion. 

It was a gentle, moving experience, which seemed by the nature of those present - unwashed, wearing mittens, unpatronised and essentially unimpressed and at home - to offer a glimpse of what worship may have been like in the Middle Ages, a rediscovery of a marriage of reverence, impressive ritual and sensitive simplicity.

Please find below, at the end of this post, a photo of the church at that time. As ever with Google Images, it leaves something to be desired in terms of clarity, but you can tell by the lay-out and the ambience what it portrays - nothing less than holy ground - a place of encounter, meaning, depth and possibility - a fount of living water, from where right thought and action flow into our lives and the lives of those around us, re-baptising and renewing the world without any strain or anxiety on our part. 

St. Patrick's, in those days, was a clearing - a free and open point of intersection between the human and the Divine. In an epoch like our own where there is no set guidance for restorative actions, the first restorative task is to start fashioning such spaces. This is what Robin Hood did with his 'wild and lonely' glade and what people found in Mother Julian's cell in Norwich at the other end of the Middle Ages. Let us leave the last word to that fine representative of the English contemplative tradition. May it act as a reminder that our spiritual foe has nothing to offer men and women, and that with our encouragement, faith and discernment they may find this out sooner rather than later and turn once again to that great Sun that lit up their faces when they were new to this world:

This is the cause why we are not at rest in heart and soul: that here we seek rest in things that are so little there is no rest in them, and we do not know our God who is all mighty, all wise and all good. For he is true rest ... There is no end to our willing and longing until we know God in the fullness of joy.

Women Readers

I don't know how many women readers there are of this blog or ones of a similar nature that call for a spiritual renewal in the West, specifically in the context of a rejection of atheistic leftism. My guess is relatively few which is a pity and I want to try to look at why that might be so.

I suppose most women are not attracted to writings that view modern feminism as an aberration and not the progressive philosophy the contemporary world insists it is. But the criticisms of feminism here amount to the fact that it is fundamentally anti-woman, seeking to remake her as an imitation male instead of something good and true in her own right. This is close to the traditional view of men and women but tradition seen in a pure and original form without any decadent accretions in which one sex seeks to dominate the other. Equality between the sexes is rejected because the sexes are not the same and the attempt to make them so has resulted in modern woman losing touch with her inner femininity to a large degree which is damaging her, the family and humanity as a whole. Spiritually speaking, feminism is a false friend to women but it is attractive to the worldly self because it seems to offer more power and autonomy. 

Well, there it is. People will point to the good feminism may have done, which it has in certain areas, but this is not so very different to saying Mussolini got the trains to run on time. It's the overall effect of something that matters not its benefits taken in isolation. It is also its spiritual effect that is important and this is not obvious to those who do not see the world in spiritual terms and who therefore don't see the damage an ideology might do to individuals on a level above the immediately obvious material.

Women are more empathetic than men and incline more to the love aspect of spirituality than the truth aspect. In a world orientated to truth this can have a very salutary softening effect. In a world such as ours that has turned away from truth, it can be disastrous because what it does, or potentially does, is give truth and falsehood equal recognition. This is also why women are more comfortable following the distortions of the left these days. They see it as more compassionate than the right and miss its real foundation in adversarial destructiveness. I dare say that men are generally more able to see this even though, of course, it is men who have created these monsters in the first place.

Women are more conformist than men. This goes along with them being less risk-taking. They are more likely to toe the consensus line and less likely to look behind communally accepted things to deep reality. So a blog like this, which essentially exposes the modern world as a nightmare from which we need to wake up, is not going to appeal to women so much as the more adventurous male who is more likely to want to dig down into the whys and wherefores of things, and not accept what is told him just because authority says it. None of this means there aren't many women who do this and many men who don't. That's an individual thing and there is no reason why anyone should be the slave of their sex. But, in general terms, this is how men and women are. Like it or not, men are, usually, better philosophers just as women are, usually, more interested in people and therefore more likely to respond to the human angle.

The writers here are all male but so are most writers pointing out the insanity and nihilism of the modern world, and the spiritual vacuity where any attempt at spirituality exists. Women are more likely to take to a doctrinally amorphous sort of spirituality which is more about pleasing or comforting the feelings than one which seeks to engage with reality. Again, not all women by any means but go to any New Age type gathering and women will be much more in evidence.

So much for some general points. But I'd like to make another observation on why there might be a greater number of men than women who see through the deviant state of the modern world and are therefore attracted to positions such as those represented by a blog like this. Over the last few decades men have lost power and women have gained it. When you have lost power, you want to find out why and look for some kind of compensation. When you have gained it, you may well be happy with how things are and not open to being told that your new power derives from a world that has gone wrong. This is just human nature.

I have this phrase in my mind which I think I read somewhere but I can't remember where so forgive the plagiarisation, if plagiarisation it be. Men expand the horizons while women maintain the status quo. Men are more likely to innovate and women to imitate. This may not be a popular thing to say nowadays but it really just echoes something I have written before about how, in cosmic terms, the masculine is the expanding force while the feminine is the contracting one. Alternatively you could say that the former relates to the transcendent and the latter to the immanent. Obviously we need both and, though one might be seen as primary (for instance, you have to expand before you can contract), they are still two sides of one whole. The modern world has lost the sense of transcendence and I would suggest that it is men who are more likely to want to restore that, and perhaps better able to do so as well.

It's hard to write about a a question like this because the topic is so sensitive and who can be sure that subjectivity is not interfering with his or her vision? But I think that humanity will only start to make real advances when men and women start playing for the same team and in their correct positions. That, and when they both see that the contemporary world, with its denial of God, is on the path to self-destruction. This may mean a healthy dose of humility for both sexes but that's never a bad thing.

An afterthought: The thought has crossed my mind that maybe the demons behind so many of the modern transgressions have specifically attacked women through attempting to corrupt womanhood because they know that when woman is true to her inner self she correctly orientates man to God. When she deserts her post, as it were, he does not have her guidance to put him on the right path. She softens and civilises him but only when she fulfils the trust laid in her femininity. In Christian terms you might say that Christ could not have been born if Mary had not been pure of soul.

School history teaching about Albion should start with the Mesolithic

A rare surviving photograph of some druids emerging from the ancient mist

I was reading a (somewhat jokey, but actually serious) little essay by John Michell saying that modern school history teaching was made dull and inadequate by its avoidance of the great span of years before the Romans - and recalling that there used to be a great deal of vivid information taught about the Ancient British which is now left-out.

Michell was, without naming him, clearly discussing Geoffrey of Monmouth's book about the Ancient British Kings, which for several hundred years was something all educated people would know. Geoffrey's account goes right back to the discovery of Britain by Brutus the Trojan, when the land was won from the giants or titans who inhabited it - and there is a list of King (some with detailed biographies) from this point.

But I think he was correct - and I see many good reasons why British children should be taught their history right back to the Mesolithic hunter gatherers of the post-ice age (about 12 000 years ago). Plenty of interesting stuff can be inferred about such people - not just from the (scant) archaeology and understanding of climate, flora and fauna - but by comparison with the detailed knowledge of hunter gatherers in similar situations elsewhere in the world. Presumably these Mesolithic Men were either ruled-by or preyed-upon by the resident giants...

Then comes the Neolithic - with more archaeology but also more scope for reasonable and plausible inferences about the advent of agriculture - herding, then planting; and the role of their religion with its underground tombs, hilltop temples, ceremonial paths and - in general - vast sacred landscape.

At this time Britain - at least the southern parts - was probably like Ancient Egypt - highly organised, stable, peaceful, intellectual - and, I think, literate. It is hard to imagine how else such a complex society could have been administered, and over dozens of generations. There are plenty of complex, symbolic rock markings from this era, although there is no recognised archaeological evidence for written communication, yet.

The so-called Bronze age was not distinct - but divides into an early part that was an extension of the Neolithic; and a later part that was culturally like the Iron Age. Bronze itself made Britain central to Europe - because Cornwall was one of only a couple of sources for the tin required to make it; and there were enormous copper mines in Wales that were exporting all over the place.

From the late Bronze Age (including Stonehenge) Britain was a kind of post-apocalyptic world, where the high civilisation, literacy and national peace of the Neolithic collapsed - to leave small, warring tribes. Human sacrifice was almost certainly a major feature of their religion. However, this developed into the age of the druids - who perhaps were a remnant of the Neolithic priesthood; and a time when England became famous as the centre of druidical colleges.

This was also the era when recorded history begins to overlap with myth - as Julius Caesar made the first Roman attempt to conquer the Island. And thus we join-up to the standard curriculum; not forgetting the narrative of the young Jesus visiting Somerset and Cornwall and his uncle Joseph (of Arimathea) later building the very first Christian church in the world, in Glastonbury. And the later activities of Arthur and Merlin...

The point is that the supposed facts of archaeology and science (which are changeable, anyway) are regarded only as a basis or framework for intuitive imagination; to bring the past to life for children by vivid pictures and stories of 'what it was like' to live in those very different times; when people had very different priorities and interests.

The stories need to be plausible and coherent - and they need to be linked to some vision of national purpose - if so, then such a history is 'our' history, personally relevant - and perhaps inspiring.   

History, to be valuable, must be a story; and to be memorable a story must be engaging. The imagination comes first, not as a bolt-on optional extra. As such - this kind of history could, and should, be at the centre of all education.

You are too late - I told you so

I'm not one to say 'I told you so' - But I told you so.

Even before I was a Christian, and very actively from about 30-15 years ago I used to be active (in journalism, in professional 'politics', giving lectures etc) against all these trends for New Leftism (identity politics), Political Correctness, Bureaucracy - the politicisation of science, medicine, academic, education.

I was at that time just arguing from (what was then) 'common sense' - on the usual mainstream assumption that 'we wanted' a prosperous, comfortable, efficient, effective materialistic society; and pointing-out that that was precisely what we were incrementally destroying by the prevalent ideology. 

(This is a matter of public record, which can be inspected by anyone interested-enough; much of it is available or referenced at hedweb.com/bgcharlton ).

I was active then because I realised that then was the last time such measure might be effective - and could be undertaken without much risk of any serious adverse sanctions.

When that time was passed, when it was too late, I stopped politicking and polemicking...

Now it is too late for 'normal politics' to stand much or any chance - and the obedient drones, the dishonest and careerist, the timid and unprincipled are far more numerous and more powerful - and even more fearful and compliant.

Of course, now that it is too late; the alternative media are full of people (most of these would-be thought-leaders and culture warriors themselves cringing behind net-anonymity!) calling for active resistance Now - but now there is almost nobody able (and even fewer willing) to resist. I don't object to the handful or relatively-uncorrupted trying - it is not ruled-out as absolutely impossible; but I don't believe they will achieve anything - because now it's too late, now they are too few.

That's what being too late means.

That is why I now address individuals not groups, and why I emphasise the absolute priority and necessity for spiritual awakening - before anything good can come-about. Being too late also means that we ('the people') are now our-selves too corrupt to be able to rely on socio-political pressures to 'implement' our will: it is now our will that is corrupt.

That perverted will must be fixed - or political changes will only make things worse, but worse in a different way.

We missed the boat; we did not act when it could have been effective; we need to take that on board and act accordingly.

And, in a way, it is better that it be so - because, when our fundamental metaphysical assumptions have been so very wrong for such a long time; all the 'fixes' I used to ask for (15-30 years ago) would never have done more than delay the inevitable. The underlying errors were still in-place.

However, it is significant that we did not even try to correct the obvious problems; instead - as a society - The West embraced its own destruction some decades ago, and we are currently well en route.

But from where we are now; our assumptions will necessarily be the proper ones, and our actions will be properly motivated.

Sunset in the West

The philosopher Seneca who lived during the time of the Roman emperor Nero, sometimes regarded as a forerunner or type of the Antichrist, said that when the state was corrupt beyond repair and degenerate to the core, the wise man would not pointlessly battle against it but look beyond it to the greater cosmos and become a citizen of that. He would detach himself from worldly passions and remain rooted in reason, and so find his freedom in living above the messy disorder of the lower world.

An admirable point of view and almost certainly the one we should take during these distracted times.  And yet there is something in me that says we can't just turn our backs on the world. We have to continue, however fruitlessly it may seem, to point out its many and deep flaws. For if even one person is sustained and encouraged by that, it is worthwhile. If people who know the truth don't speak out against its destruction, how can those who are struggling against the corruptions of the modern world ever find support? We may be shouting into the blast of a mighty gale but to remain silent in the face of such a desecration of what is sacred and true is almost an act of complicity.

Sometimes people ask themselves how they might have behaved under the Nazis. Would we have been enthusiastic collaborators or would we merely have gone along with the regime without questioning anything too much? Most of us like to think we would have stood out against the tyranny. But that's easier said than done when practically the whole of society is pushing in one direction and goodness is defined as conforming to that direction with evil being resisting it. Because, you see, a very similar thing is happening today. That may seem absurd to many people but the fact is we are being led down ideological garden paths, indoctrinated with lies and falsehood, and most of us tamely follow the party line. In fact, we don't just follow. We believe it.

It has occurred to me that the supernatural forces behind the Nazis might not have been too unhappy when they lost that battle because they knew they could regroup and corrupt humanity using different tactics. This time they switched from a hard assault to a soft one. We were still to be made slaves but willing slaves this time for we would so react against the Nazi excesses that we would go the opposite way and throw out practically any kind of discrimination against anybody or anything. What is anybody called who fails to adopt the leftist ideology now? Why, a Nazi, of course! And that despite the fact that it is clear that most people who actually fought against the Nazis, such as my own grandfather and father, would probably be branded Nazis today for the opinions they held if these had remained what they were at the time of World War Two. Amusing, no?

When people are wrong about something, you have to ask why they are wrong. What is making them wrong? After all, truth should really be something to which our own nature responds almost automatically because it is true. What is true is right. It's that simple. But we have been gifted with free will and that means we can go wrong, go against truth. We have that choice. I would say there are two reasons for error, one centred in the mind and the other in the will. So first there is ignorance and then there is sin. Today much error is to do with the will, that is to say it derives from the rebellion initially against God and then against Nature, so first the Creator is rejected and then the creation and the natural order. This is all to do with the attempt by a created being to be its own god and create its own reality.

The rebellion against nature is one of the signs of a decadent civilisation. How does this manifest in our present age? Firstly, in the toppling of traditional hierarchies, those based on the natural order. Now these hierarchies can certainly be abused and become tyrannical but that does not alter the fact that they are based in reality. A thing cannot be defined by its corruption. So they might need to be reformed but they should not be overturned.

The rebellion against nature follows on from the rebellion against God, the creator of nature. This is shown nowadays in the almost total legitimisation of homosexuality and in feminism or what feminism has become for it had a certain validity at first as a correction to an over-balance on the masculine side. But it has progressed from seeking a fair opportunity to express a person's talents to a grab for ever greater power and 'top dog' position as the female seeks to usurp the male (just as the male sought to usurp God). But feminism has had a highly detrimental effect on women, above all spiritually but evident to the alert eye in their manner and even their appearance. It has caused them to betray their true nature in pursuit of a false reality. It has also been responsible for the reduction of grace, beauty, magic, mystery and love in the world, all of which are linked to the feminine (not the female) which is what feminism most despises. Unfortunately, this ideology is supported and promoted by those who wish to overturn the natural order of being to their own advantage and also because of resentment and envy. The cry of equality is a red herring. Equality does not exist in the universe and nor should it for the only true equality would be in a universe in which nothing was expressed. In a created universe, everything reaches its fulfilment by conforming to its archetype and not by seeking to appropriate the archetype of another. The idea of equality between the sexes is an irrelevancy. The sexes are not meant to be equal which is why there are two of them.

Western civilisation is currently pursuing its own destruction whether through mass immigration and below replacement fertility or through relativising its cultural achievements, easily the greatest of any civilisation ever, or through allowing lower standards to prevail in the name of fairness, diversity and equality. Boundaries, which protect as much as they exclude, are being smashed in the name of a spurious unity with the inevitable consequence of a vulgarisation of taste and culture. These are clear signs of a society that has lost its confidence and become tired of its own existence. Most critically of all, it is mindlessly allowing the destruction, both from within and outside, of Christianity which is its primary inspiration and the basic glue that holds it all together.

So this is a call to repentance, both individual and collective. We have to turn away from ourselves and back to God or we are lost. I started this piece by referring to Seneca and saying where I disagreed with him, but I will conclude by saying that basically he was right. In these days when the world is burning we have to detach ourselves from the always transient lower worlds of change and decay, and focus our hearts and minds in the higher world of eternal goodness and truth. We may not like being alive at a time of such spiritual decline but we wouldn't be here unless we were meant to be. It is quite possible that we asked or were, at least, willing to be born in these times so we should learn the lessons that they provide. Sometimes it's easier to turn to God in a world that turns away from him.