Saving the West

There are many online writings lamenting the destruction of the West and blaming the usual suspects of mass immigration, liberalism, feminism and materialism, and their by-products of sentimentality, self-hatred and so on. Some regret this but accept it as inevitable, others want to fight it and think it can be turned around while a few just shrug their shoulders and cultivate their garden which seems to them to be the only option left in a crumbling cultural wasteland. I sympathise with all these approaches but would like to ask a question here. What is the West for? Because only if we know what it is for can we know if it is worth saving. 

Any civilisation worth that name must be organised around spiritual principles. From ancient Egypt to Greece to India, and even Rome when it began, God or the gods were at the centre of life, formed the culture and gave meaning to the civilisation. For the West that organising principle was Christianity which was the greatest expression of spiritual understanding there has been. In fact, all the other expressions might be said to be from the outside looking in. Only Christianity really comes from the inside. That, of course, is the meaning of revelation. Christianity or, better put, Christ is the greatest revelation of and from the spiritual world. There really is no doubt about this. Christ is the only religious personality utterly without flaw or limitation.

The West existed for the expression of Christianity. That is what gave it its greatness. Not uniquely for there were many tributaries but the main river into which all these tributaries fed was Christianity. Some people think the West is defined by science and has reached its greatest state following that pursuit but even science arose in a Christian context with natural philosophers seeking to understand God's creation. And whether it has reached its apogee pursuing science or sunk to a spiritual nadir is a question worth pondering.

When the West started to abandon Christianity it lost sight of itself. Now, we can go into the reasons for that abandonment and say that some of them were actually based in truth because they were to do with the development of consciousness and an increased mental polarisation and intellectual comprehension of the creation. The outer expression of Christ's teachings followed by the West might be said to have been suitable for an earlier phase of consciousness, less so for the new phase. But the core remained eternally valid for the core is Christ himself. It is not true that a better grasp of the world leads to atheism. A superficial understanding may but not a deeper one. A little knowledge has proved to be a very dangerous thing for the West but it is not only this superficial knowledge that has caused the West to abandon God and Christ. This is fundamentally a moral problem. The creature has got too big for its boots. Its newly acquired powers have gone to its head for it has taken these to itself and decided they are aspects of its own self and belong to that self by right.

I regret the ongoing destruction of the West but it has brought this on itself through its own hubris. When it rejected Christ it signed its own death warrant and we live in the playing out of that process. I suppose that it could theoretically rediscover Christ but that looks very unlikely, so much have we succumbed to our own egotism and proved unable to resist the demonic influences which hasten the process of our downfall. Individually, we can and should turn back to reality which means for the West to Christ, but collectively things do not look promising. So be it. The West is only worth saving if it rededicates itself to Christ. Note I do not say spirituality which can mean a whole host of things, some positive, some just self-indulgent and shallow. Without the rediscovery of Christ we can fight the symptoms and secondary causes of decline as listed above all we like but it will not lead to any kind of true renaissance.

Imperfection

 It is a sad fact that in this world everything good is contaminated while many things that are mostly bad have some good in them. This can be confusing and is disconcerting for those who, like me, Virgo that I am, would prefer good and bad to be clearly delineated. But it means that one must develop discernment and also a measure, not too much, of open-mindedness and tolerance. Truth is multi-faceted and the wise do not become set in their ways or restricted to just one approach to it.

This is not an excuse for believing all manner of nonsense nor does it justify falsehood. Good and bad may often be mixed together but our task is to sift them apart and keep the good while rejecting the bad. At the same time, it does mean we should understand that there may be some good in what may be mostly bad (I am speaking of ideas more than actions), and support that good while rejecting the bad. This keeps us on our spiritual toes especially as we are also required to uphold the good unreservedly and without compromise.

This is an imperfect world as it must be since it is the material part of the whole and matter is intrinsically unstable. Nowadays, it is more imperfect than ever as the grip of matter on our minds has tightened. We can never fully free ourselves of that material grip while in the world but nor should we allow it to have a hold on us. The rule is aim for perfection but know you can never reach it in this world. As the Masters said, "Do not be a perfectionist. There is nothing perfect to be found anywhere in your world. Seek the true perfection within but do not expect it outwardly. If you do, all you will find will be disappointment. It is your task to demonstrate the highest you can but not to condemn others who do not live up to your ideals."

Bad People

 What can we do if we get involved with a bad person? I ask the question because this is a common experience for people who seek to become closer to God.

First of all, we have to admit that there are such things as bad people. The sentimentalised modern idea is that everyone is basically good until proved otherwise whereas the traditional Christian belief was we are all basically bad until saved. But that is not what I mean here. I am referring to something over and above the Christian concept of original sin or, as some might just call it, the ego. I am talking about people who are spiritually rotten rather than just undeveloped, unawakened or run of the mill self-centred which is most of us.

Jesus described such people when he called the Pharisees a brood of vipers, specifically associating them with the serpent, Satan. He went on to say, "How can you, who are evil, say anything good?" (Matthew 12:34). Then in John 8:44 he says that their father is the devil and they do their father's desires. These are the fallen beings who come to this world already in league with or corrupted by dark forces. Christianity errs in thinking that souls are newly created when they come into this world. We all have a prior existence in the spiritual world and we have already been through many experiences before coming here which have made us the sort of person we are. Some may have spent previous lives in the physical world, others may have known existence in other dimensions. No human soul in this world is freshly hatched, and what I am calling a fallen being is one who has largely already chosen the path of God rejection and ego before all else.

I believe there are a large number of such souls around at the present time for one of the peculiarities of our age is that it is a summing up of a cycle when all the negativity of the past is released and that includes human negativity. These are hard words but look around. Can you call them unfair? Naturally, all souls can be saved. All are God's children and Jesus came to save sinners not the righteous, but it cannot be denied that it is hard to save a fallen being.

One of the reasons it is hard is because bad people genuinely have no idea they are bad. They even consider themselves to be good and that others who may get in their way are the bad ones. They are the best of self-justifiers. They can consistently behave appallingly to someone but if that person reacts just once then it is he who is at fault and anything the bad person may have done is explained and excused by that one reaction, even if it took place beforehand! I know someone who regularly abuses and insults her husband but if he ever reacts and responds in anger then he is the one at fault, never mind the fact that he puts up with a great deal most of the time. In her mind his one moment of anger justifies her constant aggression and rudeness.

A bad person completely lacks self-knowledge and does not even want it despite claims to the contrary. Most people will strive to understand their shortcomings up to a point but fallen beings are not interested in that. They seek only what bolsters their ego and are oblivious to anything that might show them up as self-concerned monsters. It is a psychological block which they have acquired over time, I am tempted to say over lifetimes, and generally speaking nothing can penetrate it. Perhaps in certain cases, suffering or an extreme experience of some kind, some light may dawn but that is not guaranteed by any means.

These fallen beings are souls that have chosen the wrong path over a long period. They come to this world already spiritually damaged goods, self-damaged, that is. Perhaps some of them are here now as a last opportunity to progress spiritually before being consigned to experiences elsewhere. They are being given another chance to repent. Of course, there is something of this in all of us. We all bear the burden of a corrupt ego as part of the human experience and we all need to repent, but these souls are ones who have consistently failed to do so and, as a result, embedded themselves further in the fallen self.

What, then, can we do if we are in similar position to the husband of the person just mentioned? If, that is, fate has thrown us together with a person of this sort, perhaps someone we might nowadays say suffers from narcissistic personality disorder which is a spiritual as much as a psychological sickness. We might start by accepting that there is a life lesson here. Jesus suffered abuse uncomplainingly. Perhaps we are being given a similar lesson, hard as it might be. Just as God can bring good out of evil, in some cases greater good than there would have been without the evil, so he can use such fallen beings as mediums through which to test us, test our self-control, our ability to remain detached and calm and not react in the face of attack, and our capacity to forgive. The Lord's Prayer asks God to "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." To be forgiven we must show that we ourselves can forgive, and how can we do that if there is nothing to forgive? Forgiveness purifies the heart. Without a cause to draw forth this forgiveness such purification is much harder.

Bad people exist and those on the spiritual path will frequently be thrown into close proximity with them. The task is to endure without responding in kind. This is the test to which we must be equal if we would follow the example laid down for us by Jesus. At the same time, it is foolishness to pretend that bad people are not bad. The devil loves to be thought misunderstood rather than wicked. He can pursue his ends that much more easily. As always we must balance love with wisdom and wisdom with love.

The Second World War and its Aftermath

 Seeing the path the world has taken over the last 80 years I have occasionally wondered whether the demonic forces behind World War Two were not so much aiming to win a conventional victory as hoping to use the reaction against the defeated Nazis to promote their agenda to bring down Western civilisation and, more to the point since that was already on the turn, corrupt human souls.

This is not to say the Nazis weren't the tools of darkness but dare one suggest without being accused of contrarian revisionism, that they were not uniquely evil either? They, and especially Hitler, have been made into figures of archetypal wickedness, devils in human form, and it probably suits our self-image to cast them in that light because it makes us appear virtuous, but this is a problem because investing them with such unique evil gives the impression that everything they believed must have been wrong. Consequently, it becomes easy to define good as the opposite of that. This false idea then provides a fruitful area for exploitation in that morality becomes anything that is anti-Nazi.

Let's see how this plays out. The Nazis believed in Aryan supremacy so whatever works against that is good. Anti-racism, mass immigration, belittling one's own people and one's own country to the point that you accept or even welcome their disappearance if you are an Aryan, i.e.white, all this is good because it is the opposite of what the Nazis believed. If it's good we go along with it even if it is against our own interests and our better judgment. The feeling we should do what is right for some and the glow of moral superiority for others overcome any lingering instincts of self-preservation.

The Nazis were against sexual deviance, notwithstanding the personal behaviour of some of them. Therefore, it becomes obvious that sexual liberation is a good thing. To oppose that is to be a cruel fascist, a control freak, a prude, a Nazi. To want to restrict love, you must be a hateful person. Love, or what is called love, is a justification for anything. (By the way, a lot of misunderstandings could be avoided if we, like the ancient Greeks, had more than one word for the many different feelings covered by the simple word 'love'.)

The Nazis wished to ban degenerate art, Entartete Kunst, which we know simply as modern art. They saw this as un-German in inspiration and effect, criticising it for its "Freemasonic, Jewish or Communist nature" (Wikipedia). Their defeat left anyone with similar doubts about this kind of art, that it did not reflect the higher worlds as art traditionally was supposed to do but was more in tune with infernal regions, in a difficult position. If the Nazis thought modern art bad, then it must be good. If you too think it's bad, well then, you are a Nazi sympathiser. At the very least, you belong to an outmoded, out of touch and ignorant group.

And so on. Now, in order to stop any latent Nazi tendencies to rise up once again we must encourage all those things they were against. Evil then spreads not by force of arms but through propaganda and even morality. And this, I would say, is because we have allowed ourselves to see the war against Hitler as an absolute good against absolute evil situation. As a result, for the last 80 years World War Two has become a replacement foundation myth for Western civilisation. And yet it was really just a war like many others. We need to put it behind us and no longer define ourselves in terms of our reaction to it but it seems more important now than it ever was. When I was growing up in the '60s it did not form a big part of my history lessons but my children's history syllabus seemed to revolve almost entirely around it. They were taught a lot about Hitler and the Holocaust and practically nothing about Alfred the Great and the Armada.

Maybe the reaction against the Nazi beliefs became Plan B for the dark forces but, in terms of defeating the Christian West, that plan has been most effective. And speaking of Christianity, one should note that this was the one thing the Nazis were against that has not benefitted from an anti-Nazi reactionary support. Coincidence?

The defeat of Germany prompted the emigration of many European Marxists to America where they spread their ideological poison, first in academia and then throughout the culture, in the process capturing all the institutions which now work against the nations they were set up to support. Whether this was part of the plan to begin with or whether it became the plan after military defeat is irrelevant at this point. The fact is the West allowed itself to be infected by a spiritual virus which has caused the sicknesses we suffer from today. Along with Russia, the West may have won the war on the battlefield but in that victory there lay the seeds for its subsequent defeat.

This piece is not written as part of the recent Churchill-bashing trend. Churchill was clearly a complicated character. My friend Michael Lord knew him quite well in his later life and would sometimes be invited to lunch at his house at Chartwell. On one occasion he watched as Churchill fed his pet goose pate de foie gras from the dinner table, making the bird, in effect, a cannibal.  A jolly joke. But, though one might wonder whether the state of Europe after the war was any better than it would have been without a war, with Britain ruined and Eastern Europe communist, it must have seemed at the time as though there was no other option in the face of Nazi aggression, and Churchill was probably the right man to lead the country at that time. However, one may still be permitted to speculate as to whether the dark forces saw the war and its aftermath as a means to infect the West with atheistic communism as it had to that point proved reasonably resistant to that spiritual disease, a disease to which we have now succumbed if you look at it, as you should, as something much more than an economic system.

There are many people talking and writing about the, to all intents and purposes, communist takeover of the West and how we are being taught by this ideology to hate ourselves and all our past achievements. Our countries are being flooded with aliens and our cultures debased. Feminism is destroying the family and masculinity, which, properly functioning, might arrest the decline, is derided. However, we can never understand what is happening until we see the assault as primarily spiritual and the object of its attack being the soul and its relation to God. It is to sever this relationship that is the purpose of everything else. Jesus said "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all else will be added to you". He could just as well have said "Abandon the search for the kingdom of heaven and you will lose everything else." We would do well to bear this in mind. It is no good resisting communism if you do not do so with the full remembrance of God for what communism is chiefly all about is the  replacement of God with man but man in his fallen mode. This is how we can easily identify its Satanic origin.

Heaven is More

 Many people have the idea, either consciously or as a kind of automatic assumption, that the spiritual world is somehow less substantial than the physical. After all, we get there by shedding the solid material body. In our minds, we rise. Ghosts can pass through walls. They presumably are not over bothered by density or gravity. They seem wispy, immaterial, bodiless. And if even ghosts have less substance than earthly men and women how much more would that apply to those who have gone further and not lingered in an earthbound state? We say that Jesus ascended into heaven which implies his body became light in both senses of the word. Does that mean he became less substantial?

A moment's reflection shows that to be absurd. Less substantial means less real. When Jesus rose from the dead he became more real because now his body operated at a higher level than the merely physical. Our material world is one of three dimensions but the higher worlds contain more dimensions and are thus more real. They include more of reality and so are more, not less, substantial. A line has everything a point has but more. A plane contains more of reality than a line and a cube more than a plane. And so on though we currently lack the conceptual framework to understand that other than in a theoretical sense. But we can imagine that Heaven has numerous dimensions and this makes it real in a way that is inconceivable to us. Anyone of a mystical temperament knows that the world in which we currently live lacks full reality, certainly considerably less than we intuitively know exists. This is because our multi-dimensional soul has been squashed down to exist in a three dimensional state of being. This world is certainly real but it is much less real than the higher worlds which contain more and more of reality.

Hierarchy and Complementarity

Complementarity is not equality. I have seen writings by self-styled traditionalists, and even some esotericists who should know better but who are clearly still influenced by Enlightenment ideas, which ostensibly decry feminism but say that men and women are different but equal because they complement each other, with each being superior in its own domain.

This is true up to a point but it falls short of the cosmic meaning behind sex differences, and the laws of the macrocosm should be reflected in the microcosm for order to prevail on that level. Men and women are certainly complementary to each other. That is obvious to all but the most hidebound of feminists but it does not mean they are equal other than in spiritual worth on the individual level. However, that is a separate issue. The truth is that there is a hierarchical as well as a complementary aspect to the male/female duality which is symbolised in the story that Eve came out of Adam's side not vice versa, and also revealed by the fact that to God all souls are feminine in respect of their relationship to him. He represents or, better put, is the positive pole. The nature of masculinity and femininity finds its first origins in this relationship. A Christian might see it reflected in the idea that the church is the bride of Christ. This is a relationship of love but not equality.

To say that men and women are complementary and equal but different with women better at being women and men better at being men is only a half-truth. The masculine pole is prior in the hierarchy of creation and in that sense men do have spiritual authority over women, an authority they must exercise if order and harmony are to reign. The feminine is an essential part of creation which is necessarily dualistic as in subject and object, but it is subordinate to the masculine as matter is to spirit. Without matter spirit cannot be expressed but spirit is the primordial reality. This foundation truth lies at the heart of the masculine/feminine polarity, and in a smooth running universe it should function with love and creativity. But in the human world female ego and male misuse of power has created a war between the sexes. And a lack of love on both sides.

 

This hierarchical relationship does not mean that women should just be submissive wives and mothers as in some traditionalist Christian schools of thought. Still less does it support the Islamic fear and suppression of women which has only produced a stunted and largely uncreative culture. The post-renaissance change in consciousness, entailing a greater focus on the self, that started in the West and then spread everywhere affected everyone, men and women. But the female expression of that should be within the context of womanhood not pseudo-masculinity, and it must still observe the priority of the masculine pole. There will be individual cases where that is not so but these are the exceptions that prove the rule. In general, the principle of masculine or solar rulership must hold if culture and civilisation are to function according to spiritual principles. When it does not, as in the modern quasi-matriarchy, everything will fall apart as indeed is happening in our day, whether admitted or not.

God has given us the sun and the moon to demonstrate the truth of this relationship. The sun rules the day and the moon the night and, in that sense, they are complementary, one to the other. But the moon draws its light from the sun though it processes this light according to its own unique nature. Esoterically, there are lunar mysteries where the feminine rules and solar mysteries where it is the masculine force that dominates. But the solar mysteries relate to higher initiations and deeper truths, spirit rather than soul. Early man worshipped the Great Mother or Goddess because he only knew the natural and psychic worlds and could not yet relate to higher spiritual forces. Spiritual evolution in those days consisted of breaking free of the bond of the mother which was essential if man was to become a free agent. Many stories in early mythology relate to this battle. Now we live in an era in which the feminine is reasserting itself after a period of suppression but it is doing so in an unbalanced and ignorant way. The feminine must be expressed but it must be so in the context of wisdom not desire for power, and that means it must recognise the overall rulership of the masculine. Men and women complement each other, of course, but there is no such thing as equality anywhere in the universe. It is a doctrine spread by the fallen powers in order to put their agenda on an equal footing with that of God.

Added note: The ultimate goal of evolution is the complete infusion of matter by spirit with its subsequent transformation and glorification. This is the mystic marriage of cosmic masculine and cosmic feminine and foreshadows the union of God with his creation. Thus, we can see that the feminine which is matter, nature, all creation, and the masculine which is spirit are two halves of  one whole, in a horizontal sense equal because both need each other but in the vertical sense spirit has hierarchical pre-eminence. 

 

Divisiveness and Unity

 Nowadays you regularly hear condemnation of this or that person or attitude for divisiveness as though to separate was intrinsically bad and to join in unity always good. You must respect those whose views are different to yours or society cannot get along, or so it goes. But here's the truth.  Divisiveness is good. It is even essential if you wish to preserve truth. I don't respect falsehood, I don't respect wickedness, I don't respect anything or anybody that denies the reality of God. To condemn divisiveness is a trick of the devil to get us to accept his degenerate and corrupt agenda.  We must separate good from evil, truth from lies, love from hate. But principally we must separate that which acknowledges God from that which does not. Then other things will follow. You don't love the devil and his works. You don't include them in a fatuous oneness. You reject them utterly as well as the souls that embrace them though with compassion for such souls for while you reject their error and the inner spiritual sinfulness that has led them into error, you still know them as potential sons and daughters of God if they can repent of the sins that have caused them to go astray.

Christ brought a sword, the sword that cleaves truth from lies. In that sense, he was the most divisive person who has ever lived but, at the same time, he also came to heal the division caused by the Satanic introduction of the lie. The devil seeks unity so that he may separate souls from God. Christ divides truth from the lie in order to unite souls with God on a higher plane.

I have posted this under the two tags of equality and non-duality for the former is a secular version of the latter. Both equality and non-duality see all souls as one and basically the same, but they miss the truth that true oneness can only be attained after division has done its work in separating out that which accepts God from that which rejects him. And note that the rejection of God is not just the deliberate refusal of him but also the lack of positive acceptance. There is the active denial of God and there is the more passive ignoring of him, and though the latter may be less spiritually destructive, it is still rejection. The lesson for souls in this world is not for them to realise the unity of everything in it regardless of what it is but to learn to separate good from evil and true from false. Through this separation one grows into true spiritual unity in the reality of God.