March 29th

My new book Remember the Creator is published today (April 1st in America). The subject of the book is summed up in the title. This is the most important thing for modern day humanity; to remember God. But on its own, it is not enough. For what sort of God are we remembering and how are we remembering him? It is a cliché to say that God invented Man in his own image and ever since Man has been returning the compliment, but such is the case. Look at modern religion of practically any type you care to mention. People pray to God, they talk of God but I venture to suggest that the God they address is often one of their own imagining, conjured up from the limited resources of their own minds and a projection of their own thoughts and desires. 

Of course, none of us really knows God. As the absolute and eternal, he is beyond us all. But there really is a difference between those who intuit something of his reality because they have begun to open themselves up to what is beyond themselves, the truth of the transcendent, and those who may believe in something but do so from within the context of their own minds. It's like an enclosed circle and one in which there is a little opening so that the light outside begins to seep in. We in the West can see the mental conception of God quite clearly in Islam but it appears just as much in many contemporary Christian churches where God has been reduced to something like the head of a social services bureau, a non-judgemental figure preoccupied with egalitarianism and universal friendliness rather than the Maker of Heaven and Earth who hates sin but whose love touches like a blazing fire that burns without hurt. Make sure that the God you remember is the fullest expression you can conceive of Goodness, Beauty and Truth, and try to understand him in spiritual not worldly terms. Accept no lesser substitutes.

This is also the day that the UK was supposed to have left the European Union and regained its economic and political independence, turning back towards its true mission in the world. For, cutting through all the obfuscation and waffle, that is what this is all actually about. However, the bullying potentates of the EU and the craven incompetents of the British Government have put an at least temporary stop to that. Not to mention the behind the scenes manipulations of civil servants and bureaucrats whose arrogance is only matched by their complacency. 

Hard words, I know, and I'm not saying these are all bad people. Doubtless many mean well according to their conception of things. But they see everything in terms of this world (even the religious among them - apparently most of the clergy and all the bishops in the Church of England want Britain to remain in the EU), and they have no spiritual insight or vision, substituting for that a belief in progress on the worldly level. One must hope that their actions will make an increasing number of people realise how completely untrustworthy the political class and technocratic elites are. May they consequently turn to deeper ways of engaging with the problems of life. As the outer world descends further into illusion, remembering the Creator becomes more vital by the day.

It's Time to Build Your Ark

These are times of great spiritual darkness when the truth of God the Creator of Heaven and Earth is either rejected outright or (which is possibly worse) corrupted and twisted into something that bears no resemblance to reality, often derived from applying the principles of secular humanism/materialism to the spiritual world so that the latter is actually defined by the former, an obviously ludicrous position rather like defining a human being in terms of a chimpanzee. Imagine that a three dimensional cube is collapsed to a two dimensional square and understood in two dimensional terms. Seeing the spiritual in secular terms is much more ignorant even than that but we do it.

So, for those who would stay faithful to the real spiritual vision of Christ, I suggest it's time to build some kind of inner protection in order not to get washed away by the world.

https://albionawakening.blogspot.com/2019/03/its-time-to-build-your-ark.html

Meeting a Master

In my book Meeting the Masters I gave no names of any of the spiritual beings who spoke to me (though I did for one of their helpers), and that's because I was given no names. When I asked, out of natural curiosity, I was told it was not important. The implication was that names can make one focus too much on personalities to the detriment of the spiritual message imparted. There was, however, one occasion when I was given a name and in the book I describe this as follows: "I was talked to by one of the higher Masters. He spoke kindly and, unusually, gave his name though it was not one I was familiar with."

That passage may seem to imply that I didn't understand the name so couldn't reproduce it. That was not the case. I didn't mention the name in the book because I felt at the time that it was not my right to do so. This may seem an odd thing to say since I was writing about the Masters anyway, but it was what I felt and so I left it at that. A name can make a connection and I wasn't sure if that was a desirable thing then. However, I have recently had the impression that I should give the name of this Master. Again, I can't say what has prompted this or even if it matters in any way at all, but the feeling received curious confirmation by a book I have just finished reading which is Beowulf in the translation by Tolkien.

I've never read Beowulf before though I know the story, of course, and did read a child's version ages ago. It's a heroic epic poem, 3182 lines long, in Old English, possibly going back to the 8th century but preserved in just one manuscript which scholarship dates to around the early 11th century. Although set in Scandinavia, it is an English poem written by an anonymous Anglo-Saxon. The story is familiar. Beowulf is a young warrior belonging to the tribe of the Geats who comes to the aid of Hrothgar, King of the Danes, whose hall is constantly attacked by the monster Grendel, a hideous creature of great strength supposedly descended from the Biblical murderer Cain. Beowulf succeeds in killing Grendel and then when Grendel's mother attacks the hall in revenge, he descends into her underground lair and kills her too. Richly rewarded by Hrothgar, he returns home in great honour and becomes king. Fifty years later a dragon goes on the rampage after treasure is stolen from its hoard. Beowulf tracks the beast to its den in an ancient burial mound and manages to kill it but at the cost of his own life.

At this point you may be thinking that the Master was called Beowulf but, no, that was not his name. There is a section in the poem, about 700 lines in, when Beowulf is compared to an ancient hero who was also a dragon slayer, and that hero's name was Sigemund. This was the name given by the higher Master when he spoke to me. At the time I was not, as I say, familiar with the name and wrote it down phonetically as Siggermund because that was how it sounded to me. But Sigemund seems the correct spelling though there are different versions of the name ranging from Wagner's Siegmund in Die Walkure to Sigmund in the Volsunga Saga which is where the story is best known. Neither of which I knew then.

What I find intriguing in Tolkien's notes on the reference to Sigemund in his Beowulf translation is that he says this "is the oldest reference to the Sigemund story that is now extant, even in point of manuscript date." Thus it precedes both the Volsunga Saga and the Niebelungenlied. He makes this point because in later versions it is Sigemund's son Siegfried who kills the dragon, as also in Wagner. But Tolkien thinks that it is these later accounts that have embellished the story (as often happened with myths and legends which grew as they moved through time) and that Sigemund acquired a son who took over his exploits. So, for Tolkien, Sigemund not Siegfried is the original dragon slayer and prime hero.

This is interesting to me because it gives the name extra significance. Sigemund is a kind of ur-hero of Northern European civilisation and the fact that this is the only name any of the Masters gave me seems to have some relevance, to me at any rate. What is more, it was the name of one who was described as a higher Master and whose tone and manner were certainly that of a being of extraordinary power and authority. He didn't speak to me much but I can still remember that it was like being in the presence of a great king. I'm not making this up or exaggerating.

There is one other incident connected with Sigemund which I feel obliged to mention even though I could justifiably be accused of straying into realms of fantasy. But it exists and so I do mention it. That is the similarity of something in his story with something in the story of Arthur. I don't know if this incident occurs anywhere else and is a staple of myth or if it is unique to these two. I am referring to the successful drawing of a sword from a firm foundation (stone or tree), a task that has defeated all those who have tried before. This is confirmation that the hero is the true son of a divine or royal father, and is both an initiation and acceptance of destiny. Sigemund and Arthur are, in this sense, related.

So, for what it is worth, Sigemund was the name of one of the Masters who spoke to me, the only one I was ever given. I'd be curious to hear if this name means anything to anyone else.

Note: It may be remarked that Sigemund is a pagan name so I should make clear my belief that the spiritual beings who spoke to me act under the overall authority of Christ. 

Brexit and Religion

Some thoughts on how a deeper understanding of God's will for human beings can be a guide for whether the UK (or any other country) should stay in or leave the EU on Albion Awakening. Is union always good or does it depend on what sort of union? Is separation always bad or does it depend on what you are separating from?

Can a Feminist be a Lady?

The ongoing attacks on masculinity and attempts to identify a degenerate form of it, which civilised men have always been the first to deplore, with the thing itself lead me to ask, what about femininity? What has happened to that in recent decades? But first let me point out that one of the aims of the demonic powers that are behind the corruption of the modern world (and if you don't believe this then you really aren't paying attention) is to gain greater control of a largely supine population who will then behave in ways these powers desire. By and large, women are more conformist than men who are the greater natural rebels against authority. Hence the attempt to undermine masculinity and to tar it with the brush of unbalanced behaviour. This is all about control and subservience.

I would like to respond to the silly accusation that if you are against feminism, you don't respect women. For me, the opposite is the case. It is that you do respect women as women but not as the pseudo-men that feminism seeks to turn women into. Maybe it is the feminist who doesn't respect women (or womanhood) and the anti-feminist (as opposed to misogynist) who does? But, anyway, we have to ask ourselves what really lies behind feminism because the current situation in the world is deteriorating rapidly and will lead to eventual civilizational collapse, melodramatic as that may sound. But that's the way it's always been when the proper order of things is disturbed as it is now when everywhere natural ways are being overturned. History clearly indicates that when women gain greater influence in a culture, that culture declines. There are various reasons for this, some of which I will go into below.

The answer to the question of what lies behind feminism is, of course, as it usually is in these sorts of cases, ego. Feminism is not really about equality as is claimed and popularly supposed. That is just a front even if it may have been partly true 100 years ago. But now that has changed into the attempt by the female to appropriate the male role for herself for reasons of personal power. This is why feminism has arisen at the time human beings have become more conscious of their will. That the role feminists attempt to usurp is male is obvious to anyone whose mind is clear and unprejudiced, but to have a clear mind you must not be blinded by desire, ambition or resentment. To know truth, you must love truth above self. If that is not the case, you will disguise your motives, even to yourself, in fact, especially to yourself, and present vice as virtue.

It seems to be the case that feminism appears in some form or another just after a culture has passed its peak, and it increases in influence and appeal as that culture goes downhill. It is probably both a symptom and a cause of this. This is just the opposite to what is normally believed, that feminism is a product of a progressive, enlightened society. But it is, in fact, a product of a society in decline that has lost creative energy, turned its back on the culture creating heroic masculine and lives off its past achievements. That is the only way it can afford the luxury of feminism. A high technological standard is also important as that gives a society the capability to indulge in ideological fantasies that in more deprived times it simply would not be able to do.

But things are never as simple as we might like them to be. Feminism is also a response to the increased need for all human beings to develop and express themselves. That is its positive side and the justification for it. But its negative side overweighs this now although it tends to be obscured by excessive focus on its benefits.

It can be seen that men, in general, seek excellence or truth whereas women, in general, seek consensus. This goes with the common observation that a mother's love is unconditional while a father's is more conditional. But when the feminine/maternal approach is adopted towards work, philosophy and all the problems of existence, you have a tendency towards decline because hard facts and reality are neglected in favour of what makes people feel better. This ties in with the fact that it is the expanding/male principle that drives evolution while the contracting/female principle provides a stable environment in which that can take place. But you need the former to be the directing principle to prevent stasis and allow for growth and progress.

Modern feminism seeks to eradicate or deny the differences between men and women and make of the two sexes just people. But why are there men and women and not just people? It is because the two sexes are meant to complement each other. And not just biologically or reproductively. From a spiritual perspective, the differences are not simply the result of evolution but go back to something in the nature of deity itself. What that something is is best understood by contemplating the difference between spirit and matter, and when we do this we see that the two are complementary but not symmetrical which means that to introduce the idea of equality, as we do nowadays, is misleading. There is no equality between men and women. Are not women more beautiful than men? Are not men physically stronger than women? Are not women more empathetic than men, and are there not many more men represented at the higher levels of intelligence and creativity? Equality in this context is a complete red herring.

The question in the title of this essay is meant seriously. To be a lady in the true sense is an important spiritual quality, just as to be a gentleman is. This is not a matter of a position in society but a state of consciousness that is tuned to something greater and more important than biological or intellectual realities. A real lady is a woman who is aware of the deeper implications of the feminine archetype as it exists on a spiritual level. This, by the way, has nothing to do with the modern interest in the Goddess who is an outmoded pagan figure of no more relevance than the pagan gods, none of whom are truly spiritual in that they are projections of natural archetypes onto the spiritual plane rather than genuinely spiritual archetypes. Consequently, they may benefit those seeking to integrate a semi-spiritual existence with natural life but they will not take you beyond the natural world to the truly spiritual. That was never their function.

Rather than focus on an archaic Goddess concept, women concerned with spiritual development might be better off contemplating the archetype of the lady and trying to coordinate their being with that. This will have an ennobling and purifying effect and, to use what's become a rather old-fashioned phrase, raise their vibrations. 

Can a feminist be a lady? Not if she remains a feminist which is a purely political identification. But if she really wants to discover the reality of her womanhood in a deeper sense then she must become a lady. By doing so she will gain power over men (which, of course, is the feminist's dream) but it will be the power of truth, goodness and nobility not crude domination. It will be the power of love and sacrifice than which there is none greater.