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. 

Gravity and Levity

 What stops a soul ascending to the heavenly realms after death? It is its weight. A soul is literally held down by its weight or rises because of a lack of weight. In the physical world gravity is the dominant force but in the spiritual world levity takes its place and your spiritual lightness draws you upwards. 

What causes this weight? Several things but chief among them are attachment to the material world and sin. Sin is the main deadweight that holds the soul down. Lack of sin, or minimal sin since no one is entirely free of sin, allows the soul to rise. There must also be the positive qualities of aspiration and imagination which is the capacity to respond to the higher worlds, but attachment to sin and to material things are the major weights that pull the soul down and prevent it rising

Thus, you could say that gravity operates in the next world too but it operates in terms of consciousness.

What is the main anti-matter force? It is alignment of the mind with the spirit of Christ. This is something much more than belief in Christ. It is the assimilation of your soul with his.

Right and Left

 The cause of many of today's woes is often said to be rooted in the ever-increasing influence of what is loosely termed leftism, an influence to which politics, culture and even religion and science are submitted. It is the dominant ideology in the West. As the definition of the word frequently shifts in focus, it might be helpful to look at the underlying forces for what eventually becomes a tendency to right or left in an individual's mind. This takes us, as it were, behind the curtain and shows that what lies underneath an overt political position is something deeper, something that relates to our approach to reality and, ultimately, to God. I should add that most of what is called right today has absorbed much of the leftist ethos and become just a diluted form of its supposed opponent so you cannot identify public and political right and left with the way I am using these descriptive terms here.

In the end times things come to a point which means all souls must choose one side or the other. The famous sheep and goats. I am not saying anything so crude as right is good and left is bad because, as things stand, neither right nor left are spiritually healthy. Also, there are elements of truth in both sides as there must be since no one would willingly choose naked evil. But the good is often used to mask an underlying spiritual rottenness and an excuse to justify it. However, though the right is not in any way properly in line with the truth of God it usually does not directly oppose it as leftism, for all the ostensible good in it, almost always does.

These are the characteristics in a person which mark an inclination to right or left. They may be responded to on an instinctive level rather than adhered to overtly, and in the case of the negative qualities they will be dressed up to resemble something finer. But these are fundamental motivations that form an individual's outlook on life.

Right

Belief in God - Freedom - Love of something concrete whether it be country, religion, nature - Hierarchy - Truth - Common Sense - Primary motivation is for certain things - Respect - Honour.

Left

Rejection of God - Ideology - Control - Equality - Primary motivation is against certain things - Resentment - Rebellion.

A leftist will say this is prejudiced and paints one side in its best colours and the other in its worst. He will say it ignores the determining humanism of the left and its compassion for the needy and the downtrodden. And he will say what about the greed and lack of empathy of the right? By his lights he has a point but, as I said, I am trying to uncover what lies at the deepest level of leftism as its psychological motivation. No doubt, many leftists do feel themselves to be inspired by humanistic compassion, and perhaps, to a degree, they are, but if you go to a deeper level you will find the rejection of God and this is true even of religious leftists who will reinterpret God to fit their own desires. And as for the greed and lack of empathy of the right, I am not talking about economic systems here but moral and cultural standpoints which are much more important. There are materialistic forms of the right which are severed from their roots. These are irrelevant to my case. The left is always materialistic even when it is spiritual.

The first leftist was Satan, fired by envy and resentment of God. The first humanist was also Satan when he told Adam and Eve to disobey their Creator and seek to become gods themselves. This points us to the truth that the best definition of leftism may be that it is the rejection of God. Not necessarily disbelief in God because Satan clearly believed in God. But he rejected God because he wanted to put himself, his wishes and his desires, in God's place. This is the root of leftism.

Note: Everybody has everything within them. What matters is what predominates.

A Refreshing Fast

 I've recently spent 10 days away from the media, television, the internet, the "news", everything. Aliens could have landed and I probably wouldn't have known. A politician could have said something sensible. I've just been walking, swimming in the sea, eating freshly caught fish and drinking local wine. When you return to simplicity the absurdities of modern life are even more absurd but at the same time so ridiculous you know they cannot last. They are not like the rock in the first picture or the sea in the others, not parts of solid reality. They are seen as terrible aberrations but essentially trivial, even childish. They will be swept away eventually though they may do a good deal of damage before that happens. But they will pass.

This is one of the supposed sites of Atlantis before its destruction. I don't believe that theory because, for one thing, it is in the Aegean not 'beyond the Pillars of Hercules' (i.e. Gibraltar), and, for another, the volcanic eruption that put paid to the Bronze Age site in present-day Akrotiri was in the 16th century BC and Atlantis went down long before that. But archaeological digs have revealed a thriving, well-developed and prosperous prehistoric city that probably traded with Minoan Crete and ancient Cyprus, a major source of copper. Apart from the usual pottery vessels and, less romantic but more practical, advanced (for the time) drainage system, the site has revealed numerous beautiful frescoes such as the ones below.

Minoan City and Ship

A Fisherman

A Saffron Gatherer

All the men in the paintings have ruddy skin while the women are white which perhaps reflects ideas of masculine and feminine beauty. Or maybe the men just worked outdoors more. There are also pictures of blue monkeys, now in the local museum. When you consider these are over three and a half thousand years old it makes you curious to hear their music too. Would it have been of the same quality?

It's spiritually healthy to get off the internet completely and away from the world for a while but one can't remain lotus-eating for long or one becomes soft. That doesn't mean we should spend too much time online but we are here to overcome the world both out there and within ourselves, and so for now it's back to what is amusingly called reality.

It's a pity some of the pictures overlap with the text at the side but they look better bigger.