The Inner Struggle

Naked came I …

“En Priere”, Bill Douglas, from the album “Kaleidoscope”, (1993)


20naked JobThen Job rose up, and rent his garments, and having shaven his head fell down upon the ground and worshipped,

21And said: Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.

22In all these things Job sinned not by his lips, nor spoke he any foolish thing against God.  Job 1: 20-22


From Job 1: 20-22 Old Testament to Luke 22: 1-13 New Testament


SatanThe treason of Judas. The last supper. The first part of the history of the passion.

[1] Now the feast of unleavened bread, which is called the pasch, was at hand. [2] And the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might put Jesus to death: but they feared the people.

[3] And Satan entered into Judas, who was surnamed Iscariot, one of the twelve. [4] And he went, and discoursed with the chief priests and the magistrates, how he might betray him to them.

[5] And they were glad, and covenanted to give him money. [6] And he promised. And he sought opportunity to betray him in the absence of the multitude.

[7] And the day of the unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the pasch should be killed. [8] And he sent Peter and John, saying: Go, and prepare for us the pasch, that we may eat.

[9] But they said: Where wilt thou that we prepare? [10] And he said to them: Behold, as you go into the city, there shall meet you a man carrying a pitcher of water: follow him into the house where he entereth in.

[11] And you shall say to the goodman of the house: The master saith to thee, Where is the guest chamber, where I may eat the pasch with my disciples? [12] And he will shew you a large dining room, furnished; and there prepare. [13] And they going, found as he had said to them, and made ready the pasch.


All is gift, and nothing have we here which we deserve or earn but by talents and abilities given us at birth by God the Father. And all that we earn is apportioned in goods of this world, all of which have their origin in God the Father. We do not create anything but rather are more or less talented manipulators of what the Creator made or set in motion.

Jesus betrayed by JudasSt. Luke directs our attention to the actions and motivations of Judas Iscariot, and points out that  Satan entered into Judas. Satan made use of Judas’ free will and his natural human propensity for self interest and evil.

All that follows is orchestrated by Satan using his “minions” and “useful idiots”.  The conduct of the humans  in this account and in the affairs in this world down through the ages reveals clearly what Satan desires.

Destruction, dissension, selfishness, suffering, dishonesty, suffering and misery, all the clear outcome of Satan stirring up all that is evil in the human heart.

And yet Christ has intimate and detailed knowledge of all that is to come, and Satan and humans, all creatures of the Father, have free rein because the omnipotent Father and the Son embrace that freedom in their creatures.

Satan and Judas freely decide to betray Jesus and Peter and John freely decide to obey Him. And all four of them equally prepared the Passover  in accordance with God’s will.

C.S. Lewis calls these aspects “simple good” and “complex good”. The obedience of John and Peter is simple good, the good that comes out of the evil of Satan aided by Judas is a complex good, in other words good wrought by God out of the evil of mankind.

We are all of us faced daily with exactly this choice, to obey, or to disobey, and thereby choosing our path and the next set of choices we are faced with.



Desert walkIt is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule.” Tolkien, “The Return of the King

Politics and Economics

Progressive Slavery … part 1

I have been thinking about just what it is that distinguishes slaves from masters. The slavery of the progressive revolution is not exactly like Roman slavery, or Greek slavery, or southern cotton plantation slavery, or even modern Islamic slavery. I had the idea to write something about this while reading over at David Warren’s site.

It seems a common contemporary view that slavery is something, a status or state in life which is forced upon unwilling victims, who are definitely not us. Traditional slavery is an attempt to dehumanize people and treat them as domesticated consumable assets like beasts of burden such as horses, cattle, oxen, etc. Slaves are forced to work against their will, using violence or the threat of it, with no pay.

At the simplest level, slavery produces a continuous state of conflict between the slave and the master. The master forcing or coercing the slave to perform a service or function for the master from which the master derives material reward.  Like beasts of burden, slaves are treated as commodity that can be bought and sold, and disposed of when there is no further utility to be had. In some societies and eras, such as 18th and 19th century North America, the commodity value of slaves increased dramatically. At other times and places, such as today, the commodity value of slaves is minimal; they can’t be sold for much and are considered “disposable people”.

Another characteristic of slavery from ancient Babylonia, Greece, and Rome through the early 20th century to the modern 21st, is the masters attempt to physically distinguish slaves from free people. Most instances of slavery were and are not based on the concept of race. We see this in the ancient world, as well as in 20th century state slavery in Germany and Russia, and modern slavery. When masters could not easily identify slaves as such, they branded them, shaved their heads, made them wear special  clothing or badges, or used some other physically distinguishing characteristic to “mark” them as slaves, including such things as where they live and how they tracel.

Perhaps a more inclusive definition of slavery might be that a master has autonomy and free will and a slave has neither. Notice also that while we commonly associate “slavery” with a state in life which is forced upon unwilling victims, it is in fact much more common for “slaves” to voluntarily submit themselves to this status because it is “easier” or perhaps the only concept they have of “normal life”, as we see today for the vast majority or workers in North America and Europe and China, and all the little Stans, in fact pretty much everywhere you see socialism and totalitarianism as the culture.

It doesn’t seem to much matter whether slavery is forced upon a person, as in the case of Islamic sex slaves, or one submits oneself to the strictures as a minimum wage hand to mouth labourer of any sort, be it a sex worker, a burger flipper or an office cube drone. One way of looking at all “work” is that we sell ourselves, our energy, time, and talent, on a daily basis for some kind of return. As in ancient slave societies the higher the skill and talent of the slave the higher the position and reward. The lower the skill  and talent the lower the position and the less value attached to that person.





Disclaimer for the nit pickers: we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately

Pen as Sword - Social Commentary

Pilgrimage 2 …

So where were we? Ah, yes … “What if all of life, for everyone, is simply a pilgrimage? What if we are not yet home?” Does it not seem that the universal suspicion that this material “all we know” is not reality, not all there is, may well be at the root of our desperate a priori adherence to material causes, our worship of the material, rooted in our worship of our self? We feel if we just whistle loud enough the graveyard will go away and not be. Over on David Warren’s site today I found the following:

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The quote fell out of some article in the New York Review of Books, from nearly twenty years ago.

My own a priori argument is that this universal suspicion that there is more, perhaps much more, then “all we know” presupposes the existence of a supernatural reality of which our natural reality is a subset. I believe this because in every recorded culture in every recorded time man and his society has a spiritual dimension of more or less popularity in any given hour but solidly there no matter what the critics and unbelievers attempt to prove. I simply find it impossible to accept that I and my contemporaries know more, or are more “enlightened” than all those billions of souls who came before. I think the notion that modern man and modern “civilization” is more enlightened than those in the past is clinical evidence of mass psychopathy amongst our Illuminati.

So lets set the rules of engagement. On the face of it, I don’t think anyone would disagree with the idea that human beings have free will, that is, they are capable of making choices even if those choices are circumscribed by circumstances and the impact of other’s free will on the choices they can implement. Of course even not choosing is a choice, which pretty well covers the entire spectrum.

A second point which most folks would agree with is that, absent circumstances which force human beings to work hard, the human default in the short term is to take the easiest path regardless of the predictable long term consequences, so we can safely assume that whatever is the easiest path in the short term will be the  path most traveled by free choice.

Thirdly, it is generally accepted that thinking clearly and acting logically is harder than thinking emotionally and acting on those emotional thoughts. More thinking = more work = harder. The easy path is that which requires the least thinking and it works fine as long as there is someone else to do the heavy lifting and look after you – somewhat like children depend on their parents.

A fourth generality would be be the observed almost universal belief that “I am right and that all sensible people think like me”. But we know from experience that there are an “awefull number of stupid people out there who don’t think like me”.

So we have:

  1.  free will.
  2.  always take the easiest path.
  3.  don’t think too hard (see #2)
  4.  I’m smart, and everyone who disagrees with me is stupid.

These four points are a simple set of observations, easily proved virtually anywhere in the modern western world. And that easy path of little thought, free will and depending on “experts”  quickly gets cluttered up by rules and commandments originating ostensibly from the folks who are doing the heavy lifting and taking care of things, who, not surprisingly, want things to be made easier for them to take care of the less energetic members of the family, society, culture and of course to get their own needs met which is why they are doing the heavy lifting in the first place. But most often those commandments and rules and laws have their root in higher orders of authority and in “natural law” and religion. In other words, in spirituality and a belief in the supernatural.

Then we arrive at a place where some of the folks want some of the rules because those rules they like because they help them do what they want to do, but they don’t want some other rules because they interfere with what they want to do. This place is usually called something like “The Reformation” or “The Revolution” or something more obscure but implying that the “New” is much better than the “Old” way of doing things. Of course the folks who like the old way don’t agree and we get to politics and power and smorgasbord religion, and just who the Hell is in charge here anyway?

And as we go along, in many places, where folks believe in, or at least follow, a patrimony of natural law, we see the development of compromise and the acceptance of some rules we don’t like because on the whole the fabric of rules gives us a better, more comfortable, result than rejecting them all because we can’t get everything we want. There are of course other places where the opposite applies and they are less pleasant places to be if one happens to disagree with whoever is setting the rules.

Of course, eventually tolerance and compromise give way to some folks pushing for less and less rules or more and more rules about certain things which proves easier to do in the earlier stages of tolerance and compromise until people start to resist. Then things must move more and more towards the totalitarian “rule by fiat” model, thus moving towards the less pleasant model followed by less pleasant places.

One of the first stages of this move is to get rid of the importance of anything which cannot be “proved” materially, that is to say we must get rid of God  and gods if we are ever going to get anywhere with this human perfection thing, and we get a lot of interesting “science” because “science” is the new “Opiate of the Masses” and now of the new Elites as well.

Quite possibly the loudest talkers about “scientific” methods have never done or applied any science in their life but the folks they are talking to don’t know that and don’t care anyway because the talking heads beating the “science” drum are offering a reason to let folks do what they want to do … at first. Hell, most of these authorities haven’t done any “science” since their Doctoral theses, after which they hit the talk circuit and were simply devoured in joy by their publishers, the deviant mass media and all their slobbering groupies. it’s probably a safe bet that “the more talk, the less science”.

I am not for a second positing that Real Science, as in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, with all the usual boring dry research and publication and STUDYING and hard work , is not a good and useful endeavour – obviously it has given us huge advances in understanding of how things work and in quality of life, just like all the fields of engineering have given us huge advances.  Unfortunately, a lot of what is called “science” simply is not. It is just pseudo-intellectual baffle-gab, because as we all know, “Bullshit baffles brains”, especially if the brains in question are of the soft study tribe like most MSM characters, soft academics and guv’mint bureaucrats – you know, the PINK tribe who believe in magic. If real engineers and real scientists did some of what is passed off as “scientific” these days they would be out of business in an instant. Folks get understandably upset when buildings fall down, the toilets back up and the vaccines kill people. See #2 above for why most folks don’t understand what “science” is and swallow the B.S. hook, line, and sinker. Don’t take my word for it just click over to:




Anyway, if indeed man IS the pinnacle then there is no need of a higher moral authority to which man must defer. If man wants to do anything then man alone decides what is right and wrong and whether the behaviour is acceptable to society. This train left the station about the time of the enlightenment under the name “atheism” and really got rolling after the first world war with the rise of communism. Over the centuries, atheists have arrived at their point of view through a variety of avenues, including scientific, philosophical and ideological notions. Currently, as a percentage of the global human population, public adherents of atheism remain but a tiny minority, albeit a very vocal and well publicized minority, and coincidentally outnumbered by a healthy margin by the mostly ignored pilgrims mentioned earlier.

Whatever the  philosophical and scientific rhetoric in support, it is obvious that the principal driver for the removal of God is the desire to remove all moral fetters on human behaviour. It always comes down to “I wanna do what I wanna do, and you ain’t the boss a me!” whether it is taxing the “rich” or pedophilia, or infanticide or euthanasia, or pornography, or social welfare, or affirmative action, pick your poison. It is always the same platform underlying it all.  Once we successfully destroy the moral order we are only a signature away from Auschwitz, the Gulag and the Killing Fields. This path of human dissolution has always and everywhere ended in the same disaster throughout history. The progression is universal, inevitable, and ultimately self defeating. Prove me wrong!

More to follow?







Disclaimer for nitpickers: We take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately