You do a profound disservice to your readers to recommend Chris Koncz's (CK) writings and "visions". And to yourself. You've no doubt heard the saying, "Curiosity killed the cat."
CK has attained what sorcery / witchcraft offers; that is, access into the spirit realm and its inhabitants, demons.
Coming from that background (out of the U.S. 60s and 70s counterculture) of sorcerous drugs and experiences, I still experience the effects of that exposure, and it requires continual warfare to discern and withstand it. Whether via the sorcerous agents/potions (now widely legal in the U.S.) or contact with a sorcerer (φαρμακεύς pharmakeus) it is forbidden. Revelation 21:8 says of such sorcerers (such as CK), they "shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." His information is deep; so is the place from which it comes.
Sorry to hear you think that way, but since you mentioned me, I thought I needed to correct the record.
I have never engaged in any sort of sorcery or witchcraft, nor have I ever taken any drugs. I'm not in any way part of the counterculture movement thingy. I have meditated and read a lot, that is the only thing that accounts for my spiritual experiences, which can easily be explained in the framework of traditional yoga and tantra, as taught by branches of Hinduism and Buddhism. My interest was piqued by my early childhood years in India, I was mostly self-taught after that.
I do believe in God and pray frequently, especially to the Holy Mother, who I feel very close to. However, my faith is not exclusive to Christianity, I accept the reality of other religions and that all have something to contribute. The demonic is a huge problem and one that is fought intensely, by adherents of other religions. There are plenty of exorcists in both the Hindu and Buddhist traditions as well. Asuras are effectively the same beings as the demons / jinn of Abrahamic religions, depicted in very much the same manner, including the abode they occupy in the underworld.
Thanks for the reply, Chris. I didn't to mean to suggest you used the drugs; there are sorcerers – or adepts of sorts – who have the "gift" without them.
I wrote what I did to Rod as he professes Christ Jesus as his Lord, and many are the Christians who read his Substack. We are forbidden to go into the deep things of Satan, and there are but two spirit realms, Christ's and Satan's. As Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me." By "with Me" He means disciples in union with Him by means of the new birth by His Spirit, taking the covenant sign and seal of water baptism, and obedience to all the teachings and commands He gives us in His word – the Scriptures of the Bible.
I do realize there are those who abide in the spirit realm that is not Christ's, and many of them consider themselves "white" adepts as distinguished from the "black" adepts, or even neutral.
I appreciate you do not align with the "dark" spirits! As you know, spirits may lie as to what their true natures are. Christ Jesus, God the eternal Son, says that no one comes to God but by Him (John 14:6), and apart from being in union with Him they perish along with all the other spirits and humans outside His kingdom, even those humans who are deceived and think themselves good, and worthy of His approval.
I will be praying for you, Chris – and I ask the other believers who read this to pray for you also – that you come to the Almighty and only true God, and are cleansed by the blood Jesus shed paying for the sins of those who believe in Him.
Seeing there are those who are praying for you, expect some tumult and afflictions that may come upon you. The LORD has said, "I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction" (Isaiah 48:10). Contact me via Substack if you wish. I am also known by the name, Jerusalem Blade.
I welcome your prayers, they fill my heart with joy.
I have found God, he resides in my heart always.
I have a great deal of respect for Christianity, I have been brought up in that tradition and through my study of other religions, I understand it a lot more than I did previously and I am realising I missed a lot of its nuance and depth through bad teaching.
I simply think that your view of the spirit realm is based on fear and that might cloud your judgement. There are demonic realms for sure, this is something all religions agree on. However, there are higher realms as well, inhabited by benevolent beings, those you might call angels, who are beings of light.
Anyways, I am not here to convince you about the teachings of other religions, you have obviously found your calling in Christianity and that's great, I'm truly happy for you. However, if I may make a prediction, one day, the holy spirit will descend upon you and open your eyes to the profound beauty and truth of those that follow another faith. That is something I can see very clearly.
I pray, that the Lord may send you Love and extend his divine Grace to you.
I have developed my own technique. It is a combination of self-inquiry and self-observation. Essentially, it is about observing myself from a detached, outside perspective and noting the processes happening my various bodies, physical, subtle, energetic, etc...
The aim of the meditation is to allow my spiritual nature to emerge and to come into its own so to speak. I experience an inflow of divine grace in the form of bliss, when I meditate and feel very closely connected to God, through my heart.
Can I make a suggestion? And this isn't a critique and without knowing exactly what you're doing, I could be wildly off base here. That said, what it sounds like is that there isn't strong emphasis on stability in this sort of practice. That could be a reason why you're running into some of these bogeys. If you're just letting things unfold and noting each thread whenever/wherever it emerges, there's really nothing to keep you from going down rabbit holes that maybe you don't want to be exploring. In Buddhist terms, you've got the vossagga, paṭinissagga, and sati down. That's your "letting go", abandonment, and mindfulness (the real one, not the strip mall mindfulness of Psychology Today). That's good. Those are the hard ones. But your ekaggata, your one pointedness, might need a bit more emphasis.
Think of the Katha Upanishad. Neti, neti, right? Always "this is not it, not it". Anapanasati is breath: it comes in, it goes out. You keep coming back to the same place. Kasina meditation you're keeping the sign in front of you. In the higher jhanas, there's always the nimitta. In nei gong, there's always some kind of releasing technique. Hell, even in shamanic drumming, there's the tap tap tap. I mean, the list goes on. All of these act as a kind of chorus keeping the verses that are "letting go" from becoming unstructured. They are the skeleton that gives abandonment form. Each of those techniques, in addition to being your access point, is also your emergency floatation device. Whenever you are going off the rails, so to speak, they allow you a safe and stable place to bring your attention back to.
If I was writing this for a complete newbie, I'd tell you to start with one of those objects and see what happens. If I told you to do that, I think I'd mess up your technique. I would keep doing what you're doing. You've probably found that as you let go and let be, your mind stabilizes on it's own accord. When that happens, within that stabilization, something emerges, right? Some people perceive it as a light, others as darkness, for some it even has a palpable form. Regardless of how it appears, it almost always has the characteristics of openness and spaciousness. To steal some St. John of the Cross, once you put your house at rest (vossagga), the secret ladder (nimitta) appears. All of those other techniques I mentioned lead to this place. This is the light in the dark that will lead you the rest of the way.
The counterpoint sign (nimitta) is going to slip around. Its stability will also vary at first. It's going to change form and it may vanish and reappear. The trick here is to keep your mind gently holding that counterpoint sign. Keep it stable. This is going to take some practice, but the best advice I can give is to match the effort to hold that sign with the minimum amount of effort you'd use to keep a single sheet of toilet paper pinned to the wall with your finger. Another way to think of it is to touch the nimitta with the same force it would take to allow the surface tension of a bowl of water to cling to your finger without breaking that tension. This next point crucial - whatever you do *don't* explore that signs implications. Don't follow it anywhere (and believe me, I know how hard that is!!!). Just keep it in front of you while letting everything else fall away. This is ekaggata and vossagga - focus and release - mutually reinforcing each other. They spiral together like the caduceus up to heaven.
When you emerge from meditation, that's when you can do all of your explorations of your subtle and energetic bodies. The longer we close our eyes, the brighter the light when we finally open them.
And thanks also for your irenic reply as well, Chris. You are an interesting gentleman, I will say that.
Before the Lord Jesus arrested me at age 26 (am 82 now), I was very interested in the spirit world, its various planes of being (astral, mental, buddhic, etc), and the different paths of spiritual experience. Before I became a follower of the Lord Jesus I searched for a master. I considered lord Gautama, and his teachings, and the Hindu paths and deities, and Lao Tse, etc., but I never met any of them in my seeking.
My path has been interesting and tortuous, but I was marked by Christ, and He called me, to know Him, and follow Him. Even after that momentous experience – the most real thing I’ve ever known – I failed in my discipleship and wandered in the abyss in the human heartlands for some years, during which I began a book, *A Great and Terrible Love* https://www.amazon.com/Great-Terrible-Love-Visionary-Woodstocks/dp/0983519498/ , or free digital copies here https://bit.ly/3nQHBrB . He rescued me out of that in His good time.
Some half a century later I’m shepherding a small flock of disciples of the Lord Christ in the Middle East area.
My “view of the spirit realm is based on fear”? Well, there are fearsome things in it, but nothing is so great and terrible as the LORD Almighty, who flung the yellow dwarf star (our sun) into the heavens and had our earth and the other planets revolve around it, as though He were hanging a mobile in a classroom! Not to mention the billions of other stars in the universe. I have a healthy fear of Him, but He is my Father, and He loves me, and I trust Him.
I make no predictions regarding you, Chris, but I will be praying that the Almighty divest you of the spirit power that sustains you in your adventures, and that He call you to Himself, to love His eternal Son and find rest, forgiveness of sin, and eternal life in Him.
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Jesus Christ. There is no "reality of other religions." That is deception. And the problem is pride, when we think we know better than what God tells us.
All truth is God's truth no matter where it appears. Where I differ with the perennialists and syncretists is in the fact that I believe Christianity, specifically in its traditional patristic form, includes the whole truth. Nothing else from other religions is needed.
But if it does not lead you to Christ, it is not truth. It is deception. And if you believe you've got it figured out and that you do not need Christ, you stand deceived and condemned, bound for Hell. Christ is God's truth. The end.
I disagree. The truth is the truth whether it leads one to Christ or not. There are (and were) people who never heard of Christ who still had access to truth.
I would amend "the whole truth" to the "the whole necessary truth". There are many questions and areas of uncertainty still and the Orthodox Church does not pretend to have every precise answer, only the answers that are needful.
Right. I meant "whole truth" only in relation to other religions. There's nothing we need to borrow from Buddhism or Hinduism, for example, to fill some gap that's missing in Christianity. That was my point.
That is how I would see it. God created all the world, so there is something of God in everything. And I yes, I said "something". I am not claiming that one can find the whole of God in any particular thing. That does require revelation. But anything good does have God as the source of its goodness.
Perhaps you have read C.S. Lewis's "The Last Battle," or perhaps not. If you have, I think the conversation between the prince of Calormene and Aslan about why the prince's deep and sincere devotion to Tash was really devotion to Aslan, not because they are one and the same, but because they are opposites, has some relevance here.
It's the best explanation of how some people who have never heard of Christ are saved by Him. Without falling into the error that all religions are just as good or true.
We should also remember that salvation is not effected by any mental gymnastics, but bu having Christ illumine our souls. And no, "soul" and "Mind" are not synonyms. Neither is "faith" a synonym for "belief".
God is the Creator of All, so of course there are good things outside Christianity. Buddhism for example advances an ethic with coheres well with Christian ethical teachings. Nothing demonic about it.
Buddhism is one of the religions that I merely disagree with (in part), along with Taoism, rather than being actively disgusted by, like Judaism, Islam, and to a lesser degree Hinduism.
Obviously I agree that there are valuable ethical teachings. I'm even prepared to acknowledge there are valuable spiritual teachings or practices, perhaps picking up on things that are latent in Christianity but missed. I'd be really, really careful, though, and wouldn't publish blithe recommendations.
I mean, if I were a writer, I might recommend visiting a Buddhist temple and looking at the art. I might recommend some monk's ethical teachings (e.g. Thich Naht Hanh), or some poetry. I wouldn't recommend partaking in tantric rituals, though.
I heard an anti-Semite at the bar a couple weeks ago explaining to another guy why Jesus wasn't a Jew. Something about his being a Nazirite, and Nazirites weren't "really" Jews or something.
Nonsense, of course, but you do have people who believe such things.
It's a good question, and something that I can't sort out in my own mind.
However, I don't think modern Judaism is actually the religion that Jesus followed. Orthodox Jews are the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, i.e. following manmade traditions. There are a lot of appalling things in the Talmud. Reform Jews are different again, and only go back 200 years or so. I wouldn't want to push this too far, but it's arguable that modern Judaism is a new religion, more analogous to Islam. By that argument, the only true Judaism would be Karaism, and there are only a few thousand of them.
However, that's not really a satisfactory explanation. as some of the most dreadful things are in the Old Testament, not the Talmud. I was pushed screaming back into Christianity a few years ago. One of the main problems I had always had was the genocides in the OT. I'm not convinced my any of the justifications, and decided to put that issue up on a high shelf to deal with at some future date. I thought it was academic for the current age. However, we've had senior Israeli politicians making explicit references to the biblical genocides ("Amalekites") in their policies, which has forced the issue into my consciousness, and I'm having trouble processing it. If anything could make me reject Christianity, it would be this.
To summarise, I guess the main issues are (1) the genocides and other evil advocated in the OT; (2) the evil stuff in the Talmud and later Orthodoxy (Maimonides, etc.); (3) modern Israel; (4) the tendency for nonreligious Jews to support the nastiest forms of modern Western secularism (admittedly, I'm uncertain about this, and would change my mind if I saw data, but it's my impression).
However, just because I disapprove of a religion, doesn't mean that I think it can't be livable with on a civic basis. I tend to see Judaism and Islam in a similar way in this respect.
1) The genocides in the OT are commanded clearly by God, and are specific to the actions of the Canaanites themselves. Also, you have the Amalekites -- to use your spelling -- backwards. They're the ones who are trying to exterminate the Jews. On a deeper level, these commands come directly from God -- who are you, especially if you're a believing Christian, to dispute them?
2) The Talmud is a massive collection of discussions, disputes, legal cases, history, and literature of every aspect of Jewish life -- and all human life, for that matter -- made by people from many different cultures spread over many centuries. Obviously, there's going to be some stuff in there that is unpleasant, though I'd be interested to hear what Maimonides said that you consider evil.
3) Modern Israel is not run in accordance with Jewish law.
4) What does the activity of non-religious Jews have to do with Judaism?
"By that argument, the only true Judaism would be Karaism,"
I think not; rather, that Karaism stood (at the time of its origin) in relation to Rabbinic (Talmudic) Judaism as Protestantism stood to Catholicism. In other words, a "reform" that purported to go back to the original (even "Biblical") form and content of that religion, but in reality was the introduction of something largely novel, never before seen in it. The invention of "the invisible church" comes to mind in Protestantism, but I am, alas, not well-enough versed in Karaism to come up with an analogous novel teaching in it. Karaism does seem to have retained its unity on fundamentals rather better than Protestantism has done, although that may be due to the tiny size of Kariasm, or perhaps that is an appearance based largely upon my ignorance of it.
The genocides in the OT are not what you think they are.
Read Michael Heiser's work and also Fr. Stephen de Young. Whole Council of God blog, "God is a man of war", etc. First of all, if you really read these passages carefully, you will find there are elements of hyperbole in the language (common in ancient near east cultures), with the populations supposedly getting driven out completely being still there in the next chapter. Also, some of it is the translation of the words used, sounding worse than they are. In addition, specific clans were targeted. Those were the Giant clans (Giants/Nephilim being tyrants, produced by demonic rituals), who perpetuated child sacrifice, cannibalism, and other nice traits. Populations weren't defined by simple genetics, but rather what they culturally participated in. Those are just some of the points, but really taking a deep dive into actual Ancient Near East context makes this a lot easier to understand.
Regarding the problematic stuff in the OT: Can you decipher what is in the mind of G-d? Can anyone? We can wrestle with this for a lifetime.
As for the Amalekites, they did wrong. Continuously attacked the weakest, oldest, and infirm. I think the OT gives a valid approach to dealing with this kind of behavior going forward.
You might benefit from these lectures. They are all from the Institute of Catholic Culture. All free. They have many more on their website but these really helped me have a new and i think better understanding of the Old Testament.
So everyone Rod recommends must be Christian? I guess Rod must also stop writing about Jacques Valle? Could.you even come to see a friendship between Rod.and Chris as, perhaps, God's work? Helps them both is my guess.
There's a difference between a friendship with a non-Christian, or recommending the political views, say, of a non-Christian, and recommending deeply esoteric writings.
Agreed. I once trod that path, mediation and what not, and had some experiences. And it is by the grace of God and the witness of Christians who also once walked that path that I did not have anything particularly dreadful happen.
God's Word is clear on this subject. Divination is forbidden and that's exactly what that stuff is. Seeking occult (hidden) knowledge outside the auspices of God.
And we cannot set the terms. God does. Anything else is human pride. And that comes before the fall.
I think of my early years as a Christian and describe my early faith as "shallow", as deep as that cleared by the soles of my shoes. But it was a real faith. The Holy Spirit was present, nudging me and defending me from my own mistakes and ignorance.
I mean, in my practice, I shudder at what might have happened, had I been contending alone without the Holy Spirit present.
And the Spirit of the Lord showed itself in other ways. There was a woman I was once involved with who practiced the occult. And remarked on more than one occasion about the fact that I was a Christian and that would cause problems. I think the opposition was prodding her away.
I pray for her and others I know under demonic influence daily.
I find it a bit of a grey area. I've only meditated a bit, and that was when I was toying with becoming a Buddhist. In my case, meditation is too much a part of Buddhism, which, although I respect, I consider to be a false religion*.
I can imagine meditation as a practice being helpful for someone who is very nervous or something. It's far from certain whether Zen is really Buddhist, and it can be almost doctrine-free. It might be compatible with Christianity, but I'd be careful going there.
* I'm a bit unsure about the whole area of "false religion". The Bible doesn't give us a detailed map as to what to make of other religions, as the only ones it mentions are (1) the Paganisms of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Greece (maybe Egypt too, but I can't think where?), and those are wrong because of the idolatry/polytheism and because of the evil practices (e.g. human sacrifice); and (2) Judaism, which Jesus saw as having gone wrong by his time.
At some points, St. Paul talks sympathetically about the more philosophical forms of Greek Paganism, and Greek Paganism generally seems less depraved than the Canaanite and Mesopotamian versions. It is possible to position Buddhism, Taoism, and philosophical Hinduism in this sort of area, with Platonism and Stoicism. I do have a soft spot for Taoism, myself. However, I would be wary.
Again, I think anyone who reads me would know perfectly well that I could never endorse the kind of meditation Chris does. I recommended Chris's essay because it bears witness to the reality of spiritual warfare. I didn't think Chris needed to hear it from me, because as a regular reader, he surely knows my views on these kinds of spiritual practices, and their dangers. If I quoted at length from the writing of a non-Christian who used psychedelic drugs and who had these kinds of spiritual experiences -- and there are plenty of those accounts on the Internet -- would you think I was recommending that my subscribers consider taking DMT or ayahuasca?
A fine thing about the market is that one can opt out. Regardless of what you are "recommending", the more you present near occasions of sin to your readers, the closer I get to questioning my continuing participation as a paying subscriber. You do us a service by making some realities accessible which the MSM refuses to acknowledge. And I value your opinions and commentary. Having said that, I find myself reading your blog and following your links very selectively. As the first commentor suggested, please - for your sake and for ours - do assiduously challenge yourself in prayer, be careful what you ingest and what you share.
That's kind of what I think. I don't think this stuff is necessarily demonic or depraved, but I worry a bit about where Rod is going with it. I also don't think Christians should talk about this sort of thing so casually.
I'm glad you are concerned for Rod. He is going through things. But I believe his spiritual discernment, in the end, is good. I am a somewhat spiritually porous. Both Chris and Rod are very spiritually porous.
I know Rod currently likes "woo". I personally believe that as a widely read Christian with influence, he may get more "attacks". Meaning we should pray for him more, and meaning he will be more interested in these forces than we are.
I am sure Rod will not "be tempted beyond what he can bear" (a promise in Scripture) but a way of escape will be made from what he is going through. Sure, I worry, for instance, I worry that demons can't speak through a computer. However, I just accept an eccentricity or two, and I'm humble enough to know I could be wrong.
I've had experience with Christian meditation groups - complete orthodox (small o) believers, so perhaps that makes me different.
I also live in Hungary and see the value of Rod knowing Chris. Chris is an incredible source of deep information about this place, difficult to find. I am really glad Chris has come along.
I recommend reading lots of different people who do not share my religious convictions. I can read Chris's work with profit because I know what I believe, and what I do not believe, and can sort through his writing intelligently. For example, I believe Chris has had a direct encounter with a demon, something he knows to have been a malign entity (though he might not use the word "demon"). Chris and I likely have somewhat different views on where entities like that figure in the cosmos, and how to deal with them, but believe me, a man like Chris who does not share my Christian faith, but who understands the reality of these entities and their threat to humanity, is of more interest to me than Christians who share most of my theological views, but who laugh at, or otherwise dismiss, talk of the demonic.
Not to discount how powerful evil is, it will not win ultimately. “In the world you will have tribulation, but fear not, little flock, for I have overcome the world.”
You know that's interesting. I do think that my Atheism was a big reason why I was singled out or courted by the demonic entity (fallen angel or watcher to be more precise) in question. It was also a test by God to see if I can overcome temptation or seduction by the demonic.
You may already have a spiritual director that you talk to on a regular basis about where to draw the line on researching some of this stuff. (I know you have many people you talk to, including exorcists.). However, if not, you might want to pray about it and seriously consider getting one. Even St Faustina was fooled when a demon convinced her to burn her diary on Divine Mercy while her spiritual director was away.
You said, “a man like Chris who does not share my Christian faith, but who understands the reality of these entities and their threat to humanity, is of more interest to me than Christians who share most of my theological views, but who laugh at, or otherwise dismiss, talk of the demonic”. Quite understandable!
I also appreciate your delving into the AI systems and alien intelligences that could be involved, and even courted by some of the researchers and technicians! Which stuff you bring to light!
It is not only your exploring various ideas that draws me to your writings (including your books), but your unique heart, which you wear on your sleeve. Sometimes your sufferings are as bracing and edifying as your other topics of interest!
As interesting as CK is (and that he is!), he promotes and teaches – in his writings, even here – a deceiving occultism, for his source of knowledge is “from the dark side”, despite his disclaimers. And despite his valuable comparative religion knowledge. If one soul is misled or confirmed in eternally fatal error, I’m sure you would not want that.
Granted, there are not many Christians who teach with deep and clear vision what goes on in the spirit world – a spiritual warfare manual, so to speak. I am not a “nice guy”, Rod, but a shepherd who protects Christ’s flock against the demonic. Even though here, this is your flock, your readers! So I will hold my peace. I am grateful you exist.
Exactly. We are spiritual beings. But God has clearly, flatly forbade meddling in that stuff with the harshest of sanctions. For good reason. I'm sure we interact with it in ways we do not understand, like in dreams and what not. But to pursue it under our own recognization and not under the balliwick of God is clearly forbidden and based on the experiences of people out there, you open gateways and bring trouble to yourself.
It cannot be "scienced", as there is no way to test it, especially under controlled circumstances.
My advice as a Christian who has at one time dabbled in this stuff is, don't. And if you brush with it, bring it under the aegis of God.
If there is something in that realm you need, God will show it too you, see that you've got it.
Otherwise, stick with Scripture and enjoy this life. You will have all eternity to fully experience that other realm.
It is not forbidden to meditate in scripture. It is like saying there is no scripture saying it is OK to eat avocado so we must not eat avocado.
The point was Chris got into something dangerous, and knew it, and got rid of it, and warned us. It is good to read the warning.
Scientifically, meditation is just placing the brain in a state where waves below alpha predominate, but it is not sleep. It has been shown to be very healthy for people. It need not be religious. Chris invited no entities when he meditates. He is not a Christian and admits it, but he committed no sin by merely meditating.
You know, Rod strongly influenced me - He showed me that despite my intellectual doubts, seeing strong logical contradictions in Christianity, I could still have faith and be a Christian, returning to a faith that had been very important to me. Who knows what will happen with Chris? Rod is a strong believer and his faith won't be hurt by this, Let's let it be.
Meditation is seeking hidden/occult knowledge by your "own" means, rather than under the ausices of the Lord. And that "scienticic" stuff is nonsense. What is happening physically is not the point. And to think it is, again, goes to pride. I do not need the warnings of the Lord, I know better.
No, I will not let it be.
I once participated in the exact same practices. I did not get nearly as deep as Chris did, but i thank God Almighty that He showed me clearly what was going on and steered me clear before something dreadful di hapen.
Chris did not know what was happening there. And that is the illusion, the trap, that you do know what is going on and do have power over the situation. That is the pride trap again. That you do not need the Lord. Your noodlings about Alpha waves and spirits supposedly doing your bidding are enough.
They are not.
Mediation is dangerous, at least Eastern mediation and is not for the Christian.
You can make up your own definition of meditation if you like. What you describe is wrong, but it is not the definition of meditation. Dictionary: "Meditation is a practice that involves focusing or clearing your mind using a combination of mental and physical techniques."
Yep, I get it "clearing the mind" is the objection. But the mind clears when we sleep. It is a method of relaxation. I was my more subject to anxiety before I began to meditate. Because of ringing in the ears, I don't meditate anymore (the ringing is too distracting) but meditating helped me a lot. And Alpha waves have nothing to do with spirits. You should read neurologists about meditation.
"at least Eastern meditation" you say, is dangerous. But we agree some forms are dangerous - if you invite spirits. Mantra meditation and breath meditation as well as so called "mindfulness" meditation do not invite spirits and are not dangerous.
I've seen how you do not like it when people object to Harry Potter. So you know there is a line. I'm suggesting the line places some forms of meditation on the "good" side.
Anyway, let's close it here. I actually know better than to answer you but sometimes I can't resist, some small part of me has faith you have a compassionate core that can learn something.
Rod is a writer who is a Christian and a writer who actually writes about aspects of that sometimes. He is not, however, a religious teacher of any sort and doesn't make that claim. The insistence I've seen in some of the comments about columns not being "Christian" enough or what have you is bewildering, and smacks a little of the people I knew a a kid who insisted that a "Christian" could only listen to specifically "Christian" music, etc.
I appreciate Rod for a lot of reasons, but once is that he treats his readers as adults. The spiritual warfare around us doesn't disappear when we close our eyes or stick our heads in the ground. These things being discussed are serious things and ought not to be ignored. Rod is not advocating getting mixed up on them, obviously. Scripture tells us here "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Mt 10:16)
If you care concerned for Rod, keep him in your prayers. If you care concerned for people whom you think are not understanding this correctly, pray for them as well. We all are in need of it!
Rod, you often talk about declining trust in institutions. You haven’t mentioned it yet that I’ve seen but I think the Biden situation is going to do a number on trust in the Democratic Party. A lot of people here have no trust in it already, politically, but as a somewhat disaffected Democrat, I still trusted the party with the bare minimum of not putting forward a candidate in major mental decline. I defended him against some of the “cheap fake” attacks. And to be fair, the right wing media sphere is plenty prone to falsehood. But in this case I feel my trust has been betrayed.
But it's been betrayed "for the greater good" in the eyes of those responsible. Trump must be kept out of power; so yes, they lied to you - for the sake of the country! And they'll lie to you again for the same reason.
I see a disillusionment in my online friends over all this. Yes, they know they've been lied to, before the debate they sneered at any suggestion Biden was slipping and now they fall back on "well, we really elect an administration, not the man." It's like - yes, they've been betrayed. But they'll vote for the party that betrayed them because that party still represents, er, truth and democracy.
Because it has. For the longest time. It goes before 2016, but kicked into overdrive, when any pretense of principle was tossed out to "get Orange Man."
This is the result. This is what their decadence and degeneracy hath wrought. It takes a fell creature to fall that far, but fall that far they have.
I hope you can find your way through this betrayal. I know how hard it can be in this tribal world to face this type of betrayal from a party you supported wholeheartedly. I was a big neocon Republican. And then George W Bush happened. TARP. WMD in Iraq. Open borders. A refusal to listen to the party membership rather than the leaders. Uncontrolled spending. Undermining Trump at every turn. Betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. It's been hard and has led me to be a bit paranoid and a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Still, today I'm pretty sure I see things more clearly than ever (at least for me). Good luck on your journey of disillusionment!
Brian: Join us, the newly coined "double haters" who are disgusted by the lies of both parties and their spin meisters. No matter which way your governance inclinations may lean (I am a conservative), we're all getting told that at this point the goal must somehow be loyalty for the sake of stopping the other side, and damn the eyes of those who question whether their own "side" is actually being moral. Your side has had something of an apocalypse (an unveiling) vis. Biden, and so may actually have a chance to replace him. Anyone on the Right who has seen the closed ranks around Trump still despairs that we're stuck with him.
Because we've had four years of Trump and know what he's about. No one claims he's perfect, but his policy is solid and his guns are trained in the right direction. And this time, he's spoiling for a fight.
Also, no one is questioning his mental fitness. Not with any cred. Because he was just as naked before the camera as Biden was. And no one has tried accusing him of that.
"I defended him against some of the “cheap fake” attacks."
I am not trying to hyper-critical here, but there have been no "cheap fake" attacks. I noticed in 2019 that Biden's elevator didn't go all the way to the top. I'm not alone in that, either. He's been a doddering fool for ages.
If it's 2024 and only *now* you're realizing that your trust has been betrayed, then you clearly have bought timeshares at some point in your past. Where have you been lately? I know this sounds harsh, but good grief.
I am intensely interested in the topic of non-human intelligence, for understandable reasons, but I would not put them all in the same category, like Jacques Vallee and Diana Pasulka does. I would simply say that it all depends, on which realm they come from and what species / group they belong to. From what I have seen, also confirmed by numerous other reports, many of them are biological in nature, though they may not be native to our own reality.
Indian writings talk about visits to other localities (lokas as they call them), where it isn't entirely clear whether the author talks about another planet or some sort of higher realm. Most translators use the term planet whenever a loka is mentioned in ancient writings, but it can also mean an island, or an entirely different realm or universe.
I recall a chapter from the Mahabharata, where the protagonist Arjuna, son of the God Indra (Zeus / Deus), through a mortal mother (very similar to Heracles in Greek Mythology), travels to his father's loka (home planet). He walks up into the Himalayas, until a fiery heavenly chariot is sent to fetch him, driven by Indra's charioteer. They fly up into the sky and pass by several planets in the solar system, until even the stars start zooming by, so as per the description, they arrive on a planet in another solar system. The planet is described as being very similar to earth, with vegetation, pleasant gardens, palaces, etc... Indra and the other vedic gods (roughly analogous to the Olympian gods) are there, in the flesh, so to speak, though unlike mortals, they don't age and die and have wondrous abilities that mortals don't possess. Arjuna is greeted by Indra as his son and sent on a mission, where he takes the heavenly chariot in question and defeats a race of beings on yet another planet, who live in a flying city.
Interestingly, in the final chapter of the Mahabharata, Arjuna and his brothers, decide that they've had enough of life and will walk up to Indra's kingdom, which they believe to be above the Himalayas, somewhat contradicting the previous description of it (Svarga), being on another loka. All but one die on the way there, only the eldest brother, the most righteous is allowed to enter in bodily form, whilst the other ones are brought there later after a short time in purgatory.
This indicates a confusion the ancients had about the abode of the gods and their destination in the afterlife. They couldn't quite decide if the gods were physical or spiritual and seemed to think they were both or could be both when needed. There are several more references to how the gods presented themselves to mortals. For instance, in the Bhagavata Purana (which translates roughly to ancient stories of God), a devotee of Vishnu is taken to his Loka, Vaikuntha. As in the case of Arjuna, a heavenly chariot with a charioteer is sent for him, but this time they are taken there permanently and the devotees family can go too. The interesting detail here, is that they have to drink a liquid which makes them shine (tejas), an important characteristic of gods in most religions. They are told by the charioteer, that it is not possible to travel to Vaikuntha in bodily form, but drinking the liquid they are given, will transform their body to one made of light, so they can go there.
Arriving on Vaikuntha, they find a planet or realm, which is again not unlike earth, with gardens, trees, animals, palaces, etc... However, they are surprised to find out that the inhabitants of Vaikuntha all look like Vishnu, that is they have four arms and blue skin. It is important to note, that most Hindus today, those belonging to the Vaishnava Sect, about half a billion of them, believe Vaikuntha to be their final destination in the afterlife.
It is rather interesting to note the parallels with other religions, where most believe that their final destination will be in the heavens, or in other words, somewhere in outer space, though most don't believe it to be an actual planet. This is also a relatively new idea in religion as the ancient Chinese or Sumerians for instance, did not believe that the heavens were a destination for mortals, it was exclusively the abode of the gods. They thought all souls went to the under- or netherworld, where they were judged for their earthly deeds and punished or rewarded according to their merits and sins.
There is so much more to write about this, hopefully we can keep up this train of thought in subsequent posts.
Well, I'd say my own concept of heaven has changed dramatically through my spiritual transformation. There are very pleasant astral planes or planets, like Svarga, where good people go after they die. I'm sure those places are real, but they are not what christians really mean when they talk about heaven.
I have had some experience of heaven, the real deal, I believe, which I will write about at some point. That place is non-physical, not even spiritual, in the sense of there being concrete form and substance. It is a realm of pure light and consciousness, infinite love and bliss, even divine ecstasy. It can only be experienced through union with the divine in the manner St Theresa of Avila describes it. It is in my estimation a much higher realm than the pleasant paradise that many religions believe in. Both are real, but reaching the real, actual heaven is far harder and requires far more dedication and sacrifice. Perhaps we could distinguish them by calling this lower heaven paradise and what I call the real heaven union with the Godhead. I don't know, I will have to think about this a bit more, as I mostly understand this through the Hindu philosophical framework and sometimes struggle to put it into a Christian context, which is what is necessary when writing for a western audience.
Intriguing. Often it seems that the apocrypha contain the really juicy stuff, proper spiritual wisdom. I certainly found that to be the case with the book of Enoch. In both cases, I immediately understood what those two quotes meant, I've gone through this exact process. My reading list is getting longer and I am always struggling to find time to read, but I'll have to squeeze these in. Thanks for the suggestion.
re: they are not what Christians really mean when they talk about heaven
The problem is that most Christians nowadays really misunderstand what is actually described in the Bible. If you look closely, up until Christ the Jews still understood that after death they would go to Sheol, the Underworld, Hades, etc. They were waiting for the resurrection of the dead. With Christ's death, harrowing of Hades, the righteous were freed, but what that actually means is a bit vague. The Saints are in the council of God, and Paul is referring to falling asleep is to be with Christ, but it does not mean they are in a physical heaven. After Christ, we are still waiting for the final resurrection, but it is very clear that the incarnation is bodily, the resurrection is bodily, heaven will be on earth. The incarnation of Christ is the vehicle that enables human union with the divine, but again, in bodily form. The concept of going to heaven (or hell) after you die is more due to popular literature than scripture. Milton, Dante, etc.
Yes, but primarily, He died for your sins. The New Testament is unambiguous: He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him.
Hell will be filled with people who were "religious," who studied all of this world's religions, and who believed that each had a measure of truth. Tragically, many of them will be people who thought that Jesus came to set an example, but never believed that He was the Lamb of God.
"I left the convent because I wanted to experience marriage."
Your life is not answerable to me, but you write puzzlingly. Don't nuns, like other religious, take solemn vows, such that "I want" becomes irrelevant once those vows are taken. It'd just as if I should write "I wanted to experience paternity, but because my wife proved to be infertile I left her to marry somebody else." In both Catholic and Orthodox understanding, the force of monastic vows is equivalent to that of marriage vows. For instance, when a secular (non-monastic) Catholic priest is laicized he is simply released of the promise of celibacy he made to his bishop, but when a monk or nun is laicized the traditional "release" ran along the lines of "so far as authority rests in me to do so I release you from your vows," the idea being that such vows are made to God, and not simply to the Church authorities.. In other words, in the first case, it is simply a matter of being released from a promise, but in the second the Church merely releases you from any temporal or ecclesiastical ill-consequences ("canonical punishments" or the like) but you remain answerable to God for breaking your vows.
No, Veronika, not at all. One of the best evangelistic sermons I ever heard was by a priest. He was recounting an experience he'd had recently. He'd gone to visit a nun, very old, who was in a retirement home. She was distraught. She begged him to pray for her.
"Oh, Father, please ask God to give me three or four more years. If He does, I think I may finally be holy enough to stand before Him."
The priest said, "I told her, dear Sister, none of us can ever make ourselves holy enough to stand before God. Jesus' death on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins has done that."
( Veronika, that is so well put, I'm a little saddened because it has occurred to me that when that man became a priest, we Protestants probably lost a great one. )
I'm glad you told me what was on your mind when you wrote that last line. I did take it as a reference to what is frequently called "red letter Christianity." These are people who talk about the real Christianity as being in The Sermon on the Mount and somehow don't take in that if they were "red letter Christians" only, they should be terrified. Jesus is by far the scariest person in The Bible, the most unsettling because He talks about Hell far more than anyone else and points constantly to Himself as the only way any of us can hope to avoid it. He didn't come to bring peace, He came to bring a sword. Families may essentially break up because of Him. He, the creator of families and the hater of divorce, wants us to know that He is God Incarnate, and that the one necessary thing for us to do is to become His own by believing in Him. Either He was the maddest narcissist who ever lived or He is the unique man, fully God and fully human.
The man who beats his chest over his sins in that parable gets it, and I'm glad that you explained that was what you were alluding to.
Some possible grounds for conservative optimism in Britain (there are no guarantees of course, but hope is not dead yet):
1. Labour's win is broad but shallow. Because of the eccentricities of the electoral system they have gained over 400 seats (out of 650) but they managed barely a third of the popular vote (33.7%). They will face all the same problems that the Tories did - migration, the sluggish economy, housing shortages. They under-performed almost every pre-election poll by some distance, and added only 1.4% to their 2019 vote share. They were far below their 2017 share (40%). In terms of raw numbers, with 9.8m votes, they are below their 2019 (10.3m) and 2017 (12.8m) numbers. They seem to have lost a lot of votes to the left, to the Lib Dems, the Greens and various Islamists. It is quite possible, albeit not guaranteed, that their popularity will fall quickly once they are in office and actually having to make hard decisions. Public opinion in Britain is very volatile just now. Just consider the vote change between the last election and this one - in early 2020, before COVID, the Tories briefly touched over 50% in the polls. Labour touched the same figure briefly in autumn 2022. It's not at all inconceivable that there is another all-change election next time round.
2. From more or less a standing start, with minimal ground game, the Reform Party gained in excess of 4 million votes (14.3%), making them third in the popular vote despite their low number of seats, half a million ahead of the Liberal Democrats, who have gained 71(!) seats despite actually losing voters since 2019. Reform were second in 98 constituencies. I have seen it suggested that Reform are the second most popular party among 16-17 year olds. Reform now have 4 or 5 years to build a proper ground-level political operation ahead of the next election.
3. The election of several independent Muslim MPs on a pro-Gaza platform heightens the salience of immigration, Islamic sectarianism and the failure of multiculturalism as issues. This helps the right.
4. Turnout is way down from 2019 (67% --> 60%). This is a Tory failure, not really a success for the parties of the left.
Possibly this is all just copium, and yes Starmer is going to be bad. But there are strong grounds for optimism.
His language is over the top because he wants to get your attention. According to Hitchens, what Labour has up their sleeve is nothing less than the abrogation of Parliamentary rule and a full-on Administrative State with a Trotskyist bent. Lacking as they do the Bill of Rights (indeed, English libel law flies in the First Amendment's face in some ways) there doesn't seem to me to be much anybody can do about it. I can't think of a major issue since I started reading him regularly 15 years ago Hitchens has been wrong about, so we'll see.
What Hitchens is saying could be said in the last lines of Belloc's poem:
I thought the Hitchens quote was great, very evocative. Made me want to start reading fiction again.
I often think that I prefer to spend my limited time just reading facts, but I had forgotten that fiction and poetry are facts, facts on a deeper and richer plane than the mundane day to day.
Thanks for your analysis. It seems quite clear to me (from the other side of the pond, that is) that people were voting against the Conservative Party, rather than in favor of what Labour was offering.
Labour lost votes and underperformed the polls but won the seats. So Britain's election was more a rejection of the Conservatives. Britain, like many European nations, America and Canada is being run by a narrow ban of mediocre centrists. The right has given up cutting the welfare state. The left has given up tax and spend. The excitement is all on the national question and Third World immigration.
Re: The right has given up cutting the welfare state. The left has given up tax and spend. T
A good development in both cases, much as it is good that the Right no longer pushes for monarchy (in the sense of kings actually ruling not just reigning) and the Left has given up on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat nonsense. Though that does leave a deficit of grand ideals to inspire people so both sides try to confect new ones, whether the victim-worship of the Left or the adulation of "Volk" on the Right.
Look, it's your country, but, "They will face all the same problems that the Tories did - migration, the sluggish economy, housing shortages." Regarding the first, they don't think it's a problem at all. They like it, and will make sure more of it happens. If they don't I owe you a beer.
I think I share a lot of common ground with Peter Hitchens. I like his point about the "overdressed cousin, the Conservative Party". Modern economic rightists always come over as ghastly estate agents, hucksters, televangelists, or those American businessmen I used to meet when I worked in a big company in Tokyo.
However, I don't really vote, or act politically, on the basis of things I love (Christianity, the family, nature, hiking, cycling, art, architecture, good company .....), except in so far as someone wants to destroy them.
I vote against things I dislike. However, no faction shares all my dislikes, as they are these, in no particular order:
-- Imperialism, and all US overseas actions since 1989, if not 1945
-- Surrogacy, transgenderism, abortion, and to a lesser extent the LGBT movement and the Sexual Revolution generally
-- Israel
-- Islamic extremism
-- Gross inequality
-- Gross exploitation, especially when invasive or degrading
-- Environmental destruction
-- Racism
-- Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the music industry, and US culture and values (especially their liberal versions) generally
Re: Modern economic rightists always come over as ghastly estate agents, hucksters, televangelists, or those American businessmen I used to meet when I worked in a big company in Tokyo.
Maybe add used car salesmen to the list. And telemarketers.
Re: I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the White House reporters really thought everything was fine, until Biden went onstage with Trump and it couldn’t be hidden any longer.
I am also seeing stories that Biden's decline is quite recent. If that's the case then this isn't some kind of long term cover up.
Why? I assure you I am not making this up for a open mic comedy hour. The report I cite has been echoed in several places. IMO, it makes sense. Mental decline is progressive. It does not manifest all at once absent physical brain trauma.
My mother and my grandmother both suffered from senile dementia, non-Alzheimer's. I've seen it up close. The final decline may be speedy, but the tell-tale signs are there long before. It's progressive, yes, but the idea that the person is not on a slow descent prior to the collapse is nonsense.
A cousin of mine declined due to Parkinsons. That had physical consequences too: she lost the use of her legs early. She retained the ability to carry on a sensible conversation for several years, though delusions began to creep in. She thought her husband, dead from ALS years earlier, was still alive but had left her for another woman. The last time I saw her she was starting to go down hill fast; she would say something then minutes later say it again having forgotten she had already said it. Her train of thought no longer left the station. She died a year later.
If you don't see someone regularly and if there are no physical symptoms as with my cousin then the early decline may well be invisible and easily masked. This is consistent with Biden's circumstances. He ran a winning campaign in 2020 and has made cogent speeches in the years since. His addled state in the debate is a new thing. There's no reason to think he had hit the absolute bottom much earlier; he would likely be dead by now were that the case.
See also: Ronald Reagan whose decline began no later than his second term but he was still an effective president.
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are different than senile dementia. Biden has not been diagnosed with either of the former, but clearly has some version of the latter. What I'm saying is that the debate may have a bottoming-out point, but there's no way that just happened suddenly without anyone knowing.
In "Killing Reagan" Bill O'Reilly and his coauthor argue that Reagan never really recovered from Hinkley's bullet. Reagan had a competant VP and did the country a disservice when he didn't resign when he knew he was declining.
That's an interesting take. Teddy Roosevelt and Lenin also survived being shot but never fully recovered. I was just a teenager. Reagan seemed forceful and in command in the early 80s, but slipping in the late 80.s although second terms have a long history of not going well. Even George Washington's had its troubled moments.
O'Reilly is a self-servicing fool. Reagan was on top of his game until 1987 or 1988. Even then, his dealings with Gorbachev turned out well. It helped that Reagan had excellent surrogates like Shultz.
"If you don't see someone regularly...then the early decline may well be invisible and easily masked. This is consistent with Biden's circumstances"
But many people did see him regularly, cabinet members, staffers, congressional liaisons, reporters...they saw, they kept quiet for months or years and now they are admitting it, the dam is broken.
Thank you. Talking to someone you know when they are no longer compos mentis is a sad experience.
I just saw an article detailing an advisory from medical professionals calling for Biden to be tested for Parkinsons as he supposedly is showing possible symptoms.
I thought his decline was manifest when Clyburn and friends rolled out the "he's a stutterer" meme in the 2020 campaign. That was a clear lie meant to mask his cognitive decline 4+ years ago!
Stuttering is a real thing, and a number of famous people have suffered from it. King George VI ("The King's Speech") for example. It is not an indication of mental decline.
We should be also wary of jumping on every misspeak that occurs. That's a universal thing and we've all said ludicrous things by mistake. I can think of a couple real howlers that came out of my mouth when I not yet 20.
The media is just seeing it now. They've managed to not see it for years. And even if this decline is "recent," why did we see no stories about it prior to the debate, save for that big one in the WSJ, which was savaged by the rest of the lefty-protecting media?
The "stories that Biden's decline is quite recent" are just that: "stories," concocted by those whose venality and mendacity have now been exposed. Biden's senility was on full display at least five years ago. That's why he was kept closeted from before the 2020 campaign. "There are none so blind as those who will not see" -- especially when willful blindness and false denials suit their narrative.
I hope the Labour Party commits mass suicide next because it's just as deserving of it as the Tories. May Populist British parties rule in the near future.
Populism has shallow purchase in British culture. Conservatism has always been linked to monarchy, the Anglican church and preservation of old timey things.
Yes of course but they're not really conserving any of those things. They seem to be only preserving the wealth and privilege of the British Ruling Class.
I don't disagree on this. This is a defect of conservatism in general: it tends to be most eager to conserve wealth and power where they are currently bestowed.
I remember reading Ed West's piece a few weeks ago, and it struck me as basically correct, and in line with my own thinking about some of these things for some years now. The cultural revolution in the 60s-70s, which was really centered on the sexual revolution, was a fundamental change akin to earlier mass cultural upheavals. The kind of change where all of the cultural assumptions of the previous eras were upended and replaced by something new -- in this case, sexual liberation, fueled largely by the liberation of women from pregnancy. This was not just a matter of sexual mores, or personal sexual actions, it also restructured the economy in ways that made the new economy more or less entirely dependent on the new sexual regime post-1970. What emerged was a new order, tout court.
Politics since then has been, to a significant degree, animated by disagreement between the people who "liked" the shift, net/net, and the people who did not. In the US that emerged with Reagan and the "moral majority" in the 1980s, but what wasn't realized at the time by those on the "right" was that this level of divisiveness was not being replicated down the generational pole. Admittedly, it took some time for this to play out fully and the internet's arrival in the late 1990s has both accelerated this transformation and sent it in ways that would not have been predicted before the internet. But in the end, although West is describing Britain primarily and not the US, the trend is the same: conservatism, in terms of any particular substance, even along the lines of what Hitchens writes in your quote (which struck me, sad to say, as basically sentiment-based and therefore completely inadequate), lacks support, because almost everyone below a certain age does not want it.
Sure, we have "right" and "left", and we will have this for as long as we have a republican system of government (the distinction goes back to the French revolution and is durable across time and political detail). And in the context of the US and perhaps the UK, the right "side" of this will be labaled "conservative", since this is the label everyone, both right and left, is accustomed to using for it. But the substance will be something very different even from what Hitchens is describing, never mind what Ed West is getting at.
The world has moved on. The American right establishment's failure to realize this in 2016 led to Trump, and his widespread popularity among much of the American right displays quite well that the "old values" were not deeply held by the rank and file at all. The small group of "Never Trumpers" adhere to their 20th Century conservative ideologies still, but they're vastly outnumbered by those who are not "conservative" in any meaningful way, even though the term is still used for the American right, because it's the term everyone is used to using for it. The world, though, has moved on. The ideas of the old conservative right are not wanted.
New ideas are needed, and that process is ongoing. I am not optimistic about the short to medium term, because, honestly, the right lacks brainpower. Largely the right doesn't have the chops, in a broad sense, needed to develop practical ideas which can form the basis of a new conservative stance. The brainpower that does exist on the right is mostly not policies-oriented, and is instead very philosophically-inclined. Thinkers on the right love political philosophy, but the right lacks the anything like the depth the left has in terms of policy thinkers, and it will take some time to make up the gap. And so while we wait for that to happen, we will have populism -- Trump, Farage, the RN, etc. It's what happens when you have a lack of ideas but also great dissatisfaction in the electorate.
Brendan, what a great comment, top to bottom. When you point out that “The brainpower that does exist on the right is mostly not policies-oriented, and is instead very philosophically-inclined,” I find myself thinking: That’s it! As a longtime reader of First Things and such, I’ve often been struck at the intellectual depth and theological sophistication in certain corners of faith-based conservatism. Alas, where are all these brilliant minds with well-ordered moral compasses when we’re looking for new leadership in the “public service” realm of politics? The sentence I quote from you here goes far in answering that question.
Your note about the '60s reminded me of an observation I made years ago: that it is hippies and their descendants who have shaped the US ever since, on both sides! Since then it has been the hippies who became Jesus people versus those who didn't.
Hi, Brendan. I found your comment quite interesting. Right at the moment, the part that struck me the most was the point that the sexual revolution "restructured the economy in ways that made the new economy more or less entirely dependent on the new sexual regime post-1970". Should we understand this primarily in terms of such things as the effect on family life and total fertility of the fact that women are fully in the workforce since then, or do you have further aspects in mind?
A follow-on question that I just came up with was whether the follow-on effects of the sexual revolution, particularly those related to gay and trans matters, will have some such similar effects. I assume that, in the short term, the strength of those effects will be much less than those attending the changes in standard (yes, "normal"!) heterosexual society. This is mostly because there being so many more heterosexual women than other types, it's natural that large, relatively rapid changes in their socioeconomic roles and behavior would have a very quick, concentrated, across-the-board societal impact. But I'm not so sure that the longer-term outcomes of the continuing evolution of gay/trans/etc. roles in society will be so contained.
I think that the primary economic impact was indeed the entry of women en masse into the workforce, and the creation of additional spending power that this unleashed. That spending power became both an expectation for most households and an assumption for pricing. In addition, the growth and GDP per capita expectations have become reliant on this more "total" workforce, and the productivity per capita that results from this. And the basis for all of that is women marrying later, having fewer children, and so on. This has been more acute in the upper middle/professional/managerial class, since the incomes are so much higher, and therefore there is more "at stake" for women when deciding how to sequence their lives, economically, and the ripple effect of this, economically, is also significant.
On the gay/trans issues, my sense is the same as yours -- the short term impacts are much less, because the footprint is much smaller (women have a massive footprint and so the short term impact on most women entering the workforce en masse was substantial in the short term, by contrast). But, over the long term the impact will likely be more than what we are seeing in the short term. If nothing else, we see the way that younger children are being taught about sex, gender, and so on in kindergarten and early grade school years, as Rod has documented here, and that's more of a medium term/generational change, because it takes time for the kids who are being taught that to grow up and start making their own decisions about how to live. I don't think this means a lot more gay and trans people (there may be a few more, but likely not a lot more), but it likely does mean some kind of blurring or blending of the cultures will happen. In other words, that norms and mores that are more common in gay/lesbian relationships may become more common in straight relationships over time, more than vice versa.
To some extent we are already seeing this with the substantial increase in the pushing of non-monogamy for straight people evident in the mainstream media over the past couple of years -- something that is very different from "swinging" and "key parties" because it sees itself not as a private sexual kink indulged in by a tiny sliver, but instead as something all people should see as a viable relationship option, if not for themselves, then at least for others. The push towards the normalization of throuples and polycules and the like, for example, bears no resemblance to the world of swinging or "key parties", because, again, it's about changing what is considered acceptable and normal. The link between this and the rise of gay marriage may be obscure for some, but it's easy enough to find. Dan Savage, to take a prominent example, discussed, in the push toward gay marriage, how gay relationship norms (including "monogamish" practices where the parties to the relationship may have sexual relationships with others, but no dating or romantic/emotional involvement) could spread to heterosexual couples, and how this would be a very good and liberating thing for many people who love their spouses but who struggle with monogamy, etc. The link is easy to find, especially given that prior to gay marriage virtually no straight person was talking about normalizing throuples as just another equally valid relationship option.
I expect there will be other areas where the influence, over the longer term, is felt as well.
Re: To some extent we are already seeing this with the substantial increase in the pushing of non-monogamy for straight people evident in the mainstream media over the past couple of years
I don't worry about polyamory ever being more than a minor boutique thing. First off, sexual jealousy is hardwired and can't be turned off like a light (and yes, gays know it too). I've known a couple polyamorous (or maybe "swinging") types-- and their marriage got into trouble or failed eventually because of those powerful old feelings. Secondly how many people have time for plural relationships? Even one relationship takes a lot of work and effort and anyone who is no longer a youngster and with a full time job and responsibilities is unlikely to have the stamina to indulge beyond that, other than the most fleeting sort of affair on a drunken lark of a weekend out of town. When people do find themselves drawn to someone other than their spouse the most common course (assuming the thing isn't somehow shut down) is still divorce and a new relationship. Which is not good, no, but it still affirms the one-on-one ethos that is the only potentially stable relationship form for the vast majority of us.
All the reporters knew of Biden's state. Yes, it was about protecting the Narrative; it was about not reporting anything that might be seen to benefit Trump in any way.
What's interesting now is to see so many media outlets put the boot into Biden. I mean, come on - the New York Times knew, the Washington Post knew, the New Yorker knew his true state. But now, to be publishing pieces like this - it suggests those managing the narrative have decided that if Biden stays, that's the thing that will help Trump. So the worms have turned en masse; now we see a full-court press to get him to step down.
The easiest way out of this at this point for the White House would be to announce that Biden has some serious medical condition - just recently diagnosed! - that sadly precludes him from running for a second term. He could still handle it! But for the good of the country, etc. etc. etc.
Then Kamala doesn't have to become President, Biden steps down at the end of his term and the party picks someone else to run, probably Newsom or Michelle Obama.
I think the Democrats are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position for this election. The window for Biden not to run was before the primaries.
Agreed. There's still time to switch - if they move right now. But they're not prepared to move right now, still debating it internally. The media stories are designed to nudge him but he/his wife seem unwilling to budge. A tough spot - but from this perspective, hilarious.
It raises the question - how in the world could they have let Biden participate in that debate? Had his handlers actually fooled themselves into thinking it would be all right? May be one of the most significant political missteps in recent history at least. How in the world can he/the Dems recover from this?
Has to be an inside job by those who feared he'd ultimately get exposed down the stretch run - if in fact he's gotten worse in recent months, maybe the decision was made to push him out now while there's still (theoretically) time
Perhaps they thought baiting Trump to lose his temper (I.e. 2020 debate performances) would deflect attention from Biden. Trump seems to be listening to his advisers (better late than never, I guess) and is smartly standing back while Biden and the DNC-MSM cabal self-immolate.
They set the terms of the debate. They thought that would ensure this would work for Biden. It turned out to have the opposite effect, as the mike discipline worked in Trump's favor, Trump obviously has learned and diciplined himself, and the two CNN interlocutors actually did their job (it is speculated that the people at the top of CNN really are trying to escape their reputation of being water carriers for the DNC without being accused of being in the tank for Trump.) And everyone, including Biden himself, deluded themselves about him being able to hack it.
If the debate had happened in the morning, my guess is Biden would have handled it much better. I surmise Biden is more lucid in the morning and loses stamina by noon, symptomatic of dementia. There are videos of Biden where he is fairly sharp.
You think Kamala would just go along with this? If I were in her place, I'd simply let it be known that she wouldn't support, might even denounce, any "racist" ticket that didn't have her at its head., and maybe also express the pious wish that Michelle Obama wouldn't betray a sister in that way.
Sure, Kamala would raise a ruckus unless bought off, but having her atop the ticket is one way the Dems can make sure they lose this election. The poison fruit of identity politics would be rotting in public for all to see as she and her surrogates basically accuses those who won't vote for her of racism. That's the path to an electoral landslide for Trump - but also, of course, widespread Antifa unrest after the election, god knows what at the inauguration, etc.
We're screwed if Biden wins. We're screwed if Trump wins. Ain't no clean way out of this one.
I don't think the "easiest way out" you mention works for Biden or his family. Once Biden leaves office his family looses all its legal protections and its source of income the past 10+ years (or longer). There will be no more influence left to sell.
For the love of god, there is ZERO CHANCE Michelle Obama has any interest in being President.
Imagine her life for a moment: she wakes up every day in one of her mansions or in the mansion of a wealthy friend, has a full staff of servants and assistants, heads to a private plane for either a jaunt to another mansion or maybe a private island or European castle or maybe to some event to get her ass kissed and receive a giant check for just being her famous fabulous self. She lives better than Louis XIV and has to answer to no one—and she's gonna trade this to negotiate a budget with some greasy reptiles in DC?
Being prez would be a downgrade for her! She aint that stupid.
I don't know, I could see her being seduced by the power, and her husband telling her "Come on, we need you to save the country." Plus the idea of being the first Black Woman president.
Michelle is already very wealthy and powerful, very famous, has easy access to anyone or anything she may ever need, has already lived 8 years in the WH, and answers to NO ONE.
Would you rather be a free princess or a captive politician?
And this is no simple coronation, there would still be the campaign, the speeches, the press, playing the role in DC, the effort of maintaining the facade—for what?
Michelle has never run for office and never will.
I know she takes up all this psychic space in people's minds, but it aint happenin...
You are right. The Obamas are worth over $100 million. Michelle hates politics. And she has about 20-25 years left. Why waste your time on the aggravations of politics for eight years?
I think most people don't know quite how well the 1% of the 1% live. (maybe for good reason)
I have seen some places in Bel Air and Santa Barbara that look like you've died and gone to Heaven, that make the average McMansion look like an outhouse.
Someone like Michelle not only lives her life entirely inside these places, but she has very little chance of ever losing access. The Obamas will always be very famous, very beloved among the aristocracy, and most likely very wealthy.
Ed West's quote about people in their 30's not moving right is my "why" for looking for a BenOp. I'm not going to run into enough people by chance if I don't go looking for them, especially only at a single parish, and without them the norms are spoiled.
"Much of this was social desirability, but then social desirability drives norms in every society; even if people fake it, their children will believe it."
It just struck me that if you consider conservatism to be something along Buckley’s formulation of “stand[ing] athwart history, yelling Stop,” then in many ways, that’s exactly what I am. Of course, I make a very queer sort of conservative (pun very much intended), with my predilection for socialism and my love of my gay community. But, far from my techno-exuberance of my teens and early twenties, my distrust of technology that began around 2010 has grown into outright contempt for the techbros and a deep hostility to their works. And yes, I’m fully aware of the irony of using substack as a platform to express this. But I have come to suspect that this path we are on may have been a big mistake and that the drawbacks of almost every aspect of the Internet heavily outweigh the benefits.
I’m not sure what I think of the idea of Tech/AI-as-demonic. It seems as likely to me that the reenchantment under discussion is as much a reaction against the materialism imposed upon us by the likes of Amazon, Meta and Alphabet, who are motivated above all by selling us more and more things.
Reenchantment is something I find myself very tentatively engaging with and my own path into it has taken a decidedly non-Christian approach. As a medievalist, I find myself wishing this weren’t the case, but political Christianity and evangelicalism in particular has poisoned that particular well for me. For others too—Christianity as practiced in the western world has a distinctly fourth-century-Roman-pagan feel to it. So I try other approaches.
But the warnings are well taken. I’m no expert on ancient religion, but I know enough to know that there is a very cruel and sadistic side to it as well. So the warnings do not fall on deaf ears.
Still, could this reenchantment thing ultimately prove a step in a better direction? Or am I setting myself up for more disillusionment?
Re: political Christianity and evangelicalism in particular has poisoned that particular well for me.
A reason I could never be an Evangelical Protestant. Orthodoxy avoids this sort of thing in the US-- though of course in the Orthodox homeland does drag itself, quite willingly, into the political theater.
Well, I may be prejudiced, falling as I do into one or more of those categories LOL. But I think it can be extremely difficult for those with material wealth and power, even to a modest degree. The temptation to look to that for your salvation is very strong indeed. It takes a very rare and special person indeed to be willing to renounce those things and take up the cross. Most hope that they can walk an easier, softer via media, when no such way exists. A man cannot serve two masters, right?
Whereas being reduced to less than nothing can teach some real lessons about where best to put one’s faith.
It should never be about "political Christianity." It should be about Christ. And no single Christian denomination holds the monopoly on Christ. He cannot be contained by human institutions. He sets the terms in his word and blesses those of us who come to him with the presence of the Holy Spirit which accompanies us in our walk.
I fully agree. And the fault lies within me for my inability to see past my own prejudices. This is one reason I’m here, actually. I’d like to see what you and others see.
The Conservative Party conserved nothing so its defeat is well deserved. They were on top of the world in 2019 when they won many Labour seats that hadn't voted Conservative since 1935. The Conservatives were making inroads due to Brexit and promising to severely limit immigration. The Conservatives increased immigration proving not only that they were stupid but proving that they were a collection of liars.
Encounters with entities that look the same. One of my experiences featured something like this. My own encounter was strange, surreal, but uplifting. But the thing that came after caused my jaw to drop.
When I was attending COTR's School of Ministry in their inaugural class, I was out driving in my old Toyota Camry. She was a great car, the very first car I owned and had served me for many years. She is now owned and cared for by a young man who really needed a good car. And he had the skills to help care for her in her elder years. I get sentimental about cars and other vehicles. Anyway...I was out driving and she picked that afternoon to quit on me. I was on a major thoroughfare in my hometown, but fortunately, the road was a downward slide, so I had some momentum to get someplace safe. I steered the now silent (except for the radio) car into a bank parking lot. It was after hours, so I was alone. Or so I believed.
I brought my car to a halt in that parking lot, popped the hood and started to look over her innards. It would have to be something obvious, though, because my automotive arts knowledge was limited. But then, I saw movement out of the corner of my eye. I looked in the direction of the closed bank building whose parking lot I temporarily occuppied. Around the corner into the teller lane, I saw movement of...something. Then, around the corner came a pair of people. One was an older black man, the other was a younger white woman. The man smiled pleasantly at me and said, "Hey, how are you doing? We are on a road trip and our van has broken down. We are trying to raise a bit of money to get it fixed and back on the road. Can you help?" Given my situation, I found the question momentarily offputting. Can this fellow not see my current predicament? But, my battered Good Samaritan instincts seemed to kick in from an inner nudging and I reached for my wallet. I handed him a couple of twenties, which he took gratefully. He then asked me, "Are you having any issues?" I said, "Yep, trying to figure it out." He said, "Wait a moment, I'll be back."
He then turns around and walks back around that corner he and his compatriot emerged from, leaving the younger woman with me. She said nothing during our moment of waiting. The man then returned and walks up to my car. He produces a tool of some kind, all black, looking a bit like a miniature tire iron. He bends over, peering into my engine compartment. He then reaches in, gives the side of the engine block a tap with the tool, then stands up. "Give it a try," he then instructs. I did. The car immediately, smoothly starts up.
"Oh wow, thank you," I say gratefully. He smiles and nods. I then remember the bag of warm Chick-Fil-A in my passenger seat and I said, "You guys need anything to eat, I just got this..."
"No, but thank you," he said. He then extends the tool to me, "Here, you keep this." "But...you are trying to fix your van," I said. "Don't you need this?"
"You keep this," he repeated. He and his partner then turn and walk away, vanishing in the same manner they appeared.
This whole story seemed surreal and I might have convinced myself I was imagining things. But my car did break down.
And I still have that tool, whatever it is. I'm storing in in a toolbox in my garage right now.
All that is strange enough, but then, a couple years later, I was watching the Daily Wire's Michael Knowles interview a veteran exorcist on the subject of possession and spiritual warfare. Knowles was relating an experience of his own, not one of a demonic nature, but suspected angelic. This is an early point when he was in New York, just had graduated from Yale, going from BMOC to a nobody on NYC's mean streets. He was in the subway and generally feeling down on himself, when the Subway came to a halt at a particular stop. Only two passengers came on board. They were an older black man and a younger white woman. The woman remained standing, holding one of the support poles for passengers standing up, while the man sat down next to Knowles. He asked Knowles his name, which he responded, "Michael." "Really?" the man said, "My name is Michael, too," beaming at Knowles. He then asked Knowles, "What do you do for a living?" "Political punditry, but not having a good time of it right now," Knowles acknowledged. The man chuckled, gently shaking his head and said, "Don't worry about that, you'll be fine." The subway then stopped and the two travelers got off. There was something about that stop that was also unusual, but I did not quite catch what that was.
But it was Knowles' description of the pair and their behavior that got my attention.
If I remember the story correctly, the couple got off at the very next stop. No sensible person would take the subway for 1 stop, they would just walk a few blocks.
Perhaps the Biden stare is just him contemplating a new domestic program. He's not staring, he's deep in thought. Joe Biden, the Grand Old Man of the Democratic Party.
Something similar happened to the GOP and American conservatism in 2008, after Obama's triumph. The Reagan playbook of a strong military and tax cuts wasn't enough anymore.
Wipeout that year didn't produce an immediate heir to Reaganism. Opposition to Obamacare glued the American Right together for a few short years, but it didn't turn into anything lasting like anticommunism did during the Cold War. That we got Trumpism shows how spiritually and intellectually bankrupt the majority of the Right is.
I'll watch my British cousins closely to see what their next moves are. I'll be real unhappy if they go through another Hague-Smith-Howard cycle, because it means they don't have a ready answer either.
Re: Something similar happened to the GOP and American conservatism in 2008, after Obama's triumph. The Reagan playbook of a strong military and tax cuts wasn't enough anymore.
Both of those came quite a-cropper in the later 00s. The strong military devolved into wars of choice. The tax cuts were embroiled in a mess that led to the Great Recession. (Though I don't blame Reagan so much for that-- it was the continued addiction to tax cutting well past the point of common sense as a snake-oil tonic "good for ails you" that has gotten us into so much trouble. I'd happily return to the tax deal of 1986.
Dear Rod,
You do a profound disservice to your readers to recommend Chris Koncz's (CK) writings and "visions". And to yourself. You've no doubt heard the saying, "Curiosity killed the cat."
CK has attained what sorcery / witchcraft offers; that is, access into the spirit realm and its inhabitants, demons.
Coming from that background (out of the U.S. 60s and 70s counterculture) of sorcerous drugs and experiences, I still experience the effects of that exposure, and it requires continual warfare to discern and withstand it. Whether via the sorcerous agents/potions (now widely legal in the U.S.) or contact with a sorcerer (φαρμακεύς pharmakeus) it is forbidden. Revelation 21:8 says of such sorcerers (such as CK), they "shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." His information is deep; so is the place from which it comes.
Curiosity has killed many cats.
Hi Steve,
Sorry to hear you think that way, but since you mentioned me, I thought I needed to correct the record.
I have never engaged in any sort of sorcery or witchcraft, nor have I ever taken any drugs. I'm not in any way part of the counterculture movement thingy. I have meditated and read a lot, that is the only thing that accounts for my spiritual experiences, which can easily be explained in the framework of traditional yoga and tantra, as taught by branches of Hinduism and Buddhism. My interest was piqued by my early childhood years in India, I was mostly self-taught after that.
I do believe in God and pray frequently, especially to the Holy Mother, who I feel very close to. However, my faith is not exclusive to Christianity, I accept the reality of other religions and that all have something to contribute. The demonic is a huge problem and one that is fought intensely, by adherents of other religions. There are plenty of exorcists in both the Hindu and Buddhist traditions as well. Asuras are effectively the same beings as the demons / jinn of Abrahamic religions, depicted in very much the same manner, including the abode they occupy in the underworld.
Thanks for the reply, Chris. I didn't to mean to suggest you used the drugs; there are sorcerers – or adepts of sorts – who have the "gift" without them.
I wrote what I did to Rod as he professes Christ Jesus as his Lord, and many are the Christians who read his Substack. We are forbidden to go into the deep things of Satan, and there are but two spirit realms, Christ's and Satan's. As Jesus said, "He that is not with me is against me." By "with Me" He means disciples in union with Him by means of the new birth by His Spirit, taking the covenant sign and seal of water baptism, and obedience to all the teachings and commands He gives us in His word – the Scriptures of the Bible.
I do realize there are those who abide in the spirit realm that is not Christ's, and many of them consider themselves "white" adepts as distinguished from the "black" adepts, or even neutral.
I appreciate you do not align with the "dark" spirits! As you know, spirits may lie as to what their true natures are. Christ Jesus, God the eternal Son, says that no one comes to God but by Him (John 14:6), and apart from being in union with Him they perish along with all the other spirits and humans outside His kingdom, even those humans who are deceived and think themselves good, and worthy of His approval.
I will be praying for you, Chris – and I ask the other believers who read this to pray for you also – that you come to the Almighty and only true God, and are cleansed by the blood Jesus shed paying for the sins of those who believe in Him.
Seeing there are those who are praying for you, expect some tumult and afflictions that may come upon you. The LORD has said, "I have chosen you in the furnace of affliction" (Isaiah 48:10). Contact me via Substack if you wish. I am also known by the name, Jerusalem Blade.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your reply.
I welcome your prayers, they fill my heart with joy.
I have found God, he resides in my heart always.
I have a great deal of respect for Christianity, I have been brought up in that tradition and through my study of other religions, I understand it a lot more than I did previously and I am realising I missed a lot of its nuance and depth through bad teaching.
I simply think that your view of the spirit realm is based on fear and that might cloud your judgement. There are demonic realms for sure, this is something all religions agree on. However, there are higher realms as well, inhabited by benevolent beings, those you might call angels, who are beings of light.
Anyways, I am not here to convince you about the teachings of other religions, you have obviously found your calling in Christianity and that's great, I'm truly happy for you. However, if I may make a prediction, one day, the holy spirit will descend upon you and open your eyes to the profound beauty and truth of those that follow another faith. That is something I can see very clearly.
I pray, that the Lord may send you Love and extend his divine Grace to you.
You've piqued my curiosity a bit re: meditation. What sort of methods are you using?
I have developed my own technique. It is a combination of self-inquiry and self-observation. Essentially, it is about observing myself from a detached, outside perspective and noting the processes happening my various bodies, physical, subtle, energetic, etc...
The aim of the meditation is to allow my spiritual nature to emerge and to come into its own so to speak. I experience an inflow of divine grace in the form of bliss, when I meditate and feel very closely connected to God, through my heart.
Can I make a suggestion? And this isn't a critique and without knowing exactly what you're doing, I could be wildly off base here. That said, what it sounds like is that there isn't strong emphasis on stability in this sort of practice. That could be a reason why you're running into some of these bogeys. If you're just letting things unfold and noting each thread whenever/wherever it emerges, there's really nothing to keep you from going down rabbit holes that maybe you don't want to be exploring. In Buddhist terms, you've got the vossagga, paṭinissagga, and sati down. That's your "letting go", abandonment, and mindfulness (the real one, not the strip mall mindfulness of Psychology Today). That's good. Those are the hard ones. But your ekaggata, your one pointedness, might need a bit more emphasis.
Think of the Katha Upanishad. Neti, neti, right? Always "this is not it, not it". Anapanasati is breath: it comes in, it goes out. You keep coming back to the same place. Kasina meditation you're keeping the sign in front of you. In the higher jhanas, there's always the nimitta. In nei gong, there's always some kind of releasing technique. Hell, even in shamanic drumming, there's the tap tap tap. I mean, the list goes on. All of these act as a kind of chorus keeping the verses that are "letting go" from becoming unstructured. They are the skeleton that gives abandonment form. Each of those techniques, in addition to being your access point, is also your emergency floatation device. Whenever you are going off the rails, so to speak, they allow you a safe and stable place to bring your attention back to.
If I was writing this for a complete newbie, I'd tell you to start with one of those objects and see what happens. If I told you to do that, I think I'd mess up your technique. I would keep doing what you're doing. You've probably found that as you let go and let be, your mind stabilizes on it's own accord. When that happens, within that stabilization, something emerges, right? Some people perceive it as a light, others as darkness, for some it even has a palpable form. Regardless of how it appears, it almost always has the characteristics of openness and spaciousness. To steal some St. John of the Cross, once you put your house at rest (vossagga), the secret ladder (nimitta) appears. All of those other techniques I mentioned lead to this place. This is the light in the dark that will lead you the rest of the way.
The counterpoint sign (nimitta) is going to slip around. Its stability will also vary at first. It's going to change form and it may vanish and reappear. The trick here is to keep your mind gently holding that counterpoint sign. Keep it stable. This is going to take some practice, but the best advice I can give is to match the effort to hold that sign with the minimum amount of effort you'd use to keep a single sheet of toilet paper pinned to the wall with your finger. Another way to think of it is to touch the nimitta with the same force it would take to allow the surface tension of a bowl of water to cling to your finger without breaking that tension. This next point crucial - whatever you do *don't* explore that signs implications. Don't follow it anywhere (and believe me, I know how hard that is!!!). Just keep it in front of you while letting everything else fall away. This is ekaggata and vossagga - focus and release - mutually reinforcing each other. They spiral together like the caduceus up to heaven.
When you emerge from meditation, that's when you can do all of your explorations of your subtle and energetic bodies. The longer we close our eyes, the brighter the light when we finally open them.
And thanks also for your irenic reply as well, Chris. You are an interesting gentleman, I will say that.
Before the Lord Jesus arrested me at age 26 (am 82 now), I was very interested in the spirit world, its various planes of being (astral, mental, buddhic, etc), and the different paths of spiritual experience. Before I became a follower of the Lord Jesus I searched for a master. I considered lord Gautama, and his teachings, and the Hindu paths and deities, and Lao Tse, etc., but I never met any of them in my seeking.
My path has been interesting and tortuous, but I was marked by Christ, and He called me, to know Him, and follow Him. Even after that momentous experience – the most real thing I’ve ever known – I failed in my discipleship and wandered in the abyss in the human heartlands for some years, during which I began a book, *A Great and Terrible Love* https://www.amazon.com/Great-Terrible-Love-Visionary-Woodstocks/dp/0983519498/ , or free digital copies here https://bit.ly/3nQHBrB . He rescued me out of that in His good time.
Some half a century later I’m shepherding a small flock of disciples of the Lord Christ in the Middle East area.
My “view of the spirit realm is based on fear”? Well, there are fearsome things in it, but nothing is so great and terrible as the LORD Almighty, who flung the yellow dwarf star (our sun) into the heavens and had our earth and the other planets revolve around it, as though He were hanging a mobile in a classroom! Not to mention the billions of other stars in the universe. I have a healthy fear of Him, but He is my Father, and He loves me, and I trust Him.
I make no predictions regarding you, Chris, but I will be praying that the Almighty divest you of the spirit power that sustains you in your adventures, and that He call you to Himself, to love His eternal Son and find rest, forgiveness of sin, and eternal life in Him.
Your life is super interesting, you're truly doing God's work, it seems. Thanks for your prayers!
May the Spirit of God descend upon you and lift you up into the highest heaven!
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me." Jesus Christ. There is no "reality of other religions." That is deception. And the problem is pride, when we think we know better than what God tells us.
All good things conduce to Christ. "You shall know them by their fruit". If something bears good fruit it cannot be a thing of the Devil, period.
No, they don't. The word makes it clear. If that fruit does not bring them to Christ, they stand deceived and condemned before God.
Period.
Since Jon was also referencing Scripture, I think you are cherry picking here.
Given it is the central purpose of Christ and the whole point of his mission, it is the "cherry" to pick.
All truth is God's truth no matter where it appears. Where I differ with the perennialists and syncretists is in the fact that I believe Christianity, specifically in its traditional patristic form, includes the whole truth. Nothing else from other religions is needed.
But if it does not lead you to Christ, it is not truth. It is deception. And if you believe you've got it figured out and that you do not need Christ, you stand deceived and condemned, bound for Hell. Christ is God's truth. The end.
I disagree. The truth is the truth whether it leads one to Christ or not. There are (and were) people who never heard of Christ who still had access to truth.
I would amend "the whole truth" to the "the whole necessary truth". There are many questions and areas of uncertainty still and the Orthodox Church does not pretend to have every precise answer, only the answers that are needful.
Right. I meant "whole truth" only in relation to other religions. There's nothing we need to borrow from Buddhism or Hinduism, for example, to fill some gap that's missing in Christianity. That was my point.
I have always construed that verse the other way around: things get to be known as good when they prove they lead to Christ.
Or perhaps things that are good inevitably lead toward Christ?
That is how I would see it. God created all the world, so there is something of God in everything. And I yes, I said "something". I am not claiming that one can find the whole of God in any particular thing. That does require revelation. But anything good does have God as the source of its goodness.
Perhaps you have read C.S. Lewis's "The Last Battle," or perhaps not. If you have, I think the conversation between the prince of Calormene and Aslan about why the prince's deep and sincere devotion to Tash was really devotion to Aslan, not because they are one and the same, but because they are opposites, has some relevance here.
It's the best explanation of how some people who have never heard of Christ are saved by Him. Without falling into the error that all religions are just as good or true.
We should also remember that salvation is not effected by any mental gymnastics, but bu having Christ illumine our souls. And no, "soul" and "Mind" are not synonyms. Neither is "faith" a synonym for "belief".
I do think Rod is being careless recommending Chris Koncz's writings, as he is not a Christian, and is an occultist of sorts.
I think there might be things of spiritual value in non-Christian traditions, but I would be very careful, and wouldn't recommend it to others.
"you shall know them by their fruits"
God is the Creator of All, so of course there are good things outside Christianity. Buddhism for example advances an ethic with coheres well with Christian ethical teachings. Nothing demonic about it.
I agree.
Buddhism is one of the religions that I merely disagree with (in part), along with Taoism, rather than being actively disgusted by, like Judaism, Islam, and to a lesser degree Hinduism.
Obviously I agree that there are valuable ethical teachings. I'm even prepared to acknowledge there are valuable spiritual teachings or practices, perhaps picking up on things that are latent in Christianity but missed. I'd be really, really careful, though, and wouldn't publish blithe recommendations.
I mean, if I were a writer, I might recommend visiting a Buddhist temple and looking at the art. I might recommend some monk's ethical teachings (e.g. Thich Naht Hanh), or some poetry. I wouldn't recommend partaking in tantric rituals, though.
Jesus was a Jew. Why does Judaism disgust you?
I heard an anti-Semite at the bar a couple weeks ago explaining to another guy why Jesus wasn't a Jew. Something about his being a Nazirite, and Nazirites weren't "really" Jews or something.
Nonsense, of course, but you do have people who believe such things.
It's a good question, and something that I can't sort out in my own mind.
However, I don't think modern Judaism is actually the religion that Jesus followed. Orthodox Jews are the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, i.e. following manmade traditions. There are a lot of appalling things in the Talmud. Reform Jews are different again, and only go back 200 years or so. I wouldn't want to push this too far, but it's arguable that modern Judaism is a new religion, more analogous to Islam. By that argument, the only true Judaism would be Karaism, and there are only a few thousand of them.
However, that's not really a satisfactory explanation. as some of the most dreadful things are in the Old Testament, not the Talmud. I was pushed screaming back into Christianity a few years ago. One of the main problems I had always had was the genocides in the OT. I'm not convinced my any of the justifications, and decided to put that issue up on a high shelf to deal with at some future date. I thought it was academic for the current age. However, we've had senior Israeli politicians making explicit references to the biblical genocides ("Amalekites") in their policies, which has forced the issue into my consciousness, and I'm having trouble processing it. If anything could make me reject Christianity, it would be this.
To summarise, I guess the main issues are (1) the genocides and other evil advocated in the OT; (2) the evil stuff in the Talmud and later Orthodoxy (Maimonides, etc.); (3) modern Israel; (4) the tendency for nonreligious Jews to support the nastiest forms of modern Western secularism (admittedly, I'm uncertain about this, and would change my mind if I saw data, but it's my impression).
However, just because I disapprove of a religion, doesn't mean that I think it can't be livable with on a civic basis. I tend to see Judaism and Islam in a similar way in this respect.
1) The genocides in the OT are commanded clearly by God, and are specific to the actions of the Canaanites themselves. Also, you have the Amalekites -- to use your spelling -- backwards. They're the ones who are trying to exterminate the Jews. On a deeper level, these commands come directly from God -- who are you, especially if you're a believing Christian, to dispute them?
2) The Talmud is a massive collection of discussions, disputes, legal cases, history, and literature of every aspect of Jewish life -- and all human life, for that matter -- made by people from many different cultures spread over many centuries. Obviously, there's going to be some stuff in there that is unpleasant, though I'd be interested to hear what Maimonides said that you consider evil.
3) Modern Israel is not run in accordance with Jewish law.
4) What does the activity of non-religious Jews have to do with Judaism?
Girard's your guy here as far as the OT goes. His take on Old Covenant Judaism makes a great deal of sense to me.
"By that argument, the only true Judaism would be Karaism,"
I think not; rather, that Karaism stood (at the time of its origin) in relation to Rabbinic (Talmudic) Judaism as Protestantism stood to Catholicism. In other words, a "reform" that purported to go back to the original (even "Biblical") form and content of that religion, but in reality was the introduction of something largely novel, never before seen in it. The invention of "the invisible church" comes to mind in Protestantism, but I am, alas, not well-enough versed in Karaism to come up with an analogous novel teaching in it. Karaism does seem to have retained its unity on fundamentals rather better than Protestantism has done, although that may be due to the tiny size of Kariasm, or perhaps that is an appearance based largely upon my ignorance of it.
The genocides in the OT are not what you think they are.
Read Michael Heiser's work and also Fr. Stephen de Young. Whole Council of God blog, "God is a man of war", etc. First of all, if you really read these passages carefully, you will find there are elements of hyperbole in the language (common in ancient near east cultures), with the populations supposedly getting driven out completely being still there in the next chapter. Also, some of it is the translation of the words used, sounding worse than they are. In addition, specific clans were targeted. Those were the Giant clans (Giants/Nephilim being tyrants, produced by demonic rituals), who perpetuated child sacrifice, cannibalism, and other nice traits. Populations weren't defined by simple genetics, but rather what they culturally participated in. Those are just some of the points, but really taking a deep dive into actual Ancient Near East context makes this a lot easier to understand.
Regarding the problematic stuff in the OT: Can you decipher what is in the mind of G-d? Can anyone? We can wrestle with this for a lifetime.
As for the Amalekites, they did wrong. Continuously attacked the weakest, oldest, and infirm. I think the OT gives a valid approach to dealing with this kind of behavior going forward.
"Orthodox Jews are the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees..."
"...modern Judaism is a new religion, more analogous to Islam..."
With all due respect, so much of what you share above is complete rubbish. You clearly have not a clue about Judaism, its history or practice.
You might benefit from these lectures. They are all from the Institute of Catholic Culture. All free. They have many more on their website but these really helped me have a new and i think better understanding of the Old Testament.
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Finstituteofcatholicculture.org%2Fshare%2F95809882dd2839c971689b891cb35f6f&data=05%7C02%7C%7Ceb5df0d1e2f446fb0b5408dc9eb74641%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638559757205590230%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ozeRu5YUX3E1OeFXHzh277QFvODu5UJump0NpQMU3ec%3D&reserved=0
Modern Judaism is about as related to the Biblical Hebrews as Islam or Mormonism is to the early Church.
Given it does not lead to Christ, quite the opposite, yes, there is.
Agreed. And given what he has written above, a sort of Universalism, which is flatly in opposition to Scripture, I'm going to call it deception.
"My experience teaches me otherwise!" Does it? How can you actually test that?
So everyone Rod recommends must be Christian? I guess Rod must also stop writing about Jacques Valle? Could.you even come to see a friendship between Rod.and Chris as, perhaps, God's work? Helps them both is my guess.
There's a difference between a friendship with a non-Christian, or recommending the political views, say, of a non-Christian, and recommending deeply esoteric writings.
Agreed. I once trod that path, mediation and what not, and had some experiences. And it is by the grace of God and the witness of Christians who also once walked that path that I did not have anything particularly dreadful happen.
God's Word is clear on this subject. Divination is forbidden and that's exactly what that stuff is. Seeking occult (hidden) knowledge outside the auspices of God.
And we cannot set the terms. God does. Anything else is human pride. And that comes before the fall.
I think of my early years as a Christian and describe my early faith as "shallow", as deep as that cleared by the soles of my shoes. But it was a real faith. The Holy Spirit was present, nudging me and defending me from my own mistakes and ignorance.
I mean, in my practice, I shudder at what might have happened, had I been contending alone without the Holy Spirit present.
And the Spirit of the Lord showed itself in other ways. There was a woman I was once involved with who practiced the occult. And remarked on more than one occasion about the fact that I was a Christian and that would cause problems. I think the opposition was prodding her away.
I pray for her and others I know under demonic influence daily.
Meditation is not divanation. The early church desert fathers and mothers did it all.the
Time. Chris did not invite the being. He did get rid of it.
The desert fathers and mothers meditated with the name of Jesus.
Meditation otherwise can indeed open one up to malign influences/beings. I've heard of this happening in TM.
Yes, it is.
I find it a bit of a grey area. I've only meditated a bit, and that was when I was toying with becoming a Buddhist. In my case, meditation is too much a part of Buddhism, which, although I respect, I consider to be a false religion*.
I can imagine meditation as a practice being helpful for someone who is very nervous or something. It's far from certain whether Zen is really Buddhist, and it can be almost doctrine-free. It might be compatible with Christianity, but I'd be careful going there.
* I'm a bit unsure about the whole area of "false religion". The Bible doesn't give us a detailed map as to what to make of other religions, as the only ones it mentions are (1) the Paganisms of Palestine, Mesopotamia, and Greece (maybe Egypt too, but I can't think where?), and those are wrong because of the idolatry/polytheism and because of the evil practices (e.g. human sacrifice); and (2) Judaism, which Jesus saw as having gone wrong by his time.
At some points, St. Paul talks sympathetically about the more philosophical forms of Greek Paganism, and Greek Paganism generally seems less depraved than the Canaanite and Mesopotamian versions. It is possible to position Buddhism, Taoism, and philosophical Hinduism in this sort of area, with Platonism and Stoicism. I do have a soft spot for Taoism, myself. However, I would be wary.
Again, I think anyone who reads me would know perfectly well that I could never endorse the kind of meditation Chris does. I recommended Chris's essay because it bears witness to the reality of spiritual warfare. I didn't think Chris needed to hear it from me, because as a regular reader, he surely knows my views on these kinds of spiritual practices, and their dangers. If I quoted at length from the writing of a non-Christian who used psychedelic drugs and who had these kinds of spiritual experiences -- and there are plenty of those accounts on the Internet -- would you think I was recommending that my subscribers consider taking DMT or ayahuasca?
A fine thing about the market is that one can opt out. Regardless of what you are "recommending", the more you present near occasions of sin to your readers, the closer I get to questioning my continuing participation as a paying subscriber. You do us a service by making some realities accessible which the MSM refuses to acknowledge. And I value your opinions and commentary. Having said that, I find myself reading your blog and following your links very selectively. As the first commentor suggested, please - for your sake and for ours - do assiduously challenge yourself in prayer, be careful what you ingest and what you share.
It isn't healthy though if these sorts of people are dragging Rod deeper into the woo and New Agey circles.
The guy is in a rough spot right now and starting to go too deep into this quasi-Christian superstition is not going to end well
That's kind of what I think. I don't think this stuff is necessarily demonic or depraved, but I worry a bit about where Rod is going with it. I also don't think Christians should talk about this sort of thing so casually.
I fear you may be right.
I'm glad you are concerned for Rod. He is going through things. But I believe his spiritual discernment, in the end, is good. I am a somewhat spiritually porous. Both Chris and Rod are very spiritually porous.
I know Rod currently likes "woo". I personally believe that as a widely read Christian with influence, he may get more "attacks". Meaning we should pray for him more, and meaning he will be more interested in these forces than we are.
I am sure Rod will not "be tempted beyond what he can bear" (a promise in Scripture) but a way of escape will be made from what he is going through. Sure, I worry, for instance, I worry that demons can't speak through a computer. However, I just accept an eccentricity or two, and I'm humble enough to know I could be wrong.
I've had experience with Christian meditation groups - complete orthodox (small o) believers, so perhaps that makes me different.
I also live in Hungary and see the value of Rod knowing Chris. Chris is an incredible source of deep information about this place, difficult to find. I am really glad Chris has come along.
I recommend reading lots of different people who do not share my religious convictions. I can read Chris's work with profit because I know what I believe, and what I do not believe, and can sort through his writing intelligently. For example, I believe Chris has had a direct encounter with a demon, something he knows to have been a malign entity (though he might not use the word "demon"). Chris and I likely have somewhat different views on where entities like that figure in the cosmos, and how to deal with them, but believe me, a man like Chris who does not share my Christian faith, but who understands the reality of these entities and their threat to humanity, is of more interest to me than Christians who share most of my theological views, but who laugh at, or otherwise dismiss, talk of the demonic.
Not to discount how powerful evil is, it will not win ultimately. “In the world you will have tribulation, but fear not, little flock, for I have overcome the world.”
You know that's interesting. I do think that my Atheism was a big reason why I was singled out or courted by the demonic entity (fallen angel or watcher to be more precise) in question. It was also a test by God to see if I can overcome temptation or seduction by the demonic.
Evil will not win, but it doesn't mean that "good" won't be forced to build back out of rubble and ash.
Very true observation Katja.!
Hi Rod,
You may already have a spiritual director that you talk to on a regular basis about where to draw the line on researching some of this stuff. (I know you have many people you talk to, including exorcists.). However, if not, you might want to pray about it and seriously consider getting one. Even St Faustina was fooled when a demon convinced her to burn her diary on Divine Mercy while her spiritual director was away.
Hello Rod,
You said, “a man like Chris who does not share my Christian faith, but who understands the reality of these entities and their threat to humanity, is of more interest to me than Christians who share most of my theological views, but who laugh at, or otherwise dismiss, talk of the demonic”. Quite understandable!
I also appreciate your delving into the AI systems and alien intelligences that could be involved, and even courted by some of the researchers and technicians! Which stuff you bring to light!
It is not only your exploring various ideas that draws me to your writings (including your books), but your unique heart, which you wear on your sleeve. Sometimes your sufferings are as bracing and edifying as your other topics of interest!
As interesting as CK is (and that he is!), he promotes and teaches – in his writings, even here – a deceiving occultism, for his source of knowledge is “from the dark side”, despite his disclaimers. And despite his valuable comparative religion knowledge. If one soul is misled or confirmed in eternally fatal error, I’m sure you would not want that.
Granted, there are not many Christians who teach with deep and clear vision what goes on in the spirit world – a spiritual warfare manual, so to speak. I am not a “nice guy”, Rod, but a shepherd who protects Christ’s flock against the demonic. Even though here, this is your flock, your readers! So I will hold my peace. I am grateful you exist.
Amen.
I appreciate the diverse sources of information you bring into this substack. Please don't stop. It's one of your strengths.
Exactly. We are spiritual beings. But God has clearly, flatly forbade meddling in that stuff with the harshest of sanctions. For good reason. I'm sure we interact with it in ways we do not understand, like in dreams and what not. But to pursue it under our own recognization and not under the balliwick of God is clearly forbidden and based on the experiences of people out there, you open gateways and bring trouble to yourself.
It cannot be "scienced", as there is no way to test it, especially under controlled circumstances.
My advice as a Christian who has at one time dabbled in this stuff is, don't. And if you brush with it, bring it under the aegis of God.
If there is something in that realm you need, God will show it too you, see that you've got it.
Otherwise, stick with Scripture and enjoy this life. You will have all eternity to fully experience that other realm.
Of course, prayer is a way we touch that realm. And God encourages us to do that, all day, bring it to Him.
Again please read Chris's piece. He does not invite the thing and he gets rid of it.
(edit for typo)
But the means he encnountered it in the first place are forbidden. And he has no control over the situation at all in his own power.
It is not forbidden to meditate in scripture. It is like saying there is no scripture saying it is OK to eat avocado so we must not eat avocado.
The point was Chris got into something dangerous, and knew it, and got rid of it, and warned us. It is good to read the warning.
Scientifically, meditation is just placing the brain in a state where waves below alpha predominate, but it is not sleep. It has been shown to be very healthy for people. It need not be religious. Chris invited no entities when he meditates. He is not a Christian and admits it, but he committed no sin by merely meditating.
You know, Rod strongly influenced me - He showed me that despite my intellectual doubts, seeing strong logical contradictions in Christianity, I could still have faith and be a Christian, returning to a faith that had been very important to me. Who knows what will happen with Chris? Rod is a strong believer and his faith won't be hurt by this, Let's let it be.
Meditation is seeking hidden/occult knowledge by your "own" means, rather than under the ausices of the Lord. And that "scienticic" stuff is nonsense. What is happening physically is not the point. And to think it is, again, goes to pride. I do not need the warnings of the Lord, I know better.
No, I will not let it be.
I once participated in the exact same practices. I did not get nearly as deep as Chris did, but i thank God Almighty that He showed me clearly what was going on and steered me clear before something dreadful di hapen.
Chris did not know what was happening there. And that is the illusion, the trap, that you do know what is going on and do have power over the situation. That is the pride trap again. That you do not need the Lord. Your noodlings about Alpha waves and spirits supposedly doing your bidding are enough.
They are not.
Mediation is dangerous, at least Eastern mediation and is not for the Christian.
You can make up your own definition of meditation if you like. What you describe is wrong, but it is not the definition of meditation. Dictionary: "Meditation is a practice that involves focusing or clearing your mind using a combination of mental and physical techniques."
Yep, I get it "clearing the mind" is the objection. But the mind clears when we sleep. It is a method of relaxation. I was my more subject to anxiety before I began to meditate. Because of ringing in the ears, I don't meditate anymore (the ringing is too distracting) but meditating helped me a lot. And Alpha waves have nothing to do with spirits. You should read neurologists about meditation.
"at least Eastern meditation" you say, is dangerous. But we agree some forms are dangerous - if you invite spirits. Mantra meditation and breath meditation as well as so called "mindfulness" meditation do not invite spirits and are not dangerous.
I've seen how you do not like it when people object to Harry Potter. So you know there is a line. I'm suggesting the line places some forms of meditation on the "good" side.
Anyway, let's close it here. I actually know better than to answer you but sometimes I can't resist, some small part of me has faith you have a compassionate core that can learn something.
Rod is a writer who is a Christian and a writer who actually writes about aspects of that sometimes. He is not, however, a religious teacher of any sort and doesn't make that claim. The insistence I've seen in some of the comments about columns not being "Christian" enough or what have you is bewildering, and smacks a little of the people I knew a a kid who insisted that a "Christian" could only listen to specifically "Christian" music, etc.
I appreciate Rod for a lot of reasons, but once is that he treats his readers as adults. The spiritual warfare around us doesn't disappear when we close our eyes or stick our heads in the ground. These things being discussed are serious things and ought not to be ignored. Rod is not advocating getting mixed up on them, obviously. Scripture tells us here "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." (Mt 10:16)
If you care concerned for Rod, keep him in your prayers. If you care concerned for people whom you think are not understanding this correctly, pray for them as well. We all are in need of it!
Rod, you often talk about declining trust in institutions. You haven’t mentioned it yet that I’ve seen but I think the Biden situation is going to do a number on trust in the Democratic Party. A lot of people here have no trust in it already, politically, but as a somewhat disaffected Democrat, I still trusted the party with the bare minimum of not putting forward a candidate in major mental decline. I defended him against some of the “cheap fake” attacks. And to be fair, the right wing media sphere is plenty prone to falsehood. But in this case I feel my trust has been betrayed.
Though you have to admit your trust has also been betrayed with Russian Collusion and Hunter's Laptop.
But it's been betrayed "for the greater good" in the eyes of those responsible. Trump must be kept out of power; so yes, they lied to you - for the sake of the country! And they'll lie to you again for the same reason.
I see a disillusionment in my online friends over all this. Yes, they know they've been lied to, before the debate they sneered at any suggestion Biden was slipping and now they fall back on "well, we really elect an administration, not the man." It's like - yes, they've been betrayed. But they'll vote for the party that betrayed them because that party still represents, er, truth and democracy.
"well, we really elect an administration, not the man."
I guess the question is, who is running this administration?
Funny how that same justification doesn't seem to work when voting for Trump.
They may help Trump win by sticking with Biden.
Because it has. For the longest time. It goes before 2016, but kicked into overdrive, when any pretense of principle was tossed out to "get Orange Man."
This is the result. This is what their decadence and degeneracy hath wrought. It takes a fell creature to fall that far, but fall that far they have.
I hope you can find your way through this betrayal. I know how hard it can be in this tribal world to face this type of betrayal from a party you supported wholeheartedly. I was a big neocon Republican. And then George W Bush happened. TARP. WMD in Iraq. Open borders. A refusal to listen to the party membership rather than the leaders. Uncontrolled spending. Undermining Trump at every turn. Betrayal after betrayal after betrayal. It's been hard and has led me to be a bit paranoid and a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Still, today I'm pretty sure I see things more clearly than ever (at least for me). Good luck on your journey of disillusionment!
Brian: Join us, the newly coined "double haters" who are disgusted by the lies of both parties and their spin meisters. No matter which way your governance inclinations may lean (I am a conservative), we're all getting told that at this point the goal must somehow be loyalty for the sake of stopping the other side, and damn the eyes of those who question whether their own "side" is actually being moral. Your side has had something of an apocalypse (an unveiling) vis. Biden, and so may actually have a chance to replace him. Anyone on the Right who has seen the closed ranks around Trump still despairs that we're stuck with him.
Because we've had four years of Trump and know what he's about. No one claims he's perfect, but his policy is solid and his guns are trained in the right direction. And this time, he's spoiling for a fight.
Also, no one is questioning his mental fitness. Not with any cred. Because he was just as naked before the camera as Biden was. And no one has tried accusing him of that.
I don't see the problem.
"I defended him against some of the “cheap fake” attacks."
I am not trying to hyper-critical here, but there have been no "cheap fake" attacks. I noticed in 2019 that Biden's elevator didn't go all the way to the top. I'm not alone in that, either. He's been a doddering fool for ages.
If it's 2024 and only *now* you're realizing that your trust has been betrayed, then you clearly have bought timeshares at some point in your past. Where have you been lately? I know this sounds harsh, but good grief.
Triple "Likes" for you, Michael. As the saying goes, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Willful blindness is not betrayal.
Fascinating one today!
I am intensely interested in the topic of non-human intelligence, for understandable reasons, but I would not put them all in the same category, like Jacques Vallee and Diana Pasulka does. I would simply say that it all depends, on which realm they come from and what species / group they belong to. From what I have seen, also confirmed by numerous other reports, many of them are biological in nature, though they may not be native to our own reality.
Indian writings talk about visits to other localities (lokas as they call them), where it isn't entirely clear whether the author talks about another planet or some sort of higher realm. Most translators use the term planet whenever a loka is mentioned in ancient writings, but it can also mean an island, or an entirely different realm or universe.
I recall a chapter from the Mahabharata, where the protagonist Arjuna, son of the God Indra (Zeus / Deus), through a mortal mother (very similar to Heracles in Greek Mythology), travels to his father's loka (home planet). He walks up into the Himalayas, until a fiery heavenly chariot is sent to fetch him, driven by Indra's charioteer. They fly up into the sky and pass by several planets in the solar system, until even the stars start zooming by, so as per the description, they arrive on a planet in another solar system. The planet is described as being very similar to earth, with vegetation, pleasant gardens, palaces, etc... Indra and the other vedic gods (roughly analogous to the Olympian gods) are there, in the flesh, so to speak, though unlike mortals, they don't age and die and have wondrous abilities that mortals don't possess. Arjuna is greeted by Indra as his son and sent on a mission, where he takes the heavenly chariot in question and defeats a race of beings on yet another planet, who live in a flying city.
Interestingly, in the final chapter of the Mahabharata, Arjuna and his brothers, decide that they've had enough of life and will walk up to Indra's kingdom, which they believe to be above the Himalayas, somewhat contradicting the previous description of it (Svarga), being on another loka. All but one die on the way there, only the eldest brother, the most righteous is allowed to enter in bodily form, whilst the other ones are brought there later after a short time in purgatory.
This indicates a confusion the ancients had about the abode of the gods and their destination in the afterlife. They couldn't quite decide if the gods were physical or spiritual and seemed to think they were both or could be both when needed. There are several more references to how the gods presented themselves to mortals. For instance, in the Bhagavata Purana (which translates roughly to ancient stories of God), a devotee of Vishnu is taken to his Loka, Vaikuntha. As in the case of Arjuna, a heavenly chariot with a charioteer is sent for him, but this time they are taken there permanently and the devotees family can go too. The interesting detail here, is that they have to drink a liquid which makes them shine (tejas), an important characteristic of gods in most religions. They are told by the charioteer, that it is not possible to travel to Vaikuntha in bodily form, but drinking the liquid they are given, will transform their body to one made of light, so they can go there.
Arriving on Vaikuntha, they find a planet or realm, which is again not unlike earth, with gardens, trees, animals, palaces, etc... However, they are surprised to find out that the inhabitants of Vaikuntha all look like Vishnu, that is they have four arms and blue skin. It is important to note, that most Hindus today, those belonging to the Vaishnava Sect, about half a billion of them, believe Vaikuntha to be their final destination in the afterlife.
It is rather interesting to note the parallels with other religions, where most believe that their final destination will be in the heavens, or in other words, somewhere in outer space, though most don't believe it to be an actual planet. This is also a relatively new idea in religion as the ancient Chinese or Sumerians for instance, did not believe that the heavens were a destination for mortals, it was exclusively the abode of the gods. They thought all souls went to the under- or netherworld, where they were judged for their earthly deeds and punished or rewarded according to their merits and sins.
There is so much more to write about this, hopefully we can keep up this train of thought in subsequent posts.
Thanks!
Well, I'd say my own concept of heaven has changed dramatically through my spiritual transformation. There are very pleasant astral planes or planets, like Svarga, where good people go after they die. I'm sure those places are real, but they are not what christians really mean when they talk about heaven.
I have had some experience of heaven, the real deal, I believe, which I will write about at some point. That place is non-physical, not even spiritual, in the sense of there being concrete form and substance. It is a realm of pure light and consciousness, infinite love and bliss, even divine ecstasy. It can only be experienced through union with the divine in the manner St Theresa of Avila describes it. It is in my estimation a much higher realm than the pleasant paradise that many religions believe in. Both are real, but reaching the real, actual heaven is far harder and requires far more dedication and sacrifice. Perhaps we could distinguish them by calling this lower heaven paradise and what I call the real heaven union with the Godhead. I don't know, I will have to think about this a bit more, as I mostly understand this through the Hindu philosophical framework and sometimes struggle to put it into a Christian context, which is what is necessary when writing for a western audience.
Intriguing. Often it seems that the apocrypha contain the really juicy stuff, proper spiritual wisdom. I certainly found that to be the case with the book of Enoch. In both cases, I immediately understood what those two quotes meant, I've gone through this exact process. My reading list is getting longer and I am always struggling to find time to read, but I'll have to squeeze these in. Thanks for the suggestion.
re: they are not what Christians really mean when they talk about heaven
The problem is that most Christians nowadays really misunderstand what is actually described in the Bible. If you look closely, up until Christ the Jews still understood that after death they would go to Sheol, the Underworld, Hades, etc. They were waiting for the resurrection of the dead. With Christ's death, harrowing of Hades, the righteous were freed, but what that actually means is a bit vague. The Saints are in the council of God, and Paul is referring to falling asleep is to be with Christ, but it does not mean they are in a physical heaven. After Christ, we are still waiting for the final resurrection, but it is very clear that the incarnation is bodily, the resurrection is bodily, heaven will be on earth. The incarnation of Christ is the vehicle that enables human union with the divine, but again, in bodily form. The concept of going to heaven (or hell) after you die is more due to popular literature than scripture. Milton, Dante, etc.
Veronika,
Exactly, you studied "religions." Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ who died for our sins, rose from the dead, and lives forevermore.
It's not WE do that counts, it's our faith in what GOD did for us that matters. There's no way to work, study, or meditate your way into Heaven.
Yes, but primarily, He died for your sins. The New Testament is unambiguous: He is The Way, The Truth, and The Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Him.
Hell will be filled with people who were "religious," who studied all of this world's religions, and who believed that each had a measure of truth. Tragically, many of them will be people who thought that Jesus came to set an example, but never believed that He was the Lamb of God.
The Devil is quite happy with "religious" people.
"I left the convent because I wanted to experience marriage."
Your life is not answerable to me, but you write puzzlingly. Don't nuns, like other religious, take solemn vows, such that "I want" becomes irrelevant once those vows are taken. It'd just as if I should write "I wanted to experience paternity, but because my wife proved to be infertile I left her to marry somebody else." In both Catholic and Orthodox understanding, the force of monastic vows is equivalent to that of marriage vows. For instance, when a secular (non-monastic) Catholic priest is laicized he is simply released of the promise of celibacy he made to his bishop, but when a monk or nun is laicized the traditional "release" ran along the lines of "so far as authority rests in me to do so I release you from your vows," the idea being that such vows are made to God, and not simply to the Church authorities.. In other words, in the first case, it is simply a matter of being released from a promise, but in the second the Church merely releases you from any temporal or ecclesiastical ill-consequences ("canonical punishments" or the like) but you remain answerable to God for breaking your vows.
No, Veronika, not at all. One of the best evangelistic sermons I ever heard was by a priest. He was recounting an experience he'd had recently. He'd gone to visit a nun, very old, who was in a retirement home. She was distraught. She begged him to pray for her.
"Oh, Father, please ask God to give me three or four more years. If He does, I think I may finally be holy enough to stand before Him."
The priest said, "I told her, dear Sister, none of us can ever make ourselves holy enough to stand before God. Jesus' death on the cross as the sacrifice for our sins has done that."
( Veronika, that is so well put, I'm a little saddened because it has occurred to me that when that man became a priest, we Protestants probably lost a great one. )
I'm glad you told me what was on your mind when you wrote that last line. I did take it as a reference to what is frequently called "red letter Christianity." These are people who talk about the real Christianity as being in The Sermon on the Mount and somehow don't take in that if they were "red letter Christians" only, they should be terrified. Jesus is by far the scariest person in The Bible, the most unsettling because He talks about Hell far more than anyone else and points constantly to Himself as the only way any of us can hope to avoid it. He didn't come to bring peace, He came to bring a sword. Families may essentially break up because of Him. He, the creator of families and the hater of divorce, wants us to know that He is God Incarnate, and that the one necessary thing for us to do is to become His own by believing in Him. Either He was the maddest narcissist who ever lived or He is the unique man, fully God and fully human.
The man who beats his chest over his sins in that parable gets it, and I'm glad that you explained that was what you were alluding to.
Some possible grounds for conservative optimism in Britain (there are no guarantees of course, but hope is not dead yet):
1. Labour's win is broad but shallow. Because of the eccentricities of the electoral system they have gained over 400 seats (out of 650) but they managed barely a third of the popular vote (33.7%). They will face all the same problems that the Tories did - migration, the sluggish economy, housing shortages. They under-performed almost every pre-election poll by some distance, and added only 1.4% to their 2019 vote share. They were far below their 2017 share (40%). In terms of raw numbers, with 9.8m votes, they are below their 2019 (10.3m) and 2017 (12.8m) numbers. They seem to have lost a lot of votes to the left, to the Lib Dems, the Greens and various Islamists. It is quite possible, albeit not guaranteed, that their popularity will fall quickly once they are in office and actually having to make hard decisions. Public opinion in Britain is very volatile just now. Just consider the vote change between the last election and this one - in early 2020, before COVID, the Tories briefly touched over 50% in the polls. Labour touched the same figure briefly in autumn 2022. It's not at all inconceivable that there is another all-change election next time round.
2. From more or less a standing start, with minimal ground game, the Reform Party gained in excess of 4 million votes (14.3%), making them third in the popular vote despite their low number of seats, half a million ahead of the Liberal Democrats, who have gained 71(!) seats despite actually losing voters since 2019. Reform were second in 98 constituencies. I have seen it suggested that Reform are the second most popular party among 16-17 year olds. Reform now have 4 or 5 years to build a proper ground-level political operation ahead of the next election.
3. The election of several independent Muslim MPs on a pro-Gaza platform heightens the salience of immigration, Islamic sectarianism and the failure of multiculturalism as issues. This helps the right.
4. Turnout is way down from 2019 (67% --> 60%). This is a Tory failure, not really a success for the parties of the left.
Possibly this is all just copium, and yes Starmer is going to be bad. But there are strong grounds for optimism.
Interesting analysis. Hitchens can get a little melodramatic at times.
His language is over the top because he wants to get your attention. According to Hitchens, what Labour has up their sleeve is nothing less than the abrogation of Parliamentary rule and a full-on Administrative State with a Trotskyist bent. Lacking as they do the Bill of Rights (indeed, English libel law flies in the First Amendment's face in some ways) there doesn't seem to me to be much anybody can do about it. I can't think of a major issue since I started reading him regularly 15 years ago Hitchens has been wrong about, so we'll see.
What Hitchens is saying could be said in the last lines of Belloc's poem:
And spirits that call on a fallen nation,
Spirits that loved her, calling aloud,
Spirits abroad in a windy cloud.
Spirits that call and no one answers,
Ha'nacker's down and England's done,
Wind and thistle for pipe and dancers
And never a ploughman under the sun.
Never a ploughman. Never a one.
I thought the Hitchens quote was great, very evocative. Made me want to start reading fiction again.
I often think that I prefer to spend my limited time just reading facts, but I had forgotten that fiction and poetry are facts, facts on a deeper and richer plane than the mundane day to day.
They're different from facts. They're truths.
Thanks for your analysis. It seems quite clear to me (from the other side of the pond, that is) that people were voting against the Conservative Party, rather than in favor of what Labour was offering.
Labour lost votes and underperformed the polls but won the seats. So Britain's election was more a rejection of the Conservatives. Britain, like many European nations, America and Canada is being run by a narrow ban of mediocre centrists. The right has given up cutting the welfare state. The left has given up tax and spend. The excitement is all on the national question and Third World immigration.
Re: The right has given up cutting the welfare state. The left has given up tax and spend. T
A good development in both cases, much as it is good that the Right no longer pushes for monarchy (in the sense of kings actually ruling not just reigning) and the Left has given up on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat nonsense. Though that does leave a deficit of grand ideals to inspire people so both sides try to confect new ones, whether the victim-worship of the Left or the adulation of "Volk" on the Right.
Look, it's your country, but, "They will face all the same problems that the Tories did - migration, the sluggish economy, housing shortages." Regarding the first, they don't think it's a problem at all. They like it, and will make sure more of it happens. If they don't I owe you a beer.
I think I share a lot of common ground with Peter Hitchens. I like his point about the "overdressed cousin, the Conservative Party". Modern economic rightists always come over as ghastly estate agents, hucksters, televangelists, or those American businessmen I used to meet when I worked in a big company in Tokyo.
However, I don't really vote, or act politically, on the basis of things I love (Christianity, the family, nature, hiking, cycling, art, architecture, good company .....), except in so far as someone wants to destroy them.
I vote against things I dislike. However, no faction shares all my dislikes, as they are these, in no particular order:
-- Imperialism, and all US overseas actions since 1989, if not 1945
-- Surrogacy, transgenderism, abortion, and to a lesser extent the LGBT movement and the Sexual Revolution generally
-- Israel
-- Islamic extremism
-- Gross inequality
-- Gross exploitation, especially when invasive or degrading
-- Environmental destruction
-- Racism
-- Silicon Valley, Hollywood, the music industry, and US culture and values (especially their liberal versions) generally
Re: Modern economic rightists always come over as ghastly estate agents, hucksters, televangelists, or those American businessmen I used to meet when I worked in a big company in Tokyo.
Maybe add used car salesmen to the list. And telemarketers.
I would add real estate developers. They destroy the environment.
Most politicians come across this way to me.
“Britain is going to get Labour rule, and it’s going to get it good and hard.”
The Sage of Baltimore would no doubt endorse.
Re: I find it absolutely impossible to believe that the White House reporters really thought everything was fine, until Biden went onstage with Trump and it couldn’t be hidden any longer.
I am also seeing stories that Biden's decline is quite recent. If that's the case then this isn't some kind of long term cover up.
You crack me up.
Why? I assure you I am not making this up for a open mic comedy hour. The report I cite has been echoed in several places. IMO, it makes sense. Mental decline is progressive. It does not manifest all at once absent physical brain trauma.
My mother and my grandmother both suffered from senile dementia, non-Alzheimer's. I've seen it up close. The final decline may be speedy, but the tell-tale signs are there long before. It's progressive, yes, but the idea that the person is not on a slow descent prior to the collapse is nonsense.
A cousin of mine declined due to Parkinsons. That had physical consequences too: she lost the use of her legs early. She retained the ability to carry on a sensible conversation for several years, though delusions began to creep in. She thought her husband, dead from ALS years earlier, was still alive but had left her for another woman. The last time I saw her she was starting to go down hill fast; she would say something then minutes later say it again having forgotten she had already said it. Her train of thought no longer left the station. She died a year later.
If you don't see someone regularly and if there are no physical symptoms as with my cousin then the early decline may well be invisible and easily masked. This is consistent with Biden's circumstances. He ran a winning campaign in 2020 and has made cogent speeches in the years since. His addled state in the debate is a new thing. There's no reason to think he had hit the absolute bottom much earlier; he would likely be dead by now were that the case.
See also: Ronald Reagan whose decline began no later than his second term but he was still an effective president.
Parkinson's and Alzheimer's are different than senile dementia. Biden has not been diagnosed with either of the former, but clearly has some version of the latter. What I'm saying is that the debate may have a bottoming-out point, but there's no way that just happened suddenly without anyone knowing.
"Clearly"? Sorry but you are not qualified to make such a diagnosis.
I am saying that Biden's first term has been the equivalent of Reagan's second: slipping but still in command.
Senile dementia has no medical meaning. It’s a blanket term for Alzheimer’s, Lewy body, frontotemporal dementia, etc.
In "Killing Reagan" Bill O'Reilly and his coauthor argue that Reagan never really recovered from Hinkley's bullet. Reagan had a competant VP and did the country a disservice when he didn't resign when he knew he was declining.
That's an interesting take. Teddy Roosevelt and Lenin also survived being shot but never fully recovered. I was just a teenager. Reagan seemed forceful and in command in the early 80s, but slipping in the late 80.s although second terms have a long history of not going well. Even George Washington's had its troubled moments.
O'Reilly is a self-servicing fool. Reagan was on top of his game until 1987 or 1988. Even then, his dealings with Gorbachev turned out well. It helped that Reagan had excellent surrogates like Shultz.
This is one of the reasons I detest Bill O'Reilly.
Interesting. Head injuries are a known risk factor.
"If you don't see someone regularly...then the early decline may well be invisible and easily masked. This is consistent with Biden's circumstances"
But many people did see him regularly, cabinet members, staffers, congressional liaisons, reporters...they saw, they kept quiet for months or years and now they are admitting it, the dam is broken.
Hi, Jon. Memory Eternal for your cousin. The bit about the train of thought was artistic.
Thank you. Talking to someone you know when they are no longer compos mentis is a sad experience.
I just saw an article detailing an advisory from medical professionals calling for Biden to be tested for Parkinsons as he supposedly is showing possible symptoms.
Yeah I remember thinking that Biden was showing signs when he challenged that old man to a fight in that town hall,
That was pretty crazy. Called the guy a pony-faced soldier or something like that.
Good grief consider some of the nastiness that spews out of Trump's mouth!
Dog-faced pony soldier, I think it was. Hoo boy.
I thought his decline was manifest when Clyburn and friends rolled out the "he's a stutterer" meme in the 2020 campaign. That was a clear lie meant to mask his cognitive decline 4+ years ago!
Stuttering is a real thing, and a number of famous people have suffered from it. King George VI ("The King's Speech") for example. It is not an indication of mental decline.
We should be also wary of jumping on every misspeak that occurs. That's a universal thing and we've all said ludicrous things by mistake. I can think of a couple real howlers that came out of my mouth when I not yet 20.
The media is just seeing it now. They've managed to not see it for years. And even if this decline is "recent," why did we see no stories about it prior to the debate, save for that big one in the WSJ, which was savaged by the rest of the lefty-protecting media?
They didn't see it because they didn't want to.
Recent? Ok.
The "stories that Biden's decline is quite recent" are just that: "stories," concocted by those whose venality and mendacity have now been exposed. Biden's senility was on full display at least five years ago. That's why he was kept closeted from before the 2020 campaign. "There are none so blind as those who will not see" -- especially when willful blindness and false denials suit their narrative.
I hope the Labour Party commits mass suicide next because it's just as deserving of it as the Tories. May Populist British parties rule in the near future.
Populism has shallow purchase in British culture. Conservatism has always been linked to monarchy, the Anglican church and preservation of old timey things.
Yes of course but they're not really conserving any of those things. They seem to be only preserving the wealth and privilege of the British Ruling Class.
I don't disagree on this. This is a defect of conservatism in general: it tends to be most eager to conserve wealth and power where they are currently bestowed.
I remember reading Ed West's piece a few weeks ago, and it struck me as basically correct, and in line with my own thinking about some of these things for some years now. The cultural revolution in the 60s-70s, which was really centered on the sexual revolution, was a fundamental change akin to earlier mass cultural upheavals. The kind of change where all of the cultural assumptions of the previous eras were upended and replaced by something new -- in this case, sexual liberation, fueled largely by the liberation of women from pregnancy. This was not just a matter of sexual mores, or personal sexual actions, it also restructured the economy in ways that made the new economy more or less entirely dependent on the new sexual regime post-1970. What emerged was a new order, tout court.
Politics since then has been, to a significant degree, animated by disagreement between the people who "liked" the shift, net/net, and the people who did not. In the US that emerged with Reagan and the "moral majority" in the 1980s, but what wasn't realized at the time by those on the "right" was that this level of divisiveness was not being replicated down the generational pole. Admittedly, it took some time for this to play out fully and the internet's arrival in the late 1990s has both accelerated this transformation and sent it in ways that would not have been predicted before the internet. But in the end, although West is describing Britain primarily and not the US, the trend is the same: conservatism, in terms of any particular substance, even along the lines of what Hitchens writes in your quote (which struck me, sad to say, as basically sentiment-based and therefore completely inadequate), lacks support, because almost everyone below a certain age does not want it.
Sure, we have "right" and "left", and we will have this for as long as we have a republican system of government (the distinction goes back to the French revolution and is durable across time and political detail). And in the context of the US and perhaps the UK, the right "side" of this will be labaled "conservative", since this is the label everyone, both right and left, is accustomed to using for it. But the substance will be something very different even from what Hitchens is describing, never mind what Ed West is getting at.
The world has moved on. The American right establishment's failure to realize this in 2016 led to Trump, and his widespread popularity among much of the American right displays quite well that the "old values" were not deeply held by the rank and file at all. The small group of "Never Trumpers" adhere to their 20th Century conservative ideologies still, but they're vastly outnumbered by those who are not "conservative" in any meaningful way, even though the term is still used for the American right, because it's the term everyone is used to using for it. The world, though, has moved on. The ideas of the old conservative right are not wanted.
New ideas are needed, and that process is ongoing. I am not optimistic about the short to medium term, because, honestly, the right lacks brainpower. Largely the right doesn't have the chops, in a broad sense, needed to develop practical ideas which can form the basis of a new conservative stance. The brainpower that does exist on the right is mostly not policies-oriented, and is instead very philosophically-inclined. Thinkers on the right love political philosophy, but the right lacks the anything like the depth the left has in terms of policy thinkers, and it will take some time to make up the gap. And so while we wait for that to happen, we will have populism -- Trump, Farage, the RN, etc. It's what happens when you have a lack of ideas but also great dissatisfaction in the electorate.
Brendan, what a great comment, top to bottom. When you point out that “The brainpower that does exist on the right is mostly not policies-oriented, and is instead very philosophically-inclined,” I find myself thinking: That’s it! As a longtime reader of First Things and such, I’ve often been struck at the intellectual depth and theological sophistication in certain corners of faith-based conservatism. Alas, where are all these brilliant minds with well-ordered moral compasses when we’re looking for new leadership in the “public service” realm of politics? The sentence I quote from you here goes far in answering that question.
Your note about the '60s reminded me of an observation I made years ago: that it is hippies and their descendants who have shaped the US ever since, on both sides! Since then it has been the hippies who became Jesus people versus those who didn't.
Hi, Brendan. I found your comment quite interesting. Right at the moment, the part that struck me the most was the point that the sexual revolution "restructured the economy in ways that made the new economy more or less entirely dependent on the new sexual regime post-1970". Should we understand this primarily in terms of such things as the effect on family life and total fertility of the fact that women are fully in the workforce since then, or do you have further aspects in mind?
A follow-on question that I just came up with was whether the follow-on effects of the sexual revolution, particularly those related to gay and trans matters, will have some such similar effects. I assume that, in the short term, the strength of those effects will be much less than those attending the changes in standard (yes, "normal"!) heterosexual society. This is mostly because there being so many more heterosexual women than other types, it's natural that large, relatively rapid changes in their socioeconomic roles and behavior would have a very quick, concentrated, across-the-board societal impact. But I'm not so sure that the longer-term outcomes of the continuing evolution of gay/trans/etc. roles in society will be so contained.
(I also started reading your blog.)
I think that the primary economic impact was indeed the entry of women en masse into the workforce, and the creation of additional spending power that this unleashed. That spending power became both an expectation for most households and an assumption for pricing. In addition, the growth and GDP per capita expectations have become reliant on this more "total" workforce, and the productivity per capita that results from this. And the basis for all of that is women marrying later, having fewer children, and so on. This has been more acute in the upper middle/professional/managerial class, since the incomes are so much higher, and therefore there is more "at stake" for women when deciding how to sequence their lives, economically, and the ripple effect of this, economically, is also significant.
On the gay/trans issues, my sense is the same as yours -- the short term impacts are much less, because the footprint is much smaller (women have a massive footprint and so the short term impact on most women entering the workforce en masse was substantial in the short term, by contrast). But, over the long term the impact will likely be more than what we are seeing in the short term. If nothing else, we see the way that younger children are being taught about sex, gender, and so on in kindergarten and early grade school years, as Rod has documented here, and that's more of a medium term/generational change, because it takes time for the kids who are being taught that to grow up and start making their own decisions about how to live. I don't think this means a lot more gay and trans people (there may be a few more, but likely not a lot more), but it likely does mean some kind of blurring or blending of the cultures will happen. In other words, that norms and mores that are more common in gay/lesbian relationships may become more common in straight relationships over time, more than vice versa.
To some extent we are already seeing this with the substantial increase in the pushing of non-monogamy for straight people evident in the mainstream media over the past couple of years -- something that is very different from "swinging" and "key parties" because it sees itself not as a private sexual kink indulged in by a tiny sliver, but instead as something all people should see as a viable relationship option, if not for themselves, then at least for others. The push towards the normalization of throuples and polycules and the like, for example, bears no resemblance to the world of swinging or "key parties", because, again, it's about changing what is considered acceptable and normal. The link between this and the rise of gay marriage may be obscure for some, but it's easy enough to find. Dan Savage, to take a prominent example, discussed, in the push toward gay marriage, how gay relationship norms (including "monogamish" practices where the parties to the relationship may have sexual relationships with others, but no dating or romantic/emotional involvement) could spread to heterosexual couples, and how this would be a very good and liberating thing for many people who love their spouses but who struggle with monogamy, etc. The link is easy to find, especially given that prior to gay marriage virtually no straight person was talking about normalizing throuples as just another equally valid relationship option.
I expect there will be other areas where the influence, over the longer term, is felt as well.
Re: To some extent we are already seeing this with the substantial increase in the pushing of non-monogamy for straight people evident in the mainstream media over the past couple of years
I don't worry about polyamory ever being more than a minor boutique thing. First off, sexual jealousy is hardwired and can't be turned off like a light (and yes, gays know it too). I've known a couple polyamorous (or maybe "swinging") types-- and their marriage got into trouble or failed eventually because of those powerful old feelings. Secondly how many people have time for plural relationships? Even one relationship takes a lot of work and effort and anyone who is no longer a youngster and with a full time job and responsibilities is unlikely to have the stamina to indulge beyond that, other than the most fleeting sort of affair on a drunken lark of a weekend out of town. When people do find themselves drawn to someone other than their spouse the most common course (assuming the thing isn't somehow shut down) is still divorce and a new relationship. Which is not good, no, but it still affirms the one-on-one ethos that is the only potentially stable relationship form for the vast majority of us.
All the reporters knew of Biden's state. Yes, it was about protecting the Narrative; it was about not reporting anything that might be seen to benefit Trump in any way.
What's interesting now is to see so many media outlets put the boot into Biden. I mean, come on - the New York Times knew, the Washington Post knew, the New Yorker knew his true state. But now, to be publishing pieces like this - it suggests those managing the narrative have decided that if Biden stays, that's the thing that will help Trump. So the worms have turned en masse; now we see a full-court press to get him to step down.
The easiest way out of this at this point for the White House would be to announce that Biden has some serious medical condition - just recently diagnosed! - that sadly precludes him from running for a second term. He could still handle it! But for the good of the country, etc. etc. etc.
Then Kamala doesn't have to become President, Biden steps down at the end of his term and the party picks someone else to run, probably Newsom or Michelle Obama.
I think the Democrats are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position for this election. The window for Biden not to run was before the primaries.
Agreed. There's still time to switch - if they move right now. But they're not prepared to move right now, still debating it internally. The media stories are designed to nudge him but he/his wife seem unwilling to budge. A tough spot - but from this perspective, hilarious.
Switching at this point is going to be problematic due to finance and ballot issues as well as being an admission of failure.
It raises the question - how in the world could they have let Biden participate in that debate? Had his handlers actually fooled themselves into thinking it would be all right? May be one of the most significant political missteps in recent history at least. How in the world can he/the Dems recover from this?
It would almost seem like an inside job. But by whom? Or are the Bidens so self-assured that Joe could just wing it.
Has to be an inside job by those who feared he'd ultimately get exposed down the stretch run - if in fact he's gotten worse in recent months, maybe the decision was made to push him out now while there's still (theoretically) time
Perhaps they thought baiting Trump to lose his temper (I.e. 2020 debate performances) would deflect attention from Biden. Trump seems to be listening to his advisers (better late than never, I guess) and is smartly standing back while Biden and the DNC-MSM cabal self-immolate.
They set the terms of the debate. They thought that would ensure this would work for Biden. It turned out to have the opposite effect, as the mike discipline worked in Trump's favor, Trump obviously has learned and diciplined himself, and the two CNN interlocutors actually did their job (it is speculated that the people at the top of CNN really are trying to escape their reputation of being water carriers for the DNC without being accused of being in the tank for Trump.) And everyone, including Biden himself, deluded themselves about him being able to hack it.
If the debate had happened in the morning, my guess is Biden would have handled it much better. I surmise Biden is more lucid in the morning and loses stamina by noon, symptomatic of dementia. There are videos of Biden where he is fairly sharp.
You think Kamala would just go along with this? If I were in her place, I'd simply let it be known that she wouldn't support, might even denounce, any "racist" ticket that didn't have her at its head., and maybe also express the pious wish that Michelle Obama wouldn't betray a sister in that way.
Sure, Kamala would raise a ruckus unless bought off, but having her atop the ticket is one way the Dems can make sure they lose this election. The poison fruit of identity politics would be rotting in public for all to see as she and her surrogates basically accuses those who won't vote for her of racism. That's the path to an electoral landslide for Trump - but also, of course, widespread Antifa unrest after the election, god knows what at the inauguration, etc.
We're screwed if Biden wins. We're screwed if Trump wins. Ain't no clean way out of this one.
"... one way the Dems can make sure they lose this election ... That's the path to an electoral landslide for Trump."
I guess that's where we differ. You write as though that would be a bad thing, whereas I view it as "a consummation devoutly to be wish'd."
I don't think the "easiest way out" you mention works for Biden or his family. Once Biden leaves office his family looses all its legal protections and its source of income the past 10+ years (or longer). There will be no more influence left to sell.
It doesn't work for the Bidens, the question is whether the Democratic Party lets "what works for the Bidens" dictate what comes next.
Yes. I agree. That's the big question. Funny it's not "What's best for the country?"
For the love of god, there is ZERO CHANCE Michelle Obama has any interest in being President.
Imagine her life for a moment: she wakes up every day in one of her mansions or in the mansion of a wealthy friend, has a full staff of servants and assistants, heads to a private plane for either a jaunt to another mansion or maybe a private island or European castle or maybe to some event to get her ass kissed and receive a giant check for just being her famous fabulous self. She lives better than Louis XIV and has to answer to no one—and she's gonna trade this to negotiate a budget with some greasy reptiles in DC?
Being prez would be a downgrade for her! She aint that stupid.
I don't know, I could see her being seduced by the power, and her husband telling her "Come on, we need you to save the country." Plus the idea of being the first Black Woman president.
Michelle is already very wealthy and powerful, very famous, has easy access to anyone or anything she may ever need, has already lived 8 years in the WH, and answers to NO ONE.
Would you rather be a free princess or a captive politician?
And this is no simple coronation, there would still be the campaign, the speeches, the press, playing the role in DC, the effort of maintaining the facade—for what?
Michelle has never run for office and never will.
I know she takes up all this psychic space in people's minds, but it aint happenin...
You are right. The Obamas are worth over $100 million. Michelle hates politics. And she has about 20-25 years left. Why waste your time on the aggravations of politics for eight years?
I think most people don't know quite how well the 1% of the 1% live. (maybe for good reason)
I have seen some places in Bel Air and Santa Barbara that look like you've died and gone to Heaven, that make the average McMansion look like an outhouse.
Someone like Michelle not only lives her life entirely inside these places, but she has very little chance of ever losing access. The Obamas will always be very famous, very beloved among the aristocracy, and most likely very wealthy.
Why leave Heaven if you don't need to?
She's never been interested in the "power." She just likes the glam life and adoration. She has all that without having to actually work.
Ed West's quote about people in their 30's not moving right is my "why" for looking for a BenOp. I'm not going to run into enough people by chance if I don't go looking for them, especially only at a single parish, and without them the norms are spoiled.
"Much of this was social desirability, but then social desirability drives norms in every society; even if people fake it, their children will believe it."
It just struck me that if you consider conservatism to be something along Buckley’s formulation of “stand[ing] athwart history, yelling Stop,” then in many ways, that’s exactly what I am. Of course, I make a very queer sort of conservative (pun very much intended), with my predilection for socialism and my love of my gay community. But, far from my techno-exuberance of my teens and early twenties, my distrust of technology that began around 2010 has grown into outright contempt for the techbros and a deep hostility to their works. And yes, I’m fully aware of the irony of using substack as a platform to express this. But I have come to suspect that this path we are on may have been a big mistake and that the drawbacks of almost every aspect of the Internet heavily outweigh the benefits.
I’m not sure what I think of the idea of Tech/AI-as-demonic. It seems as likely to me that the reenchantment under discussion is as much a reaction against the materialism imposed upon us by the likes of Amazon, Meta and Alphabet, who are motivated above all by selling us more and more things.
Reenchantment is something I find myself very tentatively engaging with and my own path into it has taken a decidedly non-Christian approach. As a medievalist, I find myself wishing this weren’t the case, but political Christianity and evangelicalism in particular has poisoned that particular well for me. For others too—Christianity as practiced in the western world has a distinctly fourth-century-Roman-pagan feel to it. So I try other approaches.
But the warnings are well taken. I’m no expert on ancient religion, but I know enough to know that there is a very cruel and sadistic side to it as well. So the warnings do not fall on deaf ears.
Still, could this reenchantment thing ultimately prove a step in a better direction? Or am I setting myself up for more disillusionment?
Re: political Christianity and evangelicalism in particular has poisoned that particular well for me.
A reason I could never be an Evangelical Protestant. Orthodoxy avoids this sort of thing in the US-- though of course in the Orthodox homeland does drag itself, quite willingly, into the political theater.
Arguably, the fault lies with Constantine. To me Christianity seems at its very best when it’s a religion of slaves, hookers, drunks and ne’erdowells.
I don't know that I would go that far. But Christianity does need to be something more than the Respectable Classes at prayer.
Well, I may be prejudiced, falling as I do into one or more of those categories LOL. But I think it can be extremely difficult for those with material wealth and power, even to a modest degree. The temptation to look to that for your salvation is very strong indeed. It takes a very rare and special person indeed to be willing to renounce those things and take up the cross. Most hope that they can walk an easier, softer via media, when no such way exists. A man cannot serve two masters, right?
Whereas being reduced to less than nothing can teach some real lessons about where best to put one’s faith.
It should never be about "political Christianity." It should be about Christ. And no single Christian denomination holds the monopoly on Christ. He cannot be contained by human institutions. He sets the terms in his word and blesses those of us who come to him with the presence of the Holy Spirit which accompanies us in our walk.
I fully agree. And the fault lies within me for my inability to see past my own prejudices. This is one reason I’m here, actually. I’d like to see what you and others see.
The Conservative Party conserved nothing so its defeat is well deserved. They were on top of the world in 2019 when they won many Labour seats that hadn't voted Conservative since 1935. The Conservatives were making inroads due to Brexit and promising to severely limit immigration. The Conservatives increased immigration proving not only that they were stupid but proving that they were a collection of liars.
Encounters with entities that look the same. One of my experiences featured something like this. My own encounter was strange, surreal, but uplifting. But the thing that came after caused my jaw to drop.
When I was attending COTR's School of Ministry in their inaugural class, I was out driving in my old Toyota Camry. She was a great car, the very first car I owned and had served me for many years. She is now owned and cared for by a young man who really needed a good car. And he had the skills to help care for her in her elder years. I get sentimental about cars and other vehicles. Anyway...I was out driving and she picked that afternoon to quit on me. I was on a major thoroughfare in my hometown, but fortunately, the road was a downward slide, so I had some momentum to get someplace safe. I steered the now silent (except for the radio) car into a bank parking lot. It was after hours, so I was alone. Or so I believed.
I brought my car to a halt in that parking lot, popped the hood and started to look over her innards. It would have to be something obvious, though, because my automotive arts knowledge was limited. But then, I saw movement out of the corner of my eye. I looked in the direction of the closed bank building whose parking lot I temporarily occuppied. Around the corner into the teller lane, I saw movement of...something. Then, around the corner came a pair of people. One was an older black man, the other was a younger white woman. The man smiled pleasantly at me and said, "Hey, how are you doing? We are on a road trip and our van has broken down. We are trying to raise a bit of money to get it fixed and back on the road. Can you help?" Given my situation, I found the question momentarily offputting. Can this fellow not see my current predicament? But, my battered Good Samaritan instincts seemed to kick in from an inner nudging and I reached for my wallet. I handed him a couple of twenties, which he took gratefully. He then asked me, "Are you having any issues?" I said, "Yep, trying to figure it out." He said, "Wait a moment, I'll be back."
He then turns around and walks back around that corner he and his compatriot emerged from, leaving the younger woman with me. She said nothing during our moment of waiting. The man then returned and walks up to my car. He produces a tool of some kind, all black, looking a bit like a miniature tire iron. He bends over, peering into my engine compartment. He then reaches in, gives the side of the engine block a tap with the tool, then stands up. "Give it a try," he then instructs. I did. The car immediately, smoothly starts up.
"Oh wow, thank you," I say gratefully. He smiles and nods. I then remember the bag of warm Chick-Fil-A in my passenger seat and I said, "You guys need anything to eat, I just got this..."
"No, but thank you," he said. He then extends the tool to me, "Here, you keep this." "But...you are trying to fix your van," I said. "Don't you need this?"
"You keep this," he repeated. He and his partner then turn and walk away, vanishing in the same manner they appeared.
This whole story seemed surreal and I might have convinced myself I was imagining things. But my car did break down.
And I still have that tool, whatever it is. I'm storing in in a toolbox in my garage right now.
All that is strange enough, but then, a couple years later, I was watching the Daily Wire's Michael Knowles interview a veteran exorcist on the subject of possession and spiritual warfare. Knowles was relating an experience of his own, not one of a demonic nature, but suspected angelic. This is an early point when he was in New York, just had graduated from Yale, going from BMOC to a nobody on NYC's mean streets. He was in the subway and generally feeling down on himself, when the Subway came to a halt at a particular stop. Only two passengers came on board. They were an older black man and a younger white woman. The woman remained standing, holding one of the support poles for passengers standing up, while the man sat down next to Knowles. He asked Knowles his name, which he responded, "Michael." "Really?" the man said, "My name is Michael, too," beaming at Knowles. He then asked Knowles, "What do you do for a living?" "Political punditry, but not having a good time of it right now," Knowles acknowledged. The man chuckled, gently shaking his head and said, "Don't worry about that, you'll be fine." The subway then stopped and the two travelers got off. There was something about that stop that was also unusual, but I did not quite catch what that was.
But it was Knowles' description of the pair and their behavior that got my attention.
Make of that what you will.
If I remember the story correctly, the couple got off at the very next stop. No sensible person would take the subway for 1 stop, they would just walk a few blocks.
Yep, that's correct. In NYC, walking one block is easier than taking the train. That would make no sense for ordinary travel.
Absolutely fascinating. Thank you for sharing.
Perhaps the Biden stare is just him contemplating a new domestic program. He's not staring, he's deep in thought. Joe Biden, the Grand Old Man of the Democratic Party.
Something similar happened to the GOP and American conservatism in 2008, after Obama's triumph. The Reagan playbook of a strong military and tax cuts wasn't enough anymore.
Wipeout that year didn't produce an immediate heir to Reaganism. Opposition to Obamacare glued the American Right together for a few short years, but it didn't turn into anything lasting like anticommunism did during the Cold War. That we got Trumpism shows how spiritually and intellectually bankrupt the majority of the Right is.
I'll watch my British cousins closely to see what their next moves are. I'll be real unhappy if they go through another Hague-Smith-Howard cycle, because it means they don't have a ready answer either.
Reagan dealt with the problems of his lifetime. By 2008, the problems changed. There was no USSR for instance.
Re: Something similar happened to the GOP and American conservatism in 2008, after Obama's triumph. The Reagan playbook of a strong military and tax cuts wasn't enough anymore.
Both of those came quite a-cropper in the later 00s. The strong military devolved into wars of choice. The tax cuts were embroiled in a mess that led to the Great Recession. (Though I don't blame Reagan so much for that-- it was the continued addiction to tax cutting well past the point of common sense as a snake-oil tonic "good for ails you" that has gotten us into so much trouble. I'd happily return to the tax deal of 1986.