Divine Madness
“What on earth is going on?”
It’s a question many people are asking at the moment. None of the obvious answers are very convincing, though. It’s hard to see how the virus itself can possibly justify the enormous harm that accompanies the suspension of normal life, but the alternatives are also hard to believe: the sight of governments around the world going mad, all at the same time, surely can’t just be incompetence – yet, for many of us, the idea of a deliberate conspiracy simply doesn’t fit with our experience.
Cock-up or conspiracy aren’t the only possibilities, though. Another is that, after centuries of largely leaving us alone, the gods have decided to take an interest in human affairs and are giving us a reminder of their existence – by sending our rulers mad. This post explores one scenario in which that might be the case.
For a lot of people this suggestion will be too far-fetched (especially those for whom the non-existence of gods is a core belief). I’ve no wish to try and persuade anyone of anything they’re hostile to but, for anyone who’s open to it, here’s my perspective on the societal trauma that has been unleashed by governments’ response to the covid-19 pandemic.
This perspective rests on a number of esoteric conclusions I’ve come to, after many years exploring off the beaten track in theology, science, politics and law. Since these conclusions come from a convergence of several different strands of thinking, I’m presenting them here as a framework of beliefs:
An ancient covenant between mankind and a higher power grants us ‘dominion over the earth’, by giving human authorities esoteric powers to constrain movement between the material realm and a number of parallel realms1.
This covenant was formed at a time when the existence of magic, and otherworld beings such as fairies and elves, was taken for granted. The powers it conferred allowed mankind to create sanctuaries where such beings could not come uninvited, and where magic could not be used without explicit approval.
From the divine perspective, the covenant has a specific purpose: it allows us the freedom we need to appreciate our potential as creatively intelligent beings, and to establish a mature relationship with the divine powers and with older races of creatively intelligent beings. It is intended to be dissolved when that purpose has been fulfilled and is therefore periodically reviewed.
Some individuals (‘gestors’2) are deemed to carry the covenant on behalf of mankind, and the divine authorities (‘the gods’3) implement esoteric ‘border controls’ in accordance with the gestors’ actions, beliefs and wishes (subject to the rules the gods themselves are bound by).
The implementation of these border controls involves disrupting quantum-level energy flows between the different worlds. As a result, energy which would naturally flow out of this world is constrained to flow within it instead (which means, importantly, that the laws of physics operate differently in the presence of those controls than they would without them).
The powers conferred by the covenant were used so extensively in the past that significant movement between the mundane and esoteric realms became progressively rarer throughout the last two or three thousand years and, for practical purposes, was almost entirely blocked by the seventeenth/eighteenth century, effectively isolating the mundane realm.
The gods have recently determined that, overall, human beings have reached a level of maturity where this isolation is counter-productive; we have developed enough self-confidence for our future development not to be inhibited by contact with more advanced beings, but we have also created a cultural framework for ourselves that hinders further development.
Therefore a provisional decision has been taken that, unless we start to voluntarily open the world up to the esoteric realms, the covenant will be dissolved over the next few years.
As always, the devil is in the detail. The above is a simplified outline; the reality, as I envisage it, is a good deal more nuanced. It may, of course, bear little resemblance to the true reality, and there are still aspects of it that aren’t clear to me (the international dimension for example). Overall, though, this framework of beliefs allows me to reconcile aspects of human history that I find hard to understand otherwise.
So how does this relate to the current situation?
Much of the technology that modern societies depend on is based on theories of physics which, in this scenario, have been developed in the presence of significant esoteric controls. Since such technology is likely to become unreliable as those controls are removed, dissolution of the covenant can be expected to lead to societal breakdown; the gods would therefore prefer us to open up voluntarily – and need to communicate that to us.
As I understand it, because of the rules they’re bound by it’s not possible for the gods to act directly in the material world. In fact, they don’t even observe the human world directly; rather, they experience it (and engage with it) through the interplay of a cast of archetypes, acting out a divine drama4. Their only means of persuading us to open up voluntarily is through influencing the archetypes to whom we’re connected, by interacting with them and manipulating the stage the drama is played out on.
The gods can engage with the gestors and principal archetypes individually, but can only influence the broader population collectively through their archetypes’ reactions to the drama. Therefore their only means of preparing the world for the coming changes is by indirectly manipulating world leaders and opinion-formers, through their archetypes. So that’s what they’ve been doing.
In a well-ordered society, where governments could be trusted to act in the best interests of the public, the process of opening up would be relatively straightforward and could happen over a generation or two without too much disruption. But that’s not where we are. What we’re seeing currently is the result of unprincipled, opportunistic politicians responding to inner compulsions that cannot be reconciled with their own narrow self-interest.
In terms of what we should do now, we need to recognise that there are two very different paths ahead of us and which one we’ll take still isn’t clear. For now, the possibility of us opening up voluntarily remains open and the current atmosphere of uncertainty offers an opportunity for that to happen.
For practical purposes, though, that opening up is going to require competent government and a healthy, trusting relationship between the state and the public. Until late last year, I thought it might be possible for that to come about in Britain through normal political means but I now think the only chance for it lies in the Supreme Court ordering a constitutional overhaul.
I wrote a blog post on that theme on my Local Sovereignty site a few months back – An Age of Misrule – with a link to a paper outlining arguments that I think might persuade the court to do that. However, those arguments relied, to some extent, on the fact that the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty (which basically holds that whatever Parliament decrees is law, no matter how unreasonable it is) is essentially derelict: the doctrine has become detached from the circumstances that gave rise to it and is now no more than an arbitrary convention whose strength rests almost entirely on a negative (the fact that no other body can claim to be the ultimate decision-making authority).
Unfortunately, I get the impression that few barristers believe the Supreme Court would have the confidence to rule that doctrine inadequate, so the chances of getting these arguments heard in court are pretty slim. Having said that, in my next post I intend to return to mundane jurisprudence with arguments that, constitutionally, parliamentary sovereignty has never been as absolute as is commonly assumed. So I still hold some hope for that route.
As I see it, though, there’s only a narrow window of opportunity for us to take that path. If nothing has been done by the end of this year to put our governance on a more stable footing, I think it’s likely that the covenant will begin to dissolve. What might happen then is something I’ll probably return to in a future post.
This piece was originally posted on my T’ReasonableMan site and was transferred here in April 2023 to keep that site focused on mundane jurisprudence.
As I said, very briefly, in my previous post, The Physics of Metaphysics, the concept of parallel realms is relatively easy to understand if, at the quantum level, space is considered to consist of discrete units: a chequerboard is a two-dimensional example, in which a space made up of black squares is interlaced with a space made up of white squares.; in three-dimensions, a cubic structure to space would give four interlaced spaces.
The term gestor stems from the latin for ‘one who performs actions of gerere’ (the principal meaning of which is carry or bear) and is cognate with ‘jester’ (which I intend to look at in a future post). The earliest generations of gestors were conscious of that role; modern gestors generally are not, or have at best a vague understanding of it.
I use the term ‘the gods’ to refer to the whole hierarchy of higher powers, from God down through the celestial hierarchy (seraphim, cherubim etc), to ‘The Ancestors’ (spirits of individual human beings who earned the respect of the gods by living lives of notable integrity). As I understand it, this covenant is primarily overseen by the Ancestors who are very much closer to humanity than they are to the Supreme Being (who I personally tend to identify with the universe itself).
The archetypes all have a two-way connection with different sets of individuals, and we all have links to different sets of archetypes. The activity of the archetypes is driven by a composite of the conscious wishes and beliefs of all the individuals they’re connected to; and, at the individual level, our unconscious impulses, thoughts and feelings are derived from the internal reactions of the archetypes we’re connected to. The environment the archetypes operate within can be thought of as a theatre, with the principal archetypes up on stage and most of the others in the audience (the archetypal gestors may be backstage, on stage or in the audience but are constrained by tighter rules than the rest of the cast).