Monday [1]

1.  Of shibboleths, motivations and the Rubicon

Any of us who are nominally, according to Bob Moran [see tweet at t'other place] "anti-all of it, anti-passport, anti-ever having a lockdown again, anti-mandatory vax, anti-vaccinating children, anti-masks, anti-social distancing, anti-testing, anti-app, anti-totalitarian government, anti-collapse of moral principles" ... any of us who then get into discussions, come to blogs, join in one way or the other ... we are eventually going to meet an issue -some issue or other - which surprisingly rears up like a rogue wave at sea and which can capsize the boat just like that.

We had one recently - piano v harpsichord [or continuo if Frank insists] - and though minor to most of us, it might not be to someone else out there. 

There's also the issue of the shibboleth:

Modern parlance has lost that connotation of stabbing a person where he stands in his nightrobe if he fails to pass the test and is more usually a test to see how far he can be pushed.  In fact, our govts, their departments and the lackeys embracing them are doing just that with us over vaxxes and vaxxports.  It's mischievous and divisive.

Yet the motivation in a private individual is not necessarily hostile, it could well be:

1.  Innocent, just a misunderstanding;

2.  A bit of fairly harmless banter or even poking someone a bit to make a point;

3.  But it could well be malevolent after all.

I and many other bloggers facing a security breach have to make that call each and every time and if we make the wrong call, we offend the sensibilities of some person who likes the blog - that person may well have been entirely innocent and now the pundit is wary, a situation which is the last thing a pundit either wants or needs. Yet he still must make that call each and every time.

DEW and BS antennae

Distant Early Warning and sensing, sniffing BS is something we're constantly honing to a fine art - just look at our posts and comments.

Yet I see colleagues say things now and then which are puzzling, I look across sharply, thinking - hang on, does he really believe that that's OK?  Which of 1, 2 or 3 above is it?  

For example, there was a piece of music sent here and the music itself was good, I liked it, but it had a miniaturisation of an album cover on the front which looked quite off in a paedo sort of way - maybe I was wrong but I'm not taking the chance.

Sometimes it can seem a grand piece of music - surging strings, triumphant horns, a fine listen, using biblical themes and the composer has been embraced by fine orchestras and choirs, nothing but the best, he's been honoured by the Queen ... and yet my BS radar picks up something distinctly off with him straight away ... ‘honoured by the Queen’ is one of many reasons in itself.

So a ferreter goes to the composer's bio of course and sees that he makes a habit of producing broad, sweeping, majestic pieces with a certain religiosity, a certain high-churchy feel-i-ness to it ... a certain spirituality in fact, grandeur ... yet it's anything but biblical.  

And this is reinforced by someone in comments saying that anyone who is a believer - this will cause him to question his belief.  Really?  Why?  That's obviously written by someone of no faith, except in the other side which wants faith quashed.

Now, how would someone like me know this and someone secular might not know it?  Well I can say now that anyone within the cultural group this composer imitates, anyone genuinely part of that group, would know instantly that this is quite iffy indeed. There are red flags.

The good thing is that secular ferreters might not insta-feel this but we all respect each other's ferreting abilities and are awaiting the explanation.  So this is my explanation.

My first DEW was that comment in comments, second was in listening to the third piece and though it had the 'feel of spirituality' to it, it was lacking in substance, it avoided awkward phrasing, it relied on mumbled chants [in other pieces], it was never straight-out Christian. Not once.  Not even the once.  

But why not?  Why was he deliberately avoiding, whilst at the same time attempting to draw in the devout in the land to his 'tribute'?  To placate us?

I went to the Merry Christmas one, always a good shibboleth to apply, expecting carols to Santa etc. Well, for a start, there was no track listing - interesting - certainly no Santa and yet also no holy aspect.  

That's when I saw this:

'New age' or 'progressive', mumbo jumbo without the substance. Plus those political words - 'to the World'.  

And when you looked and listened to that work, it was not carols at all but one continuous piece of churchy sounding music, singers singing nothing in particular.  Perfect for a State which is officially Defender of the Faith but in fact does not wish to, yet it must keep faith with people out there of a traditional bent.  For now.

Hence the BS in Wikipedia about 'traditional Christmas carols' - it is nothing of the kind. The Joy to the World carol, which is all about the birth of Jesus, is first of all rendered as In Dulci Jubilo, which cuts out all the plebs for a start, does it not?  And then it's not even the traditional melody.

That's before even looking at the backdrop to the choir and orchestra, minus even the slightest nod to a manger or star or three wise men or any of that - this is pure new age, new world order, Great Work of Ages, Great Reset.

I do humbly apologise to a dear friend but I cannot, in all conscience, run something like that without seeing it as a companion piece to Enigma or Era, which uses Luciferian Gregorian chant.