Tag Archives: Rudolf Steiner

Diary Blog, 2 March 2021, including thoughts of a societal “quantum leap”

How can society achieve a quantum leap?

The most important thing for our society to do, once it has “cleared the decks” of major problems, backward elements and impediments, is to —metaphorically and, perhaps, eventually, actually— “aim for the stars”.

For practical purposes, the human brain is infinite.

[for “is more”, read “are more”…]

Human beings are still at or near the start of their development. IQ tests are only a guide to the present intelligence of an individual or a people. The “average” is usually taken to be 100. A simplification, of course [see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient].

I believe that the high-IQ club, MENSA, takes members above a score something like 140 or 142. It is not particularly uncommon for persons to score well above that level, though such persons are within the top 2%, and in some cases 1%, of the population. I myself was tested (in the 1980s, before marriages and an ocean of red wine) at 156. I know at least one person who was once tested at 169, which (I think) is somewhere towards the top of the useful scale, though I am no expert in these matters.

The figures can only be taken as a rough guide to reality. According to the Wikipedia article cited above, persons in “professional and technical” occupations average, supposedly, around 112, while persons who are medical doctors, lawyers etc score an average of 125.

It is often mistakenly thought that a score above some set figure indicates “genius”, whereas in reality “genius” imports what Wagner, in response to a question about his own genius, called “universal currents of Divine thought“.

One sometimes sees young persons whom the popular Press describes as having “genius” IQ. Their strong suit is usually mathematics. A number of years ago, a young Jewish girl was one such. She entered Oxford University at age 12, having passed the entrance requirements at age 10. She is now a professor in Israel. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Lawrence

Such people rarely take a leading role in society, either because they have no interest in doing so, or because their mentality is narrowly-focussed, or both.

As Valentin Tomberg impliedly noted in one of his books, such people have often achieved capabilities beyond the norm precisely because they have abandoned general growth in favour of a narrow and specialized advance. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_the_Tarot

When we talk about society in general, we talk of a broad advance (or decline) across the board. It is well known that Oriental ethnic groups, especially Chinese and Japanese, have a high average IQ. Northern Europeans too. Some ethnic groups, particularly many sub-Saharan African ones, have a markedly low average IQ.

This is not a (no pun intended) black and white issue. Even the Wikipedia overview [see above] outlines some of the uncertainties and complexities.

There is also the point that mere intelligence is not everything. “Emotional intelligence”, often called “EQ”, is also of importance. A common mistake is to imagine that morality, compassion etc are “add-ons” to intelligence. Not so. In our present age, the two are distinct, but to imagine that evil-doers are generally more intelligent than the well-intentioned is an error.

Rudolf Steiner spoke about this issue, and about how the karmic consequences play out. See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Karmic-Relationships-1-Esoteric-Studies/dp/185584267X.

Valentin Tomberg [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentin_Tomberg] examined the good/evil and high intelligence/low intelligence binaries in some of his work. He also noted, as did Steiner, the eventual appearance on Earth of two opposed groups, which would become opposed cultures, civilizations, and then races, one evil, one good.

Let us ask, as an exercise in ideas, what could we do, in a circumstance where we have the power to choose, to create a higher societal form.

For the purposes of this exercise, I am assuming that the most unpleasant and backward groups in present UK society are no longer present.

The starting point must be the educational system, which is obviously not working. A simplistic view would be to say “replace present State and other education with Steiner (or other) education”. My problem with that would be that, from what I have heard, even Steiner education is by no means perfect.

However, there obviously needs to be considerable reform of both school and university education. The whole “degree” and “master’s degree” and “doctorate” system should really be junked, as no longer fit for purpose.

“Education” should not be merely a matter of stuffing heads with facts (important though that can be); still less, a matter of stuffing heads with propaganda (often false). It should be a matter of general, including moral-ethical, upbringing, with the aim of allowing to blossom each child’s capabilities and talents for the ultimate good of society.

Institutes should be established, which would have the specific aim of increasing the cultural and intelligence level of the people. A great deal has been learned in the past century about how to increase intelligence in the short-term: diet, music etc.

During the 12-year currency of the German Reich, there were institutes established to study esoteric matters, as well as history. The best known was SS-Ahnenerbe [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahnenerbe].

There was a generally spiritual as well as practical side to German National Socialism.

Even today, there is considerable interest in SS-Ahnenerbe, and later developments.

While it would be excellent to establish an institute such as SS-Ahnenerbe in the new UK state, the Ahnenerbe’s focus was mainly on the past, whereas for me the orientation has to be towards the future.

We already have institutes of, inter alia, psychology, sociology, philosophy. However, some studies are considered the realm of cranks, and any academic taking an interest in what might be called “X-files” matters will be cold-shouldered at best, as happened to Rupert Sheldrake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake; https://www.sheldrake.org/.

We need to study, on a more rigorous basis, astrology, parapsychology, hypnotism, magic, telekinesis etc.

The X Files is fiction, but, like The Protocols of Zion, at least loosely based on fact. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000400100001-2; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/nsa-rdp96x00790r000100030041-0; https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000500420001-2.

A new society can be more than just an administrative and economic unit; it can be an entity that takes its evolution into its own hands and quickens it. The aim: higher evolution. A super-race, with capabilities that would seem to us, today, to be superhuman.

Tweets seen

Well, I blogged about that yesterday. No wonder Fleet Street newspapers (and the msm in general) were so uncritical when Blair and his regime (eg the egregious and fairly ghastly “Mo” Mowlam) concluded “peace” with the IRA (which despite still being able to set off bombs and rockets, had essentially been defeated militarily by 1997).

Quelle surprise: “EU…mirroring Israeli model“…

Well, there might have been real resistance, but in fact there was almost none. Meanwhile the “Great Reset” plan of the international cabals continues to be implemented. (nb. I think that Hitchens means “defiance“, not “defence“).

Just one more symptom of the madness of the present day.

Diary Blog, 7 October 2020

In the UK of 2020...

Twitter account “@SocialistVoice” (Scott Nelson, who was in the Labour Party until the Jew-Zionists had him expelled) often used to retweet me (until the Jews had me expelled from Twitter in 2019). He seems still popular on Twitter (about 75,000 “followers”).

I might not agree with everything that “Socialist Voice” tweets, but I think that he is basically a decent person (and the Jew-Zionists hate him, which is a good sign).

Other tweets seen

We see the way that this is going: new laws beefing up the powers of police, officials, security and intelligence agencies; pay rises for police and medical profession etc. A germinal police state arising.

The tweeter below has not really thought about this:

Is it really so amazing? Starmer is a complete puppet of the Jewish/Zionist lobby. Since he took over the Labour Party, the Zionist lobby (in the msm, and in Parliament) has pretty much stopped its attacks on Labour, which were constant during Corbyn’s leadership. There again, look at the Boris-idiot government of clowns…

Just as the “Conservative” Party won the 2019 General Election by default, the “Labour” Party is now challenging the Cons not on Labour’s own merits but because the clownish incompetence of Boris-idiot and his bad joke Cabinet is so impossible for the public to miss.

Sadly, not all scientists are objective great brains searching for truth and new ways of looking at the physical world, just as not all priests and prelates are holy, not all academics are scholars, and not all politicians are wise and well-intentioned statesmen.

End the “panicdemic” now…

More tweets seen

Quite. Rupert Murdoch said, a few years ago now, that “the British Press is controlled by Jews” (and went on to say that Jews in the msm should be even more pro-Israel!).

Note that. Two different banks but both obviously controlled or influenced by the enemies of European race and culture.

One can say, with some truth, that ordinary political activity is not the only, or even best way forward, but it remains an important aspect of the whole. Young people (especially) may or may not join this or that party, but will still be influenced by what they read and hear on the website of any party which is social-national. That must be positive.

The BBC is just a kind of TV and radio puppet show, a “Moscow Radio” or “Pravda” now.

Oh, God! Professor Ferguson again! That idiot! Apparently, he is not even a medical man, let alone a virologist or epidemiologist; a physicist, it seems! The best thing he can do is shut up, go away, and focus on screwing his married “ho”. Stalin would have had him shot by now.

The problem with such people (the ones who regard anything before 2000 as a Dark Age, in the face of all evidence) is that when you argue or discuss society with them, you are not having an argument or discussion with someone whose world-view is based on facts or —still less— reality, but with someone who is both deluded and self-deluded, someone who prefers fantasy to reality.

As Hitler said of the Weimar Republic, “they want not only their daily bread but their daily illusion“…

[America-oriented but still pretty accurate]

Late music

Diary Blog, 13 March 2020

Coronavirus, China, 5G and bats

Saw this very interesting speculative blog article. Worth reading:

https://anthropopper.wordpress.com/2020/03/12/coronavirus-what-is-its-significance-for-humanity-at-this-time/

NHS, State aid etc

After years of mixed reviews, the truth has hit: the NHS is now basically incapable of dealing at all with the most serious public health danger for decades, possibly since 1918.

  • the number of hospital beds per thousand of population is lower by far than in other “advanced” countries; below that of even the USA, and less than half of the number per capita available in France;
  • the number of intensive care beds is only 4,500 in the whole of the UK, about 1 for every 16,000 people. The number of beds actually operational is nearer to 1,500, so about 1 for every 45,000 inhabitants;
  • if people contract the illness, they are asked not even to call the NHS advice line (111) for over a week! We may as well be in black Africa!
  • people with the virus or who think that they may have it are asked to “self-isolate”, i.e. protect others and society as a whole by staying in their homes (so far, no red crosses are to be painted on their doors…), but for the sufferers themselves, for those that live with them (and the UK has a huge amount of shared occupancy and crowded housing) there is no help, not from the NHS, not from the medical profession, not from the State itself.

The British State has shown itself unable and in essence unwilling to help its people.

Monkey World 2020

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/shocking-cctv-knifepoint-rolex-robberies-jailed-a4386326.html

In the now almost-mythical past (pre-2010), when I myself owned Rolex watches, it only peripherally occurred to me that I might be attacked and robbed for one or another watch. I lived in almost-Central London; also in Almaty, Kazakhstan and elsewhere. I never had a problem (well, not one that could not be handled). Now? London has become a zoo with golden bars.

As to the victims in the report above, some seem very young to be sporting Rolex watches worth ÂŁ6,000-ÂŁ7,000. Only 18 and 19! They have wealthy and indulgent fathers? They are Lotto winners? Video game designers? “Rolex robbers” themselves? Well, there it is.

The “Great Replacement”: are the worms starting to turn?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8108293/Priti-Patel-faces-race-discrimination-lawsuit-white-police-watchdog-chief-140-000-salary.html

#BorisOut

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23BorisOut&src=trend_click&f=live

In the parallel universe of Twitter, “#BorisOut” is trending, and not unjustly, after Boris-idiot’s pathetic attempt to play the statesman yesterday, and now that more people understand what people like me have been saying for years:

  • Boris Johnson is no good in a crisis;
  • Boris Johnson has no real ideas or ideals;
  • Boris Johnson is merely posing as Prime Minister;
  • Boris Johnson is incompetent

Twitter is far from the real political world at ground level, though. The irony is that most of the mortalities from Coronavirus are likely to be people over 70 who voted Conservative in 2019 and so are directly responsible for this government of fools even being in place. “If you listen very carefully, you can hear the Gods, laughing” [Commodus, allegedly]

More seriously:

This made me laugh! (you have to click to read the thread):

but…

“You say tomayto and I say tomato, you say shoes and I hear…JEWS”! (apparently, and if a paranoid Jew-Zionist nut…)

Tweet without comment

One less

I have noticed in the past couple of years that quite a few of those who have engaged in persecuting me, denouncing me to various authorities and snooping on me, as well as insulting me on Twitter, have died or are fast declining by reason of terminal medical conditions. Not a few are also mentally disturbed.

ds5

I have just seen today that yet another one has apparently shuffled off the mortal coil.

ds3

More about “the virus”

Interesting point:

Britain 2020

When a city becomes a zoo:

What Is Under Our Feet?

I was just reading this:

https://futurism.com/2018-looking-back-century

The perhaps vulgar term “futurology” is better than the publication’s chosen one (“futurism”, which is easily confused with, well, “Futurism”…  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism)

We can take coal out of a mine, but we can never put it back. We can draw oil from subterranean reservoirs, but we can never refill them again. We are spendthrifts in the matter of fuel and are using our capital for our running expenses. In relation to coal and oil, the world’s annual consumption has become so enormous that we are now actually within measurable distance of the end of the supply. What shall we do when we have no more coal or oil!” [Alexander Graham Bell, speaking in 1917].

We see from the above that even the greatest inventive minds often predict incorrectly. “Peak oil” has been predicted for over a century. The only certainty is that any specified commodity is limited in quantity, at least on this planet.

There again, the reality is that, for all human exploration and scientific discovery, we do not know a great deal for sure about what lies under our feet. The deepest mines in the world go only about 2.5 miles from the surface of the Earth, while the deepest natural caves go not even as deep as that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_caves

Of course, most of us “know”, having read it, or been told it at school, that the Earth is composed, at most basic, of Crust, Mantle, and Core. The Crust is supposed to be between 20-30 miles thick (Continental; Oceanic 3-6 miles). Some estimates say 43.5 miles at thickest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_crust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_of_the_Earth

The deepest mine is 2.5 miles deep (it is planned to go 1-2 miles deeper). So the deepest below the surface any human being has actually been is maybe 3 miles, whereas the Continental crust is as much as 43.5 miles. So human beings have only been one-seventeenth (or one-fifteenth) as deep as the extent of even the crustal zone of the Earth.

The deepest boreholes on Earth still go only about 8 miles deep:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_to_the_Earth%27s_center

Human ideas of what lies below the Crust rely on a mixture of observation, analogy, mathematical, physical and chemical experimentation, surmise, and simple speculation. The deeper the layer, the less is actually known.

The inner core was discovered in 1936 by Inge Lehmann and is generally believed to be composed primarily of iron and some nickel.

The liquid outer core surrounds the inner core and is believed to be composed of iron mixed with nickel and trace amounts of lighter elements.

Recent speculation suggests that the innermost part of the core is enriched in gold, platinum and other siderophile elements.[29][Wikipedia]

Note the language: “is generally believed to be“, “is believed to be“, “recent speculation suggests that…” and so on. That is not to disparage the immense amount of work done by highly intelligent and qualified persons, but the bottom line is that they do not know.

We have seen that human intrusion into the Earth, even remotely (via drill) goes only 8 miles deep. The radius of the Earth is taken to be 3,963 miles. So humans have only penetrated 1/495th into the Earth (and by actual human visitation, 1/1321). We do not really know what is there.

There have been alternative views of what lies deep in the Earth. Rudolf Steiner postulated a number of layers (I think nine) under the surface:

https://www.bookdepository.com/Interior-Earth-Rudolf-Steiner/9781855841192

He claimed to be aware of these layers via his clairvoyant gifts.

There is no conclusion to this brief article. I just wanted to remind myself and others that there is a huge amount that we do not yet know about the way our world is.

Notes

https://steiner.presswarehouse.com/books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=151235

https://steiner.presswarehouse.com/Books/BookDetail.aspx?productID=565635

https://wn.rsarchive.org/GA/GA0335/19200310p01.html

https://www.rsarchive.org/RelAuthors/ArensonA/InterioroftheEarth.php

https://www.anthroposophy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Keppie-Body-Soul-Spirit-Earth.pdf

http://888spiritualscience.blogspot.com/2012/02/upon-subject-of-saturation-of-earth.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner

 

 

 

Has Parliamentary “Democracy” (as we have known it until now) Had Its Day in the UK?

Preamble

The Brexit argument in the UK has brought to the fore divisions and truths which, until recently, had been covered up by a “politically correct” or bien-pensant “consensus” in the (largely Jew-Zionist-controlled or strongly influenced) mass media and political milieux.

Anyone who imagines that “Brexit” is just about the UK’s membership of the EU is indulging in hobby-politics and joke-politics and/or exhibiting very poor political judgment. I have blogged about this on previous occasions, eg:

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2018/12/02/brexit-is-to-some-extent-only-a-metaphor-what-could-it-mean/

UKIP is the joke party and hobby-politics party of the UK, effectively a one-trick-pony, obsessed with the EU and EU immigration but not hitting hard on non-EU immigration and only peripherally touching on other issues. However, those voters who grasped at the UKIP straw up to 2015 were voting to a large extent not for Nigel Farage as Prime Minister, not for UKIP’s clown MEPs as UK ministers, not even simply to get Britain out of the increasingly sinister EU matrix, but as a protest and shout of anger against a whole host of issues, not all of which are connected directly to the UK membership of the EU.

What Is Democracy Anyway?

“Democracy” is one of those terms which is rather imprecise and commonly misused (another is “holocaust”, usually and deliberately misused and distorted by Jew-Zionists and others as “the Holocaust”, the definite article and the capital letter supposedly differentiating any misfortunes visited on Jews in the Second World War from similar misfortunes visited on non-Jews throughout history).

In ancient Greece (for example Athens, the home of the idea of “democracy”), we see that only the relative few had full political rights.  In the 4thC BC, Attica had about 300,000 inhabitants (in the state as a whole, not just the “urbanized” polis of Athens itself). Out of that population, only about 100,000 were citizens. Out of that 100,000, only 30,000, being adult male citizens who had completed military service or similarly accepted service, were allowed to vote or to participate in political life. Women, slaves, freed slaves, children and metics (foreigners resident in Attica) were not allowed to vote etc. In other words, out of 300,000 inhabitants, only about 30,000, 10% of the whole, played a significant political role.

UK Democracy: the expansion of the electorate

In more modern times and in England/UK, we see that, though a kind of representative Parliament existed from the 13thC AD, the electorate (using the term broadly) widened over the centuries. At the time of the first great Reform Act (1832), the population of England and Wales (excluding Scotland) was about 12 million, out of which only 200,000 in counties and perhaps 20,000 more in boroughs had voting rights (see Notes, below), about 2% of the whole population (nb. population estimates of that era are not very accurate: some estimates say 400,000 in toto, so perhaps 4% of all inhabitants could vote), a far smaller percentage than in Periclean Athens! In France, the percentage with voting rights was even smaller, but was expanded hugely when universal suffrage was introduced in 1848.

The percentage expansion of the electorate in Scotland in the 1830s was far greater than applied in England and Wales. Some historians use the term “revolutionary”. I wonder whether that has perhaps had a lasting effect on Scottish socio-political attitudes down the line, even to the present day. Just a stray thought…

Further expansion of the electorate in the UK (as a whole, not just England and Wales) in the 19thC meant that, by 1912, there were 7.7 million voters, a figure that increased to 21.4 million following the Representation of the People Act 1918, which extended the franchise to most women of 30+ years, as well as to almost all men of 21+. Of course, the actual population had also increased very greatly, from 27 million in 1850 to 42 million in 1918.

In 1928, women 21-29 also gained the vote, increasing the number eligible to vote to about 27 million.

Changes in the Post-1945 era: where are we now?

UK voting qualifications have not changed substantially since 1928, except that, since 1948, university graduates have no longer had two potential votes, and the minimum voting age is now (and since 1970) 18.

There are now about 65 million inhabitants in the UK (some put the figure higher, by reason of undocumented, unregistered “illegals” etc).

Does “democracy” mean that all inhabitants of the state must be enfranchised?

The South African Example

We have seen that, in ancient Athens, only male citizens who had completed military service could vote. In “apartheid” South Africa, there was a fully-functioning democracy limited however to those of European (white) origin.

There had, prior to 1910, been non-racial forms of limited democracy in Cape Province, limited by reference to property etc. From 1910-1961, the vote was granted to all white men in South Africa, to mixed-race men in Cape Province, and to black men in Cape Province and Natal. Only white men could become Senators or MPs. White women were allowed the vote in 1930 and could serve as MPs or Senators. Blacks and “coloureds” (mixed-race) were barred from holding those offices. In 1960, the black franchise was terminated; the mixed-race franchise followed in 1968. Later, in 1984, an attempt was made to re-enfranchise the mixed-race population and to enfranchise, on a limited basis, the Indian population.

In 1992, a small majority of (white-only) voters endorsed, by referendum, the end of the apartheid system, after which South Africa adopted a different system, under which all person of 18+ years can vote or be elected. In practice, however, this led to what is effectively a one-party, typically-African state, shambolic and corrupt. The African National Congress (ANC) operates what is effectively an elected dictatorship. In the most recent election (2014), its vote declined, but it still holds 249 out of 400 seats (on 62% of the popular vote).

Under this “new” (post-1994) “democracy”, the white population of the country is under siege from both crime (racially-based) and/or (connected) “political” attack, such as the robbery, rape and murder of whites, particularly in the rural areas. Neither are the (mainly black) poor of South Africa helped by the “elected dictatorship”. Indeed, in some respects they are worse off than they were under apartheid. The “infamous” pass laws may have restricted the blacks, but also restricted crime, which has become epidemic.

The USA

The USA is supposedly a “democracy”, but in practice any Presidential candidate has to be a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or have the support of such, simply to be seen as a credible candidate, or to be able to buy TV ads (this is about the same thing, in practice). If elected, he will find that to do anything effective requires that he be not opposed by either the Congress or the Supreme Court. This rarely happens. In most cases, the separation of powers prevents anything effective, let alone radical, being implemented.

The UK

c64bh5xw0aiwygy

In the UK, there is “democracy” (we think). Almost everyone can vote, almost everyone can be a candidate. Yet there are impediments: the powerful Jewish-Zionist lobby (special-interest group), the entrenched First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system, the need for finance, and the way in which boundaries are deliberately sliced up to provide a semblance of “fairness”, but in fact to favour 2-party or sometimes 3-party “stability” over real reflection of popular opinion. There is also the fact that “main party” (System) candidates are usually carefully selected to exclude anyone with even mild social-national views. The “choice” is then put before the electorate (together with the minor candidates who almost invariably have no chance at all).

Another important aspect is that, since the Tony Blair government passed its restrictive laws, political parties have to be registered, can be fined (eg for refusing membership to certain types of person, or certain racial or national groups), and can even be “de-registered”, thus barring them from standing candidates in elections. Democracy?

Here is an example from the General Election of 2015.

C3l1gk9XAAMHAwF

Brexit

The Brexit vote has exposed the sham or part-sham of British democracy. David Cameron-Levita thought that the 2016 Referendum would be easy to “manage”. He had, after all, “managed” two previous referenda: the Scottish Independence referendum and the AV-voting referendum. Third time, he miscalculated. The people, on the FPTP basis, voted about 52% to 48% for Leave. This was a shock to the System. Immediately, the Remain leaders started to demand “No Brexit”, and for a second Referendum, which would (once the voters had been exposed to enough fear propaganda) come to a different result, and/or for Parliament (most MPs being “Remain”) to just ignore the 2016 Referendum result which (they said) had been procured by fraud, lies, or post-KGB Russian trickery…

The fact is that, leaving aside the “sheeple”, the hard core of anti-Brexit Remain consists of

  • the affluent/wealthy metropolitan self-styled “elite”;
  • the big business people;
  • the Jews (most of them);
  • those who have done well financially in the 2010-2019 period;
  • the brainwashed under-30s, mostly from not-poor backgrounds, who imagine that not being in the EU somehow prevents them from getting (for most of them, non-existent) jobs in the EU, or that they will even not be allowed to travel after Brexit!
  • Those shallow little nobodies (again, mostly young or would-be young urban-dwellers) who think that it is old, unfashionable and “gammon” (white Northern European British) to support Leave or indeed to have any pride in England’s history, race and culture;
  • Almost all of those working in the msm.

These groups have become ever more severe and open in their hatred of Leave supporters. There are now open calls for the rights of, in particular, voters over the age of, perhaps, 60, to be restricted, for older people to be disenfranchised, especially if white, (real) British, or “racist” (i.e. people who see their land and culture being swamped and destroyed).

Here, for example, we see an almost archetypal Remain whiner, the broadcaster Jeremy Vine, 53, who is paid over ÂŁ700,000 a year by the BBC and maybe as much as ÂŁ100,000 p.a. from elsewhere (despite having been awarded only a mediocre 2:2 in English at university and then been –in my opinion– a markedly mediocre Press/radio/TV journalist).

Here’s another idiotic statement by Vine, though on an unrelated topic:

https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/carol-vorderman-defends-devon-girl-2429731

We see from examples around the world, eg South Africa, or Zimbabwe (etc) that one-man one-vote “democracy” can lead to elected dictatorship. In the UK, it has become increasingly clear that the Parliamentary democracy in place does not reflect the views of the bulk of the population, and certainly not the bulk of the white real British population, those with whose future I concern myself.

Leave may “only” have won the EU Referendum by 52%-48%, but there are nuances here: the assassination of pro-Remain MP Jo Cox, only a week before the referendum certainly had an effect, and is thought to have changed the outcome by as much as 10 points (at the time of her death, Leave was 10 points ahead of Remain in some polls); particularly as much was made of supposed secondary culpability of Leave propaganda for the attack. The referendum outcome might easily have been 60% or even 65% for Leave.

There is also the point that most “blacks and browns” and other ethnic minority voters (eg Jews) voted Remain if they voted at all. Most Scots voted Remain too (no doubt because they have a faux-nationalist SNP as a comfort blanket). Take away those Remain blocs and it might be that about 60% of white English and Welsh voters voted Leave, which might have been 70% without the Jo Cox matter.

Alternatives to Parliament Deciding Everything

I favour the Rudolf Steiner concept of the “Threefold Social Order”. As I paraphrase it, and in the contemporary UK context,

  • it means that an elected Parliament decides matters properly within the political sphere or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that Parliament (and government) does not run the economy or economic enterprises (though it can regulate it and them); likewise, economic forces and personalities cannot rule the political sphere and/or “sphere of rights”;
  • it means that the State (or economic forces) cannot rule over the proper ambit of the sphere of spirit, culture, religion, medicine, education.

This obviously moves on from the conventional “Parliament rules supreme” idea, developed in the UK since the time of Cromwell.

We can see that Parliament in the UK is no longer fit for purpose. Those currently elected have only a limited mandate. Greater freedom and a more efficient as well as a more just society depend on proper integration of the three basic spheres: political, economic, spiritual/cultural.

There is no necessity for everyone to vote. Voting should be for citizens who are resident and who are of suitable age (I favour 21 years, at minimum). Foreigners, offspring of foreigners, persons who are mainly of non-European origin etc should not be allowed a vote.

Brexit and the future

People voted for Brexit for many reasons and fundamentally out of a lack of satisfaction with the existing way of life in the UK. That urge for something better may be the basis for social-national reform or even revolution. The British people will no more allow themselves to be treated as helots.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_United_Kingdom_general_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_constituency#United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_South_Africa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/26th_South_African_Parliament

http://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Search/Registrations?currentPage=1&rows=30&sort=RegulatedEntityName&order=asc&open=filter&et=pp&et=ppm&register=gb&regStatus=registered&optCols=EntityStatusName

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/party-or-campaigner/guidance-for-political-parties

http://www.brugesgroup.com/blog/the-british-road-to-dirty-war-analysis-by-david-betz-mlr-smith-1

 

 

 

How We Can Be Ready To Rebuild European Culture and Civilization

The former BNP leader, Nick Griffin, has of late been making the point that ordinary political action is a waste of time for social nationalists anywhere in Western Europe, because the “blacks and browns” etc are too numerous, thus making electoral success unlikely. That is certainly the case, at least superficially, in the UK. The non-white population of the UK is now over 10%, though concentrated in the cities, some of the cities, some neighbourhoods of those cities. In a few towns and cities, the non-white population is in excess of 50% of the population as a whole. It can probably be said that, once the non-white population exceeds –arguably– 20% of the UK population as a whole, the possibility of peaceful transition to social nationalism has disappeared, and the possibility of triumph through the ballot-box has disappeared.

Nick Griffin’s solution to the above problem seems to be, if I have not misunderstood his position, that white Northern Europeans (and also East and Central Europeans etc) should have more children! Griffin places the family in the forefront.

I have no quarrel with what I take to be Griffin’s position, except that it is too simplistic. The migration-invasion is gathering pace, and by that I mean not only the rusty tankers and open boats crossing the Mediterranean, but also the “lawful” immigration taking place in various ways. Huge numbers of non-Europeans are now being born across Europe. The European population, as matters stand, is unable to keep up with the pace of invasion and occupation. In addition, the simple biological-demographical imperative, though crucial, does not stand alone.

Merely having a white population is insufficient. I agree in principle with the dictum “race is the root, culture is the flower”: having a white Northern European population is the sine qua non; but at the same time , having that population is the starting point, not the end-point. We must have an advanced society too. That does not occur automatically and pre-supposes, in our present age, political power in the hands of only white Northern Europeans. Thus we come full circle.

It was in facing, intellectually, the above-delineated dilemma, that I understood that the main answer in the short term and medium term is for the social national element to cluster in “safe zones”. It is already happening in Germany. In the safe zone (though nowhere is completely safe under the NWO/ZOG dystopian police state), forces can be gathered.

Europe is approaching a crisis-point. By 2022, that point will have been reached. Depending on events, the population of the continent after 2022 may be only a small fraction of what it now is. Remember that 60% of Europe’s present population (and that means about 70% or more of its truly European population) is descended from, it has been revealed, only one so-called “Bronze Age king”! (see Notes below). It may well be that, perhaps as long ago as 5,000 years before today, though perhaps as recently as 2,500 years before the present day, a mere handful of people created families, then clans, tribes, nations and finally national states in Europe.

Rudolf Steiner, toward the end of his life [d. 1925] predicted, in answers to questioners, that in the 21st Century, Europe would be devastated. One lady asked whether she might be reincarnated with him in the Europe of that time. His answer was “only if you are willing to walk with me across Europe, across broken glass.”

Those who imagine that the answer to the present difficulties of the UK and Europe generally lies in forming a political party and then somehow achieving political power in the “acceptable” way, are very mistaken. A political movement must form, yes, and “all roads lead to Rome”, but in the end we may face the necessity of establishing a new Europe out of chaos. In such a scenario, we should be faced also with iron necessities. Beyond the harshness, though, lies a new land and a new society based on the latter-day or post-Aryan, or European. In that realm, only the blood counts. The couples who produce European children now are contributing to the founding of a new and, in time, better civilization.

Notes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/25/half-of-british-men-descended-from-one-bronze-age-king/

https://www.kn-online.de/Nachrichten/Hamburg/Voelkische-Siedler-Die-Bio-Nazis-von-nebenan

CFfvYYCXIAAkryu

Where Are The Limits Of Religious Freedom?

One of the pillars of a future “Threefold Social Order” society will be religious freedom. Such freedom is also said to be a pillar of our existing “Western” model of society.

“We” supposedly all agree with that ideal, meaning of course “we” white Northern Europeans. Of course, once one gets away from Northern Europe and its wider offshoots in North America, Australasia etc, that consensus ends. In the Middle East, much of Africa, South Asia etc, freedom of religion either does not exist, or exists only as a fragile plant.

In Europe, we see that the migration-invasion, and the societal takeover via a high birth rate of, in particular, Muslims, is threatening our fond belief that we have and always will have religious freedom. The pendulum is swinging. Whereas in the Middle Ages, Roman Catholic Christians repressed other religious communities and launched crusades to conquer Muslim lands (a simplification, of course, but let’s leave that aside), today the Muslims are invading Europe, not as armies (as happened several times in the past) but as migrant-invaders (immigrants, “refugees”, “asylum-seekers”, and as babies born in Europe…). If this continues unabated, we can expect to see more attempts to shut down religious freedom for non-Muslims, as shown in this cartoon:

CX9ZsZOWEAAky2e

This process can be seen in the UK. There have in fact been Muslims in the UK for a long time, at least in small numbers. An Islamic centre and cemetery was established on the edge of Woking, Surrey, in the 19thC (it can be seen just before trains enter Woking Station, on the Southern or lefthand side as the train travels from London). However, the political or societal strength has grown in more recent years, along with the numbers.

In the 1970s, the Muslim element rarely displayed itself politically. I myself recall that posters on the Underground in 1976 or 1977, advertizing the Libyan-funded film “Mohammed, Messenger of God” were often defaced, always with the same words: “Islam forbids representations”. That vandalism, along with “community” representation to the UK authorities and the film distributors, resulted in the film being renamed “The Message”.

Now, 40 or so years later, times have moved on. Despite the Muslim population of the UK only being between 5% and 6% (officially), there has been a gradual infiltration (I do not say that it has been particularly organized) into mainstream political parties, in areas where Muslim numbers are significant: parts of the North of England, the Midlands, smaller areas within London and elsewhere. The influence of Sharia law and courts has grown; the Church of England has shown itself craven (as indeed it is when confronted by the aggressive Jewish-Zionist element). In some cases, Christians wishing to display their faith, e.g. by wearing crosses etc, have been given the choice of not doing so or being dismissed.

I repeat, officially the Muslim population of the UK stands at little more than 5% (about 5.1%) so far, but a high birth rate may propel that to 10% in the short term and later to…who knows? What will then be its influence and power?

As to the Jews, in numbers they are small, somewhere between 250,000 to 280,000, though there are also very large numbers of part-Jews, many of whom have little or no day to day connection with Jewish religious practices. Their influence and power comes not from crude numbers, but from concentration in and control of key strategic areas: finance, law, politics, mainstream media and, now, large Internet organizations.

Christians and Muslims accept persons of any race into their communities, at least in principle. Both Christians and Muslims have traditionally accepted it as an article of faith that persons of other religions should be “converted”, whereas Jews do not seek converts (though some modern branches do accept small numbers, e.g. after marriage to Jews). Judaism, therefore, has never launched “crusades” or the like. The Jews do not aim to make the world Jewish, only to be the major influencing, controlling and profiting element in or over the world.

The modern Christian world of the post-Enlightenment has, in principle, accepted that people can be Christian, Muslim or Jew (or whatever else) freely. That is easy enough when it comes to beliefs, ideas, even public worship in particular buildings, though (as mentioned above) it took Europe a long time even to accept those aspects. Much of the world does not go that far.

Where things become more difficult is when the religious practice of a community contravenes the law or morality of the society as a whole. Halal slaughter, kosher slaughter, which revolt the sensibilities of thinking non-Muslims and non-Jews. Male and female genital mutilation by Muslims and Jews. The cries (now electrically amplified) of the muezzin from the minaret of the mosque. These are cases where, in my view, the demands of the society to prevent cruelty, the wish of Europeans not to hear constant mosque noise in their neighbourhood must prevail over the practices of both the Jews and the Muslims.

To take an extreme case: there were societies in the past, Aztecs, Incas, even Europeans of ancient Europe, who engaged in ritual sacrifice of humans. Would we accept such practices today just because “it is part of their religion”? I think not.

There have been problems in the recent past in relation to other religions: the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with their unwillingness to save the lives of their children via blood transfusion; the mental and sometimes physical cruelty to children of some small “Christian” sects such as the Plymouth Brethren; the contrived scam that is Scientology (the British government of the 1960s fought a long battle to suppress Scientology, because of its perceived cultic and controlling behaviour). There could be other examples given.

It might be said that even mainstream Christian religions have done very evil things, e.g. the sex scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, though those involved acts not sanctioned or encouraged by the religion as such.

In the end, society, meaning the political element, must draw the line between the zone where religion holds sway and the zone where group or community religious practice must give way before the general secular law which should protect people and animals.

Free Speech: Individuality and Collectivity

Rudolf Steiner often spoke of the ever-increasing individualism in our age (that period which he named the “Fifth Post-Atlantean Age”, which started around 1400 AD and is due to run until about 3500 AD). This is an inevitable continuing process and will bring many benefits if people are guided by conscience. However, if people are not guided by individual conscience, the forces of the individual will tear apart society.

Against the forces of individualism stands “society”, which encompasses law, unwritten “laws” of convention and expectation and also the powers of the State (which holds itself out as the concrete expression of the people as a whole).

Society is, of course, a good thing. In proper measure, it makes possible and supports such aspects of life as law, public order, organized help for the sick, disabled, elderly, poor etc. It is a structure which supports the family, too. It also provides, via the State,  the structure for defence against outside forces (hostile states, natural calamities etc). However, if taken too far, society and/or the State becomes oppression, involving the repression of individual liberty in various ways (most obviously, perhaps, suppression of free speech or other freedom of expression).

Society restricts freedom of speech. It is hard to imagine a society beyond the most primitive or germinal in which complete freedom of speech exists (eg spoken or written threats against the person). On the other hand, when society (the State, or perhaps a religious or political cult) prevents individual expression, reasonable restriction becomes unreasonable repression. One thinks, perhaps, of the more extreme socialist states of the 20th Century, such as the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao Tse-Tung, Albania under Enver Hoxha, Cuba under Fidel Castro. The same was true of anti-socialist tyrannies such as Nicaragua under Somoza.

Particular emergency conditions may lead to a temporary tightening of what is regarded as acceptable free speech. In the Second World War, the various combatants restricted free speech considerably. In the UK, those who spoke out against the war or government policy faced both prosecution (State) and persecution (society generally). Even the USA, with its famous Constitutional safeguards, clamped down on freedom of expression.

As in other fields of life, we can see that the tension between the demands of the individual qua individual and those of the collective results in what amounts to a compromise. It is a question of either where society (in practice, usually the State, but possibly a smaller community such as a town or even a family) decides where the line is drawn, or where the individual draws the line, based on conscience or preference and regardless of where the State and/or society has drawn it.

Most people, most of the time, obey the dictates of the collective. Were that not so, law could not exist except as a facade with nothing behind it (cf. Stalin’s Russia etc); neither could the State or its power, in the end. On the other hand, the individual must always obey conscience and it therefore becomes vital to distinguish between individual conscience and individual wilfulness or egoism. No outside force can decide what is conscience and what is wilfulness or egoism. The individual, the individual human soul, is the only judge or arbiter here. Where the individual and the collective collide, the results can range from martyrdom of the individual to reform or even revolution affecting the collective.

Where do I myself, as both individual and citizen (i.e. part of the collective) draw the line? For me, freedom of expression about social, political and historical matters should be absolute. Other forms of expression (eg threats, libels, fraudulent misrepresentations) can be (and commonly are) restricted to a greater or lesser extent.

It follows from the above that I prefer the approach taken in the United States to that of most EU states (including the UK). Restrictions on freedom of expression are often imposed for or from outwardly “good” motives, but rapidly become a slippery slope with evil results. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

Notes

  1.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/communications_sent_via_social_media/
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_defamation_law
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution