Category Archives: Civilisation

Reviews of the Arts and articles pertaining to Constitutionalist culture

Herodotus tells us that the major pyramids at Giza were built approximately 800 BC

Everyone knows about the three major pyramids at Giza in Egypt. Everyone knows that they were built around about two and half thousand years BC by three pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty.  Undoubtedly, there seems to be a lot of certainty surrounding the genesis of the pyramids; and somewhat perversely, this assuredness raises doubt. The reader will undoubtedly have come across some researchers and writers who raise the following particular question: how were such monumental and straight–edged stone buildings manufactured with only rudimentary cutting tools available? Others notice how the Giza pyramids are superb compared to slightly earlier ones that are nowhere near as excellently executed, and this suggests another mystery: how did the Egyptian art of pyramid-building evolve so abruptly to perfection?

There can be no mystery if one comes at the subject forgetting everything one has ever learned about it. The answer to the riddle of the pyramids is that they must have been built when the iron tools to process the stone became available. Furthermore, the three major pyramids at Giza must have been built when the technical skill to plan and erect them had had sufficient time in human experience to develop into the ability to produce a masterpiece. In other words, the three greater Giza pyramids were built later than we have been told. This shouldn’t be as crazy a notion as it sounds, after all, if we were sufficiently well read we would all know that the father of history, Herodotus, told us that the pyramids were indeed built much later than is universally credited.

In his Histories, Herodotus lists eleven Egyptian kings as told to him by people who were priests of that country around about the mid-fifth century BC. It appears from the way the list is presented that Herodotus believes that every king after the first succeeded the one before him, so we should see each name in the list as a real human being rather than representative of a house or a dynasty, and the list as describing eleven consecutive reigns.

This is the list:

Sesostris, Pheros, Proteus, Rhampsinitus, Cheops, Chephren, Mycerinus, Asychis, Anysis, Sethos and Psammetichus.

The last individual in that list, Psammetichus, is universally identified as Pharaoh Psamtik I, the founder of the 26th Dynasty, who ruled 664-610BC. We can be sure of these dates because they are constituent to data that appears to be the only point of exact agreement between what is known as the Old Chronology (OC) for dating Egyptian history and the New Chronology (NC). This article can’t be written unless there is a mention of the distinction between the two. The NC is a 20 year old upstart developed chiefly by David Rohl, amongst a few others, that allows the history of pan-antiquity to fit together. The Old Chronology survives by being strict Victorian orthodoxy that none should dare to question, and that was conceived in self-evidently dubious ways. That the Old Chronology is still dominant appears to the author to be down to a refusal to concede, and a testimony to the tyrannical power of a self-interested establishment that has way far too much to lose by having its world view demolished.

Back to the king list, though, and to its top; Sesostris had already been linked to the famous Ramesses II before the NC, but it is the NC that enables a definite identification. Herodotus tells us that Sesostris launched a military expedition and penetrated as far as Scythia and Thrace (the Caucuses and the European side of the Black Sea), which is an unequalled piece of martial prowess. The Egyptian records tell of the extensive conquests of Ramesses II (or Riamashesha). And then there is a third character recorded in writings: the biblical Shishak who invaded Judah and removed treasures from Solomon’s Temple. All these are one and the same (please see Rohl’s “From Eden to Exile” for a full demonstration of how Ramesses and Shishak equate to the same individual). And so the NC brings the 19th Dynasty (962-829 BC) closer to the 26th, and it allows us to place Psammetichus in the scheme of things only a couple of handfuls of generations after Ramesses II, instead of half a millennium – as is the case in the OC. In terms of analysing Herodotus’ king list for the purposes of this article, this is the bare minimum that needs to be done, but faces are going to be put to the other names too.

If Sesostris is Ramesses II (943-877 BC), then it follows that Pheros must be Merneptah (888-875 BC) who was a co-regent for most of his life, and came to rule on his own very late and for a short time. Maybe this is reflected in the passive tone used by Herodotus: “After Sesostris’ death, his son Pheros inherited the kingdom”. Merneptah was apparently involved in fending off Libyan attacks during the co-regency, although Herodotus says that Pheros didn’t have any military adventures at all. In fact, Herodotus tells of how Pheros was blind for 10 years (before curing himself with a urine wash). At the end of Merneptah’s reign, and as a reflection of the old man’s weakness, there emerged a pretender to the throne, Amenmesse. (It could in fact be that Amenmesse is Pheros if you count the reigns of Merneptah and Ramesses as one).

Herodotus continues: “The priests told me that after Pheros the kingdom passed to a man from Memphis whose name in Greek is Proteus.” What this could reflect is the NC assertion that the 19th Dynasty continued alongside a new one – the 20th Dynasty (855-740 BC), ruling from a different power base, and which had little or no familial connection with Pheros. Proteus, then, would be Setnakhte, the father of Ramesses III or Rhampsinitus (the similarity in the name is obvious). Herodotus says that Proteus took the side of the Greeks in the matter of Helen of Troy (could this have anything to do with his coming to power?). As for Rhampsinitus, Herodotus tells that he was extremely wealthy, and Egypt did well up to the end of his reign (pretty much echoed in conventional Egyptology – he was “the last New Kingdom king to wield any substantial authority over Egypt”)

Herodotus says that the immediate descendents of Rhampsinitus were tyrants, the first being Ramesses IV –  Amonhirkhopshef (Cheops) as he was known as a Crown Prince during the reign of his father. In official Egyptology Ramesses IV initiated a building programme on a substantial scale. This is reflected in Herodotus who tells of how Cheops set 100s of thousands of people to work on his projects (huge monument building projects are nearly always about oppressing a populace, in the opinion of the author). And in confirmation of the kind of king he was, and the financial disarray the country was in, Herodotus tells us Cheops forced his daughter into prostitution to raise money.

The next king was Ramesses V, or Sekheperenre Ramesses V (Chephren) to give him a fuller title; he was the son of Ramesses IV. Official Egyptology tells us that during this reign, the priests of Amun became more powerful (richer, and in possession of more taxed land) at the expense of the pharaoh. Again, this is confirmed by Herodotus who tells of how the people in the country became grievously miserable.

The next pharaoh was Ramesses VI, or Ramesses VI Nebmaatre-Meryamun (Mycerinus). He was the son of Ramesses III, so the brother of Ramesses IV. This character may well of raped his own daughter, according to Herodotus. We should note that Herodotus says that Chepren was Cheops’ brother, and that Mycerinus was Cheops’ son.

The author would like to link the next of Herodotus’ kings, Asychis, with the Pharaoh Piye, or Piankhi, the founder of the 25th Dynasty ruling out of Nubia, or Ethopia. This idea would be contentious with all of Egyptology – the NC has the 25th Dynasty start at 741BC, but Herodotus tells us that Asychis built a brick pyramid, and Piye actually did build a pyramid, and according to the orthodoxy, it was a major one and thus unusual for the epoch. But because Piye was apparently quite long-lived, and thus potentially knocking around across the good part of a century, it occurred to the author that he could actually have been Asychis founding his dynasty in Egypt before 823 BC to run simultaneously with other dynasties that the NC identifies to be extant at the time.

The next Pharaoh that Herodotus mentions is Anysis. The author thinks this must be Shoshenk I (823-803 BC), or Sesonkhosis, for the following reason. Shoshenk was the founder of the 22nd Dynasty which originally ruled out of Bubastis, which is in the Nile Delta. Herodotus talks about Anysis withdrawing into the marshlands after an invasion by an Ethiopian, Sabacos, and talks about Bubastis being raised up by excavation. Herodotus says that Sabocos left Egypt voluntarily, after which Anysis resumed being pharoah. It turns out that Sabacos is probably Shabaka, the historical brother of Piye. So, could Herodotus be telling us about a power struggle where Shoshenk becomes the dominant force in Egypt prompting a re-invasion by the Ethiopians to reinforce the 25th Dynasty? Shoshenk hadn’t been as helpless as Anysis in Herodotus’ story because he launched a military offensive into Israel (prompting orthodox Egyptologists to confuse him with Ramesses II).

Shabaka seems to have ruled with Shebitku, a son of Piye, in a co-regency. But the penultimate king in Herodotus’ list, Sethos, is prohbably Shebitku’s brother, Taharqa (690 – 664 BC), who is referred to as Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia, in 2 Kings 19:9 – an enemy of the Assyrian king Sennacherib at the time of Hezekiah. He also appears in Josephus, who quotes Herodotus, but uses the name Trihaka, King of the Ethiopians. He clearly believes that Herodotus’ Sethos is a reference to the same person. In Herodotus, Sethos was a priest of Hephaestus who appealed to his god to aid against an invasion by Sennacherib. In Josephus, Trihaka prays to God.

Now to the crux of the matter. The historical scheme interpreted from Herodotus by the author is obviously not a serious proposal of the history of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate periods of Egypt. It’s a casual thought experiment and a suggestion of a possibility based on a little research, and there would have to be much, much more research to do to prove any of it. The purpose of dedicating this much white space to it has been to show that we could reasonably accept Herodotus’ king list as an inventory of kings succeeding immediately one after another from 943BC to 610BC. Eleven in 333 years gives an average reign for each of 30 years (and actually a period before Psamtek, where there was no one dominant king of Egypt, has been omitted).

All this now builds up to what should be a bombshell for anyone reading The Histories for the first time: Herodotus also tells us that the three major pyramids at Giza were built by Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus, who appear right in the middle of his king list. He clearly isn’t referring to any 4th Dynasty pharaohs who, according to modern archaeologists, are supposed to have built them because we can identify the historical context in which he places the three kings. And don’t forget that Herodotus isn’t remote to this history. He has proximity to it like modern English have to the Georgians.

And yet despite this we somehow know the pyramid builders as pharaohs Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure. When Victorian archaeologists were looking for proof of the builders of the pyramids – for there are no carvings anywhere on the structures – they were looking for Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure (Herodotus actually explains why the pyramids might have ended up as anonymous: “the Egyptians loathe Chepren and Cheops so much that they really do not like to mention their names”).

The author assumes that the hypothesis of ownership must have been generated by other findings in the vicinity – of which, apparently, there were plenty – and then the names of Herodotus’ three kings were deemed close enough to justify the attribution. Amazingly, having used Herodotus in this way, his placing of the pyramids in (relative) modernity is just discarded, as is information about how the pyramids were built – which was a particularly foolish thing to throw away because it would have spared us endless TV documentaries about how the pyramids might have been built by aliens.

The attribution of the Great Pyramid to Khufu apparently relies on a cartouche in paint marked on masonry in an internal chamber (and assumedly the other two pharaohs just inherited theirs by association). Apparently, calling the cartouche a fake is frowned upon (as well it might be), but there definitely is controversy that shouldn’t just be swept under the carpet, as one website dedicated to the matter explains here. The author is in no position to make a comment, but notes it must be much easier for one of those unscrupulous early archaeologists, otherwise unskilled in stone masonry, to fake daubs in paint than to knock up an authentic-looking staela.

Of course, everyone thinks suggestion of a hoax to be unreasonable when they first encounter it: why would anyone what to create and sustain any horrible fraud and deceive so many people? The answer would be really quite simple. Firstly, people who want power will look to create situations where they have knowledge which is kept from the masses. It doesn’t matter what the lie is about. It’s about a kind of Magic that is generated from knowing reality, and making the masses believe in a fantasy. Someone with a grip on reality can occasionally project it into the mass delusion to win adoration or respect (think of ancient priests who had the power to block the sun during the day: in reality an eclipse). Secondly, if there is money in a fraud – which there usually is – there will always be people corrupt enough to perpetrate one and sustain it. Think of the industry that is propelled by the ongoing mystery of the Giza Pyramids. Thirdly, if people have committed a crime, they obviously cover it up.

But deciding that we have been fooled about the pyramids, which can’t be proven, is not the actual point of this article. It’s about the absolute crucial necessity of taking an alternative approach to gaining and possessing knowledge. The abuse of knowledge is something that happens all the time, for the reasons given above, and people must be aware of it because to be ignorant is to be prey – and we shouldn’t want to be that. Automatically do not trust whatever the authority tells you to be true. Go and look at the resources that they don’t let you know about, or have interpreted for you, or are older than the 20 years of age that university professors actively discourage students from looking at to ensure a Marxist indocrination. These sources are often there if you look, waiting to be found. Look to discover tools to aid your understanding, whether it be another language, or as in this case, an alternative system of chronology for Egyptology.

Being informed in this way makes us into critical thinkers who can’t then be duped by a Priesthood guarding secret knowledge. And then we can discover, for instance, that Global Warming is not actually a fact beyond debate, and we can discover that the WTC towers (all three of them), if they had merely been struck by two planes, just cannot collapse as if they had been demolished with placed explosives, and we can discover that, if it then appears quite intact in footage of his arrest, Michael Adebowale couldn’t have lost a thumb to a shot fired at him by an armed policeman.

It’s time for a debate about how public homosexuality damages society

Winston McKenzie has caused some in the UKIP leaderhip to forget themselves for a moment in their welcome role as crusaders against Marxist social engineering powered by political thought-control. The gauntlet had been thrown down after the Rotherham insult; the ruling elite, their minions in the Town Halls, and the tiny pressure groups that manufacture Politically Correct outrage would no longer decide what is – or what is not – an act of racism. The right-minded people in the majority now had a voice, and we decided that rejecting multiculturalism is not the same thing as being prejudiced against people who happen to be in a minority according to their different skin colour. As it happens, it never was, and for political reasons we were only tricked into thinking it might have been.

Unfortunately, UKIP wasn’t so crusading when it came to rejecting the politicisation of homosexuality (from the Daily Mail, where the commenters are very supportive of McKenzie):

David Coburn, UKIP’s London chairman who is gay, insisted Mr McKenzie’s views were not party policy.

‘We entirely, wholeheartedly support equal rights for couples regardless of their sexuality,’ he said.

To be fair, I think I am right in saying that UKIP believes that civil partnerships should suffice homosexuals, and that full blown marriage is an equal right too far. And actually, the idea that homosexual couples should be considered equal to heterosexual ones is the controversial viewpoint; it’s not the other way around. The idea that homosexual couples can adopt children is the controversial viewpoint; it’s not the other way around. That you, dear reader, might flinch when Winston McKenzie announces that it is to be abusive to have children adopted by homosexuals is due to the fact that you have been conditioned these many long years to understand that what should be controversial is, in fact, completely acceptable. So, when Ben Summerskill, of gay rights charity Stonewall, reacted to Winston McKenzie by saying: ‘these 19th-century views are not acceptable in the 21st century,’ what he was trying to do was trigger your reflexive conditioning. He was trying to activate a feeling of being appalled so that you would not begin to consider if Winston McKenzie’s words had any merit.

But, don’t forget, the politically correct viewpoint, even if it isn’t always a minority one, is usually the controversial one. The whole point of the Marxist Revolution was to subvert British Judeo-Christian culture, so of course the politically correct viewpoint is the controversial one.

As the author has previously pointed out, the greatest thing wrong with homosexuality is not that it is not normal – every choice can be normalised and rationalised by living day-by-day through the ramifications of the decision, and especially if there is political approval and encouragement. The greatest thing wrong with homosexuality is that it isn’t very useful. This doesn’t matter very much when it is private. However, when it is promoted into a lifestyle choice – in other words, made into a public commodity that people can choose on an equal footing with heterosexuality – then it also starts to become destructive for society. When too many people have been convinced not to breed naturally, then, as I am about to explain, a certain power changes hands from its natural home with the individual and becomes the possession of the government. Besides which, a collective that believes that its contrived homosexual public identity has a right to be considered as equal to what is default must be legislated for; in a free country, most legislation is already too much.

The Establishment in this country likes to promote single and homosexual parenthood because it goes against the cultural expectation that children should be brought up by two (preferably married) parents, a male and a female. Of course, Marxist criticism would say that the cultural expectation is a false construct, but my response would be this: where in the physical act of producing a child is there scope to build a different construct whereby two men or two women will best raise the new Human Being they created between them? There isn’t one, of course, because there is no physical act that two men or two women could perform that would produce children.

Instead, they would need medical assistance, and in the UK that usually means the State. The State, of course, would love to have a hand in the artificial creation of children. I believe that the novel Brave New World by the eugenicist Aldous Huxley is the blueprint for the thicker end of the wedge that has at its thin end the separation of the sexual act and child rearing.

As far as I can see, Winston McKenzie never did say that medically assisted parenthood for homosexuals should be banned. However, he did seem to say that any child being raised by homosexuals was itself a form of abuse, and this is an (albeit unwitting) indirect attack on a system that enables the surrogate child-birth or artificial insemination needed to furnish homosexual men and their “wives”, and homosexual women and their “husbands” with an individual that all parties can imagine is their natural born child. I think that perhaps this is the real reason that Winston McKenzie found himself in so much trouble. There is no doubt in my mind that the advocacy of the complete homosexual lifestyle, including the raising of children by “daddy-mummy” and “mummy-daddy”, is political and towards diabolical ends; in that way it is indeed abusive for homosexuals to adopt children – all parties to the arrangement are being exploited – but we could also say of the bigger picture, it is public homosexuality in itself that is abusive to society as a whole.

Getting back to the context of what Winston McKenzie said:

‘To say to a child, “I am having you adopted by two men who kiss regularly but don’t worry about it” – that is abuse.

‘It is a violation of a child’s human rights because that child has no opportunity to grow up under normal circumstances’ he told Metro.

I don’t agree that it is a human right for a child to have a mum and a dad because in the normal course of things, sometimes one or both parents can die thus denying the child of his “human rights”. Bad luck cannot be legislated for or against, and having two homosexual parents could just count in these regards as a case of very bad luck. As for the idea that it is abusive for a child to be raised by homosexuals, what McKenzie seems to be referring to is how living in such an environment means that a child runs the risk of being normalised to a lifestyle that he very likely would not have chosen for himself had he been raised by heterosexuals (despite what the propaganda says, there are not very many people in the UK who are not heterosexual). Is that abuse? The answer may come down to the old nature or nurture debate. If a child inherently feels attracted to traditional domestic situations even though his own is decidedly weird, then the normalisation could be said to have been an unwanted imposition; an abuse.

Then there is the risk of the normalisation to homosexuality, in turn, encouraging deviancy in the child – ‘There are people out there who bring up their kids encouraging them to believe they are gay themselves,’ was the way Winston put it. It is in society’s best interest for all children to have balanced upbringings so that they can fulfil their basic role in life to reproduce and raise new life; to play a part in handing down through the ages our shared culture. If a child is in any way restricted towards this end, then of course it is abuse; deliberately arresting the development of an individual is an act of abuse. Besides which, whenever a human being is denied the opportunity to do what he is put on the earth to do, then it is a victory for the anti-human social engineers that control this country.

Remembrance and the summoning of the Evil One

When the ancients performed a sacrifice what they were actually doing was summoning a god into their presence, specifically into the body of the sacrificial victim. This corporeal form had to be destroyed, whether by knife or by fire, because the prospect of an actual god in the midst of the worshippers was too terrible a one. After the act of sacrifice, the congregation would take part in a celebration, and they would devour the body of the god within the sacrificed form (which is why some scholars suspect that Holy Communion, or Lord’s Supper, is a pagan hangover that the earliest non-Jewish Christians developed as liturgy; scholars also think that a ritualised Last Supper was added to some of the gospels to justify the practice).

In the cases where the ancients performed a blood sacrifice, which could of course extend to the taking of human life, a sense of grievous wrong doing was retained by parties to the ceremony (priests could even be required to kill themselves as an act of cleansing).  It was the ritual of sacrifice that turned what was essentially a wasteful murder into something meaningful and noble. The consumption of the victim has already been mentioned, but in another act of commemoration, priests would decorate the altar with those mortal remains that were deemed sacred and not to be eaten, or just plain inedible. The display of the victim in this way was a reconstitution of the body; it was a rationalisation and a pretence that a living being had not had its life taken.

There is a good reason, on this day of all days in the year, why this subject matter should be presented to the world. Today is Armistice Day, and it is also Remembrance Sunday. Both of these days have come to be associated with a collective act by the British to remember their war dead of the 20th century, and principally of the First World War which saw the invention of Remembrance on its termination.  The British people hold the general idea that they are being good human beings when they take part in Remembrance, and so this is why there is a need for a reminder about pre-Christian culture, pagan sacrificial rites, and the degeneration of the British into an uncivilised people.

From a perspective that understands human predilection and tendency to evil, the many British people who bought and wore a poppy in the last few weeks, or who attended a Remembrance Day parade, or who watched on TV to see the chief feeders upon the mass (forced) contrition, guilt and sorrow assembled at the Cenotaph, can all be said, essentially, metaphorically, to be eating the dead bodies of the UK’s dead soldiers, sailors and airmen.

From this same perspective, the members of the UK’s armed forces who died for the ambitions of a corrupted British ruling elite can no longer be seen as heroes. Instead, people must start to see them as the victims of a mass act of sacrifice, the vastness of which reflects the size of the criminality of the UK Establishment. The reason as to why people should see things differently is simple: the EU. If British people were able to say that theirs was an independent, self-governing country that had not lost control of its borders, was not experiencing an actual invasion of resource-guzzling peoples who have no right to abide in the country, and had not lost control of its law-making power then that would be one thing. As things are, however, none of this can be claimed of the UK by anyone with their wits about them; it means that the deaths in war of British men, women and children count for nothing. Countless thousands of British people have died for nothing at the behest of the ruling class. Or have they? Some people say that the UK’s ruling elite are practising Satanists, and it seems an incredible thing to contemplate. However, the pressure on Britons to take part in an act of national Remembrance , or war death worship, or, as shall be shown, the ritualistic ceremony signifying human sacrifice – certainly provokes a very unsettling suspicion as to the sinister nature of the people who rule.

The reader, to begin to arrive at such a disturbing perspective, should apply what he or she has just learnt about pagan sacrificial rites and apply it to the killing that took place principally in the First World War. Perhaps the reader will suddenly gain an insight into the obstinate persistence of the British Top Brass regarding the need for entire ranks of British men to rise from the trenches, and advance slowly into, and get cut down by sheets of gun fire. Such murderous folly was self-evident, and yet the British ruling class took advantage of a strong cultural sense of station held by Britons which would deter them from disobeying and fleeing what must have appeared to be a death sentence. In short, the British ruling class betrayed the trust of those soldiers, and sent them to their deaths in ways that would make mass-killing certain, and on an unprecedented scale. It also should be said that they butchered a swathe of aristocracy no less surer than the Soviets did. What is termed the “ruling class” should not be viewed two dimensionally; there is no way of telling how powerful landed gentry, those who would also have been prey for banking dynasties, might have been in opposition to what Britain turned into during the 20th century if their sons had remained alive after the First World War.

What could be said of World War I, therefore, is that a ruling elite with sinister moral compulsion, and who viewed themselves as high-priests inhabiting the environment of misguided ideas about religion, saw and indeed organised the killing as a summoning and obliteration of a gargantuan pagan god. The march-pasts that took place at the Cenotaph† (derived from the Greek words meaning “empty” and “tomb”) almost immediately after the cessation of hostilities could be interpreted as the ruling elite reconstituting the collective body of the masses who were murdered. The Cenotaph would be representative of an altar dressed in trophies; emblems that, in their twisted minds, the ruling elite believed honoured the ghosts of the sacrificed so that those souls would not haunt their true murderers.

The Remembrance ritual has been happening annually for nearly 100 years. This is astonishing when one has knowledge of the trappings of sacrificial ceremony. The Remembrance that British people are politically pressured to perform could be said to be an act of ritual repetition that, each time it is performed, symbolically relives the original act of sacrifice. Each year, then, for nearly 100 years, it could be said that in the eyes of the ruling elite, the British have been summoning a god who has demanded a high price for it.

Other ideas stem from having such a perspective; Britain, as a national unit, has been mocking God horribly for longer than anyone could have previously thought; His slow-burning wrath must be nearer critical mass than anyone had imagined. The Biblical fate of Israel whenever it turned from God is a whole lot closer for Britain than anyone could have calculated. The British worship death, and in doing so annually let slip the vengeful spirit of war.

For apart from any religious considerations, there are material benefits to be had for the British ruling class by pressuring British citizens to power the sacrificial ritual of war death worship; Remembrance drives new (and prosperous) war as surely as night follows day. Indeed, annual and renewed opposition to Remembrance is crucial in a new age where the likes of David Cameron are trying to prevent what should be a decline in interest. Despite the fact that there are pitifully few World War I veterans alive (if any), the present government has a plan to send every British school child to the World War I battlefields of France in 2014. Cameron said that World War I was a “fundamental part of our national consciousness”, but fails to admit that this is the case because of the insistence of the ruling class. Nothing better demonstrates that Remembrance is all about indoctrinating people into a system of unwitting slavery, and of powering the ruling class’s sick fantasy and wish fulfilment, than the frenzied efforts of the Establishment to get school children interested in mawkish commemoration of an event that happened nearly a century before they were born.

† Additional points of pertinence: The march-past of the Cenotaph in 1919 was the Allied Victory Parade –  a celebration of victory, and sacrifice is supposed to be a celebratory act. Victory is also a goddess, Nike (Nick is a corruption). A statue of this goddess in her role as Zeus’ divine charioteer rides the Wellington Arch in London. According to Wikipedia “Nike flew around battlefields rewarding the victors with glory and fame”; which means to say she awarded trophies, which were the means by which murder on a battlefield could be “troped” into acts of sacrifice.

Insights about society gained by observing behaviour at traffic lights

The British justice system is broken, and that so many people lament ludicrously soft punishment for crime, or are frustrated that would-be criminals do not even get to go before a judge, demonstrates that a good deal of the population are quite aware of the fact. British politics is also broken; again something that must be widely appreciated if the voluminous cries from the public about being cheated by self-serving politicians who fail to keep manifesto pledges upon gaining office are anything to go by.

The troubling realisation about this state of affairs is this: if so many people understand that the pillars of decent and civil society are shattered, then why don’t they do something about it? The main answer must be that everyone who can see a problem probably thinks that it is somebody else’s fault, or that there is nothing to be done about it. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth. Yes, broken society is made up of the effects of criminally motivated people, whether they be in the under, working, middle or the ruling class, who steal, cheat and murder, and who are untouchable and unreachable by the modern day equivalents to the historical offices, not necessarily of state, but of town-corporation charity or religion, that had been established to persuade a level of conformity which is essential to social coherence. (The disconnection has been caused deliberately, of course, by a ruling class which desires control through chaos, destitution and welfare dependency). But more than that, broken society is comprised of each and every so-called law abiding individual who has been corrupted by Marxist persuasion and conditioning into accepting that their own subjective personal morality, which in reality represents a very little amount of properness, discipline and honourableness, is enough to qualify them for membership of a society that supposedly remains coherent because it is defined by Government, and therefore isolated from our individual actions.

For a simple demonstration of the effects of moral relativism, the reader is referred to the behaviour of motor car drivers, and indeed pedestrians, at traffic lights on road crossings. There is not a better place to be found to witness the daily evils, that people so readily excuse in themselves, in what are, in fact, outpourings of selfishness, inconsideration, bloody mindedness, and irresponsibility.

Firstly the reader must have seen an example of the pedestrian, usually a chav, or a charver depending on which part of the country you come from, who just steps into the road without waiting for the lights to change to halt the traffic. This is truly remarkable behaviour which betrays a belief in full dislocation from the system that requires cooperation for it to work. Demonstrated here is the attitude in the British underclass, which was deliberately nurtured by the British Government, that it is possible to get everything for nothing. An argument for handing out ladles of cash for not very much in return was that it was poverty that caused crime; this is wrong, of course, the cause is a lack of a comprehension about the need to fit into a coherent society – exactly the sort of thing evidenced when a baseball capped, rickets-gaited charver (who has chosen to buy fags rather than fruit) steps out at traffic lights. In fact, giving, in return for not very much, to a morally denuded generation of underclass is the sort of thing that could only encourage crime, as British social engineers probably well understood, because the victim of welfare becomes disconnected from the desirable code of social interaction involved in acquiring essentials, property and goods – i.e. honest toil.

The reader may also have noticed that these days an amber light is treated by a motorist approaching a set of traffic lights at a road crossing differently than was originally intended. An amber light after a green used to warn the driver, who should be approaching in a manner that anticipates it in any case, to slow down to a halt for a red light. The driver stopped at an amber light if it was possible to do so. Nowadays, this amber light seems to signify to the driver that he or she should accelerate in order to beat the red light. It is entitrely predictable, in fact, that it won’t be very long until such is the degeneration of people in the UK into animals whose actions are controlled entirely by basic emotional responses, that the red light will take on a completely different meaning itself. It will mean that the approaching driver has only a few seconds remaining to get across the lights before pedestrians will start to use the road space. Indeed, jumping a red light is not a thing of the future; drivers already do it in copious amounts.

Then there are the drivers who, on seeing an amber light after a green, drive into the pedestrian crossing space even though they are not able to exit it. This action is calculated, and it is a manoeuvre that enables the driver to justify driving through a red light when the exit becomes clear. However, what happens more often than not is that the exit does not clear, and so when a pedestrian needs to cross, he or she finds their way obstructed by a motor vehicle.

As the reader should appreciate, the social transaction of a set of traffic lights at a pedestrian crossing is a metaphor for and a microcosm of bigger social arrangements. When drivers start to harbour their own judgements about the value of the different signals in that system, which leads to a modification of their own behaviour that merely satisfies subjective requirements, then disharmony in the system always ensues. At level crossings where a motorist encounters an uncompromising user of the system – the train – then it can lead to death.

If one cannot obey a simple social construct like traffic lights because one feels that to do so somehow wins some slim advantage, then how is one able to accommodate the wider rule of law? Without the rule of law, there is only chaos, and, as abovementioned, death. The small gain that a driver may get by jumping a red light is synonymous with any perceived advantage brought by cheating whatever code for social interaction a person finds himself in (the readers should be able to think of his or own examples); but all such advantages are really not worth the having for the damage they do in terms of breaking society. It is these short-sighted, short-term people, and there are so many of them, who do not have standards for their own behaviour, and therefore cannot have any standards in terms of expectations for the behaviour of others. At this point, then, in such a person’s appreciation of the world, it doesn’t matter that the politician can get away with defrauding the tax payer, or that a Saturday-night thug can get away with murder; yes, there is always noise generated in complaint, but what do these onlookers ever really do about it? The answer is nothing; and so come we full circle in this article. The corrupted British people keep choosing the same failed political options, and they never change themselves. This is what is really at the crux of a shattered society, and so the buck-passing and denial does not cut it anymore; there is quite clearly something that the culpable can do to fix it.

And on the specific point of behaviour at traffic lights, here is a message for motorists from someone who has to use crossings as a pedestrian. Just because you can sit behind the wheel of a car, it does not mean that you can drive, and it certainly does not turn you into Graham Hill (though perhaps more like a computer console pilot like some modern day Formula One drivers). Driving a vehicle is also about being able to stop in good time at a line – not over it or well behind it – on demand; it is not just about being able to go full throttle through high speed bends. If you think that you can drive well, then the chances are that you probably can’t, and you probably shouldn’t even be on a road.