It's been a sporadic yet persistent theme on Pale Green Vortex over the years: how western civilisation has, in my mind at least, often fallen short. Specifically:
- The prevailing scientific materialistic view of modern times. This is an extremely partial view of the universe, effectively disconnecting humanity from much of what it requires in order to discover its own deeper nature and purpose. To become properly human, we could say.
- The suppression and persecution of those who have stood up against the dominant paradigms of the time. Persecution of Gnostics, Cathars, 'pagans', witches, and any other type of heretic in the eyes of Christian authorities. In more recent times, orthodoxy has passed from mainstream Christianity onto a certain political elite, and our modern heretics are more likely to be those at odds with the whims of these ruling elites. We see the attempted silencing of certain individuals who dare to think outside the box of pseudo-liberal globalism with its various dogmas and creeds (climate change emergency, multiculturalism, etc).
- The way in which notions such as democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the individual, have all too often proven to be a sham, a cosmetic veneer on a darker agenda. A dominant programme through the ages has been that of 'Empire'.
All of this still stands. The history of western civilisation is frequently messy, sometimes awful and painful to investigate. It is a deeply imperfect thing. I feel that the moment has come, however, to look at the other side of the coin. To emphasise the unique and most precious aspects to this imperfect thing. Qualities which it is well worth making the effort to cherish and preserve.
A most obvious example. Were it not for this 'western civilisation', I would not be sitting here writing this; and you wouldn't be sitting there reading it. Enterprise, ingenuity; freedom of the individual. OK, we all know about exploitation, colonialism, etc, in fact I'm sick and tired of hearing about them. As if no group of people ever behaved badly towards another group before. But amidst all this has run this thread of democracy and freedom, this other aspect to western culture.
It is within the context of this particular culture that I have been able to lead my own rather unorthodox life, sometimes not without some difficulty, but nevertheless fairly much as I have wanted. I haven't been locked away for it as yet. I have been able to research and investigate an entire range of subjects which have assisted me no end, thanks to printing and modern internet technology. All of this is the fruit of this western spirit; I am deeply grateful.
Yet these freedoms which, though battered and bruised, are characteristic of one side of western civilisation, are fragile. Over the past decade or so, I have seen them attacked and eroded again and again; it's a process which I see accelerating and growing more vicious as the days pass. It is as if we are fast approaching some kind of Armageddon, and power-mongers are desperate to close down our hard-won and precious freedoms. They are freedoms which some take for granted, and others simply do not appreciate. Other cultures extant today do not enshrine these values to the same extent, to my knowledge at least. Our freedoms are worth cherishing, and fighting for if need be.
Part Two
That I not only spent three years studying at Oxford University, but came out with a high grade degree, is news which receives a variety of reactions from the unprepared, all of them inappropriate, and reflecting more the assumptions of the individuals concerned than anything about this type of university.
I occasionally receive bulletins, magazines, newsletters, by post and online, from the university and from the particular college I attended, Hertford. I frequently wonder about cancelling the whole lot; but then I consider some more, and continue. It's called 'what's the enemy getting up to now?'.
Oxford has long given up any pretence at being a centre of higher learning. Such status was always a little doubtful, but now it's transparent. Instead, the university is devoted almost entirely to cultural programming and social engineering. Brainwashing on behalf of the elites, mind-control of the plebs. Some readers of this blog would, I suspect, find it a real eye-opener to see what bilge is put forth in the name of 'edyookayshun'. It reads like a leaflet for the globalist paradigm, hating things like Trump and Brexit with the same insistent venom as does the BBC.
My most recent post discussed the magic twins of dorje and bell, and the mess which can ensue if one or the other goes missing. But what happens if both of them go absent at the same time? This is the moment when we need to creep along the corridors of academia, climb the dark winding stairway to the top of the ivory tower, to discover who and what are lurking there.
The May edition of 'Oxford Alumni' magazine contained an article written by one Amanda Power, Professor in Medieval History at this august centre of learning. It was entitled 'Should Notre Dame be restored?' "Most people have assumed that the cathedral should be lovingly restored" the article gurgles on, "but should we let it stand as a symbol of the damage that our climate denial and environmental entitlement have already caused the planet?"
And so it drones on. And on. And on. Is there no end to the expiation of guilt that certain elite sections of society require from its western inhabitants; a guilt that is unique to this particular culture, I suggest, and is its Achilles heel. The majority of academics are oblivious to what they bring to their 'academic studies', the monsters that lurk in their own swamp. In this state of ignorance they are easy meat for promoting agendas, all the while thinking they are being brainy and 'objective'. And doesn't our Professor in Medieval History get the irony of her wailing and bemoaning the awfulness of western culture as it has rolled down the centuries? That, without this particular culture, she wouldn't be doing what she's doing, sitting smug and righteous in her academic privilege. She would be nowhere.
Note the not-very academic and objective language used by our medieval historian: 'climate denial'; 'environmental entitlement'. The comparing of climate change sceptics to holocaust deniers is a topic gone into so frequently, I'm not going there now. But this is the great one, really. Climate change science is not done and dusted. It isn't. It isn't! It's only the lamestream media, ideologically invested politicians, and idiotic one-eyed academics who say so. You don't have to be a bloody conspiracy theorist to see that, either. The info is all out there, not difficult to find, but folk dependent on their BBC/Guardian world won't go there, it's too threatening.
I was at least pleased to see that the article received a goodly number of robust rebuttals from less blinkered alumni in the 'Comments' section.
Part Three
I hadn't intended to do this; in truth, it's a bit of a rant, and I am not proud of that. Nevertheless, if it succeeds in pointing out how most academia should not be revered, or taken very seriously at all, then it might be worth it. This is actually the subtext of my years at Oxford. I witnessed first-hand how academia is, in general, populated by people who are not to be hugely respected. Lots of active, clever brains, but working within a small, pre-organised box. I needed to come out of university and into the alternative culture of the 1970s before I encountered people who I could take seriously. So I have this advantage: academics can't pull the wool over my eyes.
This month, June 2019, I received another missive from Oxford, my online 'Hertford College News'. In this, we were encouraged to watch the TED talk delivered by a college alumnus, one Carole Cadwalladr. In this talk, apparently (I'm not intending to actually watch it...), 'She digs into one of the most perplexing events in recent times: the UK's super-close 2016 vote to leave the EU.'
It's not perplexing! It's only perplexing because you've got your over-sized academic brain stuck in the sand. Anyhow, it seems that Carole has it all sorted. 'A barrage of misleading Facebook ads' placed by pro-Brexiteers is the culprit, we are informed.
It was a vote, the majority elected to leave the EU, end of story, get over it. If it were the other way round, such a theory would be ridiculed as a 'conspiracy theory'. It is the reaction to the Brexit vote, with so many people showing up as bad losers, that is the real threat to this country, not leaving the EU. It is here that our hard-won and shaky freedoms are endangered. People unwilling to accept the democratic process when it doesn't go their own way. It's as simple and as childish as that.
Also this month turned up 'Oxford Alumni' again. There is some very important research being carried out, I am informed. "A group of Oxford researchers have seized on the divisive nature of Donald Trump and his inauguration ceremony to examine how different emotional responses to public rituals can effect group bonds."
Don't forget, folks, this I one of the planet's top universities. And that there are people out there getting good money for doing this stuff....
'Divisive': it's one of those words, really. Its meaning in the dictionary in front of me is 'tending to cause disunity and dissension.' Neutral, really: a statement of an objective reality. Some things just cause disunity, it's part of how the universe works. Its connotation over time, however, has become negative: 'intending to cause disunity and dissension.' Trouble-making; perverse enjoyment of creating schism; polar opposition to new age-y harmony and light.
'Trump' and 'divisive'. How often do those two words turn up in the same breath? The guy's just that, apparently, a cosmic troublemaker. And in the hands of a Jeremy Corbyn, the word 'divisive' reaches its nadir. As part of Corbyn's own divisive behaviour during Trump's recent visit to the UK, he recently complained about Trump's 'divisive views on trade, immigration, human rights, and climate change.' In the hands of a Jeremy Corbyn, the word takes on its vulgar modern meaning: 'divisive' simply means something or somebody I disagree with. Discussion, debate, difference of opinion, become divisive. Thus we arrive at the state of 'forced consensus' and modern totalitarianism.
Trump's views on 'climate change' are fluid, but not divisive. He just happens to disagree with the orthodox views which, as mentioned above, are lies. That 'the science is decided', and that there is 'scientific consensus'. This is all untrue, and you don't need to be a master detective to find that out. But disagree with this piece of charlatanism, and you will be called 'divisive' and worse.
A blog friend recently commented that I should propose a few solutions to some of the ills I write about. In truth, I feel no obligation to do so; a difficulty is a difficulty, and the first step is facing up to that possibly unpalatable reality. In this case, however, there is a simple solution: academics should begin to be proper academics, not lackeys to a toxic socio-political programme. And academic institutions should do the same. Piece of cake, problem solved. The only thing is that it most likely ain't gonna happen. Academia, journalists, establishment politicians, 'far-left activists', legacy media 'newspapers' and television channels: they are all the same thing, really. Fully paid-up members of the same club, the same international mafia. Part of the One Real Conspiracy. Just remember that the next time you read that 'research has shown…..' or 'scientists have discovered.....' Don't be impressed, don't be impressed.
