Professor Hobsbawm

I thought I need to read more 'mainstream' history to get a balanced picture seeing as I read a lot of 'alternative' information. So in the library I spotted Eric Hobsbawm's 627 page tome on the 'Short Twentieth Century' 1914-1991 - 'The Age of Extremes'. Hobsbawm is a witty and engaging writer with an effortless style and a habit of easily condensing information. He is considered one of the leading historians in the world. He is generally thought to be of a left-wing or Marxist orientation.

I actually knew him as a kid as he was a friend of my father and lived locally. To his great amusement I earnestly told him how all Professors tend to turn yellow or green (I forget which) due to being indoors so much (Eric lived into his nineties near to Hampstead Heath and never changed colour as far as I know). I had got that information from reading The Comet in Moominland, the classic surrealist children's novel.

Anyway I must be one of the few people to introduce Eric Hobsbawm to new history sources in his eighties. I lent him a copy of Saharasia by James Demeo, which traces the rise of armoured, aggressive cultures from the old world deserts (which formed from 4000BC onwards greatly traumatizing the inhabitants of North Africa and the Middle East). Before this time this area had a much wetter landscape and matriarchal cultures. Hobsbawm read the book and commented to me that he thought Demeo's take on the emergence of patriarchal warlike nomadic tribes was factually correct. He said he couldn't agree with Demeo's HIV scepticism though (there is an appendix in Saharasia detailing scientific evidence against the HIV hypothesis being the cause of AIDS).

So back to 'Age of Extremes' what did I learn from this fascinating book? A key point was that just the threat of civil non-compliance on a mass scale disarmed several Eastern European socialist states even when they had the military support to crush rebellion. This is a important point today when we face out-of-control increasingly authoritarian governments in the West. I also learnt that there has in a sense been only one world war-the hostilities and warfare never really abated between 1917 and 1939. Ten per cent of the 1913 population level were murdered by 1945 (187 million).

What I learnt underlined that the surface complexity of our recent history could actually be caused by a small number of key events. In fact most of the century of death and warfare can be traced to two or maybe three events (my understanding not Hobsbawm's explicit thesis).

1. The 1917 October Revolution : rapid forced industrialization of a massive peasant country, more authoritarian government in Russia and fascism in Germany as a backlash effect against the perceived communist threat. I noted how Hobsbawm highlighted Alexander II's assassination (1855-1881). This Tsar ended serfdom in Russia and tried to liberalise society but was killed by revolutionaries. I wondered if Russia might have taken a more gradualist approach had he lived.

2. The Great Slump of 1929: This alongside the deliberate crippling of Germany's post WW1 economy literally guaranteed the rise of Hitler and WW2.

One could add a third point and say the French Revolution of 1798 set the scene for violent societal change worldwide, but as Hobsbawm notes, only the rise of Islam can compare to the spread, since 1917, of USSR-inspired socialism on a global scale.  Only state socialism and Islam have spread with such rapidity he states.

The slump of 1929 also did much to aid the global spread of Soviet-style socialism. The collapse of the US economy and therefore the implosion of the dependent raw-producer economies of the third world made the USSR look economically viable to smaller nations. The French Revolution did not have a similar global effect Hobsbawm notes.

Back to points 1 & 2 (1917 & 1929). According to some alternative researchers the events of 1917 and the Bolsheviks themselves were backed by money from the big banks of US and Europe. The events of 1929 according to alternative financial researchers were also caused intentionally by bankers (slumps can be caused by the sudden withdrawal of credit and cash by the banks). The ensuing slump can be good for banks who buy up the property of the target country for 'pennies-on-the-pound'. The 1929 slump would also ensure the rise of fascism, the worldwide growth of socialism (as the USSR seemed immune to the great slump) and even the creation of the atomic bomb (without the threat of fascism governments would not have financed the huge cost in such a short time. The Western scientists who were of an often pacifist outlook at that time would not have cooperated so readily without the Nazi threat). Lastly the 1929 slump guaranteed WW2 by ensuring the rise of fascism in an already artificially depressed Germany. So if war is the perfect foil for banks then 1929 led directly to a vast, global state of almost permanent war.

The world war period of 1914 to 1945 also had other predictable effects. It ensnared in debt all the Western countries to the bankers of the USA/global elite and destroyed the economies of every participant apart from the USA (which emerged from the wars as a global super-power).

Hobsbawm also notes with insight how socialism and capitalism are not as different as they might appear. Both share a humanistic-leaning value system and endorse so-called scientific rationalism as mankind's highest guide. I would also add that pure market economies are a myth, except as failed bloodthirsty US experiments in South America in the 1970s. Big Western powers got where they are today through protectionism at home, exploitation abroad and the state as the biggest 'corporation' as Hobsbawm notes. So as Hobsbawm states there are more similarities than are usually admitted between the systems. Both capitalism and Soviet socialism were also united against fascism. It would have been impossible for fascism to be defeated without the terrible sacrifice that the Russians undertook.

The military power of Germany was undermined by Hitler's very strange war decisions. He opened the European war on two fronts at once (by attacking Russia) and at a similar time provoked the USA into joining the war by declaring war on America. So Hitler, more than any other single person, may have made the NAZI defeat possible.

Another strange aspect of history Hobsbawm notes is how the USSR sabotaged its own support in the West by renouncing moderate labour movements in those countries. Hobsbawm also made the interesting revelation that Stalin was only 5'3 and was known as the 'Man of Steel' - this reminded me of the UK's own 'Iron Lady'.

Despite Hobsbawm's insights, ability to connect facts and his sheer readability I found one aspect particularly puzzling by its omission. The banks. The great slump of 1929 led directly to fascism, World War 2 and the eventual rebuilding of a world with the US and USSR as the superpowers. Hobsbawm fails to convince me with his Marxist analysis of the cause of the 1929 slump (an imbalance between the industrial rate of production and the USA's consumption of goods according to Hobsbawm). He does not include the role of banking in what was actually the pivotal event, in causative terms of the whole century of war.

Hobsbawm commented that George Orwell's 1984, though unusually prescient, may have merely been named after its publishing date (1948). Given Orwell's insider information (through Aldous Huxley's family) I think it may actually be more likely that '1984' signifies the 100th anniversary of the Fabien Society (founded 1884). The Fabien society is a Marxist group dedicated to slow warfare on societies resulting in their transformation from within. Tony Blair was said to be a member. The wolf in sheep's clothing is their icon. The connection to 1984 was not mine incidentally.

On other subjects, Hobsbawm makes a somewhat emotive dismissal of UFOs as something that has only occurred since World War2 and only appeals to the gullible (top military people have almost made official disclosure unnecessary, see HERE). Strangely, he is pro water-flouridation (sodium flouride, which Prime-minister Cameron wants added to UK water, is a known neuro-toxin. It's calcium flouride that was thought to help teeth, sodium fluoride is used in rat poison). Hobsbawm appears to be pro-bio-engineering, anti-Lysenko (a rival genetic theory to Darwin), anti-alternative science and anti-aether theories (which are gaining ever more support see HERE). Rather than Hobsbawm’s, 'Titanic labours to maintain belief in aether,' there were well financed moves by Einstein, Morley and Michelson to cover up Dayton Millers superior work (which supported aether). Hobsbawm is dismissive of the USSR's interest in alternative sciences (but doesn't name them, one assumes he means bio-plasma theories).

Despite lacking a critique of the pernicious role of the Federal Reserve and private central banking in the causation of the 1929 slump and a seemingly unquestioning support of mainstream scientific dogma Hobsbawm is an engaging and lucid writer, well worth reading. I certainly enjoyed reading his work.

My Wirral Globe Letters (and the reply they wouldn't print)

Leon's Lovely Letters to Local Papers

A Professor Barker, an officer of the Institute of Electrical Engineers, wrote a letter to the Wirral Globe, a local paper, stating that electrical fields, mobiles, wifi's are pretty much safe and we all really should not worry our little heads about it. He didn't cite any actual research but said his institute had peer-reviewed nearly all the literature and could reassure us all that any worries were completely unfounded. I cannot find his actual letter but here is a statement I found on the net which should cover his position accurately:

'Some studies showed an apparent link between the two variables (electrical radiation and ill-health) but Professor Barker’s talk also explained how the electromagnetic waves involved do not have enough energy to damage our tissues and it illustrated how difficult it is to research the causes of cancer in people who are exposed to many different risks all the time.' (My italics)

For more on a typical institute-funded one-sided white-wash see here;

www.theiet.org/factfiles/bioeffects/emf-position-page.cfm?type=pdf

Actually, even this brief statement above is misleading as there is an outlined mechanism shown in research whereby radiation not strong enough to break cell walls may affect organisms through, it is posited, disturbing the DNA, as outlined below. Anyway it doesn't matter what the mechanism is, biological effects of electrical radiation have been shown consistently.

Leon's reply to Professor Barker's comments, first printed in the Wirral Globe:

Dear Editor,

Thank-you for Professor’s Barker's comments. I am glad he reassures us that electro-magnetic fields are so safe. Perhaps he will consider that next time he is buying a house next to a cell tower or one is built near to a local school – I am sure he won’t mind. I had thought all academic papers were peer-reviewed. It’s just that some peers are influenced by the same forces – money and industry. This has been shown within the drug’s industry research (which tends to skew towards its ‘sponsor’s’ goals or is even ghost-written). The majority of research may indicate electro fields are safe so we can safely ignore, just like the mass media, all those important independent studies that show it isn’t safe. There is solid evidence microwave energy (wifi/mobiles) disturbs DNA and causes increased brain tumours amongst heavy mobile users. German schools have opted for no wifi in certain areas and the WHO has had to admit there are issues. A Swedish study found a large proportion of people are also significantly affected by other electrical fields from devices and cables (perhaps more than 3% of population). It’s a good job the landmark Interphone study was spun and misreported because now I don’t have to worry about the worrying conclusions in that too – great!

All the Best,

Leon Southgate

(I would like to point out that I actually am not aware whether the majority of research supports or contradicts the mainstream industry position that Professor Barker takes contrary to what I wrote above). 

The Globe then printed this reply to my letter, which also went on their website (unlike my letters which don't get put on their website for some reason).

Missed the point of Professor's letter

10:55am Wednesday 6th June 2012 in Letters
 
IN response to Leon Southgate's response to Professor Barker's letters regarding the effect of electro-magnetic fields, as a (retired) Chartered Electrical Engineer, I feel compelled to comment that Mr Southgate appears to have missed the point that Professor Barker was commenting in his capacity as an officer of the IET (formerly the IEE – Institute of Electrical Engineers). 

Mr Southgate says that he had thought that all academic papers were peer reviewed.
What he may have misunderstood is that the IET/IEE is the lead body in the UK for that peer review process in relation to electrical engineering matters, and indeed, is respected throughout the world as one of the two leading bodies globally for defining electrical standards and undertaking research.

Being an institute rather than an association, the institute is independent, promoting best electrical practice and knowledge, rather than representing industry or any industrial body. 

The institute's findings are based on the most thorough and controlled research carried out in the world into this topic. 

He refers to "all those important independent studies", yet the truth of the matter is that these are the claims (I hesitate to afford them the status of studies) that lack not only independence, but objectivity. Contrary to what he says, there is no solid evidence of the effects on DNA that he refers to, these claims being no more than anecdotal, with no support from evidence obtained from controlled tests, unlike the institute's findings.

They have also not been subject to the very peer review that he acknowledges is all important.
These claims are no more than scaremongering of an ilk very similar to the emotive, unfounded opposition to the MMR vaccine that has caused untold damage to an entire generation.
When we consider the enormous positive benefits that have emerged from mobile communications, including the ability to provide rapid response to health and other emergency situations, it is high time that we accepted the findings of the world’s leading authority in this matter. 

Roy Pemberton C.Eng MIET FCMI, West Kirby. 

My Reply to Mr Pemberton which the Wirral Globe didn't print or put on their website:

Dear Editor,

I came across Mr Pemberton’s reply to my comments on mobile safety whilst doing a blog-search. I would like to reply.

Mr Pemberton stated that there are no studies that offer ‘solid evidence’ mobiles affect DNA. This is misleading. Also to state that the evidence mobiles affect DNA is only anecdotal is again untrue. There is experimental evidence from a number of countries - surely Mr Pemberton is aware of this fact. Although he hesitated to call university-led, experimental papers that question mobile safety, actual ‘studies’ - perhaps he would prefer, ‘words-on-paper-about-research’ - they are ‘peer-reviewed’ nonetheless. Surely Mr Pemberton is aware that all published university papers have been through a peer-review process. Besides, nothing approaching irrefutable evidence exists for anything in science - that is the nature of objective science rather than rhetoric. Presumably this would include the evidence-base for the vaccines Mr Pemberton also championed in his letter (how exactly that is related to mobile phones remains unclear however).

Here are some of the studies on the possible effects of mobile radiation on  DNA -  Dr Lai, USA, Int J Radiat Biol, 1996; 69: 513–21, Prof’ Adlkofer, Vienna, DNA breakage by mobile radiation, Mutat Res, 2005; 583: 178–83. Researchers at Columbia University, NY, forward an effect, J Cell Biochem, 2003; 89: 48–55. Greek, German and Italian researchers also posit DNA effects.

The Lancet, the WHO, even some European governments are talking cautiously when studies such as Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2006; 79: 630–9 found an increase in tumours with increased phone use. There are many other negative studies of course, or less-reported aspects of mainstream meta-studies that can't be dismissed in one fell swoop. But perhaps we shouldn't mention this in case we worry people, I don't want to accidentally spark any social unrest or harm a whole generation.

Incidentally, I am sure Mr Pemberton remembers that we still had an efficient emergency care service in Merseyside long before mobile phones. However, if we admitted there are issues we could still use the technology but adapt it to minimise any problems. However, the head in the sand approach means we never even get to the starting block.

Personally, I do use a mobile but never hold it against my head and I am careful of wifi and DECT land-phones.

All Best,

Leon Southgate

Some other local paper letters for your delectation:

Dear Editor,

I feel compelled to write in support of a previous letter. We are currently sleep-walking into a world where our every move is being monitored, controlled and dictated on the back of either incomplete or entirely fabricated scientific evidence. The CO2 'crisis' is part of such a malign control agenda. Carbon in the atmosphere causes plants to grow. It is a large and essential part of our chemical make-up. The atmosphere warms up and cools in cycles that may be mostly linked to the sun's output - which naturally waxes and wanes. After such changes there may be small movements in atmosphere CO2. Warming and CO2 are not causatively related. What the CO2 agenda is about is the largest tax rise in history, complete control of the world's governments and control of us as individuals. Lets not allow the world we pass on to our children to be a global dictatorship - its not far off if we continue to sleepwalk.

Sincerely,

Dear Editor, just a short comment on the recent article about alcohol abuse amongst young people on the Wirral. 

Councillor Green appears to believe in Mr Blair's old election manifesto when it comes to alcohol - 'Education, Education Education'. It couldn't just be the case that having a fantastically cheap drug (alcohol), cheap enough to get 'high' for the price of a ten year old's pocket money might have anything to do with the current crisis? No of course not, don't be silly. What we need is more education. I bet that is what the drinks industry believes too. We wouldn't want to penalise the poor sensible drinker, heaven forbid if the sensible law-abiding public couldn't their favourite tipple for a knockdown price.

Sincerely,

Leon Southgate

  

Councils in lumber over tree-felling  

11:06am Thursday 29th October 2009 in Letters 

Re: “Trees Hacked Down.”

Apparently other councils around the country are also waging campaigns against mature trees.

London and other councils are depriving people of many large trees just in case they become an insurance risk in the future -possibly by their inadvertantly dropping leaves on people.

Chopping down mature trees for no good reason is just insane.

On the one hand we are constantly reminded about reducing so-called greenhouse gases, and on the other the councils doing the reminding are busy chopping down trees for no good reason and without consultation.

Perhaps councils should also concrete over as many green fields as they can just in case their insurers say it is a future hayfever risk to the public.

Leon Southgate

The Failure of Materialism

This is a synopsis inspired by the creative scientist, Sheldrakes recent book, 'The Science Delusion' (it is a pun on Dawkin's book 'The God Delusion'). Sheldrake is the originator of the 'morphogenetic fields' theory of organism genetics and memory. Here he takes apart scientism's current dogmatic stance.

Following is the central nuggets from Sheldrake's excellent book, all handily predigested for you, lucky person..by the way pop over to my website www.leonsouthgate.com and read me new essay combining life-energy and consciousness theories if you fancy some light bedtime reading...http://www.leonsouthgate.com/lifeforceconscious.html

The Ten Central Failures of Materialism

Introduction

In the 17th Century science and muscular Christianity got shacked up. They gave birth to a mutant called Materialism. The white coats in labs got the matierial universe and the black frocks in cloisters got the spiritual one.  

Before the 17th Century Christians believed in an animist universe filled with living matter pervaded by the divine breath. There was a tripartite view of reality, God/Spirit, Souls/energy and Living matter.  

This was reduced to Spirit vs Dead matter then secularised to mind vs dead matter, triad to duality.  

The Bible believes in a creative universe incidentally, organisms arise from divine nature, they are not 'designed' like a car.  

So what has materialism given us, apart from sadist philosophers? Sod all basically. 

Here are the 10 central failures of mechanistic science: 

1. Nature and organisms are like machines. 

FAIL - Any living thing self-organises (unlike machines), is creative and has properties only found in the 'whole' entity (unlike machines). A living organism is a better metaphor for us and the cosmos than the metaphor of a machine. (Leon - Silicate life if it does exist would follow organismic rules not mechanical ones).

2. There is a mechanistic code for all life - DNA. 

FAIL - DNA is only coding for proteins, it doesn't even tell them how to 'fold'. DNA is the same in every cell yet body parts differ - no mechanism found to explain this. Most of DNA is still a mystery and there are other genetic processes outside of DNA. It changes all the time and communicates. It has been anthropomorphised by science into a 'creator god'- it ain't. (Leon - DNA illness-disposition tests can be dubious scientifically but profitable. Environmental aspects can change the DNA profile).

3. The Total Amount of Energy & Matter Is Always The Same. 

FAIL - Organisms create energy without apparent external input (more out than in), dark energy appears creative, laws of thermodynamics/entropy have been broken by various energy devices including Reich's accumulators. People have sustained life for years without food and this has been confirmed by various scientists (breatharian studies - there are many and some are good quality). 

4. Matter is Unconscious.

FAIL: Dualism has failed, there is no way for living mind and dead matter to communicate. Materialism is only plausible if we accept all matter as alive and conscious - the pan-psychism of the ancients. 

5. The Laws of Nature are Fixed.

FAIL: Matter and normal gravitation don't explain the cosmos. It looks like new dark energy and dark matter are being created all the time. A constant speed of light is a false consensus not a fact. Actual measurements vary. The gravitational constant 'G' may well fluctuate too. Other 'constants' are up for grabs.  

6. Nature is Purposeless as is Evolution. 

FAIL: Animals proceed flexibly toward goals. 

Evolution cannot be affected by consciousness in pure materialism, so why does evolution produce, and favour, something it cannot affect? 

7. All Genetic Inheritance is Material. 

FAIL: Some organisms can regenerate back to their whole structure without genes such as the Acetabulara. DNA fails to explain morphogenesis (creation of forms, such as an organism). 

8. Minds are inside Heads and are the Result of Brain Activity. 

FAIL: There is no proof of this whatsoever. Minds may simply use brains. There are people born with hardly any brain who are normal mentally. 

9. Memories are Stored Materially in Brains. 

FAIL: No one has ever found a physical memory trace. Just because the brain is involved with memory processes does not mean memory is stored like a filing cabinet. The mind appears to be non-local and/or holographic.

10. Mechanistic Medicine is the only One that Works. 

FAIL: The great leap forward in health since 1900 has more to do with environmental improvements than mechanistic medicine. Most of the wonder drugs were just gifts from nature, such as fungus giving us antibiotics. If we examine practical efficacy en-mass alternative medicine may come out on top. 

Orgone & Consciousness

Long time no blog - the universe has been a poorer place. Anyway, forgive me for my long absence dear reader, whoever you are...

For a long time I have tried to reconcile the life-energy theories of Reich which explains organisms and physics very well (in my view) with a theory of consciousness.

Life-energy fails to explain non-local phenomena, timelessness and consciousness itself. Reich himself would veer between implying that orgone was 'conscious-in-itself' in which case orgone (if it is considered massless) would essentially be 'spirit'. On the other hand he sometimes implied the typical dualistic position that consciousness arises from the action of something else. Normally materialist scientists would say consciousness is an upshot, a  consequence, of matter-related energy movements. In orgonomy's dualism this is simply updated to say consciousness arises from the movement of life-energy within a membrane (I call this view within orgonomy the 'super-materialist' view of consciousness). Orgonomy's dualism is closer to the truth but still fails to explain consciousness. Consciousness is not bound by time or space (as has been evidenced in various experiments). Therefore consciousness cannot be explained by energy movements (energy/movement is bound within time). So non-locality, timelessness and consciousness itself are beyond life-energy theories.

For years I have been working on this problem and finally I feel I have come close to a solution possibly...
basically in this essay I split reality into three basic levels based on one source, Level 1 -Matter, Level 2 - Life-energy, Level 3 - Non-matter life-force/consciousness/spirit. The theory has implications for the view of 'spirit' and of 'energy'. It makes 'spirit' physical and matter immaterial! Anyway, it has changed my conceptions...see for yourself here if the fancy takes you! :-)

http://leonsouthgate.com/lifeforceconscious.html

Evolution - Is it what it appears?

Pop over to my new website, see my essays on life-force and consciousness, the Lotus Sutra and its extra-terrestial references, links to my new novel published today - Spirit Runner and my annotated bibliography of post-Reich orgone journals -essentially a synopsis of most of the research done since 1957 in orgonomy. All here..and now for a new blog... :-)

Evolution, Is it what it appears?

Charles Darwin's grandson was the first person who coined that lovely phrase 'useless eaters' to describe those that our lovely elite see as surplus to requirements (all 6.5 billion of us according to various documents). Perhaps he was inspired by his illustrious predecessor, Charlie. Most people, especially atheists, and on any part of the political spectrum, view Charles Darwin as a great scientist. I view him as a great leader – a religious one, the esteemed founder of Religious Fascism. I have this belief as fascism, in order to become entrenched (through the back-door) within our societies, needs a 'rational/scientific' basis – one that appeals both to the left and right wing of the traditional political system. 'Survival of the Fittest' and 'Gradual Evolution' is just such a 'theory' I believe.

Firstly the theory is just plain wrong. Nature is not a survival of the fittest game-show put on by chance within a merciless universe (‘See even the universe is fascist!’ one could hear the system defenders shriek if they were honest with themselves). The more a natural system degrades and dies the more those within it will fight for their survival (at the expense of their fellow creatures). But a natural, abundant and healthy eco-system is predominantly cooperative. Even a single cell is a cooperative. As is an organism, As is an eco-system – even between predator and prey.

'Ahhh but...' I can hear the rationalists say, 'evolution explains life perfectly'. No it doesn't. It isn't even a scientific theory, its a religious ideology. The theory of evolution is not scientifically testable so it cannot be called a scientific theory.

'Ahh but, it is still the best explanation we have of how life-forms came about'. No it's not, its one of the best kept deceptions. The idea of gradual physical evolution does not accord with the evidence. Great drafts of life-forms suddenly appear in the fossil record which the book Forbidden Archeology explains in great depth. Also it details how the keepers of the illusion – so-called scientists, will stop at nothing to maintain their position by falsifying or ignoring data that doesn't fit. Modern human skeletons have been found in much earlier strata than is conventionally believed for example. Such evidence is always whitewashed or ignored. Others argue that structures such as highly evolved eyes would be hard to evolve by chance selection. It is also strange to me how some creatures will evolve into whole families of other creatures in a relatively short time period, for example, all mammals having a common ancestor. Yet other creatures, like the crocodile,  stay exactly the same for millennia after millennia. Its an unadulterated fairytale.

 A dog can 'evolve' until its the size of a small horse if the conditions are right or its bred for that characteristic. However, I bet we won't get a giraffe, or a kangaroo from a horse however long we wait or breed. We are also led to believe that all this life came about through chance – a first cell was miraculously created by accident. Again pure fantasy. There is not enough time in the whole universe for a bunch of monkeys to write Shakespeare's stories or for a single cell to be created by chance. A cell is a highly complex cooperative of thousands of specialised mini-organs. No way that just happened. Besides which conventional science is barking up the wrong tree – the cell is not the first form of life in any case, the bion is. The bion can be created from any matter that is subjected to high heat within a water solution – a posh way of saying cooked. I have seen bions being created from super-heated totally sterile carbon – there is plenty of documentary and peer-reviewed journal evidence for them. See my Reich Bibliography for an introduction to bions. So matter is inherently life-creative. All you need for life to start is matter, water and heat. Some students of bions have observed different species of micro-organism emerging from within each other. Perhaps this is partly how organisms appear. I have no idea to be honest, I just feel the gradual evolution ideology is incorrect, both intuitively and from the evidence. The universe is a massive life-womb. Exactly how creatures appear I don't know.

So how does all of this equate to fascism? In order to impose an unnatural state of affairs, a top-down centralised, elite lording it over a subdued, mind-controlled world-wide mass of people one needs an unnatural set of beliefs to back it up. Most beliefs stem from personal and societal philosophies. Gradual evolution is one central philosophy of western society. A cornerstone of our beliefs is that life works according to vicious hierarchies. This means that it’s right that the most powerful, aggressive and vicious people should control society. Evolution, as Darwin saw it condones the survival of the most aggressive and domineering psychopaths. In fact, pathology it is a useful trait. The most aggressive individuals will rise to the top and help keep society divided and alienated. Divide and rule subdues the masses. It also distracts the masses who have to struggle just to survive – no time to think, got to earn my crust. Again, life should be a struggle to survive – that is how nature works according to evolutionary theory. As long as the masses are struggling to survive they won't have time or energy to reflect on their dire situation.

Darwin's theories also condone conforming to the norm. The pack mentality, is another useful way of surviving the dog-eat-dog brutality of nature. So unthinking obedience to the group is condoned. That could just be useful to our new world order elite.

Lastly, evolution emphasises that the physical world is all there is, life is just a random materialistic event that scientists can unravel fully for us. So, this keeps our new religion, Scientism, and its white coated high priests safe lording it over us in their cushy jobs and positions of authority.