Hopping mad

copy of a letter

You said I was ‘hopping mad’ about the item in the paper about rubbishy ‘research’ on out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs) being done by the British Psychological Society and others.

Yes, but you should stop to think why I am infuriated by such things. People would like to think it was because such topics ‘interest’ me in some way that is independent of my financial position. Actually I react strongly to those things and to any reports of money being spent to set up university departments, research centres of various kinds, etc. because money is so important. I know it, and unfortunately the enemy knows it, in the negative sense.

People like to talk as though ‘doing research’ or ‘being interested in some particular subject’ was independent of the circumstances of life, e.g. a hotel environment with caretakers, housekeepers and so forth.

But it certainly is not so in my case and I can’t hope to achieve the energy level that makes life worth living until I have a residential college environment with residential staff. Until I have it, what matters most to me is working towards it, i.e. increasing my capital.

So what infuriates me about people doing rubbishy research on OBEs etc. is that they have at least salaries, and that all my efforts to demonstrate the existence of fields of research in which I might work has resulted only in providing nominal topics for people already provided with salary and status (perhaps not all magnificently, but at any rate more than me).

As I was thrown out of the university system, I know that I need a lot of money to provide myself with an equivalent institutional environment. Perhaps I would not know this if I had not accidentally had a good time at one point in my life which gave me an awareness of what life could and should be. But I only know how good it could be for me, not for anybody else.

Egalitarianism means that a person has no socially recognised right to live in a way determined by his individual characteristics. If I say anything explicit to the effect that my life, and perhaps that of other people with high IQs, was easily ruined because teachers and other social agents could easily override, or be genuinely unaware of, unusual requirements which arose from, or were associated with, unusual ability, I have observed that my interlocutor is moved to noises of active rejection. Usually when I say things implicitly critical of the ideology, people let it wash over them without reply, and one knows the implications will be lost on them. But in this case they seem to have to assert their definite belief that no exceptional requirements could possibly be associated with exceptional ability.

As the headmistress of the terrible state school I briefly attended said, it would be good for me not to be treated as an exception. But, as I thought at the time, how could that be, since I was exceptional?

I am not actually hopping mad about not being able to do research in any particular field; I am hopping mad all the time about not being able to get money.

It is really a terrible waste of my ability that I have to apply it to making enough money merely to keep physically alive without, as yet, having been able to buy for myself the minimal circumstances of a liveable life.

Standards have declined ... a lot

Standards have declined a lot and in particular there is much less scope for autonomy. I thought of the best sort of university career as absolutely necessary to provide me with living circumstances which would enable me to get something out of any independent research or writing which I would have enough freedom to do in addition to what was required by the salaried university appointment.

Professor Eysenck had the same sort of approach, but in spite of his top position and status he was able to do very little of what he would have done if he had been free to do it.

The concept of research studentships and supervised research have come in increasingly over the last century. It is now exceedingly difficult for the very restricted supervised ‘research’ to lead to any opportunity of anything better, salaried appointment or research grant.

So I think everyone now should seriously question the value of degree-taking; the fact is that the modern ideology is against the able, and there are not really any suitable openings in modern society.

I think people with families who have any recognition of their disadvantaged position should move to be near us, and it might well be the case that their offspring could do better for themselves by making a career in association with us; there are many possibilities and cooperation could be advantageous, but we cannot make specific proposals except in relation to specific individuals whom we know well enough.

Of course many nowadays go to university for the sake of the social life and ‘spending a few years not doing much work’ as a public school leaver said to me. This, of course, implies an attitude of indifference to the debts acquired in those few years, which, if they knew us, they would find was not compatible with our outlook.

Although most of what goes on in universities is now rubbishy, I do still need a top academic position, because without it, especially in the modern world, one has no hope of support for research, or anything but censorship and suppression for one’s books.

I need an academic position because I did (and still do) need to do certain kinds of things, regarded as academic, within an institutional (hotel) environment for myself in the first instance.

I imagined at first that my continuing to work towards such things, in such exceedingly grim circumstances, might be taken as proof of my extreme deprivation in being unable to progress within a normal (high-flying) academic career, and that my doing anything at all in such circumstances might be taken as justification for rewarding my pathetic efforts with a salary or funding for my independent research institute. But (as I found out) not on your life!

My struggling in such painful circumstances was taken as evidence of my enthusiasm for lucid dreams and such; I was regarded as ‘free to follow my interests’, and hence, of course, not needing help of any kind. A university appointment, people wished me to believe, would make me less ‘free’.

My original objective, when I found myself cast out, was to set up an independent university surrounded by a business empire. That still has to be the case, as we appear to be no closer to funding on an adequate scale or even a minuscule scale from any outside source, institutional or individual.

I do not think that most of the able people who find themselves adrift and increasingly squeezed in the modern world realise what they have been deprived of or how to work towards it, and most of them do not have the same highly determined need as I do for academic status. Mine is quite specific to an expansive and multi-channel person, with a lot of drive and a strong sense of purpose.

If you get it, you should come

Copy of correspondence on Facebook between a reader of one of my books and myself. I continue to get enthusiastic comments from individuals while going on being studiously avoided by the intellectual establishment. My books have been too controversial even to be regarded as controversial; they have just been ignored.

Reader: ‘Great book. Having read this and more of CG's books I am still recovering from the intellectual shock. Forty years as an Anglican priest teaching God is other people – now back to the drawing-board!’

My reply

Dear ...

Do you think that recovering from the intellectual shock is the thing to do? I wrote The Human Evasion as a distress flare, because I could get no opportunity to get on in any way, to indicate that there was a lot more I could be saying.

Only one person picked up on the fact that a genius might be needing help, and came. She is still here.

We are living in the last days of Western civilisation, destroyed by socialism, and desperately need reinforcements, failing which even temporary help of any kind is more than we can get from anybody.

Here we are, desperately in need of help. Could you (should you) not come to find out more about our needs, at the same time finding out about the most fundamental issues in psychology? At least you could then tell other people something realistic about us.

And you might realise that the most important thing you could do would be to retire to Cuddesdon, selling your house if you have one, and buying something near us instead.

At any rate, we do need people to recognise our need for support, and they cannot get to know more without coming, however temporarily.

Planning for the future

There have been many articles recently about the bad treatment of people of pensionable age who get into care homes. Often the appalling treatment is ascribed to the fact that the home in question is privately run. There is a profit motive and this is not compatible with kindness, it is supposed. The State (I mean the taxpayers) must spend much more money on the care of the elderly.

Of course the private homes are not very private. They are an extension of the State system, and are supposed to be motivated by having a slender margin of profit. Tweaking a collectivist system in this way cannot be expected to improve it significantly. The same is true of the educational system. ‘Free’ schools, and other schemes to give parents ‘power’ within the system, will still have to conform to many requirements which will cripple any possibility of serious improvement.

The fact is that even if conditions within the homes were good instead of bad, and whoever they were run by, they would be in principle unacceptable because their inmates are deprived of their liberty.

This is the hidden snag in social benefits; all must pay for them in taxes and loss of freedom, no one may opt out.

Those who wish to opt out from having a ‘benefit’ imposed on them will be hunted down. Someone I knew, who bought something recently in Boots (pharmacist) for someone else, was asked if he was a carer. It is an infringement of liberty that one should be exposed to this sort of thing, and shops that indulge in it should be boycotted.

Now, in fact, it is impossible to buy any of a wide range of things in pharmacists without being asked, ‘Is it for yourself? Are you on any medication?’ And one is forced to reply to such questions or, I suppose, you will not be allowed to buy what you have asked for. Respect for the autonomy of the individual has declined so far that there is no sign of protest at this state of affairs. Not even mild protest in letters to the Press, let alone riots in the streets.

While there has been no outrage at the retrospective means-testing of state pensions, it is paradoxically (or dishonestly) claimed in Parliament that setting up a new tax, allegedly to pay for the capping of payment out of assets by those who get into care homes, is justified by wishing to enable people to ‘plan for their futures’. It is supposedly more important for people to know that if they are forced into a care home there will be a limit on what they are forced to pay for it, than for people to be able to rely on their pensions bearing some relation to the cost of living and not being means-tested, as for some decades they expected them to be while they contributed to them. (During those decades, I always thought it was rather mean that, after paying contributions for the pension while one was of normal tax-paying age, one should then have to pay income tax on the pension income if it were combined with any other income which one happened to have. Since it was so, one thought that the government was getting its pound of flesh to satisfy its wish to reduce everyone to the same level – which is, ultimately, complete loss of freedom of action for all.)

Planning on the basis of government assurances is impossible; the government may change its mind at any time about what pocket money it can afford to let you have.

Out-of-the-body experiences

Some recent articles about out-of-the-body experiences (OBEs) in the Daily Mail demonstrate the usual confusions about the topic. Research allegedly shows that these experiences are not (A) ‘paranormal’, or evidence for survival, but (B) associated with brain malfunction. This simple dichotomy is supposed to cover all possibilities, and – the presumption seems to be – once we have satisfied ourselves that it is indeed a brain malfunction, by narrowing it down to a particular area of the brain or a particular brain process, we can stop regarding it as a question to be resolved by research, and relegate it to the realm of minor curiosities.

There has always been tremendous resistance to the concept of out-of-the-body experiences, so much so that before Dr Charles McCreery and I started to work on them in 1964, they were not accepted either by the Society of Psychical Research, who were supposedly ‘interested’ in experiences beyond the normal range, nor by the academic world outside of the SPR, which was already firmly reductionist.

It is therefore not surprising that the fear of any progress in the scientific understanding of them continues in the form of attempts to dismiss them as ‘imaginary’ in the sense of by-products of brain malfunction. Before we made our first appeals for cases, senior academics associated with the SPR told us that we should not do so; we would be destroying our academic reputations and branding ourselves as spiritualists. OBEs were, they asserted, imaginary.

Now that our first appeals have been followed up by other appeals, and OBEs have had to be accepted as an acceptable topic for academic theses and for work in laboratories by persons with salaried academic appointments, correlations with neurological events are seen as ways of restoring OBEs to the ‘imaginary’ category, which, as before, means ‘of no interest for further research’.

When my colleagues and I published our pioneering study on OBEs in 1968 (the first scientific examination of the topic) we looked at the detailed phenomenology of the experience, i.e. its subjective features, without trying to correlate it with some set of physical conditions, anomalous or otherwise. This was largely because of lack of funding, and absence of an institutional environment – if we had had both, we certainly would have looked first at the electrophysiological correlates. However anomalous or ‘pathological’ OBEs might be, their interest to us was not in classifying them as ‘pathologies’, but as shedding light on normal processes such as perception and consciousness, which could be done only by considering psychological and physiological correlations.

Four decades on, in spite of much ostensible research into these and other phenomena by people other than ourselves, to which we were prevented from contributing by a rigorous lack of financial support, understanding of neither OBEs, nor the normal processes I have mentioned, has advanced much. Merely being able to point out parts of the brain which may be involved does not get one very far.

Grasping the mechanics of waking vs sleeping consciousness, or of the top-down, hypothesis-forming processes of perception, calls for models of a kind which we are no nearer to having than we were forty years ago. Not surprising, given the continuing obsession with exclusively physicalist methods and explanations: those which refer only to things that can be directly measured with the apparatus of physics and chemistry. (I mean in contrast to explanations that involve analyses of subjective mental states.)

Many researchers have looked at OBEs, since our original study, in the attempt to explain them away. None have been able to provide a conclusive account – such as that they are always caused by lack of oxygen, or by failure of a particular cortical structure. None of them seem to have appreciated the more important feature of the phenomenon, namely their potential role in the elucidation of normal mental processes. It seems likely that this will continue to be the case.

Having placed the phenomenon of OBEs on a scientific footing, we should have been provided with finance to take the work further, leading to the possibility of important advances in our understanding of conscious experience and its relation to brain physiology. As we did not have an institutional environment with residential and laboratory facilities, we need funding to set this up in the first instance. Such funding should still be provided now, even more urgently, to prevent the continuing waste of our abilities which could and should be being used in making significant advances. This would be true even if people other than ourselves had shown any sign of adopting a sufficiently analytical and open-minded approach. In fact they have not. The resistance to the possibilities suggested by the phenomena, which had prevented their being recognised by academia before our book on them was published, continues to restrict and distort the work carried out, and the unsatisfactory conclusions drawn from it.

I appeal for financial and moral support in improving my position. I need people to provide support both for fund-raising, and as temporary or possibly long-term workers. Those interested should read my post on interns.

The Tavistock Clinic

copy of a letter

It is certainly not the case (as people have often assumed) that we did not want people to have outside careers. Charles McCreery was very dubious and critical of what was going on in modern psychiatry and experimental psychology and therefore was not much attracted by either, but the penniless dropout option was even worse and he certainly never considered it.

I had set up the Institute as a way of getting back into a recognised academic career for myself in which so far I had failed.

This made it all the more desirable that new associates should have the best careers they could, so as eventually to lend their support as statusful academics to my applications for re-entry.

Everything depended on getting enough money for an adequate institutional environment. Certainly the objective of our fund-raising was to set up a research institute large enough for research to be carried on within it with adequate living circumstances for intellectuals, the research being of a kind that would constitute a claim on recognition by socially authorised academia. If we had got adequately set up, it seemed a possibility that Charles might work with us doing research, instead of (at least in the first instance) having a salaried career outside. Then one would have been considering how we could aim the work we were doing at getting a D.Sc for each of us to stake a claim to university status as a senior level.

Professor H.H. Price, however, had been unhelpful when I talked to him about what qualified for a D.Sc. Work had to be published in the official journals; but could it be, if one did not have a university appointment? He did not say. And he offered no help in obtaining either funding for the research or a university appointment.

Everything depended on how well we could get set up financially, as the enemy realised, blocking every attempt to raise money, and slandering Charles so that he would be disinherited.

Our lives were made so difficult that, in spite of the lack of money, Charles did not pursue possibilities at either the Tavistock Clinic or the Department of Experimental Psychology. Due to the constant hostility, the merest physical survival became a problem.

Then of course we could be (and were) represented as preferring to live in poverty instead of having normal careers. If we had been well enough set up to do research in adequate circumstances, Charles might have preferred doing that to what was open to him either as a clinical psychologist or doing a D.Phil at the Department. But nothing could have been worse than what happened; all ways ahead blocked, impoverished and besieged. Well, I suppose what would have been even worse would have been if they had been able to pin something on one of us, so that we were at their mercy as criminal wrongdoers. I am sure they would have liked to.

As it was, they could only pretend that we had deliberately chosen our position as impoverished outcasts, on account of some weird ‘interests’.

Somerville College, of course, represented me as ‘free to follow my interests’, and Charles’s family placed similar interpretations on him.

Forty years later, we are still essentially facing the same problems. We are seeking to restore our rightful positions in mainstream academia, as well as seeking funding for our institution, but are still blocked by the hostility of modern society to genuine ability, and to genuine independence and real impartiality. Of course, the hostility takes the form of the spurious theory that anything worth supporting is already going on inside universities, and anything outside should be stigmatised.

Evolution, subspecies and the Welfare Junkies

If a radical change is introduced in the structure of a situation, such as was introduced in 1945 with the onset of the Welfare State, there are two reasons why what people anticipate as the consequences of this change may turn out to be wildly inaccurate, even if their anticipations are not rationalised and intended to conceal their real motives.
It is a fact of genetics that if a situation arises which favours some new subsection of a species of plants or animals, that subspecies will quickly arise and expand, with characteristics which are increasingly well adapted to the favourable situation. And the development of the subspecies will increase geometrically with every generation.
It is a less well established fact, but may be surmised, that human psychology adapts itself to the circumstances in which it finds itself. If it knows that its survival and that of its offspring is entirely dependent on its own achievements in making provision for them all, it will be motivated in certain ways. If, on the other hand, it finds that it will be rewarded (at least to a certain extent) for dependency, it will go into a psychological mode that will make the best use of these circumstances, and drives and ambitions which it might otherwise have will fall into abeyance (or repression).
In the Daily Mail of 9 July, A. N. Wilson wrote an article about the growth of populations of welfare junkies, as shown on a BBC television programme.

The participants on the programme will probably not live as long as the average middle-class person who abstains from heroin and a daily diet of chips. But they are still — those of them who do not die of an overdose — going to live a full span. Most of these families, who have never worked and are not really in a position to work, or to do anything useful ... will simply have to be ‘contained’ by society. ...When they have wrecked their livers with alcohol and their digestions with fried food, they will be taken to expensive National Health Service hospitals. And when they can no longer manage on their own, they will be taken into even more expensive care homes. ...We have had 66 years of a fully-funded welfare state.
(From article ‘The welfare junkies’)

My parents, with very high IQs and aristocratic ancestry, lived to 82 and 89 respectively with very little contact with the NHS until the very end, when they were considered too old for it to be worth trying to prolong their lives. On the other hand, it is probable that many who would not previously have survived to pensionable age now do so, at considerable expense to the NHS. And these are probably more likely to go into care homes than those with the highest IQs, such as my parents, who had good genetic constitutions, a frugal and forethoughtful lifestyle, and a devoted offspring (in me) who would do everything possible to prevent their being taken into care.
The proportions of different types of people within the population of pensioners has been changing continuously since 1945. Before that date, careful and conscientious people like my parents, with above-average IQs, probably predominated, and people who had lived as Welfare Junkies, or in some equivalent way, were probably a small minority. If the relative proportions have not already been reversed, they are surely on the way to being so.

Gospel of Thomas, saying 21

Mary said to Jesus: Whom are thy disciples like? He said: They are like little children who have installed themselves in a field which is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say: ‘Release to us our field’. They take off their clothes before them to release it (the field) to them and to give back their field to them.

The children have been installed (born into) a world (field) which is not theirs. The owners of the field (society at large) say ‘The field is ours, and it is ours to say whether you are the sort of person who ought to be a professor running several departments. You are what we say you are and nothing else.’

The children take off their clothes (their social identity, representing how society wants them to think of themselves) and leave the field to society, within which it can assign social status.

What this saying does not say (at least not explicitly) is that the children, in abandoning the field and throwing off a false social identity, do not stop being people who need to be professors running several departments, and hence go on trying to buy the field back, while knowing that they have no control over the owners of it.

The only real solution

The only real solution to the disastrous downfall of Western civilisation, at least so far as this country is concerned, is to abolish the Welfare State (the Oppressive State) altogether. That means abolishing the NHS and the state-funded ‘educational’ system, and the so-called ‘social services’. But perhaps a few things that are really useful come under the heading of ‘social services’, such as road-mending. I expect the costs of the social interference and persecution are well wrapped up.

So let us say, for a start, that the state-funded ‘educational’ system and the NHS should be abolished completely, along with all agents of the collective described as ‘social workers’. Of course, Members of Parliament were not elected for the likelihood of their supporting such ideas and they would not be likely to be re-elected if they did. But they are in a position in which they could choose to vote for what is in the real interests of the country, even if at the expense of their own careers.

Attempting to improve various aspects of the present situation, which are recognised as ‘bad’ by reference to some belief system about the way things ought to be, can only result in ever greater loss of liberty, i.e. oppression.

The following extracts from the Daily Mail of July 14 express the pressure that is being put upon liberty by taxation (confiscation) in order to maintain ‘benefits’ and ‘services’.

The burden of extra levies will fall upon the public for half a century to cope with the aftermath of the credit crunch and the impact of our ageing population. ...Robert Chote, head of the OBR [Office of Budget Responsibility], said: ‘The Government is likely to have to tax more or spend less elsewhere to keep the public finances on a sustainable path.’ His report warned that the public finances will be set on an ‘unsustainable upward trajectory’ as Britain's population lives for longer. NHS spending is expected to rise from 7.4 per cent of GDP in 2015/16 to 9.8 per cent in 2060/61 as a result of our ageing population. It says that if health spending continues to increase as quickly as it has in previous years, it could account for 15.1 per cent of GDP in 50 years – more than double its current cost.

As usual, the expansion in the amount of ‘public money’ that is needed is blamed upon the ‘ageing population’. The overall population, and the expensiveness of maintaining it, are increasing in many ways quite independently of people living longer. The population is being increased by immigration, and by the rapid expansion of certain sectors of the population. These factors are an inevitable consequence of socialist ideology.

NHS spending will rise to 15% of GDP and further, not as a result of ‘our ageing population’, but as an inevitable consequence of its intrinsically oppressive nature. The latter also determines the appalling level of inefficiency to which it has sunk, which is now perceptible to the most unsophisticated observer.

Describing the defects of any one sector of the population within the parameters of what is acceptable, i.e. on rationalised terms, taking into account very few factors, and attempting to reduce the defects by tweaking the oppressive system, can only lead to an ever greater loss of individual liberty.

An amazing sleight of hand

Andrew Dilnot will propose a cap of between £35,000 and £50,000 on the amount people have to pay towards their care in their last years – with the taxpayer picking up the balance. His proposals would leave the Treasury with an estimated bill of more than £2bn – which would have to come from taxation or cuts elsewhere in Whitehall. (Independent, 4 July 2011)

By an amazing sleight of hand, the Dilnot proposals to tax other pensioners more, in order to ‘cap’ the amount which has to be paid by those who go into care homes, are represented as compassionate towards the middle class, and towards the ideas of thrift and inheritance.

‘Life is littered with potential financial catastrophes, from costly-to-treat illnesses to house fires, but in most cases the risks are pooled, whether through the state or the insurance market,’ said The Guardian. When it comes to care, those with more than £23,250 are on their own facing potentially unlimited liabilities. The results are ‘dire’. So Dilnot’s plan is very welcome, as a way of ‘staving off ruin for an unlucky minority’...

It’s easy to see the Dilnot report as a ‘caring and sharing’ left-wing proposal, said Daniel Finkelstein in The Times: a ‘market failure is being corrected’ by a new social insurance scheme (and a new tax). But I think this is wrong. It is not, in fact, about looking after vulnerable people. ‘It's about insuring the inheritance of their children: the state will protect the assets of quite wealthy people from the possibility that they will be used up to pay for their care’, and thus not be available for their relatives to inherit. (From article ‘The cost of growing old’, The Week, 9 July 2011)

Now we know that nobody cares about unlucky minorities, especially those with higher-than-average IQs, and we know also that inheritance is almost as deplorable an idea as heredity.

The several billions a year which the Dilnot scheme would cost the taxpayer (we may assume with some confidence that £3.6bn is a conservative estimate) could be covered, he suggested, by a ‘specific tax increase’ on pensioners.

Whether or not these billions, which would be necessary to cap the care home costs of an ‘unlucky minority’, would be confiscated from other pensioners or from some other part of the taxable population, it should be pointed out that, instead of capping care home fees, the billions might be applied to reversing the means-testing of pensions and raising them to a more realistic level. Those who did go into care homes would then have more funds available to pay towards their own care, but not, of course, so much as if they were (as is intended) the sole beneficiaries of the billions.

In the Oppressive State, all sections of the population with above-average IQs are to be destroyed. So one starts by hating capitalists and landowners who would not be in the positions they are if it were not for above-average functionality and realism on the part of themselves and their ancestors.

But if they are torn down you still have some people of above-average functionality in the population, whose ability and conscientiousness have not yet got them into favourable positions. Before the advent of the Oppressive State in 1945 it was probable that a person who reached the age of sixty fell into this category. They were likely to have a good genetically determined physical constitution and to have avoided the hazards of life which might have led to their death at an earlier age. So they were likely to be realistic, conscientious, forethoughtful and independent-minded. That is, they were likely to be the sort of people that the Oppressive State seeks to destroy.

So you would think it would seem quite a good idea to believers in the modern ideology that pensioners should have their assets reduced to zero, so that there is nothing for their children to inherit.

But if the population of pensioners is split into those who run up significant costs in ‘care’ versus those who do not, and it now appears that the former population is likely to have a lower average IQ than the latter, there is in fact a motive for penalising the latter to reduce costs on the former.

Otherwise one cannot see why believers in the modern ideology should see anything against the idea of the assets of a pensioner being reduced to zero. Ah, but if there is a population with an even higher average IQ that can be penalised to prevent this – then it is an opportunity for a further tax.

We may suppose that now university graduates are so heavily penalised (unless they have a good probabilistic claim to a relatively low IQ), the pensioners are the only remaining population with an above-average IQ which can be squeezed still further. But why is this necessary? Pensions have been withered on the vine for decades and cut by means-testing, so why now propose an extra tax on them to reduce the charges on those who go into care homes?

A possible explanation arises from the fact that the population of pensioners has now become sufficiently differentiated in IQ for a transfer of resources from one section of this population to another to fulfil the criterion that all ‘benefits’ should constitute a transfer of assets from a population with a higher average IQ to a population with a lower one.

Withered on the vine

The state pension was cut (made means-tested) in 2003. Those who were already receiving it, such as myself, or who were within sight of qualifying to receive it, such as some of my colleagues, had been paying into it for several decades during which there had been no hint that it would ever be cut (means-tested) although for some time state pensions had been described (apparently officially) as ‘withering on the vine’, and attempts to increase them in line with inflation or the national wage had presumably lapsed, although I had not been paying attention to what was going on. At any rate, the pension which I started to receive in 1996 was pathetic, bearing no relation to pensions in private schemes or to average salaries. It was increased each year by nugatory amounts, so that the gap between it and a realistic pension appeared to widen rather than be decreased.

In 2003 it was announced that state pensions were to become means-tested, the concept having apparently metamorphosed from that of a replacement for a salary to that of a benefit whose purpose was to save the most needy from starvation. The basic state pension itself was to fall in real terms, and it was no consolation to me that if I became poor enough I could apply for pension credit. This was something I would never do.

Probably many had (and have) the same aversion to this idea as I had myself, although in a less clear-cut form, and the failure (or refusal) of many to apply for benefits to which they were entitled has been ascribed to ‘pride’ or to the complicated nature of the forms to be filled in. (Snooping systems are now being set up to identify hidden carers and hidden cared-for, to induce them to apply for ‘benefits’.) When some element in living costs rose noticeably, optional bits and pieces for special purposes (such as for council tax and the winter fuel payment) were sent in addition to the pension, but not guaranteed to continue indefinitely.

The Coalition commenced its era of reform, announcing that the state pension would now be increased per annum in accordance with wages, the CPI, or 2.5 per cent, whichever is highest. This is called the triple lock. Cunningly, the government chose to use the CPI (Consumer Price Index) and not the RPI (Retail Price Index) which at the time was higher than all three.

Now that the withered state pension was rising by this guaranteed amount each year, the bonus for council tax could vanish. As energy prices were rising dramatically, proposals to scrap the winter fuel payment were opposed, and it remained, but has now been cut from £250 per annum to £200.

So the rises in the state pension have been offset by the loss of these temporary subsidies, and the rises in the amount actually received each year by an individual who chooses not to expose himself to state assessment by applying for top-up benefits are correspondingly reduced. Clever!

More misdirection of attention

‘The Mail accepts that, with people living longer, we must pay more towards the cost of our old age.’ (Daily Mail, editorial, 5 July 2011)

Similar things have been said by people associated with Saga and other organisations for the over-fifties.

This is just accepting and reinforcing the misdirection of attention. The Government needs more money to spend and the costs of all its favourite indulgences are no doubt expanding exponentially. But the causes of the explosive growth of expenditure are wrapped up in the classifications of the imaginary society supported by public money (i.e. by taxation – freedom of action confiscated from individuals.) How far do the costs of ‘education’ and the NHS arise from the ever-growing population of the genetically dysfunctional, many of whom can never support themselves in the sense of earning money, even in such fictitious capacities as those of social workers, tea ladies in hospitals, psychiatrists, playgroup supervisors, etc.?

This population has grown geometrically since the sectors of the population most likely to produce dysgenic offspring have increased with every generation, while those least likely to produce them, the so called ‘middle class’, have dwindled as they faced ever-increasing disincentives to having children.

The object of modern society is to destroy those with above-average IQs and/or aristocratic genes. The populations which have the highest average IQs are the only ones that deserve to be taxed – in the view of the modern ideology.

This has already been demonstrated by the onslaught on university graduates, still a population with, overall, a higher than average IQ. The pensioners are vulnerable because those who live longest have relatively high IQs and general functionality.

This is why they should be taxed, not because their living longer than before is a dominant factor in the rising costs of the NHS, the ‘educational’ system, etc.

The associations which are supposed to represent the interests of high-IQ populations, such as Mensa and the National Association for Gifted Children, make no attempt to defend those interests or to protest against a system that is geared against them. The same is true of the associations which are supposed to represent the interests of the elderly; their leaders acting as agents of the collective in keeping the victims quiet and compliant. The members of their associations could be forming pressure groups or, better still, forming cooperative organisations to keep the Welfare Wolf from the door.

Members of the associations mentioned are invited to move to Cuddesdon, and might appreciate the advantages of forming their cooperative associations around us as a nucleus.

The Duke of Edinburgh and others

My colleague Fabian Tassano has put some comments about the Duke of Edinburgh on his blog, and I am reminded of his correspondence with us. We thought that he, if anybody, should be able to think that the most statusful agents of the collective might be in the wrong, and that a status-less person, even if slandered and vilified, might need and deserve support, which they were unable to get from the ‘proper’ social sources, and that this could only be given them by independent-minded individuals.

Indeed, a descendant of the European nobility might feel that he had a responsibility to support those who were attempting to maintain the standards achieved by an intellectual golden age against the ravages of the encroaching tribalism.

And, one would think, such a person might, if not wishing to be openly associated with social outcasts such as intellectual dissidents, have available to him channels by which he could arrange for financial support to reach those who represented old-fashioned ideals and enable them to be more of an influence within the turbulence of modern society. Also one would imagine, such a person might communicate with other individuals who could approach those he wished to help, as if out of the blue, and become the moral and financial supporters they so sorely needed.

But, as it happened, Prince Philip did none of these things, and nor has any other wealthy and influential person to whom we have appealed over the decades and who appeared to take some interest in us. Nor have any of these people given help in their own right in the form of a donation. It seems to be accepted as a law of the Medes and Persians that we are never to be given any real help at all, in the form of money, in the form of useful work or moral support in fundraising, or in the form of suitable university appointments.

I find the meanness towards us of the most wealthy and influential hard to understand. In their position, if I had corresponded with or interviewed a person evidently claiming to be badly in need of support to do something they could clearly see how to do, I could not myself send them away, or terminate the correspondence, without sending them at least a few thousand pounds as a consolation prize and reward for the time and trouble they had put into presenting their case to me.

On the other hand, of course, those who opposed us did so covertly, and with great effect. Our most ostentatious nominal ‘supporters’ would network against us widely and indefatigably, ensuring that no useful help would reach us from any source. And the effects of this networking were permanent. Once it was known that we were personae non gratae with other members of the international establishment, there was no way in which such information could be forgotten or revised.

As those of Prince Philip’s generation die out, our chances of finding a supporter become even more negligible, as we have only ever had even lukewarm support from those born well before the onset of the Welfare State in 1945, who have at least some memory of the standards and ideals in the early decades of the last century.

Paying for others to enjoy a fate worse than death

It is said that the Dilnot report will recommend that people of pensionable age should not have their assets reduced by more than a third by paying for ‘care’ from the state. This does not reassure me at all, since I know that both I and any of my associates would regard exposing ourselves to state ‘care’ as to be avoided at any cost. Going into a ‘care home’ would indeed be a fate worse than death.

What does worry me is what new tax will be proposed to pay for the ‘care’ that the state does get to impose on people. There are many forms of benefit which are lavished on favoured sections of the population which could easily be cut and replaced by repayable loans, but of course it is only the population of pensioners which is to be penalised.

For example, if nurseries, crèches and supervised ‘play groups’ for the under-fives were abolished, and children could not start school until five (or even six or seven?), a good deal of taxpayers’ money would be saved and parents would be discouraged from having more children than they could manage to look after themselves. As it is, the burden of looking after their children is greatly reduced by the proportion of their time that they spend out of sight, out of mind, at school. ‘Social help’, which I believe is provided for families burdened with too many children, could be cut completely or provided only on payment, as ‘social care’ for the elderly is now. ‘Housing benefit’ is also related to family size, and could be provided in the form of repayable loans, similar to the loans made to university graduates.

Reducing the provision of nursery schools might also reduce the cost of ‘education’ at higher age levels, since it would tend in the direction of making parents aware of the advantages of keeping their families down to a more manageable size. Formerly, parents were responsible not only for feeding and looking after their own children, but also paying for schools if they wanted their children to attend them.

If parents were not relieved of much of the burden of looking after children, the saving to the taxpayer could probably be sufficient to reverse the cut in the state pension (euphemistically described as ‘means-testing’) and to increase it to a realistic level which would be sufficient for a high proportion of its recipients to provide themselves with adequate housekeeping and other services, or to have friends or relatives living with them, independently of the state.

Paul Burstow (Care Services Minister) refers to ‘social care’ as having a ‘nasty little secret’. ‘It is not free and never will be free.’ Quite right. That is the ‘nasty secret’ of all state benefits. As I said of my state-funded education, it was not free. It was paid for with the ruin of my prospects in life, the ruin of my parents’ lives, and the gratification that all agents of the collective, official and unofficial, could derive from so satisfactory an outcome.

Chancellor George Osborne is resisting the plans because he believes they are too close to the ‘death tax’ proposed by Labour before last year's general election, under which everyone would have paid £20,000 into a compulsory insurance scheme whether they eventually need care or not. But Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Lib Dem care minister Paul Burstow are both supportive. (Daily Mail, 27 June 2011)

So we know that Paul Burstow is in favour of something close to the former idea of £20,000 ‘compulsory insurance’. How does he put it according to the Daily Mail (2nd July)?

[Mr. Burstow] promised that while the elderly will be expected to contribute, they will not pay as much as many of them have to pay now.

I.e. while those of pensionable age (including those who do not, and would not, have anything to do with ‘social care’) will be forced to contribute, they will not pay as much as many of them (that is, many of those who do go into ‘care homes’) have to pay now.

It is true that £20,000 (the starting figure proposed for the ‘compulsory insurance’ suggested by Labour) is ‘not as much’ as various amounts in excess of £50,000 which are currently being paid by many of those who fail to protect themselves from ‘social care’.

But why should those who do not and never would submit to ‘social care’ be forced to pay this tax, which is supposed to justify putting a ‘cap’ on what is paid by those who do?

They have already had their pensions drastically reduced because the cost of providing for pensioners is supposedly so great. Saying that a pension is ‘means-tested’ is just a euphemism for calling it ‘reduced’ (or ‘cut’), which is what it is, so far as I am concerned, as I would not seek an income supplement for which I had to be ‘assessed’ by agents of the collective, even if I might be supposed to be eligible for it. I was only so persistent in paying in voluntary contributions for so many years because I thought the resulting pension would be paid to me as of right.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources.

I hereby apply for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

Penalising the middle class is ‘fair’

Daily Mail, June 27, ‘Middle classes must find £50,000 for care.’ State can't afford more, of course. It could not wish, for example, to cut its expenditure in ways that would discourage the least functional members of society from having the largest possible families, many of whom are likely to need ‘care’ throughout their lives.

It is only fair (the argument goes) that the so-called middle classes on the other hand should have their assets reduced, ideally to zero, which they are able to leave to their children by inheritance. Their children are quite likely to have above-average IQs, and it is only fair that they should be handicapped, rather than having their advantages in life increased still further by inheritance.

State pensions are now means-tested so that anyone who has more than the barest subsistence on retirement will find it difficult not to be brought ever closer to that level. Those who live the longest are likely to have the highest average IQs, and are thus most likely to have their savings eroded to zero before they die. Which is only fair, and redresses an injustice.

Formerly those over a certain age were dependent on their own resources to provide housekeepers, full or part-time, or on the voluntary help provided by friends or relatives. The reduction of the state pension greatly increased the number who were unable to provide even a necessary minimum of paid help for themselves, and the probability of people’s assets being reduced to zero has made it much less likely that it would seem worthwhile to friends or relatives to help them protect their independence in the hope of an increased inheritance.

On another page of the Daily Mail there is an article on why the elderly suffer ‘needless’ fractures. ‘Thousands of elderly people are needlessly suffering excruciating fractures because doctors are failing to spot osteoporosis.’

The National Osteoporosis Society's report says many patients are diagnosed only after they have broken several bones, causing them agonising pain and restricting their movements. Campaigners believe doctors fail to carry out simple checks when elderly people suffer fractures to establish whether they have the disease. More than three million people in Britain suffer from osteoporosis, which causes thinning of the bones, and it is most common among elderly women. ...

The report says 26 per cent of those with osteoporosis suffered multiple fractures before being diagnosed. A survey of 700 sufferers found 35 per cent waited more than a year after first breaking a bone to be diagnosed, while 22 per cent waited five years. (Daily Mail, 27 June 2011)

Well, what do you think doctors are for? Surely you don't imagine they are there to prevent people with above-average IQs from suffering?

As has been pointed out before, a person who survives to an above-average age is likely to have an above-average IQ, also above-average forethought, conscientiousness, and so on. Becoming a doctor never required too much in the way of IQ and it is very likely that the average IQ of doctors has fallen. People from the ‘poorest’ backgrounds are encouraged to qualify as doctors, while the ‘middle class’ are discriminated against, in this as in other areas.

It used to be said, over a decade ago, that doctors regarded 55 as the cut-off age for women, after which it was not worth diagnosing anything serious.

Michelle Mitchell, charity director for Age UK, said: ‘Funding for social care is already inadequate. We are fearful that even more vulnerable older people will be left to struggle alone and in some cases lives will be put at risk’. (Daily Mail, 27 June 2011)

Actually, funding for ‘social care’ is not inadequate but excessive. There should be no such thing as ‘social care’.

Associations such as Age UK, Age Concern, Saga etc. should encourage their members to contact us via our website and, if it is not already too late, come for holidays in Cuddesdon as a preliminary. Then they should come to live as close as possible to us, and if they do some voluntary work for us, we will help them in setting up cooperative operations to make themselves independent of state help – i.e. to keep the Welfare Wolf from the door. And, maybe, even work towards greater prosperity by cooperating in business ventures.

A short life and a merry one

In about 1970 they ‘upgraded’ the state pension system; the real motive for this being that they wanted an excuse to get in more money for the government to spend as it pleased. To justify the increased taxation involved, it was necessary to talk as if a person’s contributions were paying for a certain level of pension, in a way that was comparable to previous commercial schemes.

Actually of course this idea lapsed into oblivion over the decades, and the idea of a pension metamorphosed into that of a ‘contract between generations’, with present taxpayers paying for the support of old and infirm former taxpayers, in the hope that doing so would gain them similar consideration from future taxpayers.

As a result, it becomes possible to complain about how many pensioners there are in relation to present taxpayers, and how much each taxpayer is having to contribute. And once again, providing for pensioners can be used to justify an increase in taxation, more money rolling in for the government to spend on its favourite things, which are all oppressive (teachers, doctors, psychiatrists and counsellors, social workers, lawyers, policemen). Several of these sectors of the population are, I feel sure, increasing in size and expensiveness far faster than the population of pensioners. So, of course, is the population of immigrants, who are having a ‘baby boom’ of their own.

After a good deal of hullabaloo a ‘committee of enquiry’ concludes that pensioners must continue to pay for ‘care’ which they receive (or to which they are forced to submit) from the state. At least they must pay up to a certain amount, so long as they have any assets left, after which the state will pick up the tab. But even this limited liability on the part of the state is a grievous burden, and so we are still left with an excuse for creating a new tax in some shape or form.

Middle class pensioners should pay between £35,000 and £50,000 for their old age care, a review will recommend this week. ... At present, anyone with savings or assets above £23,250 - including property - has to pay for their care in full, forcing thousands to sell their homes. The review will raise that threshold so that more people with modest savings benefit, at a cost to taxpayers of around £3billion a year. But the middle classes will have to pay more. Mr Dilnot will recommend they pay between £35,000 and £50,000. ...

Organisations including Age UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Alzheimer's Society yesterday wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron urging him to accept the Dilnot proposals. They said: ‘The social care system has been in growing crisis for years. Our organisations deal every day with people at the most vulnerable points in their lives who are either not receiving any social care support or a small level of help that is grossly inadequate to their needs.’

‘We call upon the Government to take this opportunity offered by the Dilnot Commission and produce a White Paper in the autumn detailing how it will create a sustainable and fair social care system, including how it will be funded.’

Chancellor George Osborne is resisting the plans because he believes they are too close to the ‘death tax’ proposed by Labour before last year's general election, under which everyone would have paid £20,000 into a compulsory insurance scheme whether they eventually need care or not. But Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and Lib Dem care minister Paul Burstow are both supportive. (Daily Mail, 27 June 2011)

It is said that people do not like thinking about the future (especially, probably, those with below-average IQs) and so do not save enough to provide for themselves when they are no longer earning money. Therefore they must be forced to do so, by having their money taken away by the government, and so must those who do think about their futures.

Perhaps most people do not want to think about what lies ahead, and intend, consciously or subconsciously, to end their lives semi-accidentally if things become difficult. Why not leave them to get on with it? If they have not provided for themselves, perhaps they have (consciously or otherwise) opted for ‘a short life and a merry one’, as one of my former dentists said of a colleague who had a liking for real ale and died soon after his retirement.

Why not leave them to it? How is it better for them to end their lives under medical supervision in a ‘care home’ prison, with complete loss of autonomy?

Why should you want those such as myself who do try to build up capital, to improve their future lives, to be made responsible for supporting those who have not been interested enough to support themselves – by confiscation of capital by the government? The population of savers is likely to have above-average IQs; in fact it may well include a significant proportion of people with exceptionally high IQs, who realise that they have no other chance of making their position less intolerable in a society that is motivated by hostility to people like them.

And that, of course, is the answer to why they should be penalised by confiscation, in theory because they are causing an intolerable strain on the government’s resources; in reality because the government ‘needs’ to continue expanding its spending at a rate of knots on less threatening populations which will never have any independence of thought or action.

It is disgraceful that organisations such as Age UK, Age Concern and Saga actively support the raising of the pension age and the Dilnot proposals. ‘The social care system has been in crisis for years’. Of course it has, and the only solution is to abolish ‘social care’ altogether.

And there is no solution for the country as a whole but to abandon the concept of ‘state benefits’ altogether. There is no ‘benefit’ without reduction of liberty, and the concept of the state as the ultimate provider can lead only to the destruction and bankruptcy of the society that adopts it.

Thus spake Zoroaster

Among the departments which should be productive in my suppressed and unrecognised university is one for the History of Religion. Information in this area is suppressed and ignored because it is not in the interests of any ideology to know what was really the case.

Information about Gnostic Christianity was of no interest, because Gnosticism was dualist, dualism being an automatically pejorative term. That is, they thought in some form that there was good and evil, soul and matter, and that ‘normal life’ was evil and to be transcended and escaped from.

Quite recently, it was asserted on the BBC that Christianity was original in having an end-of-world idea, in the sense of a radical change in the scheme of things. Previous religions and ideologies had not had this.

However, the end-of-world idea, along with a ‘dualist’ rejection of life as it is, occurred a lot earlier. In fact, it seems to have been originated by Zarathustra, whose ideas influenced Nietzsche in writing Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Zoroastrianism had not only an end-of-world (end-of-history, end-of-time) idea, as associated with early Christianity, but even a Second Coming idea. A human leader would arise who would lead the forces of good to victory over the powers of evil, and the world would be changed in the ‘Making Wonderful’. This Second Coming person was supposed to be a descendant of Zarathustra.

Paul Kriwaczek, in the book In Search of Zarathustra, seems to suggest that the Gnostics, Cathars and Bogomils were descendants of this Zoroastrian tradition and its offshoots, and nothing to do with Christianity, which he identifies with the sacrificial victim/redemption story and considers original, being apparently unaware of the prevalence of traditions of the ‘Golden Bough’ type. Kriwaczek was not an academic but travelled widely in the Middle East.

Clearly all this has been very much suppressed, presumably because it demonstrated the possibility of not being interested in the social goings-on of any particular tribe, and did not identify ‘good’ with ‘belief in society’.

Unfortunately, many people (including, probably, Kriwaczek) see Nietzsche as advocating a rejection of bourgeois capitalism and conversion to egalitarian socialism (‘Man must create his own values’, etc.).

The cost to the taxpayer of the dysfunctional

I have long wondered whether making pensioners the scapegoats for the increasing expenditure on ‘care’, in order to justify still more taxation (or reduction of pension entitlements), is a misdirection of attention. It seems to me possible that the drain on the taxpayer of the increasing population of the dysfunctional (including low-IQ) population is far greater.

On the one hand, it appears that one third of women and one fifth of men who reach pensionable age go into a ‘care home’, and for an average of about 2 years. So a population of 12m pensioners implies about 6m care-home years. On the other hand, there are allegedly 3.2 million people on disability allowances. Of course a great fuss is made about those who pretend they are unable to walk but are seen climbing ladders, playing tennis, etc.

The number of drink and drug addicts, now counted among the ‘disabled’, is known to have risen dramatically over the last ten years. But the population on disability allowances also includes those who are physically and/or mentally handicapped by the genetic endowment with which they were born, or by accident or illness later in life. These may spend far more than two years in care homes, possibly 30 or 40. Also there are many special needs ‘schools’ for those with low IQs and/or behavioural problems.

The population at special schools, or receiving state-funded tuition at home, is not included in the 3.2 million who receive ‘disability allowances’, as these are only paid to those who are over school age.

The proportion of the genetically dysfunctional among the 3.2 million does not need to be very high for the expense to taxpayers of ‘care’, and the increase in this expense per annum, to exceed that for the population of pensioners.

Modern theories of intelligence

It is difficult to believe how completely what was formerly accepted about IQ has been rejected and replaced by an entirely different set of assumptions.

The people who were positive factors in my early life were no doubt familiar with the view of general ability which was expressed at the time, and with which I was familiar myself from my father's educational books and general conversation. The g factor (g for general) was of predominant importance. If your g factor was high enough you could do anything, that is, the idea was widely accepted that ability was transferable from one area to another. If a person showed very great ability in some area, one might expect them to excel in others. This corresponded to what I observed in my own case. I could see that the mental functions that went into picking up any new subject quickly were much the same. When I got a distinction mark in Further Maths in 3½ days, I thought I was showing that I could also pick up to a high level any subject which I had not previously studied very quickly, so I should not be prevented from taking exams in chemistry, physics, languages or anything else just because I had not been studying them previously.

So, of course, when I started to make breakthroughs in topics formerly associated with parapsychology as soon as I started to know anything about the phenomena involved, I thought I was demonstrating clearly enough that I should not be prevented from entering an academic career in any subject, whether or not I had a paper qualification in it, and whether or not I had prior knowledge of it. Which I probably had not, because what went on in most areas at Oxford was rubbish which one would not want to know much about unless it contributed to some specific purpose, such as passing an exam (i.e. obtaining a qualification for social purposes), or teaching and writing papers in a salaried university career.

The idea that ability shown in one area was indicative of underlying ability which would be likely to show itself in another was, however, far more prevalent when I was very young than it is now. When I was at Oxford and afterwards, any relative success in a particular area was regarded as evidence of some peculiar kind of ‘interest’ in it, which was not supposed to require being set up to carry out well-financed research in it.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

He knows the names of beastly flowers

The ideas that dominate modern educational ideology and practice have been incubating for a long time.

The idea, for example, that evidence of IQ (in the old-fashioned sense) was irrelevant, and had nothing to do with what a person was good at, was implicitly present in a book called The New Broom which my Uncle Harry had had as a boy and which I read at about 8, so it might have been written about 1900. In this book, someone refers to having seen a former schoolfellow sweeping the streets, and says, without any implication that anything had gone wrong and needed to be corrected, that this was a great surprise as this person had always excelled at school and they had all expected him to become Prime Minister. (How foolish they had been.)

In another episode in the book, a new master at a public school does some social engineering. Many of the boys are in the habit of going to the local pub for drinking, smoking and billiards (played for money, no doubt). This is seen as bad, and the new master goes and drags back a boy called Mansell, who is a prime mover in the goings-on. He is forced to play football, which at first he resists with a show of disinterest on the field, but into which he is eventually drawn by his natural aptitude for the game. He ‘could not prevent himself from being fast and clever on a football field’. So soon he is playing for the school and becomes a great team player and a prominent and feted member of the school community. At no stage is the idea expressed that he might be steered into some kind of academic pursuit rather than football.

The same idea, that school life is not, and should not be, about learning, is expressed in a poem in E. Nesbit’s The Railway Children, published in 1906. The poem is about a new boy at a school, who will soon come to know better.

He cannot wicket-keep at all,
He's frightened of a cricket ball.
He reads indoors for hours and hours.
He knows the names of beastly flowers.
He says his French just like Mossoo--
A beastly stuck-up thing to do--
He won't keep cave, shirks his turn
And says he came to school to learn!
He won't play football, says it hurts;
He wouldn't fight with Paley Terts;
...
Now Wigsby Minor says that Parr
Is only like all new boys are.
I know when I first came to school
I wasn't such a jolly fool!

Even as early as this, there is clearly a conviction that it is unnecessary to consider a person’s inclinations. Force him into the situation which will permit him to do what he should want to do, if he were the right sort of person, and he will change into that sort of person, or it is his own fault if he does not.

The antagonism to IQ, and the pressure that could be applied to individuals, became much greater in the Welfare State era, in which many parents were no longer paying directly for what was being meted out to their children, and could themselves be slandered and persecuted.

Even before the onset of state education and the Welfare State, several of those who became leading intellectuals had parents who thought it was a good idea for them to be preserved from, or only minimally exposed to, the school experience. Such as John Stuart Mill, Frederic Myers and Bertrand Russell.

Keeping the Welfare Wolf from the door

The tiny amount of public spending committed to the elderly – 5.8 per cent of national income compared to 11.7 per cent in Italy – is a key reason behind the scandal of tens of thousands of people having to sell their homes every year to pay for their residential care.

Other countries fund care home fees through taxes or national insurance systems, meaning care is available when people need it. The report warns that our low spending rate has also led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

And it means thousands of pensioners are isolated in their own houses because not enough home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres are available. ...

The £16billion we spend each year includes funding for day centres, residential care home fees, meals on wheels and home helps who assist with eating, dressing, going to the toilet, washing, domestic cleaning and shopping. (Daily Mail, 6 June 2011)

I made the efforts I did over a period of fifty years to make sure that I and any associate of mine made voluntary contributions to the state pension, only because this seemed to be a way of getting an income as of right, since I knew I was not, and would never be, eligible for any state ‘benefit’, such as income support.

Now I find that everyone is advocating, not restoring the non-means-tested part of the state pension to something like adequacy, but providing more ‘home helps, meals on wheels services and day centres’ (ibid.) – all ‘benefits’ which I and anyone associated with me would never take up.

‘The shocking betrayal of the elderly’ (supposedly consisting not in the reduction and means-testing of pensions, but in the failure to provide ‘benefits’ to those who will tolerate them) is ‘revealed in a damning report’ by the over-50s group Saga, the Director General of which is Ros Altmann, who has never (so far as I can make out) shown any concern about retrospective legislation.

The report, Take Care, was compiled for Saga by the think tank 2020 Health, which analysed OECD figures.

These figures show how generations of British politicians have betrayed our increasingly ageing population and have failed to fund properly the care so many of them will clearly need,’ Mrs Altmann said.

Mrs Altmann does not mention the failure to fund properly the pensions which so many of them were led to expect they would receive without means-testing.

The report warns that our low spending rate has ... led to an enormous burden on family members, who are left having to take on roles as unpaid carers because the state does not step in.

The burden on those who want to keep the Welfare Wolf from the door, and to avoid the state ‘stepping in’ to their lives, could only be reduced by raising the non-means-tested state pension to which I contributed for so many years. On the other hand, increasing the availability of benefits for which I would never consider applying, even if I might be considered eligible, can only increase the burden of taxation on those, such as myself, who are receiving state pensions to which they contributed in full for many years, and who are still struggling to improve their position. A ‘benefit’ which can only be obtained by exposing oneself to ‘assessment’ by agents of the collective is an oppression, and my associates and I are quite oppressed enough already.

It is supposed to be a ‘burden’ on families to keep their relatives out of the clutches of the state? I considered it not a burden, but a necessity, to preserve my parents from such a fate.

When I was thrown out at the end of my ruined education, and found that my father’s health had been broken down by persecution so that he could not support me out of his salary as a headmaster, I thought, ‘You may think society has done its worst to you. But it can always find a way of doing something even worse.’ That has been shown true many times in the ensuing years. You may think that society has done its worst by letting your pension ‘wither on the vine’ and then means-testing it. But it can make things even worse by making it, in effect, more means-tested, so that you will be taxed even more heavily to pay for more ‘benefits’ to be made available to people of your age who are less resistant to oppression than you are yourself.

There is no ‘benefit’ without loss of self-determination (freedom). The non-means-tested state pension was the only remaining ‘benefit’ of which this was not true.

It is not a question of how bad the care homes, meals on wheels, etc. are in comparison with some equivalent that one might pay for directly; the principle of self-determination is all-important.

Cottage to let

Copy of letter to an academic

There is a cottage to rent fairly near us, and this might make more concrete the idea that well-wishers (if we had any) could rent or buy such a place as a retirement home/second home/vacation home, so that they could come and make contact with us, either with them providing moral support or practical help for our plans of expansion, or with us playing the role of financial and social advisors for a consultancy fee.

Twisted legislation on ‘care home’ costs

More twisted legislation on pensioners is threatened. ‘A commission of experts appointed by Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is considering a cap [on care home fees].’ (Daily Mail, 19 May 2011)

Pensioners who are committed to ‘care homes’ have to pay the fees if they can afford to do so. If necessary, they have to sell their homes and deplete their assets in other ways, which deprives their children of their inheritances. But we know that nobody cares about that. Inheritance is a nasty idea, as is heredity. If anyone minds at all about forced sales of homes, there is probably some other reason behind it.

Perhaps people will come to realise that care homes are a bad idea and instead will form cooperative associations to maintain their freedom, and independence from state-provided benefits. This would be a good development from my point of view, but is to be avoided in the view of those who espouse the oppressive ideology.

The state wants to be as greedy as it can get away with, so it needs to consider what a majority of people brought up in the modern world will tolerate.

Yesterday [the] chairman [of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support], economist Andrew Dilnot, said: ‘My impression is that what people want most is a resolution. There’s a pretty widespread feeling that it’s not unreasonable that people have to pay something, but they don’t want to face losing everything.’ (ibid.)

So now it seems it is proposed that those who fall into the clutches of the oppressive state should be subsidised by taxing those who make adequate arrangements for themselves.

It was first proposed that on reaching pensionable age everybody should pay a lump sum into a fund to finance those who did eventually go into a ‘care home’. This proposal was not passed, but could always be revived.

Now it is proposed that the cost of incarceration in a ‘care home’ should be capped, so that not so many homes will have to be sold. Those who go into ‘care homes’ would be subsidised by those who manage to stay out of them.

An alternative to the lump sum confiscation from all on reaching pensionable age, which has also been proposed, is an additional lump sum ‘death duty’ to be paid out of the estates of those who die (after reaching pensionable age, or before as well?) to pay for the costs of care home incarceration, whether or not the deceased had himself ever been subjected to a ‘care home’.

The Daily Mail understands that capping fees at £50,000 is the favoured option of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, appointed by the Government after the election. ... The other options being considered were a person paying a percentage of care costs, with the state picking up the rest; and the state paying a certain amount, above which the person pays. (ibid.)

Perhaps once again the driving force is the dislike of penalising a population with, on average, lower IQs, and of leaving a population with higher IQs unscathed. Is it not likely to be the case that those who are fit enough and/or resourceful enough, and/or sufficiently provided with devoted relatives, to avoid going into a ‘care home’ at all, constitute a population with an average IQ above that of the population of those whose health is suspect and who are too passive, or ‘past it’, to fix themselves up with adequate arrangements at home?

So it cannot (the argument goes) be fair that those who are robust enough to escape the ‘care homes’ should pay less towards the cost of them than those who are forced to rely on them. There is no suggestion that the cost reduction granted to ‘care home’ occupants will be financed by reducing state spending in other areas, e.g. overseas aid. It is therefore bound to come out of higher taxes, even if this is hidden, as many new taxes now are.

When I reached the age at which I started to receive a state pension – which was already somewhat ‘withered on the vine’ – I was not forced to contribute a lump sum towards my future possible incarceration in a ‘care home’ and would have been appalled if I had been, as I would never submit to any such fate, and was still trying to build up capital towards the start of an adequate academic career, of which I had been deprived by being exposed to state-funded ‘education’.

My parents’ lives had also been severely damaged by the ruin of my life, and my father had been an invalid ever since. I had no salary and no eligibility for ‘social security’, and suffered very much myself from lack of basic ancillary staff. Nevertheless I would not consider my parents being forced into ‘care homes’ and promised them that, whatever happened, I would find ways of providing for their needs at home.

It would certainly not have seemed ‘fair’ to me if their estates had each been reduced on death by a lump sum to pay for the ‘care’ which they might have, but had not, received.

Right and wrong ways of reacting to slander

What none of my college or other ‘friends’ have done for me, and are still not doing.

In the first place, they could have come to work for me themselves, even if only in vacations from their salaried jobs. Whether they did so themselves or not, they could have encouraged their sons and daughters, and any other younger friends and relatives, to come and work in their vacations, and encouraged them also to think in terms of making a permanent career with me.

Even if they had never given me any help throughout their working lives, one might have expected that when they retired they might feel they had more freedom to do so.

They could have moved nearby, and perhaps bought houses with spare rooms which could be used by my struggling organisation as storage rooms or office rooms. Or if they did not want to move nearby, they might have been suffiently well off(since at least some of them would have inheritances to add to their own savings) to buy second or holiday homes in or near Cuddesdon.

They would not need to live in these houses themselves for us to derive some benefit from them as extra space. If they did live in them, occasionally or continuously, they could also come and do voluntary work for us, and/or act as ‘supporters’ in fund-raising activities and appeals to specific potential donors. Or, of course, they could contribute financial support themselves, and leave money or assets in their wills.

Especially those who have no children to leave it to, and I know of several who do not, and especially those who failed to oppose the slanderous gossip that always arose around me.

‘Someone says her father is pushing her?’ anyone should have said on hearing it. ‘It is no business of ours. One should not pass on slander that may be untrue. Whether true or not, slanders of that kind can be extremely damaging and do untold harm to the lives of those who are gossiped about. Personally, I will not indulge in considering such things for a moment.’

Those who failed to stand up for me and my parents in this way should now realise how wrong they were not to do so, and should feel all the more moral obligation to make reparation to me now, since I am still struggling to restore myself to a tolerable and productive position in life.

The Wardenship of New College

Three years ago my colleague Dr Charles McCreery, as an alumnus of New College, nominated me for the position of Warden of New College. His application was not accepted and I was not on the list of nominees circulated for voting.

This is the letter from someone at New College, turning down the nomination. Charles did not make any reply at the time because we thought the effort would be wasted on a single person, and we should reply only in the form of an open letter which could go on my blog.

Dear Dr McCreery,

Thank you for your letter about your colleague Dr Celia Green. You were unable to find the further details of the Wardenship on the College website because they were removed when the deadline for applications passed on 11 January. From the information you've provided, it appears that Dr Green is 72 years old, putting her above the statutory retirement age for the post, which is 70. I'm afraid this means we will not be able to consider her.

It is only now, three years later, that I am managing to put a reply to this on the blog, which in itself shows how bad is our position in exile from society, and how effectively we are stifled and censored, although there are many areas to which we could and should be able to contribute.

The fact is that a rule about retirement age cannot be held to apply to someone who has been wrongfully deprived of even starting on a career. If an egregious injustice has been committed, then it may be necessary to break an artificial rule in rectifying it.

No rules were broken in ruining my career because there are no explicit rules about an obligation to provide a person in the ‘educational’ system with qualifications appropriate for the sort of career to which they are suited and which they need to have; their need to get started on it being made more urgent, and not less, by the passage of time. There are no explicit rules which the educational system breaks in not allowing them to obtain qualifications suitable to their ability, and, one may think, this is because the educational system has the express underlying purpose of destroying the lives of those with the greatest ability. Even if one does not think this, it indicates that the educational system is extremely dangerous.

Herded into mega care homes

Why should the state provide ‘care homes’ anyway? Because it is nowadays theoretically responsible for keeping everybody physically alive, and if they cannot keep themselves alive they must be incarcerated, so that they will die under ‘medical’ supervision.

How did the situation ever arise that the state is responsible in this way? When pensions were first proposed they were supposed to be like commercial pensions, based on what a person paid in, and there was no guarantee that they would provide for them in any particular comfort indefinitely.

Then the Welfare State came in, with benefits to this and that acceptable purpose and, of course, the NHS! So any physical ailment can be tackled with some semblance of ‘treatment’.

But suppose one does not want the state to provide support, incarceration, treatment etc. as it sees fit? Can’t one just opt out, and say, ‘I do not want anything to do with the NHS or state pensions, so I prefer not to pay NI contributions’?

Well, no, you can’t say that. The Welfare State has bought you, and now owns you body and soul.

Quoting ‘research’ into the number of people who live with or without ‘help’, John Bond, professor of gerontology and health services research at Newcastle University (i.e. a professor of ideology, paid out of money confiscated from taxpayers) says:

‘It seems many people are able to manage living on their own with physical disease, but if they develop dementia they are a greater risk to themselves and the community.’ (Daily Mail, 11 May 2011)

They are certainly likely to prefer living on their own, in their own homes, so it seems we have to invoke ‘risk’, to justify incarcerating them. They might wish to decide for themselves what risks to take, so we invoke ‘risk to the community’. What risk to the community is an old person suffering from Alzheimer’s likely to be?

There was a time, before the Oppressive State came in, when you had to commit some specific offence in order to be incarcerated, and you did not have to worry about somebody’s subjective opinion about how likely you were to commit it.

The Dilnot Commission, set up by the Government to investigate a funding system for elderly care and support, is due to report this summer. Martin Green, of the English Community Care Association, says homes already supply the most cost-effective way of providing care. ‘It would be more viable to have bigger care homes in the future ...’ (ibid.)

Well, yes, if the government thinks it is its business to provide for people, no doubt it is cheaper to herd them together like battery hens.

Sight has long ago been lost of the idea that a pension should be adequate to provide a person with a live-in housekeeper if they want or need one, and that earlier in life people should be given the option of paying into a scheme that is designed to provide this.

And what is this sinister suggestion about a ‘funding system’ for care homes? Those who submit to entering them pay fees, provided by the sale of their homes or other assets. Those who manage to keep out of them do not pay fees, and should not pay ‘funding’ for those who do not preserve their liberty.

We invite those who are approaching an age at which they may need help to come and live in, or as near as possible to, Cuddesdon. If they were to do some voluntary work for our independent university, we would help them to organise support for their requirements on a cooperative basis, to enable them to live without exposing themselves to the hazards of collectivist help from Council or state.

Remedies, feeble and/or dangerous

In You Magazine, discussing flashback memories that may or may not be veridical, Zelda West-Meads says ‘I’m not a doctor so I don’t know what part, if any, the drugs play in your flashbacks.’ What makes her think that she would know, or might know, if she were a doctor? What makes her think doctors know anything much about the drugs which they are able to prescribe (and often force on victims against their will)? The fact is, West-Meads does not know, and even if she knew quite a lot about the drug in question and the individual in question, she still would not know whether in this particular case it was producing veridical flashbacks.

Then West-Meads tells her correspondent, ‘Please get professional help – you could contact the British Psychological Society ... for private counselling.’ That is a very dangerous thing to suggest. Why ever should ‘professional’ psychologists or doctors be regarded as likely to tell a victim anything that is helpful rather than damaging? Many who seek ‘professional’ help become drugged zombies, dependent for life on socially authorised oppressors.

Then again, in the Mail on Sunday, Lisa Buckingham refers to the practice now adopted by some local authorities, of forcing individuals to pay for planning permission by exploiting legislation which was never meant for this purpose. She also criticises the goings-on of the FSA (Financial Services Authority), suggesting that ‘what is needed is an independent investigation of the FSA’s role.’ No, it isn’t. What is needed is abolition of the FSA and of all planning by ‘local authorities’. (In fact, abolition of local authorities altogether would be a good idea.) How could an investigation be ‘independent’? Everyone concerned would be accepting the usual unexamined assumptions, as Lisa Buckingham does.

‘Of course,’ she says, ‘we need to continue to build houses for poorer people to live in.’ No, we don’t, in a collectivist sense. An individual might wish to, using his own money, but once you start letting social entities, such as Councils, do what they see fit with money confiscated from individuals, there is no end in sight.

Forcing a supermarket giant or huge construction company to build affordable housing, roads or schools in return for planning permission is an accepted part of local authority funding.
Using these same tactics on individuals building a summer house, or small developers putting up a couple of executive homes, amounts to little more than bullying exploitation.

A subjective sense that, beyond a certain arbitrary point, oppression becomes ‘bullying exploitation’ does nothing to halt the downfall of civilisation.

And why should forcing supermarkets to spend their shareholders’ money on affordable housing not also be regarded as ‘bullying exploitation’? It is adding another tax to those already being paid by the company and by its shareholders when they receive dividends.

Maybe some of the shareholders, like me, need to build up capital to work towards remedying the damage done to their lives by an ‘education’ over which they had no control. And perhaps, like me, they would not be eligible for affordable housing, however poor they were.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

Olive leaves and the British Heart Foundation

A pill made from the leaves of the olive tree could be a powerful weapon in the fight against heart disease, scientists say. According to research, the olive pill is as effective as some prescription medicines at reducing high blood pressure...

The British Heart Foundation urged those on blood pressure medication not to stop taking their drugs without first consulting their GP. (Daily Mail, 15 April 2011)

Now, why ever should the British Heart Foundation think that advice from a doctor is likely to help a person come to the best decision about what will be good for him? At least, that is the implication of the urging uttered by the British Heart Foundation. What is their motivation for wishing you to think that a doctor is likely to know what is good for you, or likely not to advise you to do the opposite, if he does know? Presumably a lot of the people in the BHF are themselves socially authorised sadists (medical doctors).

The question of motivation and incentive in relation to medicine and medical charities is one of the issues on which critical analyses could be being published by Oxford Forum if it were provided with adequate funding to do so. Meanwhile, spurious papers on medicine and medical ethics, containing numerous unanalysed and tendentious assumptions and making policy suggestions which are likely to be damaging to the real interests of patients, will continue to flood out from socially recognised sources.