"Magenta does not exist"   This statement contradicts our immediate, first-hand empirical experience. How is it, then, that science-journalists have come to propagate such a patent lie? Well, the answer is; materialism. You see, the first step you take as a materialist is to imagine a molecule, or wave, as being the only thing that really exists. You then conflate the colour with the molecule, or wave. Step two, you discover that there is no magenta when you shine a beam of light through a prism. Never mind that Goethe demonstrates that there is indeed magenta when light shines through a prism - only, you have to project a thin beam of shadow through it instead of a thin beam of light (see diagram bellow) But you are a materialist. Only what is positively THERE can be considered real. So naturally, only the light is real, not the darkness. You then automatically conclude that magenta is a composite of blue and red wavelengths - in other words, you arrive at a lie - that mage
  Academic intellectual people have always been jealous of those who are artistic and good with their hands - that is why they have gone to such extraordinary lengths to control the world; from making highly imaginative children feel stupid in school, to forcing everyone to do everything via their box-ticking icon-clicking inter- net . Their crowning achievement though, is to take something as simple and practical as money, and twist it and invert it through so many convulsions and contradictions, that entire industries of finance have been erected to trade in products that are in fact nothing but agreements between other people. And yet, due to the sharp, heartless intelligence of these scheming intellectuals, we all have to go along with it, for they are literally re-creating the world in their image.

Politics and Science

  Using science to enforce political decisions will undermine both politics and science - for politics is about human relations which are by definition subjective, and science is about abstract, objective facts that by definition have to exclude what is subjective. When the two are mixed together, as is now being done, science becomes subjective, and politics becomes dehumanised.   For I can have perfectly valid political reasons to be against the government's response to "the science", ie, I might maintain that taking a stand against totalitarianism is more important than fighting climate change or the latest variant of bird flue - and I fully admit that this is a political position and not a scientific one. Does that make it any less valid? Put another way; I have a problem with someone who claims their political position is scientific. For politics is about values, and there is an assumption that value systems can be derived from science when in fact al
  If you don't believe in freedom, then what exactly is it about slavery that upsets you so much?

Capitalism and the Welfare State

  The consumer is no longer the individual, or the middle classes, or the tourist - the consumer is now the welfare State, with its seemingly unlimited capacity for borrowing against the tax payer's future. In other words, predatory capitalism is tapping public spending, and the public, forced to pay for it by law, have lost all say over whether they even want what their governments are spending their money on.


  I love tuning into the news every evening after work to find out what the latest advice is on how to be covid-correct. Paying so much attention to our great leader, and making sure the virus is in our minds at every minute of every day gives me relief from life's real challenges and responsibilities. At last we have a government that can take all of our responsibilities away from us, so that we are free to never have to think for ourselves again.

Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom

 Revised from a post of November 2019   What follows is a look at Rudolf Steiner's Philosophy of Freedom in the context of Goethe’s understanding of the polarity in nature between particular and universal , ie, between phenomenon and Architype. For example, Goethe looks at a particular phenomenon in nature, such as a particular plant, and he seeks to understand what universal principal is expressing itself in that plant formation. For Goethe, the particular plant is an expression of that universal plant - or archetypal plant. Thus the natural world is, for Goethe, a multitude of particular phenomena, each of which is a manifestation of its own universal law, or architype. Rudolf Steiner continues his own study in this relationship between universal architypes and particular phenomena. But whereas Goethe never turns his attention onto Human consciousness itself, Steiner does. Steiner’s use of Goethe’s method for understanding human consciousness forms the basis of hi