Crossing roads on foot: where the Luciferian collectivisation is immediately life-threatening
A few years ago an article was published at this site concerning how the behaviour of people at traffic lights was representative of society. Although shaped by new ideas encountered since 2012, this article is a sequel of sorts, occasioned by the observation of a certain practice by road users that is becoming more often seen. It is to do with interaction with pedestrians looking to cross a road where it is at a junction with another road, and so where there are no pedestrian crossings, but there are lowered kerbs indicating places where pedestrians may leave the payment. For instance, at a T-junction, the stem of the T might have this arrangement in place so that pedestrians can cross in front of traffic that is giving way to that which is travelling along the road that forms the top stroke of the T.
The behaviour in question is when there is a pedestrian looking to cross, and a vehicle comes to a halt to give way to the pedestrian even though there is an opportunity to move out of the junction; i.e. the way is clear to go. Drivers increasingly appear to forget that they should give way at a road junction for other road users, not for pedestrians looking to step on to the road. Of course, if pedestrians are already on the road when a driver first encounters them, so that they have the right of way, then that is a different matter. The point at issue here is the increasing tendency of drivers to invite pedestrians in front of their stationary car when they should be making their own progress. The Highway Code website is pretty clear that this is undesirable behaviour in a road user:
You should not wave or use your horn to invite pedestrians to let them know that they can cross as this could be dangerous if another vehicle is approaching. It should be left to the pedestrians to decide for themselves when it is safe to cross.
In fact, the concern of any driver in such a situation, for the sake of the flow of traffic, should be to clear the junction. Moreover, if there is no island between the lanes of the road that the pedestrian wants to cross, then a driver who invites a pedestrian to do so is inviting him to risk becoming entangled in traffic coming the other way off the junction. There doesn’t seem to be any appreciation, on the part of the driver who has stopped for a pedestrian, of the pedestrian’s broader journey other than that which takes place in front of the driver’s car.
The behaviour deserves more admonishment if there are no other vehicles behind a car that halts, or fails to proceed, to let a pedestrian cross. In this case, the pedestrian could step onto the road as soon as the car moves out of the junction. Worse again still is the driver who comes to a halt in a straight stretch of road where there is no indication that pedestrians should cross there.
A variation of the practice that is perhaps even more hazardous for pedestrians is when a driver invites walkers onto a dual carriageway at a junction. While in this case there is no traffic coming in to the road from the junction, there may well be traffic still moving on the other lane going into the junction – traffic that can be unsighted from the pedestrian on account of a line of stationary vehicles closer to him. An account of a real-life example of this situation will help the reader understand the problem.
A line of four vehicles was stationary in the right-hand lane of the left-hand road of a duel carriageway at a junction with a roundabout. Lowered kerbs and “please look left” lettering painted into the road indicated the position of a sanctioned crossing point for pedestrians just ahead of the give-way line for the road users. The driver of the first vehicle at the line invited the pedestrian on to the road, but the pedestrian refused, pointing to the traffic coming through the junction in the left-hand lane – obviously evidence in itself that the way was clear ahead for the stationary driver to move off from the junction also. However, the driver continued to wait for the pedestrian, while the pedestrian, increasingly more dismayed by the behaviour of the driver, insisted using vocal indicators, and hand signals, that the car should proceed as normal. After some 10 seconds or so while the car driver remained rooted to the same spot, one of the vehicles behind sounded its horn. At this, the lead car moved off.
As the second vehicle came to the give-way line, it too slowed and invited the pedestrian to cross. Traffic was still approaching the junction in the other lane; although it was by no means heavy, it was persistent and also able to flow through the junction. This second driver also struggled to understand that he should proceed as normal, even with the demonstrative prompting of the exasperated pedestrian. However, eventually this second car also moved off. The truck came next, and its occupants were two painter-decorator types. It didn’t come to a halt, but through a rolled-down window, the driver called out “ahoy there” and put a hand to his mouth and made a noise as if he was blowing a trumpet. Evidently, it was mockery aimed at the pedestrian, who responded by providing criticism of a particularly adult nature back to this “man” with regards his cretinism.
The fourth car stopped – and again, the driver invited the pedestrian onto the road. Once again, this car should have proceeded out of the junction. However, as it was quite clear that no other traffic was imminent in the other lane, and because it was well past due time for the episode to end, the pedestrian thought it would be unreasonable to waste the opportunity to cross. As the pedestrian reached the other side, the truck, which had been all the way around the roundabout, exited on the road parallel to the one it had entered – obviously this vehicle wanted to reach an exit road on that side of the carriageway. The driver repeated his mockery – the pedestrian, now back on the pavement, and who thought at first that the vehicle was returning so that someone could get out of the vehicle, gazed steadily at the occupants. It drove on.
Obviously, this exercise in writing isn’t to demonstrate that people are dumb. This would be something already plentifully demonstrated around here. This exercise helps us understand that people are dumb through their own self-absorption. When a driver invites a pedestrian onto a road when they have no business doing it, it is a form of virtue signalling by which the driver can feel better about himself. The focus of the driver is solely on “what we can do for the other”, not what is best for the other, or anyone else in the system affected by the driver’s actions. Notice how difficult it was for drivers in this example to overcome their narcissism in the face of being forced to do the correct thing. Of course, as well as the enormous drag factor created by a badly formed character, there was also the childish reaction to the lesson – which remained infantile after it was met by a rebuke of an adult nature. Generally, these are the two ways that people in the UK react to behaviour by principle – which is entirely strange to them. Again, the reactions are symptomatic of the problem with British society which produces arrested development adults living in a self-centred, morally relative universe. This nature, of course, is schooled into the Briton by the State; it is “do as thou wilt” Luciferianism, which is the religion of the British ruling class (the issue is entirely more complicated than a sentence can convey – obviously, what the masses can do is limited to behaviour whereby they merely ruin their own life-chances, not that of the people who rule). Moreover, it is indicative of a regressive culture; as has been explained before on these pages, the UK is in a post-civilisation phase. The Millennial generation will arguably be the first since the 13th century (and that’s debatable), in Britain at least, that didn’t provide any human cultural enhancement. Of course, this in turn is indicative of collectivised society – the likes of which have not been seen since before the Renaissance. But then, the objective of the British Government, since the Victorian reaction to Georgian gentrification and middle class boom, has been to return the masses into a state of slavery.
The solution to the problem is for individuals, who are able, to risk vilification, being loathed, and appearing outrageous by defying institutionally engrained “wrong” behaviour (the outcome of the collectivised groupthink): to force civilisation upon the unwilling by uncompromised demonstration (like Cesar Millan does upon the dogs he trains – FBEL has dubbed him counter-revolutionary). What one has to do is to choose to have those of Luciferian character become unable to realise their tendency, or satisfy their desire to be behaviourally incontinent. There is no teaching involved, as such; teaching is the top-down, government-led way of indoctrination that has produced a society of animals that cannot challenge the elite’s mastery of the farm. Instead, it is all part and parcel of living in liberty to create liberty, which includes being the demand for civilisation. What this comes down to is a matter of real market forces. To be the demand for civilisation, one has to reject as much one can the synthetic corporate economy – which is an integral part of the “medievalist” control grid – and to give value to the investment in capital made by small companies and individuals so that they can provide goods and services for civilisational good. FBEL, of course, provides an opportunity to take part in the restoration of human civilisation by making financial contributions in return for the capital expended upon the production of these pages (see here and at the foot of the page). Unfortunately, the results do tend to indicate to the author that his suspicions are correct, and even people who consider themselves conscious of a danger posed by their socialisation, will yet suffer from that “can’t be told” inertia instilled into them from birth by their Luciferian collectivisation – which we can think of, in terms of a colloquial maxim, as one’s own door step upon which one’s own faecal matter continues to be dumped.
The question therefore arises: is it possible for more than a few in the country to overcome their drag factor and to act to initiate a revival of civilisation for the benefit of an entire country? In the end, it’s more important for an individual to concern himself with his own salvation regardless of any wider social ramifications, and so in a way, the question is irrelevant to us. It’s also the way of real market forces that the actions of individuals, unrelated to any outcomes desired by others, will resolve into social movements that are truly organic and grass roots. So, greater salvation lives or dies by itself, and in the end, there’s actually nothing that a Government control grid can do about it, except to encourage a withering on the vine. This is the big secret.
Further FBEL reading:
Old lessons found in surprising places: Sitcom, Aristotelian liberalism, and social engineering (link)
Coming soon: The Cheated (link)
The socialist “Rights of Man” – towards a New World Order (link)
Fake Brexit and the continuation of Globalism; Part Two: the Modern Industrial Strategy (link)
“Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars”; Part One: “Inductance” for economic dominance (link)
