|
It is difficult to come to terms with the Trump-puppetry. I suspect, although I don’t know for sure, that the Trump position is the least controlled policy in the years of neoliberalism, but there is no doubt how effective his time as President has been for the 1%. The 1% control the Republican party, and even though in toto they didn’t want him to begin with they support him now as he is getting them money. Trump is clearly narcissistic, probably to the point of there being a clinical problem, but this matters not to the 1% whose greed is sociopathic and species-suicidal anyway. They give the Trump-puppet a leash of enabled narcissism that covers a continual erosion of regulation that protects people whilst leaving untouched the regulation that protects financial mechanisms – that protects the profits of the 1%. (see Chomsky on Trump as a distraction). For years Republicans have performed the neoliberal dance completely subservient to the 1%-profit-making, there is therefore no reason to believe that they are suddenly enamoured of such a philistine. Apart from the immorality of war which is bipartisan, they do usually claim some sort of moral ethos to their position. Trump does not have any appeal to morality, his rationale is hardcore right-wing populism. I am convinced that many republicans have a dilemma over the promotion of certain right-wing values that cause violence. But this is tolerated because of the increased profits and deregulation that is the 1%-bidding. So what about this Guardian opinion? Is there anything to it other than a snowflake knee-jerking? I have never considered the Russia interference issue because to me it is a RED herring – cold war joke. You have to be very ignorant to think that there has not been some Russian manipulation through social media. How serious the impact is I have no idea, but that has got to be a conditioning problem connected to gullibility. However the essential tenet of US foreign policy since the Second World War has been manipulation, so there is a clear level of hypocrisy. During the Cold War era there was a continual vying of international interest between US and USSR – dominated by US manipulation. Despite the naivete of this Guardian article this US manipulation has never been for the promotion of democracy – it could better be described as the promotion of neocolonialism of which sham electoral democracy is a lynchpin for the deluding of populations. So what does a public show of solidarity with Putin show? Maybe it is that the world must accept a move to the right? For me some sort of alliance between the US, USSR and China initially appears beneficial for the world. But I suspect that the Trump-puppet/ Putin summit was not concerned with cementing a G3 but an attempt at marginalising China in the Trump-puppet trade war. In this clip Paul Jay of TRNN (the Real News Network) describes the interrelationship between free market, oligarchs (Russian and American), their puppets, Trump and possibly Putin, and the way they control governments. There are far too many clarifications that Paul makes it is a waste of writing to discuss them, listen. And in relation to a G3, in this clip Paul makes it clear that Trump-puppet strategies are concerned with China and Iran – his actions indicate this so I won’t disagree. It makes sense that Trump-puppet cements an alliance with Russia in a trade war with China, and Russia is an essential ally in the balkanisation of the Middle East and the control of Iran. This quote places the Russiagate hype into an obvious context that I had not previously seen – shame on me “The reason that there was such vicious glee emanating from liberals in regards to RT America being targeted and sanctioned, is because liberals have been conditioned to believe that Russia in general, and RT America in particular, is the sole reason for Trump being president. The mainstream media, in fulfilling their position as the propaganda arm for the elites and the military-intelligence industrial complex, has continuously beat the anti-Russia and anti-RT drum.” I have watched the machinations of neoliberalism, the Corporate-Democrats, eschewing Bernie in favour of Hillary, and since the Trump-puppet election their failure to come up with a meaningful strategy to fight the Trump-puppet – simply hoping he will implode. Their efforts are far more concerned with fighting the genuine democratisation of the party, much in line with the attacks on Corbyn through anti-Semitism and the like. Here is a clear analysis of Fake News and Russia by the late Edwards S Herman, a collaborator of Chomsky; it is detailed and not just focussed on Russia but the Fake News of the New York Times: its approach is similar to this blog. BAR have a very clear position on this RED herring of Russia as illustrated by this gif:-
As usual BAR analysis is on the money and is far more critical of the snowflake response to Russia. This article is rather polemic but describes the situation. Glen’s use of “dependable” is interesting and worth considering. I completely accept that Obama and Clinton as neoliberal mouthpieces were dependable. What about Trump-puppet? This is a subjective view, and as I don’t know him has got to have very little credence. I accept Chomsky’s view that Trump is loving the attention – and whilst snowflakes particularly are focussed on him the 1% are making long-term changes that Americans and the world will suffer from as they increase accumulation. The Trump-puppet’s narcissism is also drawing all the flack, and this the 1% have got to love. In fact if Trump-puppet continues to do what they want, he is better than Clinton- and Obama-puppet. Certainly Obama’s popularity enabled introduction of certain policies without disruptive response. Trump-puppet is causing far more damage to the social fabric of America but this does not overly concern the 1%. Trump-puppet is increasing war profits, but there has to be serious questions as to how much damage he is doing to international business “ethos”. For example, do the 1% want a trade war with China? I subscribe to the view that there is a global 1%-land, and 1%-“nationality” is far more important in 1%-land. Despite some views to the contrary (Icke etc.), these people are still human. The American 1% will certainly pay lip-service to Trump-puppet’s MAGA although accumulation will be their first priority. I suspect close ties between US and Russian oligarchs (not something that was started by Trump-puppet), but I am not so sure about China because their protectionist policies especially with regards to currency tends to be a barrier to imperial control. So I am unsure about China and the trade war. Is Trump-puppet dependable? I would say no. Is he controllable? I think very much so. Will he always be so? ?????? The same article talks about the corporatocracy wanting diversity, I think they have accepted that rather than wanting it. Accepting it means that they have been able to profit from it, no moral position. Now there is confrontation rather than diversity, they can still exploit it. Exploiting people is what they do. To them it doesn’t matter whether there is confrontation, in fact it is better for them because accepting diversity risks a united position against the 1%; division is the usual 1% strategy. For the 1% bipartisan confrontation, racist and sexist confrontation suits, so there I disagree with Glenn – “Thus, corporate America, wedded as it is to a “diversity” doctrine that means little to the masses of Black people but is a red flag to the White Man’s Party “deplorables,” will be forced to identify more publicly with the Democrats, or pretend to be apolitical.” I want to finally note this article in which BAR attacks the Democrats’ black caucus. I note rather than comment, it is not for a white person to comment on such issues. However I will say to white people who talk about black people as one … There is a unity of all black people when they meet white racism, as white people we need to change our racism, stop racist assaults at whatever level, and see black people as the different people they are. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
|
I have never fully confronted my chauvinism, and it is an important lack that I haven’t. Usually what I do is draw comparisons with racism which I believe I have quite a good handle on because of the great support I got from black people in my 20s. My shins got the racism kicked out of me – a reference to a time when I got kicked under the table in a pub by a quiet black friend who I was shamefully trying to antagonise – even though he was helping me. One problem is how much sexual desire controls me, and this is different to racism in that the only difference between black and white is culture – pure systemic conditioning. People who claim any difference are simply applying cultural conditioning and putting it in a natural context. However there is a fundamental natural context that differs women from men, and that is far from being understood. As an aside I do however need to consider how my sexual preference relates to my understanding of racism. I prefer black women so I could never accept any form of inferiority because they were black, mind you that doesn’t stop the patriarchy from treating women as inferior. I found this clip and listened to it briefly, and noted with some dismissal that there was a coming together of love and feminism – I will expand on that later. But before I really got to look into the clip I happened to watch the movie “The Girl from the Song” (imdb ref), a remake of the Orpheus and Eurydice myth. I felt such a deep empathy with the pain and frustration of the male character, it was like I had lived it. But at uni a big trip was from England to Wales, and I was afraid to go to Europe with the lads – more because I was afraid of missing out – let alone Nevada. After hitting bottom After the search for the cosmic had been driven away by Peyton Place, there was only one time I ever felt the pain of love and rejection – not rejection unfulfilment with the Zim lady. But the cosmic – love and spiritual – is what I related to in “The Girl from the Song”, and I note it might not have been a male fantasy as the writers were women – the director was male. 50 shades of grey was written by a woman, but as bell hooks points out in the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy it is all who are conditioned. For me my period of search for the cosmic was dominated by a deep sense of giving love but not receiving. However to be fair, in a relationship between two people it is so difficult to reach a detachment – an objective assessment. On reflection I always felt that I was giving out a deep and powerful love, a love that was probably perceived as all-consuming. In the film I could feel the love and fear of the insecure young male, Eric, the paradox of that possessive love in which he loved her free spirit but his fear wanted to control it. This sentence is what I want to take into consideration of this clip. In my late 20s there was my first love. It was never destined but whilst this was not a powerful reason for separation I came away feeling that a home should not be the place where I became the object of anger because of the appendage between my legs, the anger was never personal is how I recall it. I watched a movie, “Something New”, with Sanaa Lathan and Simon Baker (the first time I watched it he did not have the feel of a white man to love such a black woman but the second time I did not notice that). In the storyline he walked out because she was giving him “the black stuff” all the time. She lived “black stuff” all the time so that is the price of loving a black woman. Isn’t “feminist stuff” a price I should have been willing to pay – a woman is a woman all the time? Yes, but I was too young. However I can never recall being the white skin that was the focus of black anger, but there is probably nothing to be drawn from that. Or maybe there is. Maybe there was an unspoken recognition in the black relationships that I had sufficiently come to terms with racism, but had not come to terms with sexism. The clip begins with the lady, Sara, asking that there be some kind of therapy/encounter in which the men stand their ground and accept the rage of the woman – described as a 3-hour process. This has a positive ring as with the “shinning process”. At the end of this process the woman then makes the man an object of her unconditional love. There is a disjointed interaction. But then I have buts … 1) A woman can discharge her rage and a man sits there and accepts her pain. I like this because the woman is able to discharge her pain body hopefully to a greater extent. One of the points of the exercise is for the man to be able to accept that he has been part of a toxic culture. The rage teaches the man that there is a toxic culture because of the justified anger. But beyond that, what does the man learn? In my own case I would want to know what aspect of me was part of that toxic culture, since I was being the object of non-personalised rage. I am part of a racist culture because I am white, I am part of sexist culture because I am male, I am part of an oppressive culture because I am western and have the privileges associated with that as well. I am also arrogant at times so I am MAWP. But I have also spent all my life fighting these injustices. If you rage at me because of the system, I could sit and soak it up but then come away thinking how unjust the process was. However if I could be personally shown how I contributed then I could learn and change. We all live in the conditioning of an imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. That conditioning applies to all of us. The woman who is raging, apart from lessening her pain body significantly, how much has she learnt about how the conditioning has affected her? bell says educating about patriarchy helps men, it does; it helps women as well. I don’t know the male statistic but 53% of white women voted for Trump. Is it also right to tell women who are satisfied with a home – what appears to be a natural drive/instinct – that they are weak and conditioned for wanting this? All people, I include myself, need educating about the conditioning they receive in the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. When I watch the snowflake response to Trump-puppet baiting I just see conditioning – female as well as male. I like to see that there is #MeToo awareness processes happening involving men and women but doesn’t this first stage need refining? But this next stage is what concerns me with regards to Orpheus and Eurydice. Love is the presence or grace that is beyond conditioning – beyond the feminine and masculine. Love is most often spoken of in terms of relationships between women and men – appropriate gender relationships; but I understand that such explosive passions awaken love and that love can then be beyond the daily interactions. In Buddhist terms it is beyond atta – beyond the khandhas:-
What is the relationship of the feminine and masculine to the khandhas? Evidently there is a difference in body – rupa. Then there is yinyang, feminine in the masculine and vice versa. Are the feminine and masculine the same with regards to feelings – vedana, perceptions – sanna, and sankhara – mental actions? I think there is difference but it appears that many do not; but whilst I accept there is difference I do not accept inequality. I think this discussion of love and khandhas is relevant to Sara’s second stage. Love is described by Sara as something that women do. Women try to control relationships by empowering their relationships with greater love, and then to keep themselves from getting hurt they withdraw love. I do not know whether all women do this, I certainly accept that this is something that Sara has come into contact with – herself, friends or discussion groups. Because there is the toxic environment of patriarchy does not mean that some men do not love and that some men do not suffer pain. It would not be very positive for me to be raged against by women for not loving given the pain I have experienced through unrequited love. But for myself this pain has been healing, the pain and experience has helped heal me from some of the toxic aspects of conditioning that comes from the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. The pain and experience has helped me move beyond conditioning to love, presence, grace, sunnata, … Sara doesn’t get her needs met. If the relationship is a loving relationship then those needs are khandhas that need to be mutually arrived at, two people have mutual needs. Sara also doesn’t feel safe. I have never felt safe and now live alone – that is me. From what I observe in relationships, I see some needs being met for both women and men. It appears to be a balance that couples come to terms with, I never could. However the field of this balance is biased by patriarchy – in general by the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. There is a danger now for some that instead of looking for this balance an absolute ideal is sought. When I grew up the man was master of his own castle, and for some men this maxim became an absolute. Is there now an opposite extreme of #meToo balance? There is no doubt that the alt-right believe this – or at least that is what they espouse. This balance has to be mutually agreed, and if it can’t be agreed then maybe there is no living relationship as Jo decided in the movie The Girl from the Song. There is nothing greater than love, if you have this then to allow something to get in the way is for me the greatest crime. Within that love the balance of daily life needs to be found – and that is not a given, ask Eric and Jo. The balance is based on conditioning, and it becomes necessary to help each other understand their conditioning. The imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy determines that conditioning, and all people are subject to it. In nature we learn through instinct that produces a conditioned ego, and as we mature we get rid of that ego. However for many people they never see that ego and so as they get older, instead of maturity getting rid of ego, ego entrenches itself. Love is beyond conditioning but if we don’t see the conditioning of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy we are unlikely to have loving relationships. #MeToo does not change that, nor does the guilt of men as that is conditioned response in some. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
MAWPs and Fake News
Posted: 15/07/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, StruggleTags: Conditioning, Trump-puppet
|
In this blog I examined a history of “fake news” in which sound people have always seen the news as “fake” – controlled by media moguls of the 1%. Trump’s approach to Fake News is different, he trying to control what his supporters accept as news – news is fake unless the news supports Trump. This is not a question of Fake News but a propaganda exercise that has worked well in deluding many of his supporters. I have already described a while back why MAWPs are a particular target group or demographic of Trump supporters. There is an obvious corollary to Trump’s control of Fake News that I had not pointed out; I was aware of it but it was not central to my understanding. The A of MAWP is arrogant, they know what is going on, they don’t need to learn anything because they already know. So when they are told the news is fake, they already know it is. I was quoted Denzel Washington “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read it, you’re misinformed”; but this was used by the MAWP as an excuse not to learn. And that is awful. As usual this MAWP was set in his ways, and like another MAWP recently – not the troll, he can listen and agree to the most significant aspects of being a genuine socialist:- the problem is the 1% and they make profits from war. After the previous MAWP I was aware of how much agreement there was. With this MAWP there was good banter as well – as I was a snowflake and he was a fascist bastard. But when there was serious discussion he agreed with the main points – as did the other MAWP who had shocked me so much when I became aware he was a Trump supporter. The point is that these guys have a good sense of Unity with the main issue of 1% and war, but have been completely conditioned into the neoliberal bipartisan created schism of fascists and snowflakes. When I described neoliberalism and the way it works he didn’t disagree, but he immediately mawped up when I talked of media conditioning saying something like “my ideas are my own” – his A. This is the problem with MAWPs – his ideas are not his own but the way the 1% want MAWPs to think, and he is not listening to anyone else who is saying differently because they are speaking “Fake News”. The right wing has never been willing to listen. When I grew up the right wing were comfortable with the news occasionally ranting about the socialist bias of the BBC. So they got their steady flow of right-wing propaganda at 9.00pm. People of my generation rejected this propaganda and they made minor changes to the BBC, such changes of course moving away from the right-wing post-war propaganda of the 50s, 60s and 70s but never telling the truth. For these right-wingers, left-wing means centrist (Blair) but by then the Liberals had become powerful elsewhere under Blair’s government. And they became a target. It was correct they were targeted but the reasons were wrong. These snowflakes adhered to their ideals eschewing the other, and so the right-wing became alienated and have backlashed with Trump, Farage and Brexit. I apologise for seamlessly moving between the US and UK, but the dominant forces in both countries are similar. In the US however there are more extremists and more money to create them, hence the emergence of Trump, however there has always been the ilk of “Brittania Unchained” and Dominic Raab in British politics. The point of this blog is how do we educate MAWPs? By their nature their arrogance prevents education, and this weakness has been utilised by the money behind the move to the right. The answer for educating them is not through the bleating of snowflakes as they just heighten their arrogance. Whichever think-tank decided to empower snowflakes under Blair and Obama certainly knew how to push MAWP buttons, how long will we have to pay for this manipulation? For most of my life the answer of educating has always been information, present the facts and anyone desiring to learn will understand the truth. Now that we are in a situation where such information cannot be controlled by the media 1% they have a new tactic – Fake News, make these MAWPs think that they are being lied to by all who disagree. In the US the MAWPs fail to see how the 1% and their Trump-puppet are simply enabling further exploitation perhaps because the Trump-puppet spends time decrying his masters to make himself popular. The arrogance of these MAWPs that they can believe a politician is absolutely staggering, and despite so much evidence to the contrary believe he is working in their interest. However this is in line with the small business owner who arrogantly considers themselves to be part of the 1% until they are swallowed by the Big fish. Convincing these “fooled” has gotten harder with access to information, all they see with the new information is snowflake foolishness because of their own MAWP arrogance. This is why the recognition of conditioning globally is a Unity-strategy for moving forward. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
My cultural transgression
Posted: 11/07/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, InsightTags: bell hooks, Conditioning
|
In this clip (see below) bell hooks discusses transgression initially in terms of rap music, then white appropriation and so on. As usual she is a walking enquiry (see this blog “Nowhere to hide“), and I began thinking of my own cultural transgression – involvement with black people. Was it a phase? I am not now living in a black community so in that sense it was a phase, but I am not living in a white community either. So was it a phase, and does that matter? Ultimately my history with black people ended when I finished work, and decided to retire to Thailand to seek peace, a peace I soon found there – fundamentally in isolation. In a sense this peace is “outside community”, there is limited connection to my personal history, and limited connection to the community I live in because of my limited language. It means that I must find peace in who I am and peace in nature. I question whether there is peace with people – necessary support but peace? When she spoke of transgression it was not a word I fully understood – when I looked into it I was surprised how little I had considered it given my personal history. First of all this analysis might fall into the arena of sankhara – over-intellectualising, because I did what I did. But the purpose of any analysis has to be to see whether my actions were conditioned. Is my cultural transgression a conditioned cultural response? That reminds me of my father who claimed I would soon grow out of my socialism. That socialism was based in compassion, and compassion is not something I could grow out of – many do. In my family’s white middle-class suburbia I knew of only one black person; he was in school, big and he was always fighting. Now in retrospect I am not surprised given what he had to put up with, but it just invoked fear in me. I met only one black person at university. She ended up being the girlfriend of a person in the hall of residence and she wouldn’t speak to me even though her hometown was 5 miles away and that meant I wanted her as a holiday friend because we were “uni”. It didn’t happen, I suspect I said something crass – racist – when drunk. The only other image of her I have is that she was nice and quiet. When I first started work I met a few black people but they were not in my life. I do remember an incident in which a friend said that this lady would sleep with me. To me this lady was way too powerful and overbearing. She was overbearing, American, loud black and older (early 30s), by comparison I was weak, talked only when drunk, white, shy English, and young for my age at 22. I was also very sexually immature, she obviously wasn’t. I can’t remember what I said but I thought about it and weeks later told my friend I would, and was laughed at by my friend who said this lady had moved on. My first real encounter with black people came in my first teaching job. Between the above immature experiences and starting this job I had hit bottom – At school I became more familiar with black people both as students and teachers, and as one black friend took the time to educate me I unlearnt a lot of my white supremacist conditioning (in this clip (4.33) see why bell uses this terminology). At the time I was an educationalist, and did not have a full view of education in terms of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy. I saw education as offering the possibility of leading out the true self, and I started teaching to see if I could do that. Because it was so soon after hitting bottom, spirituality was almost singular and the priority. Once in the school I saw how unjust the treatment of the black kids was, and they became a focus. Because I saw the institution was contributing so much to the disadvantage I began teaching in the evening in a black community education project. This brought me into contact with black educationalists outside school. Starting on the path I was desperate for experience. Although I was fortunate to have started on the path and therefore had some wisdom, I was socially and sexually very immature. This was not helped by the alcohol-induced view that I could meet people when drinking, anomaly when I thought of myself as spiritual. After a while that desire for experience turned to women, and I fell in love with a woman (white) – for a number of reasons this didn’t work out after maybe two years. It was then I became interested in black women forming a close non-sexual relationship with a colleague. At the time my social life was also “around” the black community, and I was then continually seeking a black woman – between the drink. As an after-school activity I began work on a magazine through the youth centre, and being disillusioned with education I took this up full-time producing the Young Journal. In my mind it was a magazine that could present the creative talents of black youth – without being focussed on music and hair. The content however was driven by the young people who came across the magazine so my bias doesn’t show in it. Towards the end of the 3rd issue I started my tempestuous relationship with a black woman that lasted two and a half years and disrupted my life. This love ended the magazine and I was in Brighton working and trying to survive the relationship. With the magazine I had met people, mainly Africans, who put meat on the bones of my understanding of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy – with limited emphasis on patriarchy. My understanding became far more international in perspective, and was evident in the political life I turned to. My time in Brighton was dominated by my love, the failed relationship and its aftermath, and I left for Africa. One friend gave me a nudge and a wink saying that once I had tasted chocolate … I don’t know but by then I was 40. This friend might have been correct but in my mind there was experience and reasons for leaving Brighton with its relationship and aftermath. I had experienced black family life. Whilst in the relationship I had made my drinking far worse – because of my weakness, the particular black woman and her family, but in part I had enjoyed living with this black woman; she was the first woman I had lived with – when younger I had fallen in love but I was too independent to live with her. So this brought me to dabbling in Africa. For half the men on the teaching programme relationships with black women became the focus of living there, for others it was travel; as were many, women and travel became my focus. However by then I was not drinking so women and travel were not enough, I did an M Ed, mid-life review and moved towards Buddhism. But I dabbled with African women living with me – on and off for nearly 7 years, and because of their cultural upbringing this worked well 90% of the time and the other 10% was tumult. Although one time I was close, I never fell in love in Southern Africa, and moved away from Africa to private schools to try to get a pension. Once I left Southern Africa there were never any further relationships with women, although 5 years later I returned to West Africa to teach. Once I finished with that contract black people have been a rarity in my life. So was all this transgression? On reflection I have always thought of my gender-type as “white man attracted to black women”; after the time I fell in love near 30, I have never had a relationship with a white woman. This is why it could be a gender-type so I think of it as more than transgression. But is it? For 12 years I have lived alone in a country of beautiful women. I came here thinking that relationship could occur through religion, but there hasn’t been a glimpse. For 7 years after Southern Africa I wanted only meaningful long-term relationships, and it became clear that could only happen if I lived somewhere. But it hasn’t happened where I live. In my last job I enjoyed working with black people and the students although the school situation was horrendous – and that had some cultural origins. Am I any nearer answering the transgression question? To begin with I thought no but now I feel I am. At the time of hitting bottom I had rejected conditioning but I was still conditioned. This meant that transgression was still part of my privileged conditioning. I felt that I had the right to go out there and experience. It was never my intention to return to the privileged background that bell refers to, but there was still the privilege that I felt I had the right to go out and experience. But one can’t ignore the fact that this is also nature’s path – young people going out and experiencing, getting old, reflecting and finding peace. But there is no doubt that I benefitted from privileged conditioning. I should also note that I was so immature that I was 40 before my desire for experience risked the world. In a way this was good because by then I knew enough of myself to be self-reliant instead of seeking solely from the community. Cultural transgression is a conditioned response. Privilege entitles people to move out and experience the different, and once they have had a few knocks, return home and count the pennies. This is similar to nature’s conditioning. The young person leaves home gets some experience, and then returns to the womb-community recreating the family culture for a new generation. When I consider my early adult life in London, I think of people exploring – the 60s and aftermath, yet these people have turned back to their womb-community, and in Brexit voted with community. Emotionally that feels like a betrayal, but backs up bell’s view of transgression. Sometimes social conditioning and natural conditioning combine and it is difficult to discern. One can never be absolutely certain where the boundaries lie, but it is good to investigate – learning that includes learning about our conditioning is the purpose. Thank you again, bell, for the spur to enquiry. Below:- bell hooks gave a talk on Cultural Criticism and Transformation, and there are 8 parts to the talk. Unfortunately part 7 is considered unsuitable by youtube so you can’t find it. Part 8 starts on about rap music, and then about half-way through this clip she discusses the transgression of white people “getting into rap”. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
|
The first principle of politics is Unity so I hate the idea of condemning someone writing near the Left but the viewpoint of this neoliberal lackey is a huge problem because she confuses the waters. Analysing why I say this however is useful. I first want to establish some parameters. I am not defending Susan Sarandon because I don’t know where she stands, I am only criticising the position of the writer of the article. I also wish to explain my use of the word “snowflake”. I equate this word with a term “wishy-washy liberal” that many socialists have used. But it is a word used by populist right – alt-right. Should that be a reason for me not to use it? I use it because the description feels apt. Liberals, armchair socialists are one of the causes of the move to the right although the main cause is the finance of the dark money network promoting right-wing populism by supporting “bad actors”. Liberals and armchair socialists tend to just talk. Social media is an excellent media for these people because they can pretend to be active. These people might say “I agree with you but I will not strike”. “I agree with you but … I am not risking my job, my house, my catchment area/school district, my way of life, my standard of living”. In other words the agreement was in words only. Because establishment knew they were only confronted by words, they did nothing to change. And now that these word-battlers have been confronted by the alt-right they panic, but they have no substance – they are snowflakes. Why call them snowflakes? Because they must choose, they must be more determined, for the world to change snowflakes must get a backbone. In the UK snowflakes are Guardian readers so it is not surprising that this article is from the Guardian, Owen Jones needs to sort her. Let’s now analyse. The main thrust of the article is that because some people support the Greens they are taking votes from the Democrats enabling Trump. This is an argument about strategic voting, and strategic voting generally misses the point. Yes, I would have voted for Clinton as I would Blair, but 98% of me doesn’t want Clinton/Blair – 100% of me doesn’t want Trump. What a choice for someone whose politics is mainly concerned with compassion for ALL – compassion and freedom for all people and compassion for the planet. This is the dilemma of neoliberalism, and the Guardian article just perpetuates this neoliberal compromise. People need to stand up and demand compassion for ALL, snowflakes don’t, Democrats and Labour remain neoliberal, and we have Trump and Brexit – and the 1% increasing the power of the alt-right. There should be no need for a Green party. Democracy and Socialism (Labour) should automatically promote Green. In fact Green should be the priority as put forward by indigenous wisdom, but if we were democrats and socialists we would recognise the truth of indigenous wisdom. The failure lies not with Susan Sarandon supporting the Greens but with the mainstream of Democrats and Labour who support a neoliberal agenda, an agenda which includes so many policies that support war and wage-slavery. Snowflakes don’t be “Guardian readers”, be compassionate for ALL and demand change in Democrats and Labour – unite behind Bernie and Corbyn. End neoliberalism. From the article I disagree with a quote from Susan Sarandon, maybe it is out of context because from what I know of her she would support what I then say. “Only a few months ago, Susan was explaining to this newspaper that had Hillary been elected: “We would still be fracking, we would be at war. It wouldn’t be much smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.” As she concluded of Hillary: “I did think she was very, very dangerous.”” But what Susan doesn’t say in this quote (maybe she says it elsewhere) has been put clearly by Chomsky here. Trump has benefitted business by removing regulations. I would also suggest that under Trump there has been increased actions of racism and sexism. Under Hillary I doubt if there would have been the increased racism and sexism, I am not so sure so many regulations would have been removed. But in terms of war and wage-slavery there would have been business as usual, the same as Trump without the bluster. The point of this blog is that the writer is participating in attacks on each other – on ourselves, instead of attacks on neoliberalism, very safe for her job. She can create snowflake debate without losing her job, she can pretend she is actually working for an improved life for all without threatening her own livelihood and family – because she is not threatening the media establishment of neoliberalism who pay her wages. For me there are only two classes, and we need to work for Unity in the struggle against the 1%. Promoting strategic voting at the expense of needed policy is not a way of doing this. I also propose recognition of a new “class” – the snowflake class. Many people divide the 99% so here is my division – alt-right, snowflakes and socialists. At the moment socialists are very much in the minority but they are a driving force for compassion for ALL. For the world to change snowflakes will have to become disadvantaged enough that they see the need to be socialists. At the same time the alt-right who are not deplorables need to realise that their egos are being pandered to by Trump and Brexit as a tool of the 1%, then the good people from the alt-right will learn to bury their differences with socialists and work for compassion for ALL. A long struggle. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
Recognising Conditioning is Unity
Posted: 30/06/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, ONE planet, StruggleTags: Conditioning, Gaia, pathtivism, treatise
|
This could have been a continuation of the last blog, but that then could have been long and missed the point about the New Fact of Life. Understanding and seeing racism as conditioning is a way of working – campaigning. Making demands in terms of identity is not helpful, there is no education – no communication. Just an ideal, a set of ideas that is agreed with or disagreed with. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are racist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. You are sexist, no I’m not. There is no meeting here, no communication, no helping each other. But understanding conditioning recognises that it is not a switch, yes or no, it is a spectrum – a continuum. I will always have to be conscious of racism because there are always conditioning forces that want to make me racist again – even despite an awareness that was a pinnacle as editor of Young Journal and was never really lost teaching in Botswana and Nigeria – lost now 12 years in Thailand? As discussed throughout the It is important to consider the current political realities in terms of this conditioning. It is quite clear that we are all conditioned to some extent, and it is equally evident that this conditioning benefits the 1% who accumulate whilst our different conditionings divide us. If we don’t keep our focus on those who benefit with our divisions we end up contributing to those benefits. If we accept that there is a conditioning both natural and systemic, then we can begin to experience freedom whilst at the same time become aware of how deeply exploited we are by the 1%. We can then see that being divided only hurts us. It is so important to understand that this conditioning does not singly apply to those who are privileged within the conditioning. In bell hooks words it conditions privilege to imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchs and withdraws privilege from those who are not. All people are conditioned to accept the privilege of the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, not just white men, but women – all genders, and people of colour. What is also important to note in this description of conditioning is that of the conditioning of the ego, to move beyond conditioning is to move beyond ego. This is significant for a group of intellectuals known as the IDweb. These people demand freedom but this freedom is limited and conditioned, it is really freedom to exploit. Genuine freedom is freedom from conditioning, freedom from ego, freedom for all. In the US and increasingly in the western world this freedom has become freedom from government regulation, and as Noam Chomsky discusses here, the purpose of Trump flim-flam is to create a public charade whilst removing regulations that benefit business and disadvantage people – all done in the name of freedom. A key component of the IDweb (article not link site gone?) is the promotion of the individual intellectual – the cult of the individual intellectual such as the ego of Jordan Peterson or Sam Harris, and significant in all of the IDweb is that lack of freedom for ALL, the lack of compassion for ALL. This is the intellectualism of the ego, of competition, of self-aggrandisement, of capitalism. Also try to see where identity politics fits into this process of conditioning. This creates an identity or ego around certain ideals such as fighting the privilege of white men in favour of non-whites, non-males etc. These are ideas that the ego attaches to and makes demands for. This is a conditioned response to the exploitation by the imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy but in itself is still conditioned. When the ego clings to an ideal as a conditioned response it creates division. If instead it was recognised as conditioning then it would be more clearly understood that moving beyond conditioning is not holding to ideals but educating an awareness that is beyond conditioning. In other words identity politics is a divisive conditioned response of the ego, needs to understand its own egoic conditioning, needs to move forward in its understanding of conditioning, and begin to recognise the importance of Unity and the need to develop awareness. Whilst a step in the right direction Marxism has got stuck as an ideal that more and more people are rejecting. It came about as an explanation as to how working people were being exploited by the capitalist/imperialist owners of the nineteenth century. Marxism was however limited to an examination of finance, and by limiting the ethos to finance it has left the proletariat vulnerable to exploitation through finance and by accumulation. The level of accumulation of contemporary super-wealthy is far beyond that envisaged in the times of Marx, and the ease with which many of the proletariat can be bought off by the super-wealthy makes any organisation by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie virtually impossible if they are fighting for equality of finance. Continuing with an emphasis on finance is now a conditioned response because it has been controlled by the powerful – by the 1%. In moving beyond conditioning we have to try to establish what is beyond the conditioning, beyond the ego, and when we recognise how conditioning works we can see that what is beyond is compassion and freedom for all. This I discussed in the Treatise as pathtivism:-
When I discussed this as being esoteric – a bit beyond, I was not exhibiting a clear analysis. Where we are going with a class analysis based on finance is outmoded and has been controlled by the 1%. Class based on the global interests of all people would end the competitiveness that divided the first from the third world. But a position in which the global class interest is placed in the context of Gaia would bring sustainability to an interest that is limited to humanity and its lack of sustainability. These last two positions are not contradictory for Gaia’s interest and the peoples’ interests are identical if thought through. It is capitalism that focusses on exploiting resources to increase profit, that is conditioning, and is not in the peoples’ interest. Pathtivism or indigenous wisdom is the only practical way forward, a way that is beyond conditioning. For a fuller development of the recognition of conditioning, addiction and the need for pathtivism in the context of Gaia, consider the last section of the |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
New Fact of Life
Posted: 29/06/2018 by zandtao in ONE planet, StruggleTags: Conditioning, Trump-puppet
|
When I grew up people were racist overtly, much use of racist language – as a child and teenager I used such language; it was just my upbringing. On reflection I would say that I was never being intentionally racist but more importantly I was making no effort to be anti-racist, it was just what people in a white suburb in the 60s were like. I was fortunate. As a young man I met people who taught me not to be racist, I particularly remember a black teacher who later became a friend taking the time to teach me not to be racist. Over time I began to explore how deep this racism went – in me and in society, and as I got older I grew to understand more and more of the racist conditioning that is endemic in British society. To think someone is “inferior” because of the colour of the skin is something I now find completely alien. When I was young I can’t say I thought black people “inferior” in any way, but it was just the done thing to use racial insults. Institutionally to treat someone as being “less” in any way is completely unjust. For example the housing practices of Lambeth council in the 70s and early 80s disadvantaged black people, and was unacceptable – it was just white people favouring white people; in other words institutional racism. As I grew older my perspective widened, and I began to see the treatment of black people as “internal colonialism”. Overseas the tactics of the ruling colonial government was always to divide and rule. I particularly remember two African guys (friends) who took the time to educate me on how this worked in their countries of Cameroon and Uganda. Whilst divide-and-rule was not limited to Africa, it was very effective there. I was also recently taught that divide-and-rule as a tactic has existed far longer by Indians – in the caste system. With such powerful forces in place it is hardly surprising that British people grow up with racist conditioning. When I was younger things started to change. In the 70s and 80s there was a move to change this racism. It started with language because misuse of language towards black people was so prevalent, but at that time it was perceived as a two-stage process – stop the insulting language and then educate as to why the language was so inappropriate. Over the years this process changed, mainly under Blair (I was not in the UK then), and it became acceptable that racist language was censored – without any educational component. Those critical of this approach call it PC-authoritarianism, and I completely understand why. With the focus on the superficialities of PC and language, the awareness of the problem has been lost, and many people just accepted the censorship seeing the language as unacceptable without developing any awareness. Although there was an improved environment because of the lack of such language, there was not really a change in racist attitudes – they were just hidden. For this reason it has been so easy for the racism to re-emerge as right-wing forces have become stronger. The new fact of life is that such racist opinion that had been hidden has been emboldened by politicians prepared to express such opinions. It now means that I have to be prepared to meet racists who are prepared to express their racism, and I have to live with it. At the same time there is still a powerful PC-authoritarian lobby for whom censorship is acceptable. This means that there is unlikely to be a change in awareness as there are just two opposing opinions being expressed, and no attempt at communication and no attempt at developing awareness. In fact trolling as baiting snowflakes has become popular, and such arrogance can never be helpful – however tempting. What has to be understood is that racism is part of the conditioning that western countries deliver – it is still part of our upbringing. How it is experienced differs from family to family, from white community to white community. I have no idea how it is experienced in society now, I don’t know how just the teaching of racism is. But it is fair to say that all white people grow up conditioned as racists to some extent, it is just part of general conditioning in white society. Conditioning is powerful as discussed in Treatise LINK – Ch22 and elsewhere. It is just part of the experience of growing up in a western society. Although society and education is similar throughout, how racism is perceived is very different depending on family and community. But it is emotion and conditioning that determines how racist you are. My own increased awareness came from meeting black people who took the time to help me. If in your community you don’t meet such good people then the racism is likely to be far more entrenched. What has to be understood is that racism is conditioned, it is not rational. We receive attitudes in our upbringing, and emotionally we attach to these attitudes – they are not based on rational thinking. At the same time we cannot use observation to support a position. For example gang culture, one cannot deny there are black gangs deeply involved in drug culture and who kill each other. Equally it cannot be denied that there are not such white drug gangs although white criminality is prevalent throughout all strata of white society – and rich crime is far more dangerous and lucrative. One can observe however survival behaviour amongst poorer people whatever the colour of the skin. Simply by observation one could make any argument for or against racism simply by selecting the observations you choose. To try to change racism by rational argument alone does not work, awareness is more than just rational – it needs to be emotional and political, an understanding of conditioning. Like all forms of conditioning it takes a long time to undo all the harm our conditioning brings us. I recently met a lady whose views on race were very different to mine. Ten years ago she would have been unlikely to express her views to me even though we would probably both been aware of each other’s views. I do not expect to meet her again whereas previously we would have had a socially acceptable relationship – she was the wife of a friend. The friend and I disagreed over issues but were still able to be amicable – not close. That is fine, that is Unity. But now we are divided, that is the prevailing ethos. The New Fact of Life is that racists are being emboldened by the move to the right. At the same time this emboldening is of people who do not object to separation, do not see the necessity of working together. In my life I have always been seen as extreme – left, but I worked with people accepting that the system was unfair but there was a need for compromise. Centrist-right teachers did not compromise and as it was their system they didn’t have to – but there was a tolerance. The new fact of life is that that tolerance has gone. I don’t like PC-censorship, and tend to agree with right-wing crits that it is oppressive. However right-wing oppression is always far worse. They have no problem with being hypocritical, criticising liberals whilst being far more repressive themselves. But right-wing repression usually brings with it the law, and if not that force then the bullying that goes with right-wing ignorance. I think Antifa violence going on the attack cannot possibly win, and gives credibility to right-wing bullyboys. There does need to be defence but … I fear the increasing right-wing oppression, that kind of mindlessness I was glad to leave behind in the UK. I suspect it will now follow me. Will I still be able to blog nearer my death? And in talking about this New Fact of Life I am partly shamed. 24/7 blacks, Hispanics and Muslims have to live with this, most of the time I can let it pass me by. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
|
“They refuse to see what they see hear what they hear because they are so brain washed and living in Trump and Fox [FAUX] propaganda and an alternate reality We could be at the brink of destruction and they still would follow him like the followers of Jim Jones.” “Offer them all a free weekend in North Korea where everyone loves Trump & Christians plus the beaches are really nice” I saw this meme on facebook, and picked the top two comments. The meme and comments totally irritated me. Yesterday (Blog written two weeks ago) I watched coverage of the North Korea issue. All I saw was partisan ignorance. Ever since there was a DMZ Korea has been divided. Governments from both sides have continued the dispute by having war exercises. If you ignore the media and look for the truth, it was these war exercises that were isolating North Korea. I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes but ending war exercises was a very positive step, whoever made the agreement. It was positive for peace. Here I heard Chomsky describing Trump as something like a public distraction that the media and people were deluded by whilst the powerful were digging away underneath. What has happened since the election is increased polarisation, and polarisation is not a one-sided process. These comments are typical of the polarising positions. Why is it that there are 30% following Trump “blindly”? Because the alternative that is offered has nothing for them. Why did so many vote for such a fool in the first place? Because the alternative offered nothing for them. There have always been racist sexist deplorables but not as many as 30%, why has this proportion increased? Until people answer this question and act on the answer, Trump is going to stay there. It is no good saying I’m right the other is wrong and having a pop. This mentality has been classified as “snowflake”, and has led to “others” not listening. There are a proportion of Trump supporters who are deplorable, and there are others who are not. How are these non-deplorable Trump supporters being addressed? As deplorables fools sexists and racists. Why did these non-deplorables vote for Trump? Because the snowflakes and Democrats offered them nothing. Government is for all the people including white – described as privileged or otherwise. If snowflakes and Democrats continue to offer these white people nothing then Trump will stay in power. Does this mean take jobs from blacks Hispanics or women? NO It means stop supporting the 1% and demand that the 1% return money to the economy so that there are more jobs. After the election some Democrats talked of this, and in the community some are doing this but the Democrat elite in the pockets of Wall Street have done nothing – and just “hoped ” support for Trump will burn out. It seems that it is not. What is clear is that Wall Street Democrats would prefer Trump to the grass roots or Bernie. Until that is changed there will be Trump or similar. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
Indigenous Present Moment
Posted: 29/06/2018 by zandtao in ONE planetTags: Eckhart Tolle, Gaia, Indigenous
|
I have included this post as it especially reminded me of Eckhart Tolle. Courtesy of Wayne William Snellgrove Everything has its wonders, even darkness and silence, and I learn, whatever state I may be in, therein to be content. –Helen Keller There is wonder in the moment, if we but look for it, let it touch us, believe in it. And with the recognition and celebration of the wonder comes the joy we desire and await. Being wholly in tune with the present moment is how we’ll come to know the spiritual essence that connects all of life. We search for peace, happiness, and contentment outside of ourselves. We need instead to discover it within us, now and always, in whatever we are experiencing. We can let our experiences wash over us. Longing for a different time, a distant place, a new situation breeds discontent. It prevents us from the thrill, the gifts offered in this present moment. But they are there. We can practice feeling joyful in the present, be thrilled with the realization that right now, all is well. All is always well. Life is full of mystery and wonder and each moment of our awareness adds to the wonder. Creator, I am moving forward; we all are. I am on target. I am participating in a glorious, wonderful drama. Let me jump for joy. I have been specially blessed. |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
|
Activism needs a broader picture, indigenous wisdom cam provide it. Watch these:-
Why is such wisdom persecuted? EVERYONE MUST KNOW THIS |
|||
|
|||
|
Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education. Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.
|
Zandtao 