When you look around there is all kinds of suffering, it’s just awful. It’s so sad to see things the way they are.

And our newborn they have to grow up in this suffering, to do this they are helped by their upbringing – parents community and education. But what are they helped to do? Grow up, get a job and fit in. This is the 1%-system we are in – get a job and fit in to their profit-making. Fit in with the wars and wage-slavery. It is understandable if people growing up don’t want to fit into this system, look at it.

Basically the way we grow up does not look at it. We are conditioned to get a job and fit in, this is normal. We are conditioned not to see the suffering – the wars, wage-slavery and 1%-system. Breaking free of this conditioning produces two things. We see the suffering for what it is, we find there is a way of peace through this suffering.

Now the Buddha talked of this suffering with the 4 Noble Truths (4NT). He saw the suffering as caused by clinging to desire, and if we can be free of this clinging there is peace. And he offered the 8-fold path (Magga) as a way through this suffering – as a way of being free from clinging.

Whilst the Buddha was innovative when he spoke of the 4NT, this notion of path is quite common-place amongst spiritual people. The path has been spoken of before and since the Buddha, but the path spoken of has many versions not specifically Magga.

I knew none of this when I hit bottom and started to follow the Path. Within me there was a sense of what the Path was, it was a reality that I was able to follow. And it worked. From the times of total confusion around hitting bottom, with various bits of help along the way I held onto this path and developed. It wasn’t until I was 50 that I saw a formal definition of path such as Magga, prior to that the path was verbally vague although a deep real conviction.

I think the following is true, whatever method you use meditation is concerned with calming the mind and being silent. I have meditated off and on since hitting bottom but it is only from being a Buddhist at 49 that meditation has been a regular practice – my form is vipassana meditation. Vipassana just means insight, the purpose of the meditation is insight and it comes from the silence. From the insight comes something else – an inner guide. The calm and silence that comes from meditation leads also to a clarity of action – a guide to action. At hitting bottom, in meditation or otherwise the guide instilled the idea of the Path as a way of living; it was a methodology of living and as such it was a mechanism the guide could give for me to hold onto in those times of confusion. At hitting bottom the conditioning had been removed and I had found my inner guide telling me to follow the Path until the need for a path fell away as I found the guide in meditation. The 7th and 8th steps of Magga are variously translated as concentration, meditation, insight etc.

In Buddhism there is a dead monk I consider my teacher, Ajaan Buddhadasa. From what little I know of his personal history he was actively explaining the Buddhist dhamma in his late teens. I do not know enough of how he developed to know of where his awareness came from but hitting bottom did not seem to be part of it. In the East there is the suffering, there is the 1%-system, there are wars, but their conditioning enables a soft transition for some into various forms of Buddhism. In the West it doesn’t seem the same, neither Christianity nor Islam seem to offer that same soft transition, and it is fairly common for moving beyond the conditioning to be difficult; typically Eckhart Tolle struggled before becoming the teacher he is.

Whilst my personal journey did not smoothly transcend conditioning, there is nothing in the 4NT that does not compare with stages of my own development. Only the 4NT can be much more peaceful.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


This started as a possible response to a letter, hence the quote but moved way beyond that, so it is a blog. Note – Chris McCandless was the young man (in the film “Into the Wild” based on reality) who rejected his upbringing, an interesting film about a young man finding his path.

It is interesting to make contact with people. We (letter?) might well be far apart but what you say still creates sparks within. I reacted to this sentence, and now realise I was reacting to a misread “Chris McCandless could easily have turned to drugs or drink as a way of coping if he stayed in the family constellation whilst simultaneously rejecting it.”. I thought what was said was that Chris McCandless could well have resorted to drugs or drink once on his journey but the misread was that I didn’t remember the family constellation part. I completely agree with that sentence as written. For me once Chris was living in nature on the road hiding in drugs and drink would be the last thing on his mind. So I began asking how did I let it happen, it kind of makes a mockery of the Path that I claimed to be on the Path and yet I became a drunk.

This is well worth analysis, and much of it coincides with the period in my life we have been discussing – my time at Dick Sheppard and before (up to 35). I have always been different from what appears to be “normal” people, but then no-one can know what it is like to be a “normal” person as we can only truly know our own experience. I consider my life until “hitting bottom” as lying dormant inside a body that was running automatically. My adolescent experiences were not something I was involved in; I feel it was self-protection, nature not allowing me to be exposed. My family life was just hiding (for all of us) – television, occasional family trips and sport. It was almost like my father had decided this is what a family should be, and he moulded us into it. I can’t say I felt it as repression but I recall walking for hours around the streets of Sale and around the banks of the Mersey. When I think back to how far I walked it was staggering. Walking was an unconscious escape. If I had been forced to confront the forces, it would have been an almighty conflict. As it is the family all accepted the mould for different reasons, my brother still calls the family dysfunctional but his experience and assessment of it are very different to mine. For a number of years I blamed my upbringing for the depths I sank to at “hitting bottom”, but that was ignorant. How do you blame parents and school for failing to do something that they don’t understand? There were legitimate complaints of a more “traditional” variety but giving me the upbringing to help me develop onto the Path should not be one.

I had the occasional adolescent drink but drink started for me at university. I was there a year early and was young for my age. I was a laughing stock. In the sixth form I had moved towards hippy rejection – no drugs but there was a friend with whom I talked through the night. That must have been sprouting awareness but I recall no content. University drowned all that with booze. People of character drank, those who didn’t drink were boffs – so I drank. I had no friends but hung around with a crowd of drinkers, and they eventually moulded me into a sports (low ability) drunk. I don’t recall any conversations about being drunks, it was what all people of character did. Unlike me however they controlled their behavior when drunk, I drank to get drunk and behave badly. By my postgrad year part of the true me had emerged, and there were long conversations through the night – I was not so often drunk that year, still drank heavily.

After I started work I sought experience through the drink. All the people of character at Scicon (my first job was as a computer analyst/porogrammer) drank, and as it was an office in the West End there was a sense of being where it was at. I blew the work side with a lack of discipline but I showed sufficient ability to my bosses that they hoped I might still be able to contribute. Most significant to the true me was the artist Wendy who took me under her wing (she was working as a typist and ran the in-house magazine) – although at the time I did not see her as important. I was very fortunate to have been at that firm, I still think of them as people of character – not something I would normally say of people in the rat race. I do remember Wendy introducing me to some of her art friends, and I remember an attractive artist telling me I was hiding in my suit. She was right but I am not sure she knew how much.

When the annual salary review showed me that the firm had given up on me, I moved on to a rat race firm that had no character. It was in Sevenoaks, and I was misguidedly persuaded to go there by a Scicon friend. In terms of a job it was the pits, in terms of my development it was the business as I cracked up and hit bottom.

I was at this firm 3 months. I remember the only highlights being to go up West and drink with erstwhile colleagues, and I slowly sank into the crack-up. I was incredibly vulnerable at this time – a month before I cracked up until a month afterwards. I was neither of the “normal” world – making no attempt to conform to the rat race, yet I had not developed the conviction of the Path to be independent of “normality”. I consider that at that time I was extremely vulnerable and might well have been termed “insane”. I rejected normality, could not hold down a job, was a drunk, and had no idea what I was doing. I would not have had the sense not to commit a criminal or insane act. If I had then come across someone in the system assessing me through a lens that did not see what was happening as emerging soul, I could well have had my development completely stunted – even institutionalised. For at least a year after hitting bottom I considered issues of my own sanity and normality, and how I would be accepted, and realised that I had sufficient strength to see myself as sane, and to have a sufficient façade that could fit into “normality”. Because I had the arts people around me accepting soul, I was not isolated, without them enabling me to reject normality it would have been so much harder to grow and develop.

It still frightens me that the system does not have the ability to recognise an “emerging soul”, and I would hope that people in the system with the responsibility for assessing emerging souls would have the integrity to refer such souls to those who accept soul’s existence. “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest” was a movie that rang true to me at the time.

To return to consideration of alcohol, on further reflection I understand better how the alcoholism developed. Unlike Chris McCandless I always sought compromise with the system as my Path ie finding a way of following the Path within the system. And that way is compassion. I understand all the closeness to nature because I felt that, but my compassion drove me to find a way in the system, whilst also finding ways of getting back to nature.

Compassion made me want to relate to people, something which at the time of rejecting society was not always easy. And where had I previously done this? Through the drink. As soon as I got back to London and found a job and somewhere to live I looked for the companionship of a bar. At that time it was just an occasional drink but there was the supposed “friends” that alcohol brought. No doubts at all, for the next year alcohol was concerned with companionship – not drunkenness.

Working in a care home there was a drink culture, and I started to slip into it, this continued through teacher-training year, and by then I avoided examining the incongruity of being on the Path and drinking. Because there were no people on the Path around me (as with the Arts Centre) to encourage me to reject this errant behaviour.

Many teachers used alcohol to control the stress, so starting at Dick Sheppard it was common place to wait until 5.30 to start drinking. Whilst many teachers needed a drink few let it control their lives the way I did. Of course I never saw that because teaching was my Path. And because London was an interesting place for young people, it was often through drink I met them. I even had a year out of drinking when I got spiritual one time – theosophy, but quickly slipped back into the drink when I got disillusioned with them.

When I resigned from DS in 1985 I was actually resigning from teaching, I had become disillusioned with it. DS was a time of teacher development for me. My compassion took me to teaching, and at DS I was trying to rationalise my compassion with what went on there, this compromise being significant in reinforcing my drinking. By 1985 I had decided that any goodwill my compassion created paled into comparison with the lack of education that was happening. I resigned to give up teaching. The Youth Centre magazine then became my life until I fell in love and circumstances took me to Brighton. I then returned to teaching to earn money, and became politically active when the relationship failed until I left for Africa where, in Botswana, I found my vocation again.

I stopped drinking in 1988. Once my relationship took me into teaching again, the relationship and teaching took me to drink, the dominant cause of the drink at the time was the relationship stress. My life then settled just into political activism for a couple of years but I still drank. Stopping was relatively easy and this I attribute to the Path. Stress drinking had become a habit, but the time constraints of the political activism limited the consumption. But teaching, activism and drinking were straining my 36-year-old body. Migraines became more frequent, I went to acupuncture which helped, and then over the week I drowned the help. My acupuncturist said to stop drinking or stop coming. I thought I’d give it a go, I suppose I was embarrassed to be given such an ultimatum. I suffered withdrawal – mainly on Friday nights. After 6 months not drinking was part of my life. However there was no great resurgence of the Path, I dove into politics until semi-exhausted I reduced the politics. There was one novel at the time. And events took me to Africa.

You cannot live in this world with the level of exuberance shown by Chris McCandless. It can be experienced for a while, and then it becomes people trying to recreate the experience. Once over the initial bells and banjoes people on the Path are forced to adopt lives with a certain level of “normalcy” often as teachers of the Path, creatives or recluses.

My back to nature was walking, and my norm was walking holidays or in Brighton out onto the South Downs. Once walking I would regularly evaluate my life in terms of the Path. I remember regular walking during the turmoil of the relationship, and being unable to connect the relationship to the Path; drinking never came up.

I have reached a point in which evaluation is difficult, but I should face it. I have been fortunate to have had a life on the Path, and what have I done with it? Very little. What could I have done? I don’t know. This is a good point to have reached because I am blocked. Have I been complacent? The Path is so wonderful, my achievement is minimal. It just feels like failure.

I remember nothing of the month of emerging from “hitting bottom” except looking into a pub near Xmas and thinking I would like to be having that fun except that it was not real and I didn’t want it – couldn’t have it. But I was up there maybe a month. Where was I?

I do remember the decision. I wanted to work in an office where people were together having fun, that was a decision? London had more going on. I walked into a temp agency, and they forced me into cobol. I had no place to go – just a job interview. And then a Hounslow bnb. Then the job cubicle, the loft room, Chiswick High Street. My first meditation highs. And somehow a reconnection to Wendy.

These are vague memories – not evaluation. Have I been true to my Path? That is not a question because if I was on the Path then I was true. But I was a drunk. And at the end of being a drunk I just taught. When I think about it I haven’t helped Gaia much.

“I have lived and am writing now” comes up, is that enough? No. One of my rationales when drinking was that I needed to get drunk Monday because I had too much energy. Crazy.

You see, I couldn’t answer the question. I went to bed early, sometimes I can just lie there and try to focus (a vague form of meditation), and the answer comes. I fell asleep, and woke after two hours with the weirdest dream, I love dreams like that. I was amongst aliens in human form, and was telling them what earth was like. “I’ll show you how we reproduce.” I took aside one of the sexy aliens and lifted up her skirt, and there was this huge penis draped over where her vagina would have been, with tendrils attaching it all the way up her body. I woke up.

And then came the thought “the Path was a mechanism”. Fascinating. So I thought about my history with the Path. The last time I consciously remember thinking about the Path was out on the South Downs when I was trying to come to terms with the relationship mess I was in. After the relationship I became political – not a spiritual time. It was very important for me to have spent that political time, I learnt a great deal. There is a general spiritual weakness – the failure to integrate the outer. Without that 3 or 4 years of concentrated activism I would not have understood that. Then to Africa where I learnt freedom, was guided to the mid-life review, studying education, then international schools – a step towards the finance of retirement, conversion to Buddhism, and meditation where my guide had meditation to enable control.

So last night my inner guide was telling me “The path was a mechanism”. Fascinating.

How attentive have I been to my guide? That’s not the question. Here is the answer to whatever the question is. I have been so fortunate to have experienced hitting bottom so early with such minimal pain. Having all the potential that finding myself can have, I wasted it with the drink. Once over the drink youthful vitality had gone. I was still learning about life but the youthful energy was gone. My life was mapped out – teaching, a good enough life, but nowhere near spiritual enough given the way the 1%-system controls education. I retired early, and my writing has developed as has my Buddhism. But I have no youthful energy to promote the writing so there is a deep frustration. In truth I only have a desire to write, social involvement has been used up.

So the real answer to the unwritten question is deep frustration at my lack of social impact given my understanding – whatever level that is. But I am now happy writing. Old people write to give back, it’s up to the young to learn from it. That is the way of Nature, do I have anything to offer?

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

A Corbyn Retrospective

Posted: 27/06/2017 in Corbyn, Struggle


This time of Corbyn has been fascinating for anyone with a modicum of interest in socialism, Chris Mullin (MP author of A Very British Coup) could not have written anything more interesting – apologies

I had been watching Corbyn through a VBC filter, and it is worth making a retrospective now. Corbyn got slated by mainstream media from the word go. Much of the slating was concerned with Brexit but you have to think about that question in terms of socialism. What has the EU got to do with socialism? It is a union of countries designed to circumvent barriers to trade and enable the capitalists to make more profit. What has that got to do with socialism? His position was to stay in Europe because the Tories would try to exploit the workforce without EU regulations to limit their exploitation. That is fair to me but understandably not a strong position because the EU is a capitalist organization yet economically beneficial to UK business. His stance on Brexit negotiations was much stronger, stand up for workers’ rights, ensure trading opportunities, and stand up for individual rights of EU people living in the UK and vice versa.

In VBC terms the Wainwright factor was much stronger because of the Blair manipulations for nearly two decades. By the time the members voted in Corbyn the first time, the parliamentary Labour party was 80% centrist (Blair/Wainwright), far too many to send off to the North of Ireland. It was not surprising there was a vote of no confidence soon after he was voted in.

But Corbyn started to shine for two reasons, the first was the election and the second surprised me – he is an excellent statesman. In retrospect calling the election was a huge mistake, and in retrospect could also have been foreseen as a mistake. Both Trump and Brexit were populist, and in an election it could have been foreseen that after years of austerity a populist alternative would have been successful.
Because the media had to give him airtime people began to see him for who he was. At the same time he was fighting for a socialist platform in a time of austerity, it was a mistake to think that would not be popular. But the establishment was arrogant, they thought the media had given them total control and were confident that May would win an increased majority. But they are not admitting this mistake, what they are saying is May ran a poor campaign. That might well be true but it was primarily poor because the people were sick of austerity and sick of seeing the rich get richer whilst ordinary people got poorer.

But at the same time they believed their own publicity, and did not realise that Corbyn was a superb statesman – I did not know this either. When he was put through the ringer in mainstream television both by media figures and right-wing members of audiences, he coped well with what was thrown at him. One of the issues that was focused on in VBC was the nuclear issue. They repeatedly talked about his views on Trident, right-wingers were asking “would he push the button?” His answer was diplomacy first, by the time he was pushing the button it would be too late. I was satisfied with that answer.

But I was so pleased to see a Labour party with a manifesto (or this link) that was socialist after the years of neoliberal copouts. But of course the real disappointment is that there was not a socialist government. At present according to the polls Corbyn’s popularity is greater than Theresa May’s. It is not certain whether that would translate to a Labour government but there is no way they would risk that. Meanwhile since the election there has been a proliferation of senior Labour figures who have decried Corbyn – Blair, Alistair Campbell, Neil Kinnock – all of whom were figures in neoliberal Labour. But Corbyn has worked with Momentum, and Momentum have worked with the youth. And the youth love Corbyn – Corbyn gave a political speech at Glastonbury to applause including poetry!!

In 5 years time Corbyn will be 73, is that too old to fight a campaign, John McDonnell is perhaps too radical but is only 3 years younger, Dianne Abbott is still a disaster area, there is no-one on the Left who is a statesman and could pull the people together like Corbyn. Maybe they could train Russell Brand? I didn’t think Corbyn could pull them together so maybe there is someone else.

Corbyn will continue to democratise the party but will he be able to do enough in 5 years to get rid of the Blair stench? But what a good few months for socialists?

VBC is concerned with government so many of the VBC forces don’t come into play as Corbyn is opposition. Will we be able to see how prophetic Mullin was with Corbyn/Perkins in power?

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I have just been watching Occupy stuff again, I watched this clip called Occupation Nation

There was little I had disagreement with but then there was a questionable part that could be described as being presented as an abc of anarchism:-

click for clip

Firstly Occupation Nation was presented as a collection of clips about Occupy, and undoubtedly anarchists were working collectively and successfully within Occupy – no deception or subterfuge there. But what if people identified this clip with Occupy – then there is deception.

Anarchism is presented as a legitimate working-class movement – quote from Emma Goldman wiki on her, this is true. But the basis of Occupy was not anarchy but collectivism.

A – Affinity Group Described as a small group of people whose interests identify with each other at a particular moment in time. Was Occupy this? Or was Occupy a time in which different collectives worked together at a particular moment in time? Or was Occupy a collection of individuals who recognised the importance of the collective Occupy and saw the importance of working together as the 99% against the 1%?

B Black Bloc D- Direct Action These both presented actions that have the potential for violence. Occupy was peace until it was broken up violently through a coherent policy established by the Department of Homeland Security.

C – Consensus:- Consensus rather than representation was one of the most impressive aspects of Occupy. Does anarchism support consensus? Isn’t consensus through voting what collectivism stands for? (Even though representation is a weakness of collectivism.) Occupy with its rejection of consensus by simple majority such as 51% was an excellent advance in democracy. But is consensus something anarchism accepts if anarchists are active within wider movements?

For me, apart from consensus this abc has little to do with the wider Occupy movement. If the clipmakers’ intention was to imply that, it was deception, if not – it doesn’t matter.

What this does illustrate is a problem with the internet? It was the 3rd on my youtube search for Occupy (I don’t know whether that is true for everyone). Would it be the 3rd based on consensus by Occupy? What makes that clip available? The internet has no discernment, and can easily be controlled by money – although in this case I am not sure why sponsors would promote this (I suspect this clip was made by dedication and not finance). The internet has no intention, it is anarchic by nature, and now (in my view) the 1% has decided to control the internet through sponsorship the internet is dangerous for its perversion of thought. For me activists need to move away from the internet, develop discernment through their own cross-generational activist groups, and use the internet in a discerning way after human contact. This was also a principle of Occupy.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


One is a threat and the other is manipulated to destroy the threat.

Anarchism in itself is not all bad. There is a strong history of anarchism that supports working people. There are anarchists who call for collective ownership of companies, this kind of syndicalism I support. Here the principle of anarchism is against government that prevents collective ownership. Socialism and communism are usually governmental structures, and whilst there have never been governments that are truly socialist or communist to aim for such is in my view risky. I cannot see how socialist governments will work, once you have representation power is taken away from the individual and because of that responsibility goes as well. With representation the individual follows instead of being active in a creative thinking process towards action; following benefits the 1% not the 99%. Anarchism is sometimes feared by the establishment because some anarchists choose violence as a form of action but apart from these violent attacks in general anarchism is beneficial to the 1% because it destroys a collective response.

Anarchism is ego supposedly collectivised as a “movement”. This is the delusion that I feel has taken over the internet. Throughout the internet there are individuals who are writing about the struggle from a left or right perspective. These individuals quite often have an angle on the truth. Alex Jones is regularly attacked by the liberals for his bombastic approach, and they then ignore everything he says; they are ignoring some truth because he is a bombast. Yet there are many people who follow him. Why? Because he describes some truths concerning the actions of the 1%. For example, I have no doubts at all that Bilderberg has some impact on 1% strategy. But Alex Jones has plenty of sponsors because Alex Jones attacks the collective response. What has Alex Jones achieved other than discussion, and a certain level of awareness. I would imagine his followers are extremely frustrated because there is no constructive action, and perhaps that frustration became misguided in supporting Trump. Alex Jones has begun to criticise Trump, I hope in the end he will dissociate from this 1%-puppet.

The metier of these anarchists is ideas, they believe in ideas first and ultimately it is this approach which brings failure. Ideas by their very nature are divisive. Academia nitpicks pointless distinctions between ideas, and this is why academia can never be the Church of Wisdom that one might hope it to be. Whilst there are some in academia who are searching for knowledge and wisdom the overall process is destructive because all ideas are given merit and the melee of ideas is simply confusion or worse, conflict. Academia has only one cohesion, providing jobs for intellectuals. As an institution the intellectuals all follow a certain set of rules that enables academia and funding to still exist.

But this post is about the anarchy of ideas and idealism. Let us take the 4 Noble Truths. These are truths but can never be accepted by academia as truths because one “professor” putting forward a set of ideas that dismisses them is given equal merit. There is no benchmark of truth in academia, and at a wider level there is no benchmark of truth with ideas. Anarchism is effectively a collective confusion based on competitive ideas. This is no value judgement on the quality of ideas themselves; it is a comment on the collective confusion that is anarchism.

There is one place these anarchists did not go – Occupy, watch Rise like Lions to be reminded of what collective movements can achieve. The 1% in Wall Street and elsewhere were frightened of the Occupy movement, and as can be seen from the movie eventually repressed the movement. I have no evidence for this but I believe that the sponsorship of internet anarchism was fuelled by fears of Occupy. Occupy did not put ideas first, they put action. In the clip you will hear the constant demand from the establishment for a set of ideas to knock down, and Occupy just said “fix the system”.

Occupy activism frightened the 1% who for the first time recently had become “named” targets. People dismissed governments as the problem, and blamed the 1%. They told the 1% to fix the system. Since then the sponsored anarchism has blamed liberal government for the problems; 8 years of Obama liberalism is the problem …. and before Obama there were no problems? And this sponsorship has been so effective that people have voted for a 1%-demagogue like Trump. And what is worse, there is a high level of following of Trump without any concern for discerning wisdom and truth. They believe Trump will do what they want, and dismiss criticisms of Trump as liberalism – so dangerous.

No idea worries the 1%, what worries them is collective action. Consumer boycotts frighten Israel, criticism through ideas they control by calling them antisemitic. A boycott hits their profits. And this is an indicator for wider political action, hit their profits. The organic health movement is restricted because organic foods attack the profits of BigFood – BigFood cannot make mass-produced organic food. Where did e-numbers and chemicals in food come from? The need for longevity in food so BigFood could make a profit. Consumer boycotts of GM foods frightens the industry so scientists such as Seralini are discredited. Collective bargaining is attacked because it reduces profits and so the anarchists highlight the occasional weaknesses in such collectivism. What then happens? The 1% favour a few and increase their profits to the detriment of the many; anarchist idealism identifies with the few.

This is why it is so important to return to the strategy of collective action. Not only the collective action of demonstrations but the action of collective bargaining and consumer boycotts. Activist Post has some interesting analyses but it is limited to that, it should be called Ideas Post or Anarchist Post because without collective action it is not effectively active. Unfortunately the egos that write for it don’t appear to see this, I suspect their ego is ultimately more interested in followers and internet sponsorship than action against the 1% causing the problems.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Early last month Trump attacked Syria – check this mainstream reporting. His ostensible rationale was that there had been a chemical attack by Assad, and he authorised this response. This attack showed Trump’s true nature in my view, and upset many right-wing intellectuals – Alex Jones included. I hope that it started to break illusions his better supporters have.

My first reaction was false flag; I had no evidence for this but just assumed it was true. Basically Trump America and its MIC wanted an excuse, fashioned a chemical attack, and used it to justify bombing. Then I listened to Democracy Now interview with Anand Gopal – has video link here. In this interview Anand puts forward his view that it was Assad who did the chemical attacks. His analysis went like this:-

1) The US in the previous week had said that Syria was Syria’s problem
2) Assad felt there would be no interference for whatever he did.
3) He continued his brutal dictatorship and conducted the chemical attacks.

This also sounds plausible.

Phyllis Bennis on The Real New Network, I always find both reliable did not comment on who committed the chemical attack in her immediate analysis. She criticised the trigger-happy MIC response.

In the CP I learned to err on the side of caution, they took AGES to get a correct evaluation, and even then they made no commitment unless they were absolutely certain of the truth. They used a network of sister organisations across the world, and for an organisation to merit the term “sister” their integrity had to be unquestioned. In these times of funded anarchy, continuing mainstream lies and fake news such a process is essential. The CP were seeking the truth as they saw it, I agreed with their approach mostly, and – so slowly – navigated their way through the lies created around us.

When Trump talks about fake news he has a different strategy. He is playing on right-wing paranoia, and, working within the funded anarchy 1%-approach, is creating an anarchic platform in which his authoritarianism can flourish. His followers do not know the truth, and have been willing to accept that Trump tells the truth – perhaps because the way Trump is resonates with them.

Did Assad commit the chemical attacks? I don’t know. If I had to commit myself I would take the Democracy Now line but I am happy to say “I don’t know”. Do I support the US air-strikes? No. Why? Because the US has no right to be there. The struggle for Syria is Syrian. Keep external money out of the situation and allow the people to resolve their relationship with the dictator, Assad.

That is not going to happen, and the US/NATO juggernaut will continue demolishing Middle Eastern states that do not work within the US hegemony. The term balkanisation is used to describe this process. Again it fits the 1% anarchy model, create anarchy apply authoritarianism allowing the companies to go in and exploit.

Anarchy – Authoritarianism – Exploitation

This is the model the 1% are using in the US and UK now. Are Iraq, Libya and Syria models for accumulation in the US and Europe? If 1%-wealth is held offshore, if 1% live in rural havens – island havens, is the future of US and Europe to be modelled on the lawlessness that is Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is that just doomsday or proper futurism?

It is essential that caring people across the political spectrum work together on a Unity Platform.

What about reaction times? I mentioned the discipline the CP taught me, as part of the stupid left-wing divisions they were always critical of the Trots going off half-cocked. Now we have a world in which anarchists are encouraged to go off half-cocked, this speed is part of the anarchy disguised as youth. It is time we deliberated, took time, not react react react …. uncontrollably. We need to see the way these forces are being manipulated, how we are being manipulated, how the changes that are happening globally benefit the 1% and how we can best counter them. To begin with let us question the news deeply – each and every one of us, following is only for twitter, let us stop following and decide for ourselves. Don’t’ believe mainstream media, don’t believe the promoted anarchy of the internet, question deeply – live a life of insight based on enquiry.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

And yet is Yuval correct (Homo Deus intro by Yuval Noah Harari), has war been reined in?

In the 19th century the globe was dominated by European expansion and colonialism. The slave trade (mainly British and American) that had previously seen a huge death toll was dying out, and was being replaced with colonial wars and occupation. Local skirmishes were dying out to be replaced by a coordinated effort to deal with the invader.

And it was this expansionism that led to the western wars of the 20th century. The First World War might well be described as a war about dividing the African cake, and although Germany was defeated the Ruling Class did not wish to decimate its own, and so the war between colonial powers happened again in the Second World War which led to appropriation of global power to America.

And to me significant in considering the reining in of war was the heinous nuclear bombs. Touch America and look what we are prepared to do – even though the war against Japan was over.

America’s colonial wars continued to expand in the second half of the 20th century but Vietnam damaged the direction of their hawks because of the number of body bags that came home.

And perhaps the most devastated place for war was China in the 20th century, and since the end of that 20th century war in China there is now peace and developing prosperity with their trade globally being welcomed and replacing the exploitation of colonial and neo-colonial practices.

Following the nuclear bombs there has been the US Third World War as described by John Stockwell, but apart from Kashmir there have been few border skirmishes. Global war has been localised to war in the Middle East, and expansion from other countries appears to have ended for fear of exacting the extremism of US nuclear wrath.

So in this sense perhaps Yuval’s analysis could be seen as correct, the nuclear bomb and US hawks have reined in wars but at what cost to the democracy of so many peoples?

But to be fair to Yuval his quote “Yet at the dawn of the third millennium, humanity wakes up to an amazing realisation. Most people rarely think about it, but in the last few decades we have managed to rein in famine, plague and war” concerned famine, plague and war. Plagues have almost completely died out, plague is a global phenomenon now, a plague cannot be localised with global transportation and would affect the hegemony. Famine continued into the second half of the 20th century with famines caused in Africa by “cash-crop” neo-colonialism, but now famine just follows the wars where poverty and starvation follow the wars for profits.

So perhaps Yuval’s analysis that famine plague and war have been reined in has some merit but it is such distasteful reading when you consider the Muslim localisation of war.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Something encouraged me to read Yuval Noah Harari, and I started with Homo Deus – perhaps I am more interested in tomorrow. And then I was horrified and couldn’t get past this “The same three problems preoccupied the people of twentieth-century China, of medieval India and of ancient Egypt. Famine, plague and war were always at the top of the list. …. Yet at the dawn of the third millennium, humanity wakes up to an amazing realisation. Most people rarely think about it, but in the last few decades we have managed to rein in famine, plague and war”.

I’m ashamed to say that my first reaction was to think that this man was Israeli, and that the lives in all the wars in Muslim countries don’t matter to Israel. But with clearer reflection he is writing for a western audience, and it is for the West that all the wars don’t matter. The moab – mother of all bombs – is dropped and Trump is described as presidential. Why? Because the deaths are not in America. Many times I read how Vietnam was a watershed because of the Americans who died – now there are a few soldiers, mercenaries who die, but the carnage of war is caused far away. And in the US they can say they have “managed to rein in famine, plague and war”.

But what the US has done is relocate war, the Wars for Profits do not kill Americans and so war has been “reined in”. Yet it still seems so strange to me that an Israeli can say wars have been reined in when in his part of the world there are the huge war casualties of Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and not far away Libya (and this does not include drones in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan). To some extent I know of the propaganda within Israel but …. And of course the deaths are Muslim, and in any war such as the Arab-Israeli war propaganda dehumanises the enemy; Muslim deaths have to matter less in Israeli wars.

But Yuval’s book is for the western market. War has been reined in for the West because with the War on Terror Muslims have been dehumanised and their death toll appears to be discounted by those who can read about “reining in famine, plague and war”.

I have no idea as to figures but for Jews there has got to be a reduction in figures following the appalling holocaust. I can see that evaluation, and despite the ongoing invasion of Palestine there are much less Israeli deaths so he can be comfortable describing war as having been “reined in” – I just don’t know the figures or what he thinks.

I have no idea as to figures but I wonder if the death and destruction in the ongoing wars against Muslims in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan approaches that of the Second World War, that sort of figure would not be produced by western sources.

My reaction to Yuval’s comment is that wars have not been reined in but have been localised. There are fewer western deaths, the deaths are Muslim, western deaths have been reined in.

Because a western life and a Muslim life are not valued the same way – not just by Yuval (presumably) but by the West in general, western liberalism will continue to be able to say war has been reined in; liberals, even the right intellectuals attack all the wars.

I don’t know whether Yuval’s books are worth reading – I don’t know that I will get past this intro.

Will his investigation into tomorrow talk of the increasing blowback because that has to be inevitable? As an English person I am amazed that there are not more people saying America is exporting war to Europe. America bombs the Muslims, Muslims retaliate, and Europe is nearer. It is not only the immigrants who are nearer but also the reprisals. Why doesn’t NATO see that America’s wars are hurting Europe? But the West is the West and continues to benefit from war economy at the expense of Middle-Eastern Muslims so that truth will not be aired in western media.

I selfishly hope that the War against Muslims does not spread as there are more Muslims in my part of the world – Indonesia and Malaysia and Southern Thailand. Of course there is no oil there but in the end maybe the War on Terror will become an all-out war against Muslims.

When Bush first spoke of a War on Terror I knew it was a fabrication, I knew it was something that was designed for the MIC to replace the “Cold War” but then I did not see how they could fabricate such a change in the world. In just 16 years they have created the world the way it is now. There is such a heightened sense of violence, of fear, of racial hatred, it turns my stomach. What seemed preposterous has become demonically all-pervasive – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan.

And yet Yuval war “has been reined in”.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I am having my car fixed and have three hours to kill.

I continue to be angered by pc attitudes. I have 3 stories, one that happened to me, one that happened near me, and one that I read about, all illustrate self-righteousness, but not only self-righteousness but the right these people feel they have to impose their beliefs on others.

When I was young an ex-friend called me a “right fucker”. It was not meant in a pleasant way, it was meant that I always had to be right. I don’t object to that description although it was not meant as a compliment. I talk about many things in this blog but I always try to tell the truth – be right. This is especially difficult because in this covert political world we live in it is hard to discern the truth. I like to think that where I cannot discern the truth I don’t try to claim that what I say is the truth. I am pretty confident that Assad did not drop the chemical bombs. How would he benefit? Trump wanted to promote jingoism, it would not surprise me if he, or hos strategists – directly or indirectly, instigated the chemical bombing but I would never be able to prove it. So this is not truth but it not intentional lying.

I work hard to varying degrees at truth and in Buddhism truth is predicated on morality. Through meditation I have developed a certain level of insight which has given me a conviction about what I do, about what I say is the truth. I would recommend the practices and moral code associated with the 4 Noble Truths – I would recommend as strongly as I possibly could BUT I would never force anyone to follow them. Even if I was government I would never try to force anyone to do something. The pcbullies feel they have the right to set rules governing all the people at their universities because they have been voted for. OK the voting gives them some rights but demanding such minutiae of social behaviour in my view is censorship and dictatorship. I would argue that their moral code is not as strong as mine because they are so young; they do not have the experience to judge. yet they still feel they can impose.

To the 3 stories. I was in Oman, and parking at a supermarket. I found a space, moved past it, turned the car, and stopped preparing to reverse into the place. It was my view that I had begun the parking manoeuvre. I saw a motor-bike whip past me from the left (I was in a left-hand drive), and cussed the stupidity of these idiots who drive near the knuckle. But he hadn’t driven past, he had nipped into my parking space. I was driving a Pajero and there was no way I could see that he had gone in, having started the manoeuvre it should not have been necessary. Suddenly there was a bang on the back of the 4by4, my truck had hit his bike. Why didn’t he stop me before I hit him?

A policeman came over, and I was explaining that the problem was caused by the reckless driving of the motorbike and that I had started the manoeuvre. But here is the liberal involvement. A white woman came over. I am assuming, I don’t know, that she saw a tall angry white man with an Arab police officer picking on an Asian man. She said that the bike was in the parking place, and that I reversed into him. Whilst he was parked before I hit him, the fact is that he had been “slick” and drove into the parking space after I had started the manoeuvre.

By this time my self-righteousness had completely lost it and I was literally hopping mad with frustration because I had started the manoeuvre and yet this woman said I was at fault. The police officer took a back seat in all this, and effectively allowed the woman to fight the battle. From within my own anger I watched her become entrenched, at the same time I saw fear as I was so angry. Typical liberal attitude – entrenched fear. She came over, interfered when it was not her business, and then gets upset because I was angry with her.

The policeman should have resolved the issue but he stood back and watched white people arguing. In the end when I calmed down the police officer saw my side, I think – nothing said, but asked me if I would pay 20 rials – just over £30 for the damage done to the bike (more than the damage cost). I did so as I didn’t want to get all liberal and righteous in courts etc – with all that expense.

My assessment as to why this was liberalism. In my view the woman had not understood that I had started the manoeuvre, had come over because I was a white male who was angry (and could therefore be an MCP); she wanted to defend the “underdog” Asian – Indian on the motorbike. Did she drive? I did not have the presence of mind to ask. In Oman these motor-bike drivers nipping in and out of traffic were a menace on the roads, I now question whether she did in fact drive. Why didn’t she understand about the manoeuvre, or was she simply too entrenched to listen?

The second incident that I observed was on an overnight bus travelling from London to Manchester – maybe 40 years ago when smoking was not so universally condemned. A person started smoking, and a liberal man stood up and shirtily started to complain about the smoking and grabbed the cigarette out of the smoker’s mouth – he was quite obnoxious about it. A black man in front of me soon after started smoking, and the liberal stood up presumably to act in a similar way. The black man simply said to just try it. I didn’t want the black guy to smoke but I almost cheered the way he put this obnoxious self-righteous man down. Cowardly liberalism again.

Finally a story where the consequences of interfering liberalism mattered – in the above instances the liberalism was only irritating. It happened somewhere in Scotland, maybe 20 years ago. A man’s young daughter, maybe 8 years old, had been having trouble with her teeth for days, had been complaining so the father eventually took her to the dentist. When she got to the surgery she refused to go in; eventually he spanked her and she went in. I am not condoning the father’s actions but he was her father and it was his right to resolve the situation as he saw fit; so I accept what he did – I would not have interfered. However the dental receptionist liberal did not, she phoned the police and reported an assault. Because the matter had been reported the police by their code of practice (again a liberal imposition) were forced to respond, came to the surgery and arrested the father. He was imprisoned overnight.

Part of the reason the father had taken the girl to the dentist was because it was Xmas Eve and he didn’t want his daughter moaning all through Xmas – spoiling Xmas everyone. Because of the liberal receptionist – who takes no further part in the impact of her interfering actions, a family was divided over Xmas because the father was in prison overnight.

It turns out the father was a teacher and because he was involved in a case of child abuse the headteacher could not risk the father being in the classroom – in case of liberal parents complaining, so he was not allowed to teach. He was pushed into being the school librarian – and I have a feeling his livelihood was further threatened but I cannot remember the details. The following June the case appeared in court, and because the father had assaulted the daughter he was found guilty and the judge fined him a £1. What devastation was caused in that family because of the interference of the liberal receptionist.

The characteristic of all this liberalism was that they wish to interfere and impose their values on others. I personally have not met any liberals who are clear-minded and who have thought through the implications of their thinking – their liberal thinking stops at emotionally accepting a human right. But then I disagree with them so I wouldn’t think they were clear-minded. I have no doubts that they are community-minded, and for that reason should be commended. But being community-minded is not the same as interfering and imposing their values on others without responsibility or consequence. Such liberals are not famous for standing up in court as witnesses against violent criminals. I have done that and it is not pleasant, and it affects your life. In my view this type of liberal walks away from such. They will impose when they are in charge, in other words they are bullies – liberal or PC bullies, the violence of the state forces supporting them.

Does that make them any better than other forms of bullies? Such as racists or sexists. Well it does to some extent. Abuse against women or children (not parental punishment) is worse than liberal interference. But such interference has consequences as in the case of the father at the dentist, and the liberal did not face any of that with her interference. It reminds me of the abortion argument. Rich US right-wing Christians demand that poor people give birth into a life of poverty and sometimes ill health when they have the money to prevent both, but they feel they have the right to interfere.

We have to respect the rights of individuals and not impose liberal values (ill thought out in my view) on other people.

It is this self-righteousness that the MIC manipulates to cause war and therefore profit. Liberals have been condemning Donald Trump especially since he became president. But then he drops bombs and the liberals support that, where is the compassion in the dropping of bombs? Liberal mainstream media (such as Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver) has been condemning Donald Trump for lies – or alternative truths, yet they don’t question whether the chemical attacks are from Assad – an assumption that has no logical basis. How much do these liberals know about Syria? Are they informed enough to make a valid conclusion? I am not. What about the “mother of all bombs”? Are they informed about that? And North Korea? They say Trump lies but when it comes to war he doesn’t?

For me this is typical of ill-thought-out liberal thinking. There is an element of emotional compassion but it is superficial – poor babies. Their fear dominates their thought processes. The establishment pronounces there is a threat from radical Islam. Afghanistan, North Korea, and instead of questioning and the demanding of accountability as to the validity of such actions the fear of these liberals allows for unwarranted acts of war (in my view). As usual the MIC gets its profits, and in this case some say Trump has personally profited – I don’t know but I assess it would be possible of such a man.

And with all of this so many people have now been convinced that such people are left-wing!!

This is always worth watching, it is about Occupy – “Rise like Lions”:-



How have we gone from this position of collective unity to a world of authoritarianism and rising fascism under Trump (and Brexit)? Here is a Unity Platform as one possible way forward. We must seek Unity not division – we are the 99%.

If I am seeking Unity why do I make such a scathing attack on liberalism, surely I want also to unite with these Liberals. The problem is they are so divisive. Firstly their self-righteousness is arrogant. On an individual and global level they interfere because of this arrogance. Secondly they are not analytical. Whilst their approach has a superficial basis in compassion – anti-racist, anti-sexist and pro-LBGT as well as human rights – their fear does not allow them to progress beyond this superficial emotionality. In terms of feminism Bell Hooks described two types of feminism – reformist and revolutionary (non-violent hopefully). Reformism means working within the system, and in general this system known as neoliberalism has proven not to work. The 1% are not going to relinquish their power easily, and a touch of arrogant self-righteousness is not going to produce the change. The fear of these liberals turns a blind eye on the systemic problems such as the profligate wars for profits as evidenced by the support for Donald Trump’s acts of war. So whilst there is Unity with the ideals of these people the arrogant self-righteousness is divisive. This can be evidenced by the stance of US liberal media (Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and John Oliver) who throughout the election attacked Donald Trump, and now continue to attack him on party lines – they could be seen as humorous party political broadcasts. Yet quite clearly there is support against the Liberals as evidenced by the presidential vote. These satirical programmes which were once of a flavour that was left-wing and progressive are now a pillar of the mainstream media, and as such are causing division because they are not part of a movement against the 1%.

My personal aggression towards these liberals is based on personal experience, and also because their superficial approach has enabled the right to attack left-wing principle by identifying liberalism with the left-wing. Historically on the left genuine socialists have worked within the mass movement such as Labour in the UK and Democrats in the US but now the character of these mass movement parties has changed. They have become Liberal establishment rather than moving towards genuine socialism. Whilst movements such as Momentum surrounding Corbyn and Our Revolution around Sanders are movements that genuine socialism can unite behind, the character of these movements has to be firmly based in anti-1% positions with their wars for profit and this character has to eschew the liberalism that alienates the genuine working-class perspective. How can a working-class perspective ignore the legitimate claims of white working people who have lost their jobs? How can these white people be ignored because they may or may not be racist or sexist? Yet these Liberals did, and continue to do so if Liberal media is anything to go by. Liberal positions might sound acceptable with their compassionate rhetoric but the Liberal fear concerning their materialism and way of life prevents them from targeting the 1% who use their Liberal fear.

Liberalism is divisive, and as such it needs to be attacked for what it is – effective 1%-support. These Liberals need to identify themselves with the 99% and stop allowing their fear to be manipulated by the 1% to divide the 99%.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


Perhaps I need to state (although I am probably being pedantic) the promotion of the 21st century anarchists is a strategy and not an aim in itself. As usual the 1% are only interested in their own gains at whatever the costs, and the obstacle to their accumulation is collectivisation. This collectivisation has to be genuine collectivisation as opposed to the liberal state that is part of neoliberal control. By promoting internet anarchy the 1% are trying to destroy an already-weak collective response as the 99%.

Whilst there is an ongoing battle between the anarchic pundits and the mainstream media, whilst the liberals continuously attack the populists and vice versa, the political leaders are acting with authoritarianism in a typically anarchic fashion. Consider Syria, where is Trump’s consistency? In fact there is an intentional inconsistency to prevent a collective response.

Occupy has these (1 and 2) analyses about neo-fascism and appropriate collective responses. It talks about the end of neoliberalism, I wonder whether that is the case. I suspect there is an element of brinkmanship in what is happening now. I cannot see WW3 being in the interests of the 1%. But whilst there is Trump’s aggression I fear more for what is happening behind the scenes. Environmental protection is being hacked whilst Trump is dropping bombs. Trump is sufficiently chaotic and has sufficient opposition that once the 1% have made sufficient gains and brought the world to the brink, it would not be difficult to remove him – and bring in a new era of relative neoliberal peace.

We allow this to happen.

Books:- Treatise, Wai Zandtao Scifi, Matriellez Education.

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.