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.

I am not sure why I hadn’t seen it before but there is a very clear pattern to the global political manipulations – and that is ANARCHY. When we look at US politics this is clear because what we have in the president is anarchy.

To create anarchy is very easy if you are prepared to finance it. Let’s consider the fictitious Brett O’Keefe in Homeland S6. His populism was financed by a rogue deep state but was not difficult to do – internet, cable and a trolling boiler room. And yet in the fiction he became a powerful “independent” media. Sol Berenson’s analysis was also interesting, (40 second clip blocked by Fox) Homeland s06e11 starts at 16 minutes. CIA tactics – disinformation, street demonstrations leading to an elected government that couldn’t take office.

Throughout my life this sort of analysis has been associated with left-wing analysts advising a collective mass movement. This analysis was based on the understanding that the bourgeoisie’s only fear was a rising proletariat (as represented by the elected in Homeland), and that the collective had to be aware of machinations against it – the CIA tactics against the collective.

In the US the democratic process has always been well controlled. I am not a big fan of the hypocrisy of Obama but his term of office shows the way it has been controlled recently. Obama could not put forward any policies because the Republicans controlled the senate. “No gun laws” was the obvious example, the other was to remove Guantanamo. The advice of such left-wing analysis(above) was to demonstrate this establishment control, and through collective struggle enact change.

In Homeland it was the Deep State which was manipulating the political situation (in the movie a rogue deep state with rogue CIA director, a general and Israel in the background – a marked change from the pro-Israeli positions early in the life of Homeland). It was a Deep State of rogue individuals – a common “escape clause” when the system goes wrong; in this Homeland was true to its origins. And it is consistent with the new 1% paradigm, the promotion of anarchists.

As an aside the understanding of Deep State has been changed by this 1%-paradigm. In Homeland the Deep State is treated as an organisation per se but it is my understanding that left-wing analysis has always recognised the Deep State as the 1% in government. As part of the 1%-anonymity paradigm the Deep State is now being characterised as Obama, democratic, anything but 1%.

In my view (no evidence) Occupy scared the 1%, for the first time the political spotlight was put on them. The activists of the Occupy movement in its origins of Horizontalidad, in the Arab Spring, and Occupy movements globally pointed at the 1%, and sought to unite the 99%. This was a public attack that could not be allowed to grow, the 1% needed to deflect attention away from themselves.

And they have done this by promoting anarchism on the internet. It is cheap and easy to promote such anarchism, financing hardworking committed individuals with webcams, webspace and newsletters – even bots and boiler rooms. There is no need for the 1% to control these anarchists because their very approach carries out what the 1% wants – a diffusing of the power of the 99%. And the pc-police with their tactics of censorship and state control have walked into this anarchy-promoting political paradigm.

What is a fundamental characteristic of an anarchist? The lack of willingness to work within a collective, they are anti-collectives, anti-government, anti-state. Although they claim to be pro-99%, ordinary people, what they do is attack all collective organisations including those who do some work for the benefit of these ordinary people. Instead of the 99% working together, these anarchist egos call themselves activists, pull followers together, and are scattered fractions across the internet with a characteristic of mutual separation. Here is a workable Unity Platform typical of the sort of approach that could effectively work against the 1% but has no chance of getting off the ground because of these anarchist egos.

Look at the anarchy that has been created. In the US Trump is 100% a loose cannon. His anarchic egotistical approach to a nationalist agenda gets quickly knocked on the head with Syria. But that does not mean there is an end to the anarchy. His policies will continue to be all over the place. But look at the “independent” media having a field day discussing Syria, the attack was on 6th April; by today the 13th April the internet is awash with individuals putting forward theories as to the causes of the attack – false flags, deeper so-called analysis – warning to China about North Korea. The internet is simply easily-funded anarchist media – chaos.

Look at Brexit in the UK. The withdrawal from the EU has thrown British government into an anarchic state, it has no direction. EU laws are up in the air, and behind the scenes lobbies are working to control those laws – to the benefit of corporate tyranny (1%) against the interests of ordinary people (99%). In this anarchic state it is difficult for collective organisations to function and fight the powers of the 1%, and this is the achieved objective of the anarchic funding.

Is there a commonality amongst the internet egos? At first inspection it appears they are all over the place and that there is no commonality. There are egos on the left, egos on the right, but with no apparent commonality until you identify these egos as anarchist, and then there is a common thread – a move against collective action – action typified by Occupy. It is this characteristic of anarchy that is shown by the chaotic world we live in. And only one group benefits from such anarchy the 1%. Who can resist the power of their money but a united 99%? Lobbying increases, behind the scenes laws are manipulated to benefit the 1%. Tar sands, coal anti-environment have all followed from the anarchy that is Trump, and the only people who benefit are the 1%. And when you see the 1% benefitting you know there is a strategy it is just a question of identifying it – funding anarchy. The 1% now controls the internet with its funding. There is no need for concerted activity amongst the internet egos because their very separate anarchism is what creates the 1%-strategy and the climate for their manipulation.

And what follows from anarchy but agreed fascism – to control the anarchy. Infringements of liberty, a more controlled workforce, and greater profits for the 1%. How do we fight this? Collectivise, promote compassion and morality. Unity.

Finance – It is clear to me that “independent” media is being financed – we know mainstream media is corporate (1%). My own insignificant blogs and my website is funded by my pension – a pension gained by a life of compromise in teaching.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Whitelash – need a rethink?

Posted: 03/04/2017 in ONE planet
Tags: ,

I have just listened to Chomsky on Trump – just after the election, throughout he claimed marginal support for Clinton with a description of policies. Maybe those policies were not intended to be put into practice but in key areas those policies were far better than Trump’s policies. In terms of the environment, Trump’s policies are reported as being “damaging to the environment”. Facts don’t matter with this because they will be disputed, I have no doubts they are damaging.

In terms of the Unity Platform, I have attempted to consider reaching out a hand to right-wing intellectuals, but listening to Chomsky that needs to be questioned.

And the answer is that Unity requires 99% and not simply a left-wing dominated by sense such as Chomsky. There needs to be a change, working together of left and right; Chomsky’s eminent common-sense is not enough.

In the Chomsky interview, Mehdi Hasan drew together this assessment of Trump voters, this is what I said straight after the election. Since then I have also looked at the PC-police, those people are horrendous, but I have to ask “are those against the PC-police because they are horrendous or because it is a racist excuse?”

Like Hasan says, it is not Trump economics but racism that provides Trump with votes. Or like the concluding tweet:-

The answer can only be learnt if the right-wing intellectuals dissociate themselves from the racists and deplorables. Stand up for compassion on the right-wing.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.