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”:-
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%.
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.
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.
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.
Here is an Activist Post article by Brandon Smith about the media. The first four paragraphs of his introduction would have been exactly what a left-winger would have written; it is exactly what Occupy would have written. This is the sort of Unity that needs to be recognised, however this writer chooses not to do so. He criticises academia as would I although I tend to use the term “liberals” politically.
He describes such people as having an agenda. Certainly the collusion these people have with the system makes it appear that they have an agenda. However I don’t look at it that way, I see them as being compromised. How do you regularly criticise the 1% and keep a job? The 1% own the media, own the academic institutions either through control of academic boards or through academic funding so how do truthful people get employment and look after their families? As soon as you start work you learn the rules “don’t go there”, if you want promotion either for power and influence or for more money “don’t go there”. This is not an agenda, it is a practicality. There is an agenda, the agenda of the 1%. Liberals and academia are towing the line that the 1% define.
In a factory a man builds a gun, do you blame the factory-worker if that gun was used in Columbine? Do you blame a teacher for not teaching truth when the curriculum is defined for them? Do you blame a doctor for prescribing BigPharma drugs when this is how s/he has been taught and her/his job depends on it? When a government employee does what is required of her/him, that employee does not necessarily have an agenda other than keeping the job. We are wage-slaves, we are not free to choose how we earn our money, we are given certain career choices and have to accept where those choices take us. In libertarian terms our workforce is not free because we are the wage-slaves of the 1%. How can there be dispute over this?
Some people have more freedom, maybe the writer, Brandon Smith, does. How does he earn his money? Perhaps his website, alt-market gets donations sufficient for him to feed his family. It seems that one of the prime reasons for his website is to promote barter groups – excellent. I support barter as a means of breaking the economic strangle-hold of the 1%. Occupy did the same thing.
I have no knowledge of his finance but he is divisive – he attacks the left. If he were to try to unite with Occupy on bartering, if he were to participate in a Unity Platform would he get the same donations? I can never prove the implications of this questioning.
I was never close enough to Occupy to be sure that what I am going to say is true but I get the feeling that Occupy eschewed right-wing intellectuals. At the time Alex Jones put out many legitimate conspiracy descriptions that were also discussed in Occupy, yet Alex Jones attacked Occupy. I am sure his ego would never have accepted the democratic discipline Occupy demanded but what he said was little different. What would have happened to his funding if he had supported Occupy – even conditionally.
The system is not broken because the 1% continues to accumulate money. This is what occupy says, isn’t it what Alex Jones says? Why not agree up to a point? Is it so important that all views are in unison, or is it the priority to work together against the 1%?
It is my unproveable contention that since Occupy much money has been invested on the internet to divide the 99% especially to divide the right-wing intellectuals against leftism – a leftism which lumps together socialists and liberals whose history has been completely divided. And the media is a significant vehicle for this approach. Brandon Smith describes the media as leftist, and yet as a leftie I might well have opened up a media discussion with the same 4 paragraphs. This division only benefits the 1% – and any writers who make a living (on the internet or otherwise) by promoting left-right division.
On the writer’s other points:-
Repealing Obama-care reduces government involvement, but the writer ignores one of Trump’s platforms – giving health care to all.
Attacking the corruption of the mainstream political parties has always been a left-wing position. In the past within this mainstream left-wing groups have organised internally in the hope of moving leftwards. This has failed miserably, and is now being used by the right to describe the mainstream as leftist. As Pilger says this was a mistake but genuine left-wing people have not stood up to recognise this. Left-wing has always seen the mainstream such as Clinton as corrupt, but the issue has always been about margins – less corrupt than the party that represents big business (1%). Trump has not demonstrated a separation from the 1% in power, does the writer, Brandon Smith, think he has? Is the media that he works within saying Trump is actually working against the 1%?
I also agree that Russia is being hyped by the media to create division but for me it is the liberals who are buying into this red herring – not so much the left-wing who analyse tactics. Bernie appears to be a part of this but he is asking for the truth – a genuine independent enquiry. Nothing wrong with this, perhaps the truth would stop the fanning of the flames.
I completely support the notion that what is discussed in mainstream economics is simply a mirage to enable the accumulation of wealth of the 1%.
Racism has always been used as a means to divide the 99%, now it is immigration. My understanding came from the UK with people immigrating from ex-colonies – following their money and resources. The UK is now following the US example and have many undocumented workers working cheaply creating profits for their bosses. The immigration issue is now that people are following the bombs to their source. Foreign policy is the source of the issue of race and immigration as well as their being a good vehicle for the 1% to divide the 99%. Resolving foreign policy might go some way to solving these intractable issues.
His final paragraph I completely agree with, and would welcome genuine independent media. But how do we get such? I am seriously concerned about the funding of supposedly independent media that have appeared on the internet, independents complain about the mainstream but what are their financial resources? Creditable websites have an “about” page. I welcome this as a practise, and as a transparent practise there should also be accounts of donations especially for those whose writing is their source of family income. To that end my endless blogs are funded by a state and teacher’s pension – a pension I have earned through compromise, and I am not now affiliated to any organisation although I have in the past been active in left-wing organisations.
I was put onto Hagelin and was impressed to see this clip. He was the leader of the Natural Law party (and presidential candidate) but I was told he was libertarian. I have always had sympathy for Libertarians, and this clip has just added to it. Why are these compassionate people right-wing BLOGLINK? But the answer with Libertarians is always the same for me, it is not the theory but the need for staged pragmatism especially in the time of such global bullies as the corporations that is so important. I don’t want regulations but the regulations that go first protect the people – the 1% will never allow their regulations to be quashed. What is the point of removing protectionism when the real control is with cartels. I love the idea of barter, am happy with farmers’ markets with healthy food and first-hand trading, but movements towards free trade globally only benefit the 1%. Follow the money. 1%-money never supports socialism but it does support libertarianism because it knows interim libertarian measures benefit the 1%.
Having said that I would love for socialism to discuss consciousness. To perceive religion as the opiate of the masses is true up to a functional point but it misses the most important thing, the insight and understanding that comes with deep religious understanding are revolutionary. What is worse (because it is not likely to happen sufficiently) this insight is needed for the survival of Gaia and humanity. How I would love for the left to embrace spirituality, and accept some sort of consciousness explanation of life. But the problem is that the left is dominated by left-wing intellectuals who have not experienced spiritual consciousness, insight or whatever is chosen to discuss this religious experience. But there are a few.
But there is something very important that Hagelin does, he brings discussion of consciousness and meditation into mainstream academia. Wherever this blog goes that is so important and mustn’t be forgotten.
Where quantum physics goes loses me, and that is the first half of his talk. But I do not ignore it, my science is just not up to it. When I was young I came across two books, The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukav and The Tao of Physics by Fritjov Kapra. Basically these said to me that once you go subatomic it becomes impossible to be exact. You can measure as momentum or as particle but you cannot say that subatomically there are particles or there is momentum. In the Turning Point Kapra spoke of the Newtonian paradigm. Newton’s 3 laws talk about particles, and this works fine with “touchable” objects. But subatomically it is not certain there are particles. But because science’s axiomatic approach is a Newtonian paradigm, then it is assumed to be Newtonian subatomically.
At the same time that I was reading about this (mid-70s) I was becoming aware of the reality of chi (prana). It made perfect sense to me that subatomically there was energy, that we can measure the effects of this energy, but that this energy did not fit in with the Newtonian paradigm. Because I have experienced the chi this clearly meant to me that the Newtonian paradigm did not extend subatomically, so the investigation of quarks etc. subatomically with all the probabilities associated with it did not matter to me. As a way of measuring chi there might be mileage in this but I am not sure. In this same clip, Hagelin takes this subatomic “investigation” into unified field theory. It sounds to me that such strings are indistinguishable from energy; why not call it chi and investigate chi? One significant answer is BigPharma; there is no profit in a few needles and a trained acupuncturist, and BigPharma has significant academic control because of their amount of research funding.
Accepting subatomics as chi, it is a very small leap to accept that there is as Annie Besant describes consciousness in an atom – theosophy (here or Alice Bailey here. And this brings me to the second part of Hagelin’s talk – Maharishi’s consciousness. I use theosophy to illustrate this again because theosophy talks of a layer cake:-
When I first raised the issue of unity, I was meaning political unity that could be found by adopting approaches similar to the Unity Platform. But this political unity is very limited compared to the Unity that is put forward by many spiritual people – including Hagelin. The terminology I use for this Unity is “Gaia” or ONE Planet. It amounts to there being ONE life that is the planet, Gaia. This life force functions as a Unity but from inside we perceive separate individuals and forms of life. Science takes this separation as axiomatic, and misunderstands so much because of that – not least the misunderstanding concerning the sub-atomic realm. For me the sea is the best way to understand the Unity that is Gaia. What happens when you stand in the sea and a wave knocks you over? Are you knocked over by a particle, several particles, the momentum of the wave, the sea’s energy or even the sea’s consciousness (whatever that is)? It depends on how you setup your definitions (or axioms) as to what knocks you over.
In the second part of the talk, Hagelin links the unified field theory to consciousness. Whilst his conclusion is excellent his methodology left me numb; it was so academic. It reminded me of theosophy taken to extremes with diagrams, more layer cakes, parallel isomorphisms, and I have given all of these up. Buddhism talks of 5 skhandas one of which is sankhara – mental proliferations, and I see much of what Hagelin talks about as mental proliferations for academia. There are postulations of 10 dimensions or whatever, and the mathematical consistency supports his arguments, but show me the dimensions. But there is matter chi skhandas and pure being – simple. The real issue of understanding is whether we meditate – enough.
Is Unified Field theory consciousness? As far as I know, yes. The complicated intricacies are necessary for academia, and that is the medium Hagelin works in so I fully support him going for it. For me I see chi and consciousness, and meditation as the way of understanding. Hagelin, enjoy your mental proliferations; what you are doing is great.
But how can the pure being as compassion be found on the political right? In terms of Unity of Being and political unity in the Unity Platform LINK there is togetherness – great.
In the Unity Platform I have tried to make clear how important it is that we work together against the 1%. One particular tactic the 1% have been using lately is to put the Liberals and Left together, and classify the MSM, for example, as left-wing. I tediously point out that the Liberals and genuine Left have very little in common.
Because I put forward this anti-PC-police post, I received a reply from a friend that assumed I was allied to views that are held by racists. His post went like this (the documentary was Trevor Phillips on pc):-
“I watched the documentary, 45 minutes long, and i was in agreement with much of it. When you look at those students in serious discussion about nonsense and those low class right wingers, whom i also did not like, forced to exercise their right to freedom of speech in a field then yes PC. has gone mad and for many years already, i say.
I sent a long reply presenting a view of the warmongering NATO alliance that is supported by our neoliberalist system.
People now see Liberals as anti-racist when in fact all they are are groups of people analising misuse of words.This obfuscation is the issue that these stupid Liberals have created. Because I condemn their short-sighted alienating approach with their nit-picking language myopia, someone can consider that I would support such statements about the Muslims at Hyde Park Corner.
Apart from the fact that Hyde Park Corner has never been recognised as a place for balanced opinion, in the scheme of things what does it matter if extreme Muslims are sounding off. And then a further assumption that I would be allied to someone who describes a cosmopolitan country like the UK as “White western Christian” and to consider that “White western Christians” would be “hosts”. This is because I attacked stupid liberals for their myopia.
Where is the big picture? Britain being part of an alliance that invades Muslim countries for oil and others. And in terms of racism against blacks a British empire that has invaded and exploited the resources of African countries (amongst others), built up their wealth because of this exploitation, and then complains when black people follow that wealth often at the request of the British government (Afro-Caribbean recruitment).
The point about these PC-police is that they are totally negative. They focus on language and ignore the war crimes because that is what the neoliberals want. They become a target because white people are legitimately angry at losing their jobs and see these liberals being concerned (apparently only) for the jobs of their PC “causes”. A democratic government needs to be concerned for all people, and if they have been then they need to consider strategies for advising people of this. How can these laughable people possibly be considered representative of an anti-racist position? OK, they were students – not worldly, but really??
Anti-racism has to recognise that non-white peoples are suffering (often being killed) as a consequence of NATO policies, these PC-police are not active in this anti-racism. Instead they focus on language and affected attitudes that alienate people who should be confronted with their own racism not for the use of language but for their failure to prevent their governments from participating in wars for profits.
Europe is now experiencing blowback. There is an immigration crisis, and there are no doubts in my mind that European countries need to accept these people as immigrants because of their NATO support. So should the US but they are far away so don’t feel the brunt. And there is blowback violence with the bombings. In no way do I support this violence, but I do understand people who are angry at the NATO bombings trying to say to the British people who deep down are compassionate “Why do you allow your governments to do this?”
I have been unhappy with the recent obfuscation of political terminology, and activism is a word that significantly comes under that obfuscation.
There is a recent history that is so important in understanding the current division in politics. And that is Occupy. Occupy grew out of global movements of horizontalism (horizontalidad), and became prominent in the West with Occupy Wall Street. At OWS the terminology of 1% and 99% became fashionable, and people were uniting under a common banner. I remember personal anger at the time when a libertarian posted Occupy Thailand. It felt like he had appropriated OWS but instead I should have sought Unity. Occupy did bring the 99% together adversarially against Wall Street (to me Wall Street means finance corporations and the MIC). They developed an approach which negated previous means of diffusing mass movement approaches – see Occupy tag.
Significantly the 1% did not want the left and right to unite against them. Since Occupy, Liberals have been exploited as the tactic to divide the 99%. Liberals demand identity politics and have created a PC-police enforcing adherence. This has enabled a division to be created in which the mass movement left-wing approach has been submerged within a legitimate attack on this liberal separatism. Disadvantaged white people have been manipulated into supporting a right-wing populist whose very essence is an anathema to all that is compassionate and moral. And within 6 years of Occupy we have a huge and bitter division of the 99%, not just in the US nor just in the UK but everywhere that is neoliberal.
What is needed is collective action working together against the 1% and their manipulations. Activism means a call for and participating in action, it is not a discussion of political analysis alone. Yet that is what has happened over the internet. Typical of this is Activist Post. Look at the names of the people on the rreading list, but where do I read calls for action on Activist Post?
Unlike liberals I expect there to be conspiracy theory, the Deep State does act in the interest of the 1% and works against the interest of the 99%; here is Samantha Bee’s misguided discussion of Deep State. It is only recently that I have realised that many of the people informing of what I considered to be left-wing positions are actually members of the intellectual right.
But there are two big differences – nationalism and activism. Activism in my view requires activity – and not simply analysis. Analysis alone divides – creating divisions. Analysis whose purpose is to clarify appropriate activity is beneficial, analysis alone just creates frustration. So I ask Activist Post, where are your calls for action? Your first read George Orwell went to war for his activity, Naomi Klein was prominent in Occupy, and is regularly promoting activity. Analysis alone has no power, and can be misdirected as can be seen with Trump.
So where is the power in Activist Post? Where the calls for action? Are Activist Post on the Dakota pipeline? What about mindful consuming such as boycotting GMO, BDS – boycotting Israeli products, using the power of our wages and money to affect the actions of the 1%-corporations? Exposing conspiracies is legitimate but where does it take us without action? To the next conspiracy to expose …. and so on. Conspiratorial action will always happen whilst the 1% have control, and whilst they control the Deep State and the electoral process through neoliberalism. The only vain hope we have is to unite people behind a programme of activity that will take power away from the 1% and their puppets and back into the hands of the people. And this cannot be done by ideas alone. The internet is not real, it is a collection of information and ideas. If we vent on the internet we have done nothing real. Reality occurs when we carry out actions that affect the 1%, consumer spending that supports ONE Planet. Activist Post, where is your activity?
The greatest sadness of the internet is that people have been deluded into thinking the internet is real, that their participation on the net has a real impact, and meanwhile the power of the 1% has increased and the exploitation of the 99% has worsened.
Activist Post – be active – not simply analytic.
I grew up racist in a white middle-class community, I vaguely knew one black boy at school who was always fighting and at the time I blamed him for that – and I was scared of him; now I still don’t know him but the pressure of racism at that school must have been enormous. What I perceived as a black person, black behaviour etc. was completely wrong. My parents, neighbours, schoolmates and teachers they all didn’t know either, that is who I learnt from then. But this is what black people were to me, and I would not have been convinced otherwise. I learnt the truth when I moved to work in Lambeth and met some good black people who helped me through my “educated” racism. I learnt because I listened to black people, and not white people, telling me what black people were like – and what they said was not always “nice”. All black people are not nice, all white people are not nice, etc.
Then what about religion? People believe all kinds of things that are not rational. Christians believe in a virgin birth. I am a Buddhist but do not believe in reincarnation, yet others who cannot prove this rebirth claim I am not a Buddhist. We need religious tolerance but that is difficult. But in terms of what people believe, we can only begin to understand if we try to understand what and how they believe. But even then we cannot do it. Because the Americans started a “War on Terror” following the First Gulf War, sanctions and 9/11, we now have a war against Islam because the war machine targets Muslims. Despite Islam meaning peace this war machine has convinced many sensible people that all of Islam is like the extremists of Isis and Al Qaeda. To me this would be the equivalent of saying all Christians are like the far right God-fearing US white supremacists. Having been brought up a catholic I know this is not true. Having lived and worked in Islamic countries I know Muslims are not extremists, but people who have never met Muslims know about how evil all Muslims are. In Israel, and amongst the Israeli state supporters, there are many with a blind passion that all Arab Muslims are evil yet I know this is not true. And it is also not true that all Jews believe this. Over the centuries religious intolerance has been manipulated to cause war, and yet in our educated times religious intolerance continues to be used to fan the flames of wars for profits. To live together in harmony we have to learn to listen deeply, be tolerant of others trying to understand them, and live with compassion.
Instead of this happening it is becoming increasingly more acceptable to quote opinions about others when those opinions are not based on belief or understanding of that set of ideas. I am fed up of reading right-wing intellectuals or otherwise describing communism, anarchy etc. These intellectuals discuss communism and socialism as if they know it, when they don’t. I don’t know libertarianism. I see good people supporting an ideal “freedom” but then I see ignorance in the way they criticise the left.
And this is also difficult because I criticise the left especially the emergent group of Blairite left better described as a liberal elite for whom socialism and Marxism has no meaning. If you listen to people on the right, you cannot know the left, and if you listen to the left you cannot know the right. If you listen to liberals you cannot know left or right.
What triggered this was this Activist Post in which there are attacks on communism and anarchism.
“As I will demonstrate in this article, this history and paradigm of undermining, attacking and disregarding the American nation state and its rule of law is by no means just an Anarchy thing, it is a long term process carried out and very much planned by the globalist once known more commonly as the Communist Revolution if you go back to the time of the 1950’s and 60’s and earlier.
“Am I suggesting that the Anarchy movement is part of the Communist Revolution long term plans to undermine the US government and the rule of law? While this is not specifically what I’m saying, I do see many possibilities given the world we live in today and what we know about the 1960’s that this could be a possibility. At the very least liberty lovers should be guarded about this very real possibility.
“Before I go any further let me say that as it is with any movement, the people in the movement usually mean well and are not intentionally doing what the architects and purveyors of the movement intended. The same could be said about many groups whose mobilization has been funded by the ruling elite. The movement is often engineered whereas the people duped into the cause and movement are sincere and have no idea they are being used. For example today you can apply this to the Liberal Left globalist movement. Here in Hollywood California where I live there are many Left wing Liberals who blindly believe the Left wing Liberal propaganda and globalist religion without questioning the Clinton News Network (CNN), MSN or any of the mainstream corporate owned CIA controlled media. They mean well but they are deluded. That said, let’s take a closer look at Anarchism in order to put things in perspective.”
These 3 paragraphs contain a confusion of attitudes that make it so difficult to develop Unity</a<. In the first paragraph he contrasts the American Nation State with anarchy, then with globalist and then with communist. As well, anarchy developing from communism?? And in the third paragraph he combines the Liberals with the Left, and associates the Left with Liberals who have supported mainstream media and the warmongering carried out by NATO that the Left have always fought against.
To me this is totally confused. The problem is I don’t know how to unravel it because I don’t know where the guy is coming from. What I do know is that his sources are not anarchy, communism or the socialist Left. No member of these 3 groups could ever associate themselves with the now divisive liberalism, and definitely would not accept neo-liberalism and its warmongering as a political system.
Fundamental to this approach appears to be nationalism. From nationalism develops insecurity (the “Security” industry), protectionism, and racism. With nationalism comes a misunderstanding that people of the nation are superior to people of other nations leading to government policies to protect that nation.
We live on One Planet together, and so arguments about globalist arise. And again we have a problem with labelling. Nature determines that we live on One Planet together. As soon as we divide into nations we have conflict, a conflict that is evidenced in global history. But because I dislike nationalistic jingoism and xenophobia, does that mean I support transnational corporations and economic policies that protect those corporations under the guise of “free trade”? Absolutely not. These corporations are the primary vehicle of the 1%. Globalism vs nationalism are not mutually exclusive, and to create such a division is dangerous. Unity is of the 99% but not 99% of the US or the UK or Europe but the global 99% – international solidarity.
Why does immigration exist? In the UK its history is colonialism. Resources were appropriated and the people followed the resources. Now we have a NATO immigration crisis because NATO has developed a strategy of destroying Muslim countries. Following the destruction of the Berlin Wall there was a need for an enemy. That enemy started with Iraq with all the sanctions between the two Gulf wars, and became national policy following 9/11 where there was a declared “War on Terror” that has not been a war on terrorism (such as fascism and white supremacy) but a war on Islam. In the 20+ years since the fall of the wall the MIC now has global war with a different enemy, an enemy that did not exist during the Cold War; a history of US support for Saddam Hussein in Iraq demonstrates the duplicitous politics the US and NATO have been involved in.
Without the wars for profits there would not be an immigration crisis. Without the war on terror Muslims would not be leaving their countries. With fair trade there would not be national economic divisions – I use fair trade – and not free trade which is a euphemism for exploitation by the corporations.
The complexity of these issues cannot be resolved by intellectuals supporting nationalism. Could we contrast compassion vs nationalism? We do contrast nationalism with globalism, and this is simply an approach that creates a division on a planet where we all live. In this I see intellectualism, the division of definition – black and white. And this leads importantly to activism, what it is and how does it happen? Next blog.
This one is personal.
My first teaching job was at Dick Sheppard school in Tulse Hill – to all intents Brixton; the school does not exist any more – for one reason after I left the Deputy Head was stabbed on the steps of the school. I really got into working there. The kids were difficult. Before I worked in China, I used to have an adage, the best and worst kids I taught were the black kids at Dick Sheppard. But the system was clearly failing these kids for all kinds of reasons but it was not the teachers. Undoubtedly there was the problem of teacher expectation but mostly the teachers worked hard. But the system odds they were fighting were just too much.
This part I am not sure of. At the same time as I was disillusioned with teaching, I began doing a part-time job helping the kids from the Youth Centre (mostly the same kids) with word-processing – wordstar whatever that was. The next thing I recall was resigning as a teacher and beginning work on a magazine – Young Journal – in the same building.
I remember only one thing about the first magazine, and that was just before printing. I knew a typesetter, and he agreed to do the typesetting. I had no idea what I was supposed to give him so I printed out everything, and the Friday before printing Monday gave them to him. He refused. For the next issues I learnt what was required, but for this issue I had to go home, get out my printer and spraymount, and layout the first magazine. I worked solidly and sleeplessly that weekend, and by Monday lunch-time took it up to the printers. I remember being pleased with myself for finishing it, and being pleased with the quality of the first magazine – a pleasure that soon went when I saw the typeset magazines 2, 3 and 4. I have put online 2, 3 and 4 but the first has gone.
The most important result of all that effort was that the magazine had gained some credibility. The Area Youth Office gave us a small budget that paid for future printing, typesetting and some photos, I continued to be paid as a part-time youth worker and the basis for the magazine was set. Publishing the first magazine also brought in new writers which was better as I was still “sir” to many. But perhaps most importantly there was a magazine to show the community. It brought in the first ads but more importantly it brought cooperation – they wanted to help the kids – black youth.
Typically I remember Angela Wynter. The interview had been arranged and the writer, Carol Billy, called in sick; I went to do the interview. Scared of losing the interview I expect I fronted up and tried to explain. I remember an unwillingness, then courtesy and a fascinating interview in front of the fire in her Clapham (?) flat – including learning about duppies. Carol was then able to write the article – Magazine 3 pp 6 and 7 – 1st pdf.
London was a metropole, and Brixton apart from having a Caribbean community also attracted African exiles who were always looking for print. In issue 2 I interviewed Omwony-Ojwok on Uganda – Magazine 2 pp 6 and 7 – 1st pdf, and for issue 3 I interviewed Ndeh Ntumazah – Magazine 3 p13-14 – 1st pdf. They both became friends and teachers. I worked often with Ndeh. He asked me to type up the interview with him, and I discovered when creating the Young Journal website and doing a search that the interview had been printed verbatim in the book “Ndeh Ntumazah A Conversational Auto-biography”. And I am suing them for royalties – joke. Seeing this google page was a great honour for me. When I think of injustice in life, I think of Ndeh, a wise and intelligent man I believe of royal descent, having to work in exile as a car park attendant. I have no concerns about giving back to my politics teacher.
I had visions for the magazine. I wanted subscriptions, more ads, to make it commercial enough to pay the writers. But all of that fell flat. In the middle of working on the fourth issue my personal life went through upheaval, and I left Brixton for Brighton. I committed to the fourth issue but it was a struggle. I heard rumours concerning a fifth issue but no more involvement for me. I believe there was a fifth issue but I am not sure – I lost contact.
Moving to Brighton made a trade unionist and activist but I sorely missed all the contacts I had made within the Brixton community. My personal life in Brighton remained in upheaval all the time I was there until eventually I started afresh in Botswana in 1993 where I was happy for 6 years before travelling further until retiring here in Thailand 11 years ago. The magazines have always been prized possessions, are now not in such good condition because of the travelling, and only now have I put them online.
One testimony to the writers the magazines are timeless and can be enjoyed now – except for 140-character culture not being able to read so much and demanding colour instead of black-and-white. Enjoy the Young Journal:-