Brexit and Trump have also brought home to me another important issue – what is truth? Speaking the truth is part of the 8-Fold Path, Magga (4 Noble Truths), and never has it been more important to recognise the truth when the representatives of the powerful are lying so much.
The first thing I learned about the truth as an adult was when I started on the Path and began to develop insight. At that time seeing people or knowing stuff was so important. Basically it was a reaction to all the lies that education and upbringing had given me. Developing insight is the most important tool for understanding the truth, and very few people discuss this. Insight is definitely not taught in schools!!! At the same time, in the search for truth recognising insight in others became an important aspect of discerning truth. It is not possible for one person to know the truth in all things. So a pre-requisite for truth is insight and the recognition of insight. One key aspect of recognising insight is that of sila – moral integrity. Recognising moral integrity is almost as difficult as recognising insight but there is an obvious corollary to this:-
If a person does not have moral integrity, then they certainly do not have insight and would not see truth as important.
Having moral integrity and talking about morals is definitely not the same thing. There are many people who use morality within religious institutions as a means of control, and yet they themselves do not have morality. In other words religion and morality are not the same although within the religious institutions there are people with insight and moral integrity.
Compassion is the most important fundamental concerning truth. Compassion means the freedom from suffering for all, and in this I include Gaia. So in seeking the truth the person must show compassion. Therefore a person speaking the truth will be working towards compassion, and therefore someone who is sexist, racist, or does not support LBGT rights is not compassionate, and is therefore not speaking the truth. So there are yardsticks, how compassionate is the person and how much insight do they have?
Of course these yardsticks are absolutes, and applying these absolutes in everyday situations especially in something as criminal as politics is very difficult.
But trying to use these yardsticks let’s examine the political situation but not as yet in terms of party politics. What politically exhibits the least compassion? Quite obviously the first political yardstick is war. Who benefits from war? People don’t but corporations do, the global MIC, Military Industrial Complex does. So we have a political question to ask as a benchmark concerning support for the MIC and the corporations – I will use the vernacular the 1%. The most heinous weapon of war is the drone, these are hugely expensive to make and generate huge profits, a definite plus for the MIC. The immigration crisis is blowback, a huge consequence of interfering wars and the heinous use of drones.
These corporations work hand-in-hand with global finance institutions such as banking and insurance. So for me the 1% of MIC, banking and finance are those that control global politics, and politicians who stand against the 1% are those who I support. I have not mentioned BigFood and BigPharma but these corporations have similar interests as the other corporations of the 1%.
For me Occupy stood against the 1%, so I support the Occupy movement. It is my understanding that the Occupy movement stood behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK. Whether this is true or not what Bernie and Corbyn say stands against the 1%.
But is what they say what they mean, are they telling the truth? Or is it just rhetoric?
In Corbyn’s case I have sufficient personal knowledge of the man to know that he is genuine although I haven’t always agreed with his tactics. In the UK in London from 1985 through to 1992 I was a political activist, and this brought me into contact with Corbyn’s sphere of influence – he was an MP and community activist in North London then. For me there was no doubt about his moral integrity and compassion, but at the time I was active I felt his tactics were mistaken. Now I support him, times change.
I support Bernie. His rhetoric is good, and I have a general feeling that he is moving in the right direction. But because of the lack of personal connection I cannot be so definitive. My intuition makes me feel he merits support, but I would not go beyond that because of my lack of personal contact.
What is most interesting about these two political candidates is that they are both struggling with their party hierarchies. There is a movie I often recall called Lifting the Veil. Whilst the movie does attack both the Labour party and the Democrats, it is more concerned with attacking the system. It is my understanding that the movie claims that the electoral system has been manipulated by the 1% as a media circus, and that there is never any intention of genuine democracy – government by the people for the people. This is in line with the approach of neoliberalism as most notably discussed by Noam Chomsky (for me).
Given that I accept that the political system of neoliberalism is the problem, the question then is how it is to be defeated and what is it to be replaced with? For me compassion means that I am seeking a system that treats people as equals without regards to “race creed or colour”; I would also now add gender preference. This is fundamentally the rights of all people over the few, the 99% compared to the 1%. At present we have governments directed by the 1% against the interests of the 99% who they want to exploit as their workforce. So the question is how do we organise for a government by the 99% (or 100% where the government treats all people as equal)? In determining veracity I would be investigating whether the politician is genuinely interested in a government of and by 100% of the people.
So far I have avoided political terminology in describing truth. And this is because of problems with the media and education. It is my view that western societies (and probably global societies) are inundated with propaganda that is directed by the 1% for their benefit. The terms 1% and 99% are very similar to the Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletariat, and there has been continued propaganda against Marxists, socialists or any who subscribe to Marx’s theories. There is much to be learnt from Marx’s dialectical approach. But the main point of Marxism is that all the people need to work together against the self-interests of the 1%. In my adult years I have never seen people more divided, and I think propaganda and obfuscation by the 1%-media are the main causes. Typically I have seen mainstream media organisations described as left-wing when I have always described them as right-wing. In terms of compassion this site might well have the same objectives – healthy people, but in terms of the media our descriptions could not be further apart. In this the 1% have been so successful in dividing us.
There is another reason I have not promoted myself as socialist, I believe that sticking to ideas or an ideology is a mistake. While ideas can guide, holding to an ideal restricts the mind. Adhering to dogma stagnates an institution whether it is religious or political, people also become restricting if others are expected to fit in with ideals. So another point of truth is enquiry. Does the truth hold up to inspection of the enquiring mind? For many years dogma has been thrown at me either from the left wing or in religious circles, but none of this dogma alone produces clarification. It is only with insight that dogma moves beyond the idea. Examining a situation in the light of compassion and through enquiry examining the dogma and situation is a process to determine the truth. Does what is said fit a set of rules is not truth-determining?
I often draw parallels between US and UK politics, typically Republicans vs Democrats and Conservatives vs Labour. In the UK historically the conservatives have supported the 1% with token liberal rhetoric for the welfare of the people and nationalist populism in the interests of the white population, and whilst historically Labour grew out of the working-class its representatives are now simply opportunists. In the UK a nationalist populist, Nigel Farage, has arrived on the scene promoting racism, and this populism has recently been accepted by many people – a significant factor in Brexit; his party UKIP primarily attracts disillusioned working-class Labour voters.
The I in UKIP stands for Independence, and I think this term independent is significant. In UKIP’s case it maybe means independent from the EU – Brexit. But in character UKIP supposedly represents an alternative to the conservatives and labour (the neoliberal system). At the same time it discusses the people’s interests over that of an elite – again appealing to an understanding of those against neoliberalism, but its appeal to the British electorate is because it is white nationalist. In my view UKIP is an appeal to white popular racism, and although sadly they are increasing in popularity their only impact so far has been their contribution to Brexit which also included majority conservative influence. In the UK this populism has divided the 99%, and in the UK I believe that is why UKIP has been funded and given more coverage in mainstream media than is warranted for a small party.
In the US the situation is slightly different but the impact of nationalist populism combined with the conservative interests has led to the election of Donald Trump. Because of my compassion I cannot support either UKIP or Trump because of their racism – and in Trump’s case overt sexism. (I suspect also LGBT issues but I am not certain of that). Initially I said that if a person does not have moral integrity I cannot believe that they will tell the truth, that applies particularly for Trump although I also distrust Farage.
In the US many people rue the election because Hillary was not elected. However in the neoliberal system Hillary represented the 1%-system elite of the Democrat party, and so she lost the populist vote. For the same reason support from Occupy was not strong because of the same neoliberalism, and because of the way the Democrat party cut out Bernie.
In terms of truth it is worth examining how events have panned out in terms of the way they have benefitted the 1%. Particularly in the US nationalist populism has benefitted the 1% by splitting the 99%. The populists have however elected a member of the 1% to deliver an anti-1% platform, can that ever happen? We will have to wait and see. Is Trump a political “whistleblower”?
In terms of truth this splitting is very important because it explains much that goes on with populism. Within the framework of blaming the elite the primary purpose of the populism is division. When you examine much of the analysis in both camps it places the source of the problem with the 1%. Two important platforms of US populism were “draining the swamp” and “against Wall Street”, both of which any left-winger would be happy to support. But then comes the division because the most important attack politically is to blame the left. And here is the inconsistency, the swamp and Wall Street are not the Left.
When considering the populism we have to examine emphasis. The 1% have no problem with being blamed if their strategy of dividing the 99% works so the rise of this nationalist populism just benefits them. For me the main political truth is that the 1% cause our problems, and that we should all fight against the influence of the 1%. In blaming the 1% I seek unity against the 1%, and seek strategies that negate their financial power and influence. This strategy unites all working people, it unites small business owners who are trying to balance their books, but it works against people who manipulate financial laws for their own profit. Such small business owners do not go bankrupt and start up again. Such people pay taxes however unfair the tax system might be because those taxes provide education and infrastructure for ordinary working people. The 99% have all this in common, and if we all worked together then the 1% cannot exploit us.
However divided we become manipulable so it is in the interest of the 99% to divide the left and right. The internet has succeeded in doing this. By investing in the internet the 1% have developed websites that present their divisive populism.
At the same time populism has inconsistencies because the strategy is division and not the interests of the people themselves. The government is described as left-wing and yet a major popular platform is the swamp – the revolving door of the 1% that controls the government. How can the government be left-wing and 1%-controlled? And Trump himself is a major inconsistency, how can a member of the 1% be interested in fighting 1%-control? However these inconsistencies don’t matter if the purpose is division, that division is a consistent purpose:-
Consistency – division
Such inconsistency is for me a good measure of the truth.
Where next do I go in terms of the truth? Over the years I have developed mechanisms for determining the truth. These are based primarily on the arena of politics that I know – what has been called the “left”. I know these people, and have developed some insight into their degree of truth-telling. Over the years I have seen how important the truth is to the left wing, if there are any doubts in the veracity of a left-wing statement there is a huge mainstream backlash. More responsible left-wing people are very careful with the truth, but that is not all left-wingers for sure with some of the more vociferous getting carried away with rhetoric; so there has to be truth-discernment from within. Based on my experience and insight I would use certain left-wing evidence and avoid the rhetoric. This can only be a personal approach to truth.
Political correctness is also worth discussing when examining the truth. PC developed throughout my lifetime, and in my view it developed because language was a significant part of racism and sexism. Demanding that people were not racist or sexist in the language they used was a good position when trying to remove the embedded racism and sexism in society. As a result racists and sexists were expected to improve their use of language. This gave an illusion that people were less racist or sexist but in the UK Brexit showed that people had not truly changed. At the same time there has been a backlash against the “PC police”, people who have too vehemently reinforced the change of language without helping people change their attitudes. With UKIP and Trump those people who have been straitjacketed by the PC police have been allowed to express their racism and sexism. Because there was a repression there has been a backlash against PC in general, and as a result truth has suffered because much truth came out of the research those people did.
At the same time it is populist to reject what PC people have said because populism attacks the left wing. As I have said, this is a change that I find hard to understand as the government has always been a puppet of the 1% so for populism to claim government is left wing is difficult for me to grasp. Again this is an indication as to the ability of the 1% to influence. Look at what has happened. The 1% continue to dominate and their profits continue to increase despite the crash of 2008. Governments have applied austerity measures as a consequence, awarded bankers bonuses, and yet populism has divided the 99% so that there is an obfuscation concerning the left wing. The power of money is amazing.
So to conclude how I determine truth:-
1) Overlying everything else is compassion
Finally since this has been mainly concerning truth in politics, I ask that we recognise a political delusion that has been perpetrated. Most people vote for economic reasons ie vote in a way that they think will give them most money. Vote for greed. When greed is voted for we get manipulated by the greedy. Why not change the way we vote to that of compassion, vote for people who genuinely talk about caring for others and the environment. This would change the political arena.
Archive for the ‘Corbyn’ Category
Before I look in more detail at these articles there are issues to be considered. First and foremost, leftwing politics needs to be clear about the Veil or neoliberalism, it matters not which mainstream political party is in power the system works for the 1%. The electoral process is not intended to offer genuine alternatives, the mainstream parties do not usually offer the people candidates that will genuinely represent them. With both Trump and Brexit right wing ignorance amongst white voters was manipulated, and these right-wing populists will be shown for what they are – con-artists. However these ignorant white voters accept being conned because they are racists, and I don’t mean simply the racists of the Trump mobs but the polite disguised racists of “normal” white communities, racists who should be ashamed at their inhumanity; those ignorant voters often with education who voted for the right emotionally because their emotion of fear is personal greed and self-interest rather than compassion for humanity – “nice white people”.
If we understand the Veil then we do not seek genuine solutions in the electoral process, for the genuine left-wing the electoral process can never be a matter of conviction-voting because the 1% will never allow genuine democratic candidates. This picture has been slightly clouded by the emergence of two genuine candidates – Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, but on both sides of the Atlantic the mainstream has shown its preference for the right at the expense of the parties themselves. The Democrats and Labour who are complicit with the 1%, the opportunists, prefer to lose an election than allow Corbyn or Sanders into power. Without an understanding of this reality the left can never consolidate the problems that have been shown up by Trump and Brexit.
Liberals however in general do not recognise the electoral system for what it is – a delusion (Veil), and they are beating their chests with remorse. Liberal analysis is weak and emotional – as intended. Understanding the Veil for what it is a revolutionary understanding, whereas expecting neoliberalism to deliver a solution is a reformist position. These two words I have used because they were used by Bell Hooks in describing feminism yet these are words which can be used to describe the left in general and anti-racism as well. Genuine left-wing understanding has to be revolutionary, reformism can only be liberal. And by revolutionary I am talking about a deep insightful change in the mindset, what I discussed in transcendence; I am not talking about Marx’s “communist revolution” nor revolutionary violence.
It is the reformism of the liberal, and the arena of that reformism that does need to be questioned. Reformist liberals have been manipulated into turning in onto themselves. So often liberal arguments attack each other – much like the liberal analysis that has followed Trump and Brexit, what have we liberals done wrong? But they have not attacked the source of the problem – the reformism. In terms of the election liberal voters are clearly Labour or Democrat, yet they attack each other. Why? They seek reform within the system, they do not describe the system as broken. Reformists will support Beyonce as a feminist icon because of her success rather than seeing her as being exploited by the capitalism of the music industry – no matter how much money she has. Reformist liberals are happy with her as an icon, do not see her being part of the system as a problem, and will attack what I am saying as being chauvinist rather than understanding it as revolutionary. For such reformists Beyonce has used the system for her benefit, and within the system good luck to her, but she is not helping to change the system that exploits black people – women and poor. The purpose of reformism is to demand that the individual reformers become entitled to a greater part of the cake, but this cake is only the remains that the 1% have left. Reformism basically accepts the system, and fights against each other (of the 99%) for what the 1% have put on offer.
In the US election reformism meant that we chose between Hillary and Trump, and whilst the choice is obvious for any sensible non-racist yet 53 % of white women still voted for Trump. But voting for Hillary is only a token part of the struggle, the electoral system is part of the establishment – and not something we should see as a focus of our fight. Yet Liberals see this as important, and are beating themselves up over these votes.
And the issue of arena is important here, liberals are ashamed that they have lost but they have not taken the fight to their families. How many liberals are ashamed that their families have voted for the right? And when they accept the system as reformists these liberals are unable to question their bosses who are voting for the right. When their bosses are racist and sexist what can they do? As reformists they are seeking the cake the bosses are offering, how can they then attack them for fundamentally lacking compassion – being racist and sexist. Liberals need to bring shame to the people who are not liberals. Polite discourse that is disguised racism and sexism should not now be tolerated because tolerating it has allowed Trump and Brexit. These disguised white racists voting for their greed will always bring in fascism. The deplorable crimes of the racist and sexist thugs need to be laid at the doorstep of these “nice” white people, and not turned in on the liberals. Liberals need to question why they accept reformism, but whilst they are accepting that reformism they need to consider where they are targeting the reform. Arguing with reformists at dinner parties does not make a change, they need to bring more people into the reformist arena – that for me is the liberal failure of these votes; the liberal reform has not spread wide enough, and closet racists have been allowed to exist without being publicly brought to account through shame. Increased violence as a consequence of the racist votes for Trump and Brexit needs to be placed firmly on the shoulders of the “nice” white people who emotionally voted for greed.
Hillary people are questioning why their campaign failed. This questioning needs to lead amongst those who genuinely seek change to an understanding of the role of Hillary’s democrats in the system. She does not represent the people – she said that as part of this “deplorable” clip, what is most ironic is that an exploiter like Trump managed to manipulate public opinion into thinking that he represented people; from someone outside I find that ludicrous but the fear and ignorance of “nice” white people never ceases to amaze me – and never ceases to anger me. The racism was not ludicrous to black pundits who warned about it – see Keith Ellison and Van Jones warning us.
The consolidation on the left has to take a dual approach – revolutionary and reformist. I am only prepared to talk of white people, other peoples must decide for themselves – I am unsure of how important the non-white vote for Brexit was; non-whites did not vote for Trump. The reformist liberals need to expand their horizons working on the “nice” people who are not bigots but still find it acceptable to have voted for racism and sexism; this is not what good people should have done and those liberals within the electoral process need to question themselves about this.
But reformism does not offer an alternative, and the genuine working-class alternatives of Corbyn and Sanders need to be championed. Blairite centrism does not offer these “nice” white people an alternative, Corbyn does. Fascism of Brexit and Trump appears to offer an alternative. By blaming non-whites they say to racists we will favour you above the non-whites, essentially what colonialism stood for – exploiting non-whites to make Britain a power. They do not however offer an economic alternative because the cake the 1% allows the 99% to fight over is such a small cake; the 1% are happy to see us fight for the small cake. Corbyn is fighting for control of all the cake by the people, this always has and always will be the only effective way for change.
Owen Jones is talking about the bigotry that existed amongst my comrades in the 80s Trades Council – as well as the bigotry in the Communist party; the old white left. To some extent I can understand their claims that “come the revolution ….” Because I am from that old school I do not identify with the struggles for identity but because I am directed by the mass movement I accept that direction. A consolidated left must embrace the identity politics. But identity politics cannot simply be reformist, if they stay as reformist then they will simply be fighting over the small cake. I do not know how many of my “dinosaurs” still dominate the movement but if they are there they need to change. Help the reformists become revolutionary, work with them and not direct them.
In early 1990 I was on the poll tax rally and we marched from Brixton – or maybe it was Kennington? On the way to Trafalgar Square, in Lambeth I passed numerous estates where black people hung out of their windows offering support. Sadly I knew why they were not on the rally, the organisers just told black people it was their class and in their interest to be there. But the rally had no black identity, and so was rejected. I have no idea whether things are still the same. The racism is the same so I suspect the rest is similar. At that time the so-called leaders of the mass movement were not responsive to black identity. It appears from Owen Jones article that this responsiveness is lacking within the movement. Mass movement politics is diverse, and if the movement cannot embrace that diversity then it will fail. LBGT rights are repressed by the 1% because the 1% only allow a small cake. LBGT rights and mass movement struggle have the same interests. The “nice” white people become fascists because they are not worried about the size of the cake so long as they always have the same amount. Trump and Johnson who represent the 1% say “nice” white people should have the same amount, and turn white people against their class – a standard historical tactic. And because “nice” white people are still racists they fall for it. It is not the increase in demand for rights from different identities but the size of the cake that is the problem. That cake should be 100%, all that is on offer. Identities do need to see this as their struggle as well, but if the arrogance of intellectuals still dominates the movement then it won’t happen.
The issue concerning white women is perhaps worse, 53% of white women voted for Trump – is that 53% who owned up to voting for him it could be more – I don’t know. There is the often contextually-misquoted Susan Sarandon who said she would not vote with her vagina, the context was the Bernie debate. Hillary is a reformist feminist icon so why so many white women did not vote for her I don’t know. How successful as a woman has she been in the political world. But as Susan was pointing out in different words, Hillary was not a revolutionary feminist. The failure of reformist female liberals is most notable in the US because of this 53%.
In this article the writer points at women’s misogyny. She gives some reasons but in the end I have to ask female liberals “why do women hate women?” Or better “why do women still hate women after 50 years of Liberal training?” Did these Liberals try to train all women? How many of the 53% are “nice” white women who with encouragement could learn to recognise how voting for Trump puts the clock back for women?
Why is gender still an issue in the mass movement? Why is race still an issue? And so on …. why? Because liberals and others have rested on their laurels. Over the last 50 years the control of the 1% has increased. As a result of that control there have been advances made in identity politics but because those advances have been reformist they have only increased the pressures on the miniscule cake the 1% allow. These identity politics have been used to divide the movement. Whilst the 1% have vastly increased their wealth over the last 50 years they have deluded the reformists into thinking that they, the reformists, have made advances. Pointing at overt sexism, racism and homophobia in the 60s they say that things are much better now. But no overt racist has ever been in the White House since the 2nd world war. Nowhere near as many wars for profit have ever been fought. When the whole cake is bigger the 1% offer more, and delude reformists.
I feel angry at the white people in my country and the US who demonstrated their fear by voting for racism, but in the end the 1%-system is so powerful what do you expect. Being deluded in voting for racism, thinking things are better, these are just lies portrayed by a media with an agenda, the 1%-agenda. Fight complacency, maybe Trump and Brexit are wake-up calls for reformists to become revolutionary????
(this was written before the election).
This type of left-wing blog makes me angry. Jonathan Cook is very knowledgeable on Israel and antisemitism, and should be read (followed) for that, but to me this blog on Hillary is not on the money. For progressives the election was over when Bernie was squeezed out. Jill Stein could be an alternative to Bernie but in my view one should vote for her only in states where Hillary has no chance. A vote for Jill Stein in a close contest is a vote for Trump. The others ….
I start with the following assessment, and it is only that – I don’t know for sure. Hillary represents Wall Street (despite what Michael Moore says in Trumpland). Under Hillary I would expect a continuation of Wall Street policies as with Obama – war for profit, drones etc.
Under Trump I see no difference on wars for profit, drones etc. He is Republican, where do we see with Republicans a reduction in wars for profits and drones? Why would Trump stand up against Wall Street?
In terms of foreign policy I would see no difference. I would expect Trump to take a backseat on foreign policy letting Wall Street and the MIC do what it wants. From this point of view Jonathan Cook’s personal interest is correct – there is no difference in terms of his campaigning interest – justice for Palestine. I think Jonathan’s argument that Trump is an isolationist does not have traction because it is rhetoric. Where does this rhetoric translate into foreign policy? Hillary does not advocate foreign interventionism except when she attends CFR, I assess Trump would not advocate it either but that it would just happen anyway. Trump’s isolationism is about supporting fascism, and not concerned with foreign policy. However Trump is jingoist, that will allow for “war for profit” manipulation as the US must “defend” itself.
So the difference lies in domestic policy. Trump is sexist and racist and encourages sexism and racism, Hillary is token liberal paying lipservice to both – again an assessment. How will these affect domestic US society? The moronic right wing – the US fascists will take credibility from a Trump government, and there will be an increase in such assaults. These atrocious white fascists (Supremacists/KKK) will have an increasing voice in US society, and there will be an increase in violence – as can be seen with Trump’s rallies. As Jonathan says “destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation of political violence and intimidation.”
Jonathan dismisses decorum as an issue. Hillary of course is more experienced as a debater, and Trump says what he wants. The question here is truth. Trump is no respecter of truth, and appears not to care whether anything he says is truthful. We do not know whether Hillary is truthful, my view is that she is truthful only when it suits her, but she does not lie to smear. Hillary was forced to lower her standards to participate in the debate, could she have remained with a higher detachment during the smears that Trump threw out? I don’t think so.
Consider the sex smears. Has Trump said anything meaningful against Hillary? Absolutely not. The sexual smears have been directed against Bill, what has that got to do with Hillary? It is just smearing without any integrity.
The Clinton foundation will have been involved in promoting imperialism as are all these US foundations, using charity laws to promote the interests of the 1%. The Trump foundation promotes Trump.
I think the disguise of the Clintons, typical of Obama and all mainstream politicians, is marginally better than Trump but only just. What happens if we support the smear approach of Trump? Everything is up for grabs – just because he pretends to open up all the diplomatic disguises of Wall Street politics.
But what he is doing is lurching the debate to the right? What matters is a progressive government – represented by Bernie at the moment? It is possible that Trump’s right wing violence will lead to a greater left wing consciousness but such a consciousness would be forced to express itself through violence. Under Clinton such a dialogue could still be held in a peaceful way. With the Bernie contest she voiced more progressive policies because she had to. When Trump has moved everything to the right there can only be a debate of extremes, and as the Trump extreme is happy to extoll violence the left will be forced to do the same.
When you have issue-based campaigning – such as Palestine, you have to consider when and how foreign policy will change. Of course with US insularity foreign policy is the last to change but it can only change with a generalised progressive agenda, move the debate to the left and maybe some of that progression will make a change to foreign policy. When the debate is controlled by the fascist, foreign policy can never liberalise; Israel as an ally for the US will be cemented. This cannot help Jonathan’s campaigning interest – Palestine.
Jonathan’s summative position is striving for people to vote out of conviction. I ask
“when would the 1% ever allow candidates with compassionate conviction to stand?” Trump has a form of conviction – self-aggrandisement through politics.
A conviction vote can never happen. Electoral democracy can never be meaningful, that seems to be the fallacy of Jonathan’s blog, he seeks a meaningful vote. As he quite righty pointed out, the genuine democracy of Bernie was manipulated out of the arena. Conviction voting is never going to change that. Democracy can only happen through genuine grass roots democracy that hopefully will have an impact on the controlled electoral process. If the grass roots democracy moves the agenda leftwards, then maybe the candidates such as Bernie or Elizabeth Warren will emerge with more chance. Over my awareness since the 70s there has never been left-wing candidates with any chance like Bernie or Liz Warren or Corbyn. This is positive and a Trump government will stifle such by his promotion of fascism. It is naïve to think that conviction voting can ever be anything other than Trot extremism, for progressives voting must be tactical.
Not only was I angry to read this blog, I was disappointed with some of the naivety. It made me respect the wisdom I gained from the training of the experienced with my short stay in the Communist party. Where does Jonathan learn from the wisdom of the elder?
And perhaps most important although Jonathan won’t see this as important, a candidate should at least avow morality – lipservice, sila. It shows how low the western ceiling is that sila has no traction.
I have begun revising the Treatise (Treatise of Zandtao). Whilst these small revisions are not going to be online for a while I should note that HHSR has been removed together with references to reincarnation. I have been studying Nagarjuna a bit– as being a link between what is Theravada (supposedly the original Buddha’s teachings and Zen/Tibetan). Reincarnation is really a Hindu belief that has become part of Buddhism according to Buddhadasa – I like that for the reasons that it explains the origin (Hindu India) of the belief and that proving reincarnation seems not to be possible. It is usually assigned to one of the Buddha’s unanswered questions. I was unsure of a lot of the references to unanswered questions, here is a summary that is from one of the Theravada suttas SN 44 explaining why the questions are not answered.
I am more concerned about Nagarjuna’s dependence on faith, I noticed this in the letter to the king in “The Good-hearted Letter” Section Two. Let me start by saying that faith is something I do not have. But before I get into that I want to surmise why Nagarjuna needed faith, and that is his belief in reincarnation. How can you accept reincarnation unless through faith because there is no way you can assert it through experience; having said that I cannot explain stories such as these without finding some disguised way of saying they are lies; the stories are not sufficient evidence to support reincarnation – just sufficient to create doubts. But for me the world is paradoxical enough to accept “exceptions to the rule”. But it matters not, I have not experienced it so I don’t accept it for myself.
Faith is a requirement for reincarnation yet it my view that the Buddha never asked us to have faith in him – or anything. Based on the Kalama Sutta, AN3, it is my contention that the Buddha asked us not to believe him but to come to some kind of personal conviction through experience that what he said is true. I often think of this as internalising an idea by deeply knowing it as a truth – or even experiencing the idea as an insight. Faith says here is a dogma, believe it – in other words here is a mindset, believe it. Are holy books factual? Or are they allegorical to bring home certain spiritual truths? My own view is the second, you must decide for yourself what is important.
This issue of “holding to a mindset” has been alluded to throughout the treatise, and is central to a perspective on conditioning. In an earlier chapter of the Treatise I looked at the book “The Four Agreements” demonstrating that we grow up with mindsets which we agree with because they are custom and practise for our societies, in effect this mindset of agreements could be seen more sinisterly as conditioning. The way we grow up could be seen as making agreements with our parents and society, or it could be seen in a more passive way as conforming to that conditioning that our upbringing requires of us.
The dogmas of a faith are a mindset, the agency of accepting that mindset separates a faith from a set of ideas, and I question that agency. I don’t dismiss the agency, I have used the term “internalising” as an acceptable agency, and I would also see insight as legitimate – although I find it difficult to see how a whole faith could be determined through insight. Debating the agency of one’s faith is an individual journey for each person to undergo, but without a suitable agency one’s faith is simply a set of ideas – a dogma – a mindset. Accepting a mindset without appropriate deep enquiry is for me a mistake that many make. It happens as we start to unravel conditioning especially amongst the young who reject conditioning but then seek to replace it. There is a charismatic figure, David Icke, who has politically dissected much that is wrong with our society. There is a strong body of younger people who follow him. There are two issue that I contend with him. The first concerns the Illuminati. I have never investigated the Illuminati because I don’t know them so how can I ascertain the truth about them. Throughout this book I have discussed the 1%, and I have no doubt that these bourgeoisie control our corporatocracy through finance and influence. But I have no experience to suggest that these people are masons – they may well be. I do however believe that groups such as Bilderberg meet and exert influence on our society. However the control of the 1% is in my view through convergence of interest and influence based on their own conditioning rather than a concrete plan or planning meeting. Second are the lizards. The only lizards I have come across are the ones that scuttle across my living room leaving small shit everywhere. If there are aliens as lizards I can accept correction but it has to be verifiable by direct personal experience. Icke-ists accept and feel they have to accept the full mindset. This is based on our miseducation in which indoctrination through accepting mindsets, ideas and facts stuffed in our minds to pass exams, leads to one mindset being replaced by another once we start to see through our conditioning – discussed throughout in Matriellez.
However this aspect of our conditioning, our mindset-replacing tendency, needs to be seen for what it is – another part of our conditioning (education methods), and it is only when this additional aspect is replaced by complete enquiry can we say that we have overcome conditioning.
Isms are a good way to begin examining conditioning. Consider nationalism. Is this a good thing? Many education systems foster nationalism as this produces stability within a society. By saying your own society is better than others you are immediately creating a lesser society, a group of inferiors. Once you have people seen as less than you, it is very easy for manipulative groups to misuse media to create a war for profit – can we kill our own? If we are all seen as equal, all societies seen as equal, then such excuses for war disappear – we do not make war on ourselves. This of course is a fundamental democratic principle that all people have equal democratic rights.
Racism is another ism well worth examining. I was brought up a white middle-class racist, and was fortunate enough to learn about my racism by good black people being willing to teach me and tolerate the racism I grew up with. When I reflect on things that I have thought and even said, I am somewhat ashamed despite knowing they are sourced in conditioning – conforming to the custom and practise of the white middle-class I grew up with. I would recommend all people of privilege such as white privilege to seriously examine themselves. In my professional biography as part of my M Ed I included a discussion of anti-racist training (ART), and would encourage people to examine themselves through such training approaches.
As a male chauvinism is another ism that I was born with, and therefore grew up being sexist. As an adult I intellectually accepted equality but I am not sure I always practised it because of my desires. Society is undoubtedly chauvinist, and we are therefore continually bombarded with media that promotes sexism. As males, especially younger males in whom the desires are stronger, constant re-evaluation is required. For example, what is anorexia and bulimia? Are these psychological conditions that a few women suffer from? Or are they natural consequences of a sexist society that portrays women as sex objects based on a body image that it is almost impossible to maintain – a situation made far worse by the way Big Food manipulates our foods for profit so that maintaining our health is so difficult. Should women have equal rights in the workplace? Or just in workplaces that do not affect my promotion?
Antisemitism is a particularly interesting ism for those on the left. When you consider history there is no doubt that Jews have been persecuted culminating in the atrocity of the Nazi Holocaust. Following the situation that has happened in Palestine where the homeland of Israel was created, on the left there has been much support for the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, oPt. Often that support has been vocal against Jews, is that antisemitic? At the same time there are wealthy Jews who could be called 1%, some such Jews have power in media. Is that then a Jewish conspiracy? I recommend a deep enquiry into one’s own antisemitism, and a suitable place to start are these 7 tenets of antisemitism.
Considering the ongoing barrage of media conditioning, enquiry is so important, it is integral that we continually re-evaluate our own conditioning because it is so easy to accept negative mindsets. When we add to this the dangers of attaching to mindsets once developed as insights the need for constant enquiry is a matter of ever-vigilance.
But we need to consider what is the purpose of this conditioning. It is conformity to what end. Certainly conformity is useful for providing a stable society but it does not begin to give a reason until we look at the 1%. They require a compliant and consuming workforce, they need consuming wage-slaves who can accept the various consequences of the current system such as climate change and wars for profits. Now the conditioning has a meaning because across the world we have people who accept working for money to pay the bills and consuming extras.
And where is the danger to this system? If for some reason the workforce refuses to be wage-slaves and discerningly decides not to waste money on consumerism. This is why so much effort is made to attack unions because when workers band together they demand the profits for themselves.
But more than unions they fear a unity of purpose, a unity of purpose that sees 99% working together for the interest of the Gaia – climate change, renewable energy, Dakota pipeline – and for the interests of all the people in the world – no wars for profits. Such division of peoples comes from nationalism – dividing nation against nation, racism diving white from black, sexism – dividing women from men, and antisemitism – dividing gentile from Jew.
Political unity in the interest of all peoples and for the interest of our planet is the way we can overcome the 1% manipulation of ourselves as consuming wage-slaves.
And unity or Oneness is what is sought through spiritual awareness. We are not separate people with individual interests, but we are One people with the interest of the One planet, our home. Even the very religions which are the systemic way of understanding this Oneness are used to separate. Wars have been fought with religion as an excuse yet religions when understood in depth seek only Oneness.
But what happens to people who seek Oneness, they become aware that we are not separate but One people. They transcend the separation and understand there is Unity. They overcome the conditioning that creates separation, they see through the delusion where we are conditioned as separate and accept the Unity.
This acceptance of Unity is usually associated with forms of bliss, and the transcendental process is often confused with the joy that people have during transcendence but the truth is that this transcendence happens when people end separation, when they end division, when they don’t accept the agreements their society and upbringing require of them, when they work to end their conditioning on all levels. Transcending conditioning is what brings Unity – anatta.
And this transcendence brings understanding on all levels. Once we throw off the shackles of our conditioning, by rejecting separation, by going beyond dogma and intellect, by fighting the hatred that comes with all the isms – often bringing wars with profits, by accepting Unity as Gaia where destroying the environment by climate change and industrial exploitation is understood as destroying ourselves. This is all transcendence. From the moment any part of our conditioning is questioned we begin transcendence. For some it remains political where the bliss is never experienced because new mindsets are clung to. For the spiritual the transcendental experience can bring with it bliss but instead of a mindset they cling to bliss and don’t move forward. But the process is the same – enquiry, removing the shackles that ignorance of our conditioning places on us bringing with it open minds that question, that naturally reject injustice, that reject climate exploitation, that want genuine peace, a peace that comes with the Unity of all peoples in Gaia.
This transcendence is what the three tenets of the Treatise of Zandtao are working towards. Healing the body so we do not become attached to the diseases that are a consequence of toxic intake whilst at the same time working with Gaia through whole foods that enable us to survive in harmony with nature. And the energy is the energy of Gaia of One planet. Once we open our minds and bodies to that energy that is Gaia then we begin to feel through that energy that this is not separation but Unity, the energy of the One planet that sustains us, making us feel vital when we accept the Path that is Gaia. We work together in Gaia, we transcend the conditioning that seeks division, and we accept Unity for what it is – the natural way.
In the Treatise I have looked at many ways that work towards this transcendence, this removal of conditioning. One way just mentioned are the three tenets, but much more importantly there are the 4 Agreements, and there is magga – the 8-Fold Path. All seek one thing – the removal of conditioning – the removal of agreements, the removal of the attachment to I and mine, the removal of attachment to the 5 khandas, the Unity that comes with the understanding once the conditioning has been removed.
There are many levels of this transcendence. When we see black people justifiably angry in “Black Lives Matter”, we might well see people who have transcended this political aspect but need more. When we see Momentum supporting Corbyn in his struggle against the 1% we see people who have transcended this aspect of conditioning but who seek more. When we see the monk who devotes their lives to meditation we see a transcendence that has overcome the conditioning of wage-slavery and consumerism, but needs more. On this diverse world there is much transcendence to varying degrees, it can only be hoped that these people do not rest on their laurels and that they work to seek a complete transcendence, a transcendence that comes from permanent enquiry, a transcendence that lacks conditioning on any level, a transcendence that brings with it a complete freedom from any shackles. Unity that is anatta.
I have just read this Polly Toynbee article which is a basic cow-tow to tactical voting.
Let me accept what she says, that she supports Corbyn’s policies. Then what she is saying is “I give up on my policies” for strategy. For years those with genuine left-wing beliefs have been forced to vote tactically, but is that the aim of socialists everywhere? To use their vote as a tactic. Definitely not.
I talked about where tactics within the NCP led me, I worked as a traitor to socialism supporting union leadership that exploited membership; nearly 30 years later it still rankles. The question is this, when do we work for the possible opportunity for a socialist government? And the answer is this, will there be a better opportunity than now with all the momentum that is with Corbyn?
There are two sets of people who do not want to get on the Corbyn bandwagon:-
1) Those who have been cowtowed
I place Polly Toynbee in the category of those who have been cowtowed – assuming the description of her politics is true; although the phrase is a bit rude it is not really my intention to be so. She has spent her life in a political setup that has given socialists little choice but to vote tactically for whatever leadership came along. In the end the last vote (for Blair) enabled exploitative wars in the Middle East, how can this be socialist in any way? Blair took us into Iraq, Tories took us into Libya and Syria; what is the difference? When is the time we stand up for principle and goodness? When I was politically compromised by the NCP could I have done anything better with my time? NO. But now there is a movement. The mainstream media including Polly Toynbee (and Mock the Week) unfortunately are militating against Corbyn even if it is with Polly’s temerity. But look at the streets, that is where the mass movement is; and the streets are growing with their support for Corbyn. Isn’t it time to make a stand on principle and goodness?
My erstwhile NCP comrades would have hated these words at the end of 80s, but that was a completely different time. That was a time in which supporting Corbyn or Socialist Conference would have been to create a split in the Labour or mass movement. Ever since then supporting such would have been support for a split. But is now the time ripe for principle and goodness?
And the big question is this. If now is not the time for principled voting when will there ever be such a chance? Now there is momentum and Momentum, these are both mass movement in nature. If we don’t use these momentums now will there be another chance? I remember the miners. The miners’ strike was the time when trade unions lost much of their power. Whether Scargill was tactically in error or not (I think he was), the fact that the mass movement failed to back the miners 100% enabled Maggie to have a victory, a victory that has led to lessening of union power and eventually Labour taking us into imperialist wars. The movement did not seize the chance to defend because of doubts about the “Trot” tactics. Are we going to make the same mistake now? Are we going to fail to back Corbyn over minor doubts? Over wish-fulfilling failure?
It is time for people like Polly Toynbee to stand up and say now is the time for principled behaviour – socialism and goodness.
Polly is also arguing against Corbyn’s tactical stances with the opportunists in Labour. Let us start with how this struggle is being phrased by herself and others in the mainstream (albeit left-wing MSM). She talks about leaders. Since when is mass movement politics about leaders? It is about the mobilisation of the mass movement. So why isn’t she asking whether representation within the Labour party is mass movement? Corbyn has proven mass movement credentials. He wants a greater accountability to these mass movement voters, is this not what the Labour party ought to be about?
Where is her historical perspective? Historically Blair opportunism manipulated that lack of mass movement support for Labour to install his flavour of opportunism not only amongst the parliamentary Labour party but also on the NEC. Now that his Machiavellianism does not have control, shouldn’t all socialists be calling for appropriate representation – democratic representation of the mass movement? I don’t know whether Corbyn has talked of deselecting or whether it is just many of his attackers; but people who have got into position whether in parliament or the NEC through manipulation do not deserve to be there. I do not support a purge but these people need to support the mass movement who have without doubt given socialism as represented by Corbyn’s policies their assent. These incumbents need to get behind the policies that mass movement membership has voted for. Even if they are unhappy with Corbyn as leader there is a clear mandate for policies.
Instead these “Progress”ive MP’s are still fighting Corbyn, and then Polly says Corbyn is not bending enough to them – is not being magnanimous in victory. What is wrong with saying to these “Progress”ives, get behind the policies and I will forget any personal animosity. “His calls for unity are only a call for capitulation and obedience” is a very negative way of putting forward the position that MP’s should unite behind policy that the membership wants. Labour has gradually moved so far to the right that taking the middle ground or even socialism and goodness is seen as a lurch leftwards. It will be interesting to see whether conference provides mass movement policies yet – or whether conference is still dominated by opportunism.
Is saying the “vast majority won’t be deselected” a threat? Or is it just a recognition of history and a recognition of mass movement forces? Do incumbents have the right to stay there if they cannot be selected by their constituents? Is a vote for 5 years sufficient democracy or if there is a democratic change should the incumbent not reflect that change in their approaches – genuine democracy? Democracy has been relegated by neo-liberalism to a 5-year mandate. If Polly is a genuine socialist why isn’t she demanding that democracy reflect the membership’s views? Surely leadership of a democratic party would want its representatives to represent the views of membership. I am not sure what the “deselection” means. Does it mean that Corbyn has the right to ask for a sitting MP to be revoted? I doubt it. What is this so-called deselection? If there is an election then candidates will be chosen again, is this deselection or democracy? When you place these fears for deselection into the context of the Machiavellianism of Blair in putting these people in as MP’s in the first place, this deselection fear-mongering just sounds like support for “jobs for the boys” – or more correctly “jobs for the incumbents”.
As for MP’s voting for the shadow cabinet posts Corbyn must resist this in a constructive way. MP’s have gained office through manipulations of apathy. For those MP’s to then vote for Shadow posts would mean that manipulation would be creating Shadow policy when the mass movement has clearly supported different policies. If the Shadow cabinet can be “whipped” into support for the policies of the movement, then that should be the way of “voting”. Was there calls for shadow cabinet voting when Blair was creating his clone-olony? It will be interesting to see whether these opportunists can be whipped into line? “All this Machiavellian back-room manoeuvring is out of keeping with his benign …. image”. Where has the Machiavellianism come from? Being in politics forces him to work behind-the-scenes, ask Harry Perkins.
I find this very biassed:-
“The key rule change he wants from the NEC is to reduce the votes of MPs and MEPs needed to put a candidate on the ballot in future leadership elections from 15% to 5%: that ensures one of his own on the list, and the present party membership would then be able to select a successor in Corbyn’s image.” This might be something Corbyn wants but to describe it as key is very emotive. For me the democratisation and accountability of representation is the key issue of Corbyn’s policy within the Labour party, I don’t know whether he actually calls this “key” – I expect he would but I have no desire to put words in his mouth. Does 5% or 15% matter? It matters now because of the reason he was first nominated. In that first election it is my understanding that he was nominated by the MP’s to offer a different position – maybe some would not now want to have given him that opportunity? But if there were not 15% of Labour MP’s who represented the broad platform that Corbyn now stands for then it shows a weakness in the voting process that created that situation. 5% would mitigate against such happening again, but hopefully under the 2 momentums Labour will never be hijacked again by the likes of Blair.
“In one fraught conversation after another, I try all this on Corbyn believers but to no avail. No compromise, blocked ears, total denial of electoral facts, a post-truth conviction.” Throughout the article Polly describes Corbyn supporters as good people, yet she then criticises in this way. These are words I would use to describe Trots. Her conversations are fraught because she is being intractable. Let’s be clear the 2 momentums are people standing on principle – not being closed-minded but standing on principle. As described above, unlike the Trot situations of the past this is a movement that is based on principle and not on electability. But that does not mean that such a movement cannot enable Corbyn and Labour to be elected. Look at the Brexit vote – crazy. People were prepared to vote to leave because they were disillusioned. What if that disillusioned vote could be turned into a vote for principle and goodness – as opposed to anger and racism.
Across the pond there is support for ignorance and racism, because the opportunists in congress have exploited the allegiances of the people. Hopey-changey’s support for Wall Street severely disillusioned the black vote, and Sanders had great difficulty mobilising them. But Sanders offered an alternative that almost upset the Wall Street establishment of Clinton. Sanders “Our Revolution” continues unabated, but sadly it does not continue in the neo-liberal electoral forum of the Veil. Momentum would continue in the same way – working on community issues, if Corbyn were not elected. But let’s go 100% behind Corbyn and see if left-wing votes can mean more than strategy but actually be a vote for what we believe in.
It is time for the armchair socialist to get off the strategic-voting fence and begin to support the momentums for genuine change – principled, good and democratic. I suspect another chance like this will not come along in my lifetime. Corbyn’s speech at conference backed up by the membership vote gives a sufficient platform for the party to unite behind to present a credible government. Polly get behind this ….
unless you are 2) above “Those who support the veil”.
Have enjoyed listening to Corbyn’s conference speech, I thought it was an excellent leadership speech and rallying call – function of conference (but I am biassed). It is refreshing to hear a socialist party leader actually discussing socialism.
Here are his “not-the-ten commandments” – well worth considering [25.56]:-
Who would not want this? 1%.
Feasible – the figures work.
Will they allow it to happen? Of course not. But it is well worth a battle to see how far we can win back rights for humanity in general, and not just the privileged few.
I have been looking into Nagarjuna to connect Theravada to Zen. On p7 of the-wisdom-of-nagarjuna there is this quote about Transcendence:-
I wanted to include this as a comment to the post on Transcendence but web tecnologies thwarted me. Basically if this quote cannot connect the spiritual and political transcendence I don’t know what can.
Forces within the Labour party are gathering in the next step of maintaining the Veil – the delusion of bipartisan politics exemplified by Tory and Labour in the UK. These forces have already damaged the Labour party because they manipulated the Labour party into a leadership struggle rather than take advantage of Tory weakness post-Brexit vote.
This leadership vote has been divisive even though most recognise that Corbyn was going to win from the word go. They introduced very divisive tactics such as the NEC refusal to accept voters many consider legitimate. It is now seen as a foregone conclusion that Corbyn will win the vote but the Veil-maintaining manipulation continues. Rather than seeking unity behind the democratically-elected leader, Corbyn, these forces are now militating behind a claim of “unelectability” – Saving Labour and Labour Tomorrow. Labour used to be a broad church as opposed to the balanced polarities (of left and right) conveyed by mainstream media of the Veil, and this breadth democratically needs to allow diverse groups – so long as they are “united” behind Labour interests. Because of the breadth of Labour this unity is difficult to maintain – consider the split of the right wing of the party when the Gang of Four created the SDP, a party that has effectively disappeared from the political stage even when merged with the Liberals. Having another right wing faction such as Labour Tomorrow or Saving Labour is a legitimate part of democratic inclusivity but it does make life difficult.
When considering the nature of such groups it is always useful to analyse the funding. In this Guardian article, New anti-Corbyn group is funded by former Tony Blair spin doctor,
Momentum is a key link to what I assess as the mass movement – I cannot be sure of that democratic assessment without being on the ground. To read about Momentum is very encouraging but unfortunately all the Trot organisations I came into contact with in the 80s had good rhetoric. The problem was that their tactics were divisive. The Labour party has now become so controlled by the establishment that it is necessary to take a more radical stance and hope that the movement comes with you. This is why I support Momentum. The communist strategy (discussed within here ) of placing party unity first and policy second is not appropriate when the opportunists are so dominant; supporting unity per se was effectively using comrades’ energy to support right-wing opportunism – Bilderberg. Momentum leadership is aware of the forces militating against Corbyn (see article).
Contained within this same article is the real battle. The in-situ opportunists are trying to retain control, and are unwilling to subject themselves to democratic mass movement selection. Despite the mandate that Labour party members want Corbyn, these Wainwrights are still fighting Corbyn. Corbyn is angling for shadow cabinet positions to be voted for (by the mass movement) but the NEC is blocking this. My assessment based on their recent practice is that the NEC is definitely controlled by the Wainwrights, and the voting for new NEC members was decided by the NEC and not the mass movement (as discussed in the article). The struggle will have to go back to the wards and the slow change that mass movement representation will have to effect; it will be a while before these parliamentary opportunists will be supplanted – if ever given the prevailing mainstream environment.
Whilst these forces do their neo-liberal work the Labour party will suffer in the eyes of the general population especially when fed by the mainstream media. These Wainwrights want their Labour party, their opportunist way, or they are prepared to see it die – an irony when considering “Saving Labour” is the exact opposite of what they are doing.
On 14th September there was an interesting move; the Guardian reported this move as “Jeremy Corbyn’s team issues list of MPs who it claims undermined leader”. I have previously described the Guardian’s position with regards to Corbyn, in the way that it supports the opportunists over mass movement representation. I am biased but it seems to me that the Guardian’s position is untenable. Examine the recent history of Corbyn:-
1) Corbyn was elected with a good majority.
But the real issue of division that needs to be understood is the division that Blair created. This is the division that separated the Blair opportunists from the mass movement. Corbyn represents the interest to unite the mass movement with ts parliamentary representatives again.
It is interesting that one of the claims amongst those critical of the “Corbyn list” is the fear of deselection. Why are they afraid of deselection? Is Corbyn afraid of the leadership vote? No, because the vote is mass movement. Why are these opportunists afraid? Perhaps because they manoeuvred themselves into power in the Blair era. I use the word “might” because my knowledge is limited but be clear a democratically-elected representative need not fear a democratic vote.
Here is an interesting Guardian article on Corbyn as leader, it cites his voting patterns as having been ratified by history. Does his voting make him a leader? In my view, no, it describes his position. In a democracy what makes a leader – the votes that make him an elected representative. In the situation of Corbyn his votes came from the mass movement, the parliamentary Labour party never voted for him. When there was a vote of “No Confidence”, it demonstrated the distance between the parliamentary MP’s and those that voted for Corbyn. When the vote is finally counted on the 24th the leadership victory will be clear. Amongst the opportunists there needs to be a climb-down acceptance of Corbyn as leader, Corbyn has opened the door for such already. If they do not choose to work with Corbyn it shows the true nature of their opportunism.
And that opportunism comes from a wider source. In this blogpost I have been discussing the voting within Labour as if it was part of an open electoral process. The reality in this Labour party election is the battle to maintain the Veil – “Lifting the Veil” movie, the delusion that the election process matters in terms of real power. Corbyn is threatening this Veil by changing the delusion to something meaningful if he were to get into power, this is the same fear that Wall Street has of Sanders, and it is also the theme of the book “A Very British Coup” in which Harry Perkins threatened the establishment. Within the power machinations around this Veil will exist genuine Labour MP’s who disagree with Corbyn – if their views are genuine democracy then entitles them their opinion. Those genuines then have a decision to make:-
If they choose to remain in the parliamentary Labour party and fight Corbyn it shows their true colours. Those opportunists would not then be genuine Labour activists but pawns for the superrich who want to maintain the Veil, what might be termed the Bilderberg sanction. With the Corbyn vote almost a foregone conclusion now, it will be interesting to see who has the Bilderburg credentials.
I have been a member of the Labour party – not now as I don’t live in the UK, but I suspect I would now be excluded.
Firstly I support Unveiling the Veil (see movie “”Lifting the Veil”), recognising the fact that electoral democracy is a con and the delusion of that game damages the working-class. But if I was voting or were to join a political party it would be Labour. I would have joined under Blair even though I think he was a warmonger, damaging to the working-class, and a Bilderberg lackey. Blair was a traitor to the mass movement.
How did Blair get into power? He stopped Labour shooting itself in the foot by preventing people from making statements that the mainstream media could use to damage Labour. In some ways I understand that, I will never forget how angry I felt about Dianne Abbott making a statement that the Labour party was racist. Whilst I agree with what she said, I thought it was tactically so destructive in a run-up to a tight election. But Blair went way too far. Not only did he stop the extreme from making comments he enforced cloning within the party. This is now clearly demonstrated by the vote of no confidence in the parliament, the support of the Guardian for these parliamentary representatives against the Corbyn mass movement upswell. It demonstrates to me that the NEC is in the pockets of Blairite opportunism. For saying this I suspect I would be prevented from voting yet I support the leader of the Labour party.
What are the NEC doing? Do they not have the interests of the Labour party at heart? Is it a mass movement party or is it a Blair clone party? With all the damage they are doing are they destroying any chance of electoral victory? Where will that victory come from? Labour party uniting all the disaffected voters. These voters are angry people, these are people who have been dumped on by Blair suits and jumped at voting for Corbyn in the leadership election because he was the only one standing against clones.
There needs to be control of the Trots but that control mostly comes from democracy, the more voters there are the less chance a few extremists have. There needs to be policies that help ordinary people to prevent the lurch to the right represented by UKIP and in part the Brexit vote.
Look at the following, how can this help the Labour party?
I have to take this blogpost at face value, in other words that there have been no other actions to be taken into account prior to the NEC decision. In truth it could be a genuine plea or it could be a trick from someone with a long history of inappropriate action. Also the article does not contain the contents of the retweet. But let’s be clear, many of the policies of the Labour party and the Green party overlap. Corbyn has promised to make the UK the leader in climate change, would that not be a Green party hope if in government?
It is 25 years since I was active in British politics and in the Labour party. I had the feeling at that time that the NEC had the trust of the rank-and-file, the mass movement of the Labour party. Maybe that recollection is wrong. I was not a member over the Blair years so I do not know how much his Machiavellian control extended to. But I have no doubts that if the NEC was powerful enough to affect his interests he would have changed it.
My real question is why aren’t these opportunists seeing the writing on the wall? Don’t they want to distance themselves from Blair? Don’t they want to distance themselves from warmongering? Whilst Owen Smith is making Hillary-Clintonesque moves to mass movement policies, his own personal political history is littered with Blairite opportunist decision-making including I believe support for the Iraq war. His job in BigPharma was shady to say the least. Do these opportunists not see that there is a large proportion of the electorate who are completely alienated from their version of politics – the Blairsuit version. The move to UKIP is not just a barometer of working-class reaction to an increase in racism but also represents a complete alienation from the party whose history belongs to them – or is at least associated with them and their Labour.
Here is an Op-Ed piece which describes an alienation that exists within the Left across Europe and the US. Radical people like myself accepted that voting for Social Democrat parties (the opportunists of Labour and so-called socialist parties) was tactical, working as a Labour party activist was tactical – better the policies of a Right-wing Labour party than a Conservative party. But under Blair and his clones this rationale was put under the microscope, because the policies were no different.
Obama demonstrates the alienation towards the Left – as well as Blair. Hopey-changey brought great clamour from the mass movement especially black people. What is a significant state of affairs at the end of his 8 years – “Black Lives Matter”. How can any black person feel at all comfortable when on his watch black people are suffering such racist attacks? For those 8 years there has been an increase in war atrocities due to US foreign policy, drone use has sky-rocketed, an increasing rich-poor divide and Wall Street control has tightened – and a lurch to the ignorant right of Trump. Is there any wonder that leftward-leaning people are alienated? Across the board.
What these opportunists also need to know is that the grass roots activists are the engine of the party. The Labour party as a whole needs to harness the energy of Momentum, and not try to alienate them marginalising them through labelling as Trots. Without this energy the opportunists will not get into power. One of the opportunist tactics is to present Corbyn as unelectable and to present Smith as an electable alternative. Disillusionment during Blair and post-Blair makes Labour unelectable because they offer nothing other than right-wing policies, who can distinguish between what Blair stood for and what Cameron or May stand for?
In the end the opportunists are destroying Labour’s electability by clinging to power. Rather than trying to secede the movement that supports Corbyn, these opportunists need to rejoin this more genuine grass roots movement and then ply their opportunist trade under the guise of a New Labour that is radical and democratic. Whilst the socialist in me does not like this recommendation tactically it is sound. Whilst I do not see the Veil being removed using elections I hope it might; in the end evolution is better than alternatives that would probably contain violence.