Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category

I read this good blogpost, and decided to respond. It became long-ish so it is now a blogpost.

This article is blunt and clear, but if the analysis that Trump voters are only racists and unchangeable is correct this does not bode well for the US.

I am not sure if this is true. At present I see Trump voters as an alliance of 3 groups. Firstly there are the deplorables – the racists, secondly there are the 1%, and thirdly there are the right-wing intellectuals. The 1% are not important in terms of the number of voters but are Republicans. I think most were very distrustful of Trump to begin with – see early comments in Fortune and WSJ, most did not support his campaign for President, but as he has delivered on the 1%-agenda they are now backing him.

However the third group, the right-wing intellectuals, might be winnable. They are anti-liberal – as am I as a socialist. The sanctimony of liberalism alienates many – especially individulaists. Individualists who put individualism first see the bleating demands of liberals as an infringement of their liberty, and it is attacks on their liberty that matter. These people are not emotional racists (deplorables) but institutional racists as their individualism effectively leads to racism – in this situation their institutional racism led to a Trump-vote. But these people are winnable because at the root of their individualism is some level of compassion. This is important because their compassion has to put them at odds with Trump, their compassion puts them at odds with being called racists – despite their institutional racism.

These people are sick of liberals and neoliberalism, and the question is “who are they more sick of?” – liberals and neoliberalism or Trump. These are people who might well have voted for Sanders but could not vote for Hillary. It is most important that the Democrats get a popular candidate (unblemished) or Bernie, Hillary is the same old problem of neoliberalism.

I think these right-wing intellectuals are important because they give credence to voters who are not deplorable; they also have more influence than their numbers because of their analysis. But the issue is jobs. If the jobs come, they have not so far – despite the Trump rhetoric, then the right-wing intellectuals will work for Trump. Whilst this is racist the issue is not race.

My concern is that the 1% know the issue is jobs. If Trump is still producing the goods for them by 2019, the 1% will provide more jobs and the US and the world will have four more years of the Deplorable.

<– Previous Post “People before Profits” Next Post –> “Oriental – slap wrist

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


People before profits is a standard liberal and socialist slogan that ought to make common sense to all intellectuals across the spectrum. This is pragmatic, it is fundamental compassion and if applied wisely could be the overriding mantra of governance. Surely people first is just democracy.

I began thinking about this when I spoke of human values before robots. These values are creativity, intuition, insight and wisdom, and are not valued as part of the underlying ethos in the world of capitalism as these values do not necessarily provide profits.

In article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (pdf here):-

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Much of this article is forgotten as these Labour rights eat into profits, but for me it is important that every person has the right to work. It is my view that it is government’s job to ensure that every person has the right to work, and I believe in the counter “every person should work”. Our welfare system is a net to help those who fall through the cracks, but the reality of the situation is that the way our society is structured there is not enough work for everyone. The major cause of this lack of work is automation. Despite all the PR to the contrary everyone knows that the machines perform menial tasks more efficiently, and as the profits on the production side of our economy is based on menial tasks we have a situation in which our dominant economic model is putting people out of work.

This is why there is such an increase in racism in the West. Prior to automation there used to be jobs and indigenous white people were well off. Then the number of jobs were reduced primarily to do with automation, and the jobs these white people did were lost. Into their societies there came non-indigenous Labour, in the UK people from the colonies following their money, in the US and elsewhere cheap immigrant labour was used. Whilst there was full employment people did not complain, once automation put people out of work racism became a scapegoat.

Whilst profit is the raison d’etre there will never be full employment because machines make more profits. R&D into robotics is on the increase so even more jobs will be lost. This is why Article 23 is so important. People have the right to work.

For many people the 1%-conditioning that labour must produce a profit is gospel. But with increased automation labour cannot be involved in the profit-making. Therefore there is a need to re-evaluate what labour is for; if we continue to accept that the reason for labour is profit only then there will be an increasing number of people without work.

Beauty is a human value often associated with creativity. Are our cities beautiful? Are all people working? They could work to make the cities beautiful. They could work to improve our health care. They could work to improve our education service. If the principle of our caring society was Article 23, the right to work, and the corollary the insistence that all people have work, then the emphasis of our social service would be totally different.

Of course all of the above is totally impractical because the people who control our societies – the 1%, control where the profits go – mainly into their offshore bank accounts. They do not follow Article 23, and with the increasing roboticisation there will be more people without work.

Wise compassion requires a change in this. Putting people before profits combined with Article 23 means that we need to see the way we employ people has to change.

At the moment the increasing automation means more and more people are without work. There are an increasing number of schemes out there to massage this fact. At the same time the 1% do not want to admit that this is their aim. If the wisdom of the compassionate doesn’t step in then the majority of people will not have work, and will be perceived as scroungers.

But it’s not that there are things that don’t need doing, it is just that what needs doing is not profits from production.

For me Article 23 is the place to start. At the moment liberalism suggests that if people don’t have work then they should be given handouts. This of course is divisive especially if these people are not indigenous. But if all people had to work then there would be no such issue. Marx describes the way the bourgeois perceive the unemployed is as a reserve army. If you don’t toe the line you will be sacked, if everyone is working they can’t say this.

If we start with the right to work then we can begin to move away from the road to chaos that 1%-profit-making is taking us to with automation and robotics. Change work so that it respects the human values of compassion, creativity, wisdom, intuition, insight and aesthetics. Bring quality into life, and stop reducing everything to profits based ion manufacture and gambling.

This is a pipedream because of 1%-control.

<– Previous Post “Truth?” Next Post “Trump Support” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Wise Compassion

Posted: 05/01/2018 in Democracy

Caring is an emotion, compassion is intelligent or wise. When I am asking for compassion to be the benchmark of electoral decision-making it is not simply caring that is required. There is no doubt that liberals care in some way, and it would in their terms be reasonable to say that the compassion benchmark means vote liberal, but I am not supportive if that liberalism lacks wisdom. It is unintelligent liberalism that has been used to divide us in recent years. It was the recognition that much liberalism was satisfied with caring yet being unintelligent that became the mechanism that the 1% have used to divide us. Race, gender LBGQT are contrasted against white privilege, working people are divided and Trump gets in; this is unintelligent liberalism. Compassion is the benchmark but we have to be clear that this benchmark of wisdom is not the same as that of being an unthinking do-gooder.

I met a Dutch racist and he described situations with regards to Muslims that to me sounded like blind liberalism. I am unsure about the truth of what he says because of his racism, but it is worthwhile to consider what he says in order to clarify what I mean by wise compassion as opposed to divisive, liberal do-gooding.

But before I discuss anything to do with Islam, refugees and racism, I have to place it all in context. All European peoples sat back and through the NATO alliance have allowed 1% wars-for-profit to decimate Middle-Eastern countries, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and drone-bombing of Pakistan. The money, Americans and Europeans earned, were taken as taxes and used to bomb these countries, and their countries gained wealth accordingly. This Dutch racist is not innocent, he was quiet whilst the Dutch did this. What could he have done? A life of struggle against his government is the only answer, he did not do that.

Here are the myths the Dutchman presented to me, I have no idea how true they are:-

• In Holland they have a welfare system which gives Dutch people a certain amount of money each month, plus a settling-in allowance that apparently refugees buy cars with.

• His attacks were primarily laid at Moroccans who he claims takes these grants, own cars and sell drugs. He claimed the Somali people were similar. I don’t understand any Moroccan refugee status.

• Because they are Muslim the Dutch have to accept a month, in which Muslims are fasting – Ramadan and then celebrating the end of the fast – Eid, as a month in which Muslims don’t work.

• He said that there was an adequate education system that enabled second-language students learn Dutch if they chose. He said there was a combined programme of attending an integrating school (for language) and normal school, but these Muslims chose not to learn.

I want to be clear, these sound like typical racist stereotypes. But if they are true they also sound like typical Liberal stupidity and are very sound strategies for dividing the working-class.

It is stupid government practice to give non-indigenous more money than indigenous, this can only cement division. Refugees unless there are legitimate reasons must go to a new country and find labour to provide for their families. As immigrants it is incumbent on them to learn the language sufficiently to be employable. When I think of the situation for refugees in the UK schools I was in, there was no adequate provision. This Dutchman whose Thai child did learn sufficient Dutch argued there was provision in Holland; I am not sure. Lack of language is not an excuse, lack of language provision is.

I have heard this Ramadan argument before. I have no idea what efforts are made to legitimately accommodate this religious practice but I could imagine liberalism would go totally misplaced. From an Islamic point of view I understand that Ramadan is fasting to cement communion with Allah. Despite fasting Muslims in their own countries are expected to fulfil normal working practice without complaint as part of their devotion. They fast from dawn to dusk, but like Xmas religion has been taken over by commercialism and within their own countries there are celebrations at dusk during Ramadan. But this dusk celebration is cultural rather than religious and is frowned on by many devoted Muslims. It is not a religious requirement that time off be given for Ramadan. At one time in the desert in Oman it was a hot day during Ramadan. I met this man who was on his last legs, refusing water and barely capable of doing his job. But he did the best he could. No favour was asked, an element of human tolerance is of course reasonable, but no favour should be obligatory.

In Oman they gave me Xmas Day off, if the school had been open I suppose I would have had to work Eid – quid pro quo. I had to work Saturday and Sunday, I had Thursday and Friday off. There was no question, if I did not accept this then I didn’t work there. In Thailand I am not sure but I don’t think Muslims work Friday but maybe they do. Using Muslims on Sunday save companies double-time!

These are religious issues that need to be addressed by government, it should not be at the discretion of the employer. I am certain that in the UK the issue is fudged and as a result causes much division. There was no division in Oman, I worked Saturday and Sunday or I didn’t work. I didn’t get a handout if I didn’t work.

This problem of liberalism is far from new. Being out of the UK I thought this problem had dropped away but in fact it has been cemented as a tool of division especially under Blair. Race became a big staffing issue in my Brixton school. It had been a girls’ school and when I arrived it was run by what I called the fur-coat brigade, there was a need to turn the staff male and multi-racial – more than half the students were black. The issue came to a head when a black chair of governors was appointed. Soon after there was a black appointee as deputy-head. In her job practice she demonstrated that the appointment was because she was on appropriate race committees. She was targeted for her incompetence. As an individual she might have merited such attacks, but the reality was that there had been many careerist appointees in the school whose competence should have been questioned, but none of who were targeted because they were not black. Intelligent compassion appoints based on merit, and if policies of positive discrimination or affirmative action are to be applied than they have to be followed up with appropriate professional training to ensure that the job can be done. Unfortunately the issue was just divisive, as there was no training and competency was an issue.

What is important is that the situation concerning race be clear. Liberals are not clear. Ultimately if they have their jobs, their homes and a good education for their kids it doesn’t matter. Liberals are not usually employers, but they apply regulations for government. As a consequence they might well be in a position of confrontation with employers. What they will not do is confront Muslims as they would be afraid of being seen as racist. So what is a clear practice in Muslim countries becomes an issue with a prevaricating Liberal regulatory system.

Issues concerning women’s clothing are ludicrous and again could be resolved with intelligent governance. Personally I think calls for removing the headscarf are racist. French lunacy over the burkini is horrendous. In some families they wear facial covering, I am unsure about this, but it could again be sorted out by clear intelligent governance.

With all of the above issues, behind is the huge problem of white racism amongst some whites – too many whites. Racism is a relentless division in western societies. Even if there were intelligent compassion concerning government regulation, racists would seek to cause trouble. But if intelligent compassion was the benchmark, these racists would be seen as the troublemakers they are. Because of prevaricating liberalism these nasty deplorables have got a foot in, and the rising populism on the right is making it far harder for these woolly-headed fools to cope. And the increasing bleating is obvious.

In our societies people take where they can, if they don’t they don’t survive. This is the way of the 1%-system and its conditioning. If a refugee comes to a country and can survive without working, it is reasonable to expect they will. If indigenous people can get away without working, they also will. The 1% make huge profits and spend their lives on yachts, in men’s clubs or in the golf club. Government has no control over the 1% who refuse to pay taxes, but they should make it clear to refugees and other immigrants that they are required to work, and should apply considered intelligent compassionate non-racist regulations as conditions for work. Work regulations should not be racist but fair, and seen to be fair by all people if they choose to see. Intelligent compassion, intelligent regulation.

In Holland my Dutch friend said there were less and less opportunities for work. His 1% are taking huger profits through automation, are giving less and less job opportunities, and the refugees are becoming more and more a target. 1% wins again because the Liberals are happy with their jobs, are just do-gooders and do not apply intelligent compassion in governance.

<– Previous Post Next Post Valor –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

This is a rant. A rant is an emotional release and as such is a bit meaningless. In the next blog I look at helping the conditioned, that gives this more sense and context – not just a rant.

We are living in the worst time of my personal history. There is an intended high level of confusion created by the 1%-funding and their puppets such as Trump and Brexit. There is so little clarity, and these conditioned leaders duck-and-dive to avoid any form of commitment to humanity. This is the collaboration the 1% depend on.

This rant has grown out of weeks of frustration because of repeated arguments with collaborators, one of whom is so quietly complacent it is irritating – beyond tedium. When I describe conditioned he says we are all brainwashed, when I say 1%-system he says everyone knows that. His response, “what can we do?”; not what you do, Mr Complacent – NOT THE COLLABORATION. His complaint about me is basically a feeling of contrariness. He describes me as taking the opposite position. He fails to see that I take only one position (even though I have said it) – to make people aware of their conditioning; if you are properly aware of your conditioning it is not possible to collaborate, compassion prevails. I spent my life fighting in education, in a sense it was a wasted life as described in Matriellez, but it was never collaboration.

Because of his complacency he sees everything in terms of where he stands, sometimes I am agreeing with him, sometimes I disagree. Because he does not see his own high level of conditioning and collaboration, he cannot see the consistent position of “making people aware of their conditioning”.

There is another collaborator who adds to these weeks of frustration. This collaborator comes from a nation of collaborators – he is Swiss. He is a pleasant man but a Swiss national. From that position of nationalism, he looks at others and sees how Swiss life and nationals compare with the weaknesses of those less privileged. He sees stupid conditioning of peasants but fails to see that Swiss life is predicated on a compliant nation of people bought off with a higher standard of living, greater social benefits and such a level of blindness that they do not see their banking institutions as being the home of global catastrophe. Both the complacent and the Swiss national are nice helpful people whose conditioning leads to such a level of collaboration that if the world is like them there is no hope. Both are differently conditioned so that they don’t see that they are the problem. They are more likely to blame me as the problem because I alienate people, and there is probably some truth in that. But I try never to lie something the complacent accused me of (over some verifiable fact), simply because it was easier to criticise me as I confused him through indirectly confronting his complacency – the lashing out of the intellectual.

My small world is not a microcosm, although it is the stimulus of this rant. In this time of confused crisis few recognise their own conditioning. Few can see that if we manage to step outside our conditioning we can see how the 1%-system operates and how different people fit in – how they collaborate. So it is important to see who makes up these collaborators.

And I want to start with the self-righteous liberals because in this time of confusion the self-righteousness of Liberals is the biggest stumbling block. Chomsky describes the problem of liberals as neoliberalism, and that the greatest problem of neoliberalism is the apathy, ask my complacent friend. Why is he complacent? Because he thinks reasonably although not correctly that nothing can be done anyway. This is a practical example of the neoliberal conditioning that is apathy.

When Marxist analysis first appeared on the scene, his analysis clearly noted two opposing classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie as owners of the means of production exploited the workers who actually produced the products. This clear analysis was not convenient for the bourgeoisie who were easily targeted. Confusion was introduced so that the unity amongst the proletariat was removed. Educated people wanted to feel superior so a middle-class was introduced. The bourgeoisie paid their foremen more so they wanted to be considered middle-class with middle-class management jobs etc. So by the latter half of the 20th century, there were all kinds of divisions amongst the proletariat.

It should also be noted that the bourgeoisie was changing. They began to prey on their own. Small businesses accumulated into corporations, first perhaps willingly and then through corporations preying on the weaker. As such, owners of small businesses are now more aligned with the proletariat because corporations are their enemy. They of course don’t see this alignment because of conditioning.

Corporations and finance are now those in control – the 1%. Corporations and finance work together and accumulate money, both real and imaginary, and withdraw this money out of circulation into private accounts. Without countries such as Switzerland offering havens for such money against the interests of the rest of humanity, the current exploitation of humanity could not occur so it is no wonder that the Swiss people are bought off.

This class realignment was highlighted during Occupy where “we are the 99%” was a clear rallying cry that united the proletariat. Whilst right-wing populists were marginalised because of their divisive approach there was great unity in Occupy. And this frightened the 1%. Once the police demolished the Occupy encampments, finance proceeded to demolish the unity Occupy created; the 1% needed to divide the 99%.

This was done through the internet by funding right-wing populism. Marxism and collectivism were attacked as these individualists were funded to promote their liberty and choice at all costs. Easy targets were the PC police. These people had been around a long time – at least 40 years, but had been developed as part of the neoliberal mainstream by Hillary and Blair. In other words the neoliberal system created the antagonism between PC liberals and the right-wing liberals following Occupy as a means of dividing the 99%.

This antagonism is being blatantly fought out on mainstream US with Trump acting as a catalyst. Every public tweet and action can be seen as an attack on Liberals, and off they go bleating away at the Trump atrocities. Meanwhile two things are happening. Behind the scenes Trump-picks are promoting the interests of the 1%, so what was initially a weak alliance between Trump and the 1% has now become consolidated as the 1% are accumulating well under Trump. Meanwhile the Liberals are going off on rampages using all the diversions Trump throws at them deluding themselves that they have some control over his impeachment and otherwise. Liberal delusion.

Under this Trump neoliberalism the second consequence is the dissolution of the 99% through the sheer ignorant analysis of these Liberals and the right-wing. Liberals are concerned with right actions such as anti-racism, anti-sexism pro-LBGT and civil liberties; Trump is attacking all of these effectively. For Liberals this is the battleground and you see outrage throughout mainstream media. Meanwhile Trump supporters are satisfied with Fox news, fake news and the internet. Complete division, and 1% accumulation is having a field day.

The ignorance these Liberals show is key to my anger. First of all Liberals tend to be educated, so they know the problem is the 1%. But the 1% provide them with a living. Typical are my teaching colleagues who are a good source of liberalism. In general they are caring people, interested in the welfare of their children. They are mortgaged up to the hilt so they cannot afford to rock the boat. They know that what is being taught is not good education – even though they could probably never agree on what is good education. But they do what is required of them in the hope of getting promotion. Instead of education being awareness of the war their society perpetuates and the wage-slavery their kids will suffer all their lives, they deliver the curriculum which perpetuates the 1%-system. They have been bought off with a mortgage. Yet if you ask them who is the problem? 1%. If you ask them what to do? They say “nothing can be done” and politically lurch into apathy. Complacency.

But the real point of Marxism is the symbiotic relationship between capital and labour. Money is needed for the plant and infrastructure, and even though so much money is now imaginary there would be no confidence in the supposed stability of capitalism without the collaboration of labour. Most workplaces are directed by owners, but this direction only works because the workforce collaborates. If people stand up together, there is no need to accept wage-slavery, no need to have endless war. Education should begin here but it cannot because of mortgages and ….

Across the Liberal spectrum you will see people compromised into collaboration one way or another. Yet they know the source of the problem but somehow delude themselves they are doing something.

Meanwhile right-wing intellectuals also know that the source of problems is the 1%. But the 1% funds their right-wing propaganda so instead they attack liberals.

All problems can be solved with the proper finance. If the money available was recirculated in the economy and if transactions returned to trade and money returned to representing value for trading, then we could live in a sustainable world in harmony. Who would suffer the most? The 1% – so it doesn’t happen.

But change can be made. Pressure can be brought to keep money in the economy. If there is more money in the economy there are more jobs. With the changing Liberal emphasis of neoliberalism more jobs are going into the liberal sphere and traditional white jobs are disappearing. Society needs both but the 1% divides society by removing the money from society so there is not enough for both. This needs to be the target – not fighting each other but demanding the release of our money. This is of benefit to liberals and right-wing intellectuals but it does not benefit the 1%. This is the problem that all should be addressing.

But instead we have conditioning. Trump triggers Liberal bleating and off they go on an outrage and Trump supporters laugh at them. Amidst this confusion 1% get obscenely wealthy.

Let me be clear, it is not the liberal values that I am attacking, it is the conditioned response. With the increasing attacks from Trump and others these Liberals are becoming more and more entrenched, and a deeper and deeper wedge is being driven into the 99%. This emotional wedge has no power attached to it. With the rampant abuse being exposed by #metoo, how many men are being punished? A few liberals are losing their jobs but they are not being incarcerated. However ordinary men sympathetic to the promotion of equal rights are being punished by the extreme emotional reactions, and a wedge is being driven between those men and the men who lack sympathy, who are more comfortable with the sexual abuse than they are with making change.

But in the end without unity the 1% will just exploit. Amidst the chaos and confusion that exists between the confronting conditioned idealisms, the 1% now have a tax plan for the 99% only, and various other 1%-laws that were snuck in the Republican tax plan. Now the corporations will be demanding similar globally, no 1%-taxplan no corporation. This does not bode well, and it is caused by the conditioned reactions, by the failure to act on the awareness that this is a 1%-system.

And the right-wing conditioning is perhaps far more destructive. These funded right-wing individuals are promoting their individualism first. Pre-Trump Alex Jones, whilst always a bombast and an egotistical loose cannon, used to attack the 1% – Bilderburg. Why is he not attacking the 1%-taxplan? Because he has become conditioned to his lifestyle, he has been bought off by their funding and his own popularity. “Make America Great” need not be as destructive as it is. If corporation money were being returned into circulation, then there would be enough money for the Liberals to have their jobs as well as white people. But Jones’ funding (and the funding of other right-wing individuals) demands attacks on Liberals. His funding demands attacks on collectivisation – the 99%, it demands putting the individual first. And when individuals are put first it is the biggest bullies who win.

It is straight-forward conditioning. And what about the right wing who support these individuals? What are they doing? Traditionally the wage-slave-owners favour their foremen, they buy them off, and give them a better standard of living. These wage-slaves want a return to this. They believe that the wage-slave-owners will help them and the funded individuals will continue to promote that delusion. And there is an arrogance amongst these people – MAWP, Male, Arrogant, White and Privileged. These MAWPs are often isolated as small business people, and they have been conditioned by their privilege. They don’t question because they think they are right. At the same time their prejudices make them dismiss all those they disagree with. If it is PC or liberal then it is wrong. Under Trump these conditioned MAWPs have been convinced that all is fake news except Trump, and have no idea how to determine what is truth. The real problem with their ignorance is there is no “normal” way to convince them of the truth because they are so emotional. They claim to be rational but their rejection of “facts” is not based on a considered opinion but on indoctrinated propaganda aimed at their arrogance. MAWPs do not listen and we have the mess we are in. In the US 53% of white women have followed these MAWPs with their votes, why?

But the 1% have no allegiance to these people, that is simply conditioning – a conditioned delusion. Yet these people continue to support the right because traditionally under the right they have done well. But their selfishness has no compassion, whilst there is compassion in their communities their selfishness does not deliver compassion nationally. This selfish nationalism is narrow, helps their own families but is not Christian.

With the wedge so firmly dividing the 99% these people can never cross over and work for Unity. The 1% can see this so they can continue to promote this rabid nationalism whilst exploiting the left and right (as they have with the tax plan). The traditional middle-classes will continue to vote for nationalism because that has given them wealth in the past. When that wealth decreases they will be conditioned into accepting less and less of the pie because it will always be better than rabid Liberalism.

There is no solution for Liberals or Nationalists working separately, the 1% will continue to take from both. With such a deep wedge having been formed, more money will be taken from the middle-classes because they know the middle-classes cannot now vote for Liberals.

These conditioned egos have been completely duped – deluded, both on the left and right. It is only by the recognition of how widespread is the conditioning that we can begin to unify. When conditioning is removed we can see compassion, when we see compassion we see people. We do not then see people needing to conform to Liberal ideals because compassion comes first. The rabid sexism of the right cannot be justified as a conditioned response to Liberalism because compassion is what matters.

Idealism is not compassion no matter how much the ideals appear to be compassionate. Compassion sees people first – not ideals. Compassion does not see conditioning, it recognises conditioning for what it is – a failure to learn who we are as human beings, a failure to know ourselves as compassionate. Since the mid-nineteenth century class analysis has recognised the conflict and exploitation, but ever since then this analysis has become an idealism that has divided. It is not the ideals that provide the way forward but the compassion that inspired the ideals in the first place. It is compassion that says exploitation by the few is unacceptable, the analysis only explains it.

Now there is only idealism. Nationalism against Liberalism, by subscribing to the ideals people have disappeared. People are now identified by their race and gender, identified by their ideals – left or right. Classified in this way there is no compassion, accepting the conditioning that applies these labels creates a conditioned divide, we lose our compassion, we do not see people first.

And then there are Buddhists. They see compassion, they see conditioning, but instead they apply it in such a personal theoretical way it does not contribute to the Unity of All. Personal conditioning is recognised and hopefully worked on. There is an element of peace, a peace on the margins, a peace in separation, but this is also conditioning. Whilst the conditioning process that is paticcasamuppada includes conditioning by the 1%, Buddhists avoid this under the pretext of detachment, peace or some other ideal. Buddhists whilst remaining detached need to be at the forefront of compassion, of recognising conditioning and helping people overcome the yoke that this conditioning oppresses them with. Whilst it is legitimate that teachers promote meditation and dhamma from monasteries, the removal of conditioning amongst the lay needs to lead to compassion, and that compassion is concerned with people who are propelled into wars and wage-slavery by their conditioning. As leaders where is Buddhism? Where is the compassion of Buddhism that recognises conditioning and can help us work through this egoic control?

Compassionate Unity is the only way forwards. Scrap ideals, scrap the conditioning of idealism, eschew all conditioning and let compassion guide us as people to help each other.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

I am a member of the compassionate left. Whilst I am not the only such member there is no such organisation. I am compassionate first, for me being compassionate makes me accept the compassionate economic analysis of Marxism. Because I am compassionate I wish to see all people free from suffering, and politically there are no doubts that I must stand on the left, on a left which is against the 1%, against war, and against wage-slavery.

Recently the left has been losing the propaganda war. Funding manipulations on the internet have left many people describing my life-long scourge – wishy-washy liberals – as left. This irritates me. If I start using terms like compassionate – liberals of course call themselves compassionate, hard-line leftist theorists will say that I have let in these wishy-washies. They would say “hold to a contemporary radical Marxist position” as a means of distinguishing from Liberals. Yet a clear compassionate view that includes contemporary radical Marxism distinguishes me from Liberals.

In this context it is worth considering what a Liberal is. Liberals are intellectuals, often what my comrades used to call armchair socialists, who are vaguely caring and vaguely socialist. And by “vaguely” I mean that when it comes to the crunch, if it is a choice between mortgage and socialism liberals will always choose mortgage, and the underlying fear and greed that marks a Liberal can lead them to vote with the right wing especially as they get older. The Liberal agenda varies over time, currently it is wrapped up in identity politics. This identity agenda dominates the façade of liberal media in the West, a media which is increasing the division of the 99% – and this fact of division shows who is controlling the media, 1%.

One of the failures of the left in my lifetime has been the inability of the left to unite. Primarily this is because of intellectualism dominating the left-wing. During my limited activism this left-wing has split itself over intellectual differences concerning Marxism. As a UK activist in the 80s left-wing politics was divided intellectually, hatred of other Marxists dominated – Commies vs Trots. At the time I was pulled to communism where I obtained an excellent Marxist education, but saw the lunacy of their positions. At the time women were still patronised because “Marxists” decided women should not “go down the mines”. And their major attack on the Trots was that they divided the mass movement (which they did) yet in the UK there were 3 communist parties with a total of 5000 people!! So the left is comprised of commies, trots, some of the labour movement and wishy-washy liberals – not the mass movement, is there any wonder that there were right victories in Trump and Brexit?

One of the main reasons that the left is not attracting 99% support is the fact that they don’t listen. These activists are deeply immersed in their activism of promoting the “mass movement”, but they don’t listen to the mass movement because of “recruiting”. A caring person is drawn to political activism and is immediately assailed by factions recruiting for their own brand of Marxism. This intellectual activism is so destructive, and can lose caring activists. The point of Marxist correctness is not that it is intellectually correct but that his analysis supports the compassionate approach that frees all people from suffering, from the 1%, from war and from wage-slavery.

Significant amongst the hard-line Marxists is the notion of revolution. Whilst there is no doubt that the 1% will never relinquish power through the ballot box as they control propaganda globally through the wider media (inc internet), it is only intellectualism that can call for revolution at this stage. Look at the Vanguard in Russia. They started a revolution in which many people died because of capitalist reaction, yet because the people were not “ready” the USSR never moved beyond the dictatorship of the proletariat that eventually stagnated and led to oligarchy. Is this a century of progress? Whilst revolution might well be the only way to dispossess the 1% now, to call for such at the moment is only calling for a futile death of the mass movement. When the revolution might be “ready”, who knows?

Compassion also has a broader appeal. In the West Christianity is the dominant religion yet traditional Christianity votes with the right wing. In Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America there is the tradition of Christian compassion epitomised by Paolo Friere, but in the West the Christian tradition is voting with right-wing thugs. Why aren’t they voting with the compassionate left? Propaganda, not Christian compassionate analysis. This incongruous voting pattern is made far easier by left-wing intellectuals who promote hard-line theories, dismiss religious experience as an opiate, and do not listen to where people are coming from.

Sanders and Corbyn have got to be the great left-wing hopes. Whilst Corbyn’s roots were in the Trotskyist Left, his approach is that of compassion and listening distinguishing him from his erstwhile comrade theorists. Grass roots activist throughout the movement might themselves hold to theories but their success is based on their ability to listen to the mass movement, show compassion and adapt to what they hear. Corbyn does this, I assume Sanders does too.

Clearly the political objective has got to be uniting the 99% against the 1%. Some of Trump’s right-wing rhetoric appropriates the anti-1% dogma, but for some of his supporters their vote was only a “hail Mary” approach – now patently not a touchdown. A compassionate left would have listened to those people, you cannot unite the 99% by not listening to them. If you listen to them they will listen to you. If you don’t try to sell them a “recruitment” line but try to work with them in the interests of the mass movement, maybe there can be some unity. If the dominant approach of the mass movement is compassionate listening activism, then there is a chance of unifying the 99%.

Make compassion a benchmark for activism and voting.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Is Trump 1%?

Posted: 20/08/2017 in Democracy, Struggle

One of the many lies that Trump put out was that he financed his own campaign. here is how the 1% got their candidate into the White House from The Real News

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

The Trump Focus

Posted: 12/08/2017 in Democracy, ONE planet, Struggle, War

I just watched a pulp movie “Focus” with Will Smith. There was a scene in which he explained how he got the attention of the victim’s focus whilst away from focus crime was committed. There is an often-quoted British maxim that the Royals hit the front page when the government is struggling. Focus!

If we examine Trump’s presidency we see a man whose façade is that of incompetence. There is no consistency when we compare what he says to what he does. His supporters hear that Trump will not expand wars yet in the Middle East there has been increased meddling, a MOAB in Afghanistan, and now bellowing at a minnow in North Korea. He was “draining the swamp” by employing Goldman Sachs in his cabinet. No consistency.

The Liberal media have lambasted his inconsistency, and his complete disregard for the normal respect for such office has fueled much derision. The Russia scandal has also got the media hopping, and there is much focus on Russia. And Obamacare????

So the question is “what is really going on?” Common Dreams put out this piece, and I wished that was all that was being done. Previously Wall Street SEC fines have been reduced by 2/3 – lost the reference. Reduced taxes for the rich are coming.

But “is this all that is going on?” I don’t think the above articles are beginning to scratch the surface of what is being done behind the scenes. It is quite clear the 1% were pushing for Trump from at least mid-year. From the point of view of governance it could easily be seen that he is a disaster area; they knew this. They also have control of the media, and could control that there would be a Liberal feeding frenzy once he was in office – the Focus.

“What is being done?”

It will be years before the effects of Trump have worn off, years ….

And meanwhile how is the opposition lining up? These stupid Liberals can’t come together and recognise that their neoliberalism is how Trump got in in the first place. With such people fighting for us we have no chance.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

We can’t know it all, we need trusted sources and advice. This is an investigation into how we can determine such trustworthies.

We live in a world in which disinformation is a significant mechanism for controlling people. They are intentionally trying to confuse us. But to understand this intended confusion we need to decide “Who are they?” That is the first question we should be asking, who are the they who are trying to confuse us?

Let’s take that question a step further, and also ask “what is their purpose?”.

In this blogpost I want to avoid taking a political position but it is extremely difficult to discuss “they and power” without being honest about your position. I am a radical leftie. In my terms I consider myself a genuine Marxist who recognises that the “1%” control in order to make their profits, and in order to facilitate their profits they have two main strategies – making war for profits and exploiting the workforce by wage-slavery. If you detect a bias that is overly Marxist, perhaps you should ignore this advice, but the main point of this blogpost is to say “find appropriate advice, find trusted sources”.

So from my biased neutral, hopefully detached, position, I want to ask “who are they and what is their purpose?”. I have already given the answer to that in my “unbiased position”. They are the 1%. Whether you use the term 1%, elite, bourgeoisie, superrich etc., these people are THEY. Across the political spectrum recognising THEY as the 1% is not problematic, if it is stop reading this – there is nothing for you to gain from reading this.

Putting aside the question as to “what is their purpose?” for a moment, I want to ask “who are not THEY?”. Let us start with government and politicians, are they part of the 1%? In terms of the finances they own, the answer is usually NO. By their nature a politician wishes to be in charge in other words their ego usually drives them, it is not moral integrity that drives them to be politicians – there are exceptions. Without moral integrity these politicians are readily open to corruption to stay in power. It is therefore common sense not to trust what politicians say. I disagree with Trump’s politics (see my bias) but primarily I disagree with his position, and any politician’s position, that says “trust me”. Almost by definition a politician cannot be trusted because they are driven by ego for power. Examine all politicians to determine what their policies are and whether they have intentions to apply those policies, “trust me” is not a platform for the mature voter.

It is also important to examine the relationship between politicians and government. Are politicians in charge? This is a significant question to ask especially for westerners who believe they are in democracies. When you vote for a politician, are you voting for a leader? Or are you voting for a PR figurehead? Look at Trump’s Muslim ban, he has not been able to implement it. Has he built the wall? Has he drained the swamp? There are some policies he has had no problem with, such as bombing Syria and Afghanistan. There is a very interesting novel/British TV mini-series, A Very British Coup, which examines the power of a voted-in prime minister when he wants to go against the establishment. And who does this establishment represent? The 1%.

What about the Deep State? Are they in charge? Certainly it is clear that whatever the Deep State is they are not subject to democratic approval. It could be argued that the Deep State does what it wants whoever has been voted in.

Who controls the Deep State? Here I can only guess because without being privy to their control and conduct what more can I do. I would argue that they are primarily controlled by the 1%. The 1% are prime motivators behind the Deep State because war is one of their main sources of profit. The Deep State is connected with National Security as it appears that their actions support the nation’s interests over another nation. Nations fight wars but there could also be a governmental aspect to this Deep State – I don’t mean party political government. In the UK the MI5 might be considered Deep State, they might also be considered part of the Civil Service, but they are not accountable to the electorate. In the US the Deep State might well be considered part of the Pentagon as well as perhaps represented in the White House. Because of the importance of war for profits to the 1% the interests of the 1% and the Deep State might well be the same. I think it would be fair to say that the 1% and the Deep State are not in conflict.

Given the provisos in the investigation so far, I am going to say “they are the 1%”. What is their purpose? Increased accumulation and profits. I have discussed one way they make profits – war. The other way is through accumulation of capital. Primarily this is carried out through the banking and finance sector. But the basis of these sectors is profits gained from production. In production there are competing interests for the profits. There is the capital interest that pays for the plant, and the interest of labour who make the products. Who gets the profits when these products are sold? There is a balance between the plant-owners (the capital investors) and the workers as to who gets the profits. At the same time there are echelons of management who facilitate trade, they also want to get money from the plant owners. Both the management and workers have no choice in this, if they wish to feed their families they must choose to work for the owners of the plant – usually the 1%, they must earn a wage.

Humanity needs to work together to survive, we need to cooperate. But how we choose to cooperate is limited by the choices offered to us by the 1%, we can earn money as management or labour within the production infrastructure of the 1%.

But this does not factor in the public sector, what is the function of government in this? Some argue that the government is in charge and that the public and private sector are often in conflict., in this it is often seen that the government restricts profits, and is therefore detrimental to the interests of management and labour within the private sector.

But government can be seen differently. The transport infrastructure is very important in facilitating the distribution of the products for sale. This infrastructure is necessary for 1% profits, but do they pay for the infrastructure? The 1% needs an educated workforce even if only for organisational skills, government education provides for this. In order for the 1% to profit from wars it needs government to have a defence budget to pay for national security. It needs a government to create the military to wage wars. And where does the government get money for this? Primarily through personal taxes. In other words it can be seen that one role of government is to provide the taxation that facilitates profits through infrastructure, education and defence procurement.

It could also be counter-argued that government provides socially useful functions, infrastructure and education are two. It could be argued that government are defending the interests of the community through defence.

There are also more obvious social functions of government such as social services, these offer very little to the profits of the 1% – except that an unstable society would not enable 1% profits.

A final important function of government is law and order. With the increasing privatisation of law and order there are obvious benefits to the 1%. Aside from this, the 1% cannot profit if there is social anarchy. “There is one law for the rich and one for the poor” in my view does not happen by accident. The law also provides the ability of protecting the interests of the 1%. In the UK the police were key in protecting the interests of the 1% against trade unions in the miners’ strike, and globally police were used to destroy Occupy, the first organising that specifically targeted the 1%.

Historically government has been used to monetarise an economy, this was most easily seen in colonisation. The British in Africa required a workforce to build the transport infrastructure but the people lived off a barter economy and were unwilling to work on the construction. The invading armies demanded a tax burden for their governance, and this meant Africans had to earn money to pay taxes. Taxation forced the African into wage-slavery.

Government enforces regulations. These regulations can be seen dually. Environmental protection regulations can be seen as reducing profits as can the minimum wage, whereas both can obviously be seen as socially beneficial.

In conclusion government has a dual role – the facilitation of 1%-profits through enabling profits, yet at the same time it has a social function that can benefit individuals especially the poor.

Given the provisos above the 1% are they, and their purpose is to make profits through war and wage-slavery. Whilst our socio-economic system is not 100% functioning in this way, it is primarily a 1%-system with token benefits for some individuals.

However there are many arguments which say that the social service aspect of government is a much higher proportion than I have implied, and much credence is given this through media coverage of people exploiting social services. Given the intentional confusion on all aspects of public information it is difficult to assess this. So when it comes to such assessment every individual needs to find a source they can trust.

So to return, what is the purpose of this blogpost? Given the intentional disinformation process that is happening, how do we know how to act in voting and otherwise?

Firstly it is not advisable to trust politicians because most have a vested interest to lie as they are opportunists seeking power. Secondly it is not advisable to expect our electoral system to deliver democracy in view of so much opportunism and the 1%-need for war.

I cannot come up with any further trustworthy approaches – in my view our system is so loaded against us.

In the UK there is an unwritten law in voting, vote for the party that safeguards your financial interests. There is usually a limited tacit understanding that the Tories are sound financially and Labour will help the needy more but the economy will suffer. This is a myth propounded by the media – the 1%-media – to encourage votes for the Tories. Why? The Tories definitely work for the 1% (Labour usually do – in my view Corbyn doesn’t). Does the economy suffer under Labour? Under Blair the economy did not suffer, but then Blair worked for the 1%.

If you vote out of economic self-interest your vote will be exploited. In the UK there is a tacit understanding as to which class votes for which party. And the system continues to exploit to the benefit of the 1% whoever is voted for. There is a need for a change in voting patterns. Why not vote for compassion? If you care about the world and its people vote for compassion. Demand that the platform for politicians is compassion.

Trust a politician who stands for compassion. I believe Corbyn is compassionate but maybe that is a bias. Demand that your politicians stand up for compassion, if you are certain your politician has integrity and compassion vote for them. The more people who demand compassion the more politicians have to put forward compassionate policies.

Trust the compassionate not the system.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

click for clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

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

We allow this to happen.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.