Archive for the ‘Democracy’ Category


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.

Advertisements

Is Trump 1%?

Posted: 20/08/2017 in Democracy, Struggle
Tags:

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
Tags:


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.

Trump and Brexit have indicated a change in mainstream politics. When I listened to Pilger on Trump then it became clear that there has been a change in the political paradigm. I grew up with politics on the left, mainstream politics that discussed a centrist-right battle of Labour-Conservative with the 1% functioning somewhere towards the right end of the spectrum indistinguishable from the Tories. With Blair the liberals have come into the mainstream. With an ineffective Liberal party, clinging to power in a coalition that provided none of their policies, these liberals have worked with the Blair opportunists and now Labour has even further lost its class identity. Corbyn has been trying to reclaim that identity but these parliamentary Blairites (with the support of the media) have fought him all the way, and whilst Corbyn has Labour movement support these mainstream attacks are affecting the ballot box. Meanwhile these liberals have appropriated a stage in mainstream politics, and their agenda is two-fold:-

• Promoting an alienating agenda of identity politics – PC police
• Maintaining a determined silence on the warmongering political establishment

The power of these two positions within mainstream politics has enabled a right-wing reaction throughout the western world, promoted UKIP in the UK, and voted in Trump in the US.

As a consequence of this liberal rise, there has been a profound change in the political paradigm. The left wing (as a purist I do not include liberals as left but most do) has become a legitimate target for the right because of these alienating liberal policies. At the same time the arrogance of this liberal purism (as exemplified here) continues to label the right as racist, sexist and anti-LBGT even though there has been an emergence of some legitimate compassionate populist right thinking and analysis. Within this division the 1% seem to have disappeared, and a naïve liberal agenda continues self-righteously to fan the flames of the division especially in the US.

As a response to this shift in paradigm there needs to be a political change as exemplified by the Unity Platform:-

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

It is interesting to consider the political spectrum given the current state of politics. We might have the Far Left, Near Left – Liberals and Identity Politics, then one might begin with the right wing such as homeowners who think they are bourgeois. With similar views might be richer owners who also adopt right-wing views because traditionally it is believed that the right protect the economy – a belief that does not have any substance behind it. The views of these owners are not extreme. They might say that having a black neighbour would lower house prices, and they might fear a son or daughter bringing home a black intended, but these are not racists who would attack others – although they might well fear being attacked by black gangs. And then there is the extreme right, the National Front, the KKK, the English Defence League, white supremacists; it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that these people would commit hate crimes. With this spectrum in play different people would talk about left and right relative to their own position eg as a non-violent far left person I would consider Liberals as right-wing, whereas right-wing intellectuals would consider Liberals as left-wing. This is a standard spectrum in which we consider politics is played out.

But there is an important question about this spectrum, where are the 1%? Their politics is concerned with exploitation and accumulation. They exploit the poor and low waged on left and right, and they take the properties and small businesses of the middle-left and middle-right, but for them there is no political analysis. They exploit and accumulate but in terms of the spectrum their approach is indiscriminate – they will take from anyone.

So if the 1% are not on the spectrum then it is easy to conclude that it is in all our interests on this political spectrum to end the exploitation by the 1% and prevent further accumulation on the part of the 1%.

We have been intentionally divided on the spectrum but by recognising that the 1% are not on the spectrum we can see that there is an identity of interest amongst the 99% on the spectrum.

Why don’t we all resolve sufficient of our differences to accept the Unity of the 99% and stop the 1% exploiting us?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Censorship run riot

Posted: 10/03/2017 in Democracy, Freedom, Struggle

This Trevor Phillips documentary “Has Political Correctness gone mad?” has seriously disturbed me, this PC stuff is now just censorship.

I have known censorship all my working life. In teaching one of the bigger hypocrisies is that they say they give a balanced outlook and let the students decide. Then they want to protect the students. I taught in Hove (actually) for nearly 6 years, and the censorship I came across was horrendous – and along with being the union rep cost me promotion. My head was a feeble bully who was incompetent. He used tactics to stifle opposition to him, and most teachers deeply resented him but were scared for their jobs so did little – his bullying easily allowed him to affect promotion; the lay governors had made an ignorant appointment and the teachers paid the consequences. However because he was so feeble he ignored his staff, and if parents or governors said anything he jumped and kept his job. I was a semi-public figure in the local trade union movement, Brighton and Hove, and Hove is very right wing so parents were always willing to complain about me. Because of this I was forced to censor myself, although I saw my job as maths teacher and not purveyor of left-wing wisdom so had no desire to spend lessons teaching Marxism or whatever. Other teachers who were not so threatened did put across their viewpoints because they were safe and acceptable; I knew the lie of the land and accepted this censorship even though it was not educational. I remember feeling angry because a good-hearted teacher was able to promote environmental awareness, and gained favour because of this. He did things for the environment but refused to comment on whether accumulation, capitalism or the 1% were the causes of problems. I doubt if he wanted to make such comments, he was just happy collecting bottles etc. The head liked this – perfectly safe, good practice for the kids and yet they never learned the truth so it was not very educational. Students had the personal strength to make judgements for themselves. Show them facts and let them assess for themselves – sadly that is not now an option with the manufacturing of fake news that confuses knowledgeable adults let alone children trying to learn.

Any form of censorship is a measure of failure for a society. PC first came in because society had failed. The problems of racism and sexism were deep-seated, and controlling the way people spoke about black people and women was a positive step; I understood at the time that it was always to be integrated with good education. At that time this positive step towards inoffensive language was however only community pressure, a pressure that I thought was acceptable in that disapproval was the only legal punishment.

Legislation on what can be said where and when can never work, what is said is a moral action and morality cannot be dictated to by law. This clip from the Trevor Phillips documentary horrified me.

I have no problem with these people discussing these issues but what they were then doing is enacting them as policy within their universities. Such repression is counter-productive. People have to reach such conclusions for themselves, morality is a personal activity. Repression through censorship or otherwise just produces a backlash. In the UK typical expressions of that backlash are UKIP, Manosphere and Brexit, none of which make any sense other than understanding they are backlashes against repression.

When Trevor says Trump is a consequence of PC repression, he is right, but these liberals are so self-righteous they appear not to be altering their approach. These are not people working for the 99% but intellectual liberals working for their own self-importance – ego. When I see this I understand why the right wing is so critical of leftists, and how they have been able to mobilise around a racist sexist bigot like Trump. Extreme actions produce extreme reactions.

It is far easier in the short term to repress, misuse power and prevent differing views from being aired. But repression is never a solution, it is only violence. Communication produces solutions when people try to listen. These students were not listening in the same way UKIP voters are not listening, in the same way that the Trump deplorables are not listening. Without communication there is no unity, such censorship is completely illiberal – and dangerous.

Later I will discuss the problems I have with Trevor Phillips (LINK to be added) but there is no doubt that he is right on the money when he describes this political correctness as mad. Unfortunately these liberals are so self-righteous they cannot see the damage they are doing. So many people have been alienated by their tactics that establishment parties more favourable to the left (and liberalism) such as Labour or Democrats are now losing out. If there is no education to go along with PC legislation, then it is just censorship and in my view society is better without it.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

The left is ignorant of the right. Because the right at best gives low priority to racism and sexism – at some level dismisses identity politics, many dismiss where the right is coming from. Out of compassion I have sympathy with this argument but it is necessary to recognise that the “left and the populist right are the 99%”. So it is time for the left to learn aout the righht, and not simply stereotype tham as racists and sexists. Whilst the left has been on their moral compassionate high horse, the 1% through populist intellectualism has managed to create a huge chasm within the 99%.

Somehow the left needs to counter the lies that are being peddled by the right-wing intellectuals, but there is no point in saying that it is all lies as that is divisive. At the same time all of what the right is saying is NOT LIES. When I examine some of the sophisticated financial arguments concerning the 1%, I find the analysis far more cogent than many on the left. This does not surprise me as I found many people who were socialists who never read Marx. OK Marx is long and hard (and I would not describe myself as well read in Marx, but the left did not educate themselves. They became aligned to a particular camp, and that was it. With such an ignorant approach it is not surprising that the 99% have become so divided.

On occasions I have argued politics with right-wingers, and felt that I was scoring points for the left with my economic analysis of the 1%. But then when I look at right-wing intellectuals their economic analysis can be far more sophisticated than mine. With Bix Weir he analyses gold and silver, and his political axe to grind concernsk” market control. When do you really hear the left discussing market control? Protectionist policies and cartels are essential aspects of the 1% capitalist manipulation, but socialists rarely discuss it.

But their arguments break down as soon as there is discussion of the left or immigration. Then their arguments are alomost completely emotive, and has no basis in reality. Right wing discussion of immigration and race has never been based in fact, but knowing this the 1%-manipulators have managed to completely undermine the factual basis of immigration statistics by dismissing them as left-wing or PC. Without facts to dismiss outlandish racist claims the non-deplorable populist right will partially believe the rhetoric and so get attracted to authoritarian demagogues such as Trump. Of course fact hasn’t always been a left strong point either as their vehemence can create “fuzzy areas”.

But what is a common thread throughout the right wing intellectuals is the manner in which they criticise the left. And this comes down to the left-wing failure to dissociate itself from neoliberalism. For me Hillary is a necessary evil, a better choice than Trump – marginally better than the other Republican candidates and leaps ahed of Trump because of his moral bankruptcy. But the left is seen as Hillary when the left sees Hillary as a right-wing compromise. The left compromise supports people like Hillary and Blair and Obama who start wars, and the right intellectuals use this to attack the left. For years the left has accepted this neoliberal compromise, and now they are paying for it with the division of the 99%, left analysis was stagnant. With Bix Weir you even have a call for a Trump-Bernie ticket, thus shpowing how completely unrealistic the understanding of the left is.

And then we come to Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Breitbart News aagggh! And then I saw amongst their best sellers 1984, George Orwell would turn in his grave to be associated with white supremacy. And then there is Milo Manosphere. But what about his analysis? Checkout Steve Bannon’s movie, Generation Zero (2010) (picture is link). I did not find it easy to watch because I wanted to scream at his treatment of so much I hold dear – Woodstock indeed.

steve bannon

How much of the rubbish in this man’s blame game does the right wing believe? Yet this man’s perspective on the 1% is clearer than many on the left. When you know the problem is the 1% and you don’t hear the left taking about the 1%, it is easy to associate left with government and Wall Street. The left has to understand that their neoliberalism makes them easy to blame, the left has to become more sophisticated.

Now there is a big problem. The left is loud and committed but the populist right who need to be addressed are quiet, withdrawn and disguised in their politics. They do not seek confrontation especially within families, but their disguised positions need to be unravelled. The analysis of the 1% has to be separated from the emotions of immigration and left-bashing, and this will not happen when the left, especially left-wing media such as the Daily Show, Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, and so on depict Trump voters as deplorable. The populist right are our “comrades” within the 99%, and we need to find ways of communicating.

And I don’t know how, I can’t even face doing it with people I know but it has to be done. Myths stereotypes and charicatures have to be debunked, and communication is the only way to do this. Whilst I am saying this I still look at my emotions and all I can feel is anger towards these people. How can I communicate with them?

BUT communication must happen for the 99%.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.