Archive for the ‘Finance’ Category

A view of narratives

Posted: 20/03/2018 by zandtao in BigTech, Finance, Struggle, War
Tags: ,

I hear Russell calling for a new narrative, and such a call might well be what is popular now – I don’t know, Naomi thinks so and that means something. I have in a sense rejected this approach because it could be standard intellectual obfuscation that moves away from a clear class analysis. But perhaps it is a real movement, let me treat it as such.

What is the old narrative, if we want new we have to know what is old and what we want to change?

If we want to understand an old narrative we have to see historical trends. This is so important because if we do not examine trends we can end up with idealisms based on rhetoric imposed on a time-frame. To explain this let’s consider democracy.

In the UK where did democracy come from? There was tribalism, feudalism, monarchy, Cromwell and parliament. There was staggered suffrage. It is worth considering these on a timeline to understand our democracy. Under the monarchy and feudalism people were fundamentally serfs or soldiers with an existence predicated on the landowner. This started to change with money when different people became wealthy and used money to buy power. At this point parliament developed where wealth and land were supposedly two opposing interests. Cromwell was a figurehead in this as he represented wealth as parliamentarians. To develop support parliamentarians encouraged the notion that parliament was for the people, and so began the delusion of democracy. Initially suffrage was very limited but once it was seen that voting confirmed the status quo suffrage was expanded. Democracy as part of the establishment has never been in the interests of the people but has been used as a carrot to delude people into working for the establishment. This is democracy today. Similarly we could examine US history but it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel, look through the eyes of Howard Zinn.

For most people these are not accepted narratives.

Here is a forum for discussions on a new narrative (not necessarily recommended), and here is their presentation of the old narrative:-

“Within this narrative the basic trajectory of life was seen as go to college, get a job, get married, buy a house, have kids, go to church, work every day until you have saved up enough money, then retire.”

[This I will term the normal narrative].

But what can be clearly seen by those with an enquiring mind is that this version of the old narrative could fit into a view of consumer conditioning. Examine the components of this view of narrative. We get educated to get a job. Nature dictates we have kids but the narrative turns that into house, maybe church, kids getting educated. When we get too old for a job we retire, and this is enabled by the narrative through savings and pension schemes.

This “normal” narrative simply accepts the prevailing system that is based around getting money to bring up a family. That narrative simply accepts that people will consume. This narrative also assumes that society’s method for enabling this narrative is acceptable.

Politically this narrative has been supported by the capitalist system, money is accumulated to create means of production and the profits from sales of consumer items go to the owners of those means of production. Various mechanisms such as the stock market are used to create the accumulation. Intrinsic within the old narrative is the notion that this is just business, and whilst there are some minor problems business works, capitalism works.

So tied in with the old narrative is a capitalist system, and this system has been questioned. Initially this system was questioned by Karl Marx pointing out problems, along with Lenin, Trotsky, Castro, Guevara and others proposing communism as an alternative. Whilst communist alternatives have not been successful criticisms of the way capitalism has developed have increased.

These criticisms perhaps reached a crescendo globally with movements such as Horizontalidad, the Arab Spring, Indignados and Podemos in Spain, and then the Occupy movement. Perhaps most significant in these movements became the recognition of the 1%, new terminology describing Marx’s bourgeoisie and proletariat.

During and since these times has been the rise of the right wing as a response to the globalisation by the 1%. These right-wingers seek a return to the perceived wealth that nationalism had supposedly brought. This emerging right-wing is common throughout the white world (Russell Means’ European) where benefits of the capitalist system had been more pronounced. These right-wingers target liberal movements as the source of the problems. Identity politics seeks to promote non-white races, women and LBGQT communities, and for these people on the right this liberalism has become an enemy.

Automation has completely changed the workplace in the last 50 years. It is now more profitable to increase the use of machines in manufacture being both more reliable mechanically and also able to work 24/7. In the capitalist system that is only interested in profit, much work that needs to be done is not profitable such as caring and the environment. Attempts are made to commodify all these non-manufacture items, and make people pay for them through taxation. So there is some profit-making but high taxation is de-motivating. At the same time a large proportion of taxation is required for defence procurement without which many western economies would fail.

With increased roboticisation there will be less and les jobs under the capitalist model, with profit as the driving force robots will be much cheaper. With less jobs there will be less money in circulation, and without that money there can be no consumerism that maintains the capitalist system.

With all of these considerations the “normal” narrative described above is not feasible.

Before considering a new narrative it is important to consider criticisms of the old narrative. With the emphasis on profit as the means of maintaining the capitalist system and therefore the normal narrative, critics point out the consequences of this normality. Increased accumulation has led to all sorts of crimes against humanity, beginning with battles for expansion, then colonisation and neo-colonialism. We have now reached a stage in which wars-for-profits are justified as an unspoken aspect of this narrative, and our education system within its hidden curriculum is required to provide the wage-slaves that keep the capitalist system functioning. At the same time we have to recognise that the system could be considered unsustainable. We are using resources without replacing them. Spending functions only in terms of debt both on an individual and governmental level, economies function as fiat economies without public reference to this invention of money. Within the white countries governments have recently promoted austerity agendas yet whilst doing so gaps between rich and poor have widened. And the taxation system is breaking down because transnationals are dodging taxation leaving money for government services short.

With all of its gross consequences capitalism does provide for some a pleasant lifestyle as described in the normal narrative. There are “natural” components within this normal narrative, and these capitalism provides for. Having children is a human necessity – as with all life. Capitalism does ensure that people work for the community in some ways albeit those ways only exist if there is profit for the accumulators, however it has to be noted that community services do not function efficiently because they lack money and resources. This of course has to be the case because such services are not creating profits.

The emphasis on profit is exclusive. In the normal narrative the church is included yet in western countries church involvement is variable. Other than mentioning the church what might be termed values are not included in this normalcy. But of course humans do have values. In general I think it is objective to say that under this normal narrative human development is not a focus, but there is of course development. However this development is driven by profit, research and development is primarily financed by corporations with the ultimate objective of profit and accumulation.

What is not mentioned above that is part of the normal narrative is the rule of law. As with all these questions books can be written on every issue but fundamentally this law protects the normal narrative of which capitalism is integral. The forces of law, police, courts and military protect the normal narrative and at the same time the capitalist system, and there are many cases in which the individual loses out to the interests of the corporation.

When we examine a new narrative we have to understand that such a narrative will meet powerful opposition if it leads to changes in the situation of those who have the accumulation – 1% or bourgeoisie. The rule of law fundamentally protects these people, and a new narrative has no power to overcome such a rule of law. It is in the interest of the powerful to consider a new narrative as they must realise that the way of life of accumulation is under threat as time marches on. There is an immediate conflict that they need to address, that of increasing automation and roboticisation, and the impact of that on consumerism.

For most normal people this immediate conflict is creating fear and violence. With increasing automation the normal narrative doesn’t function, and whilst white people fight to retain this normalcy their fear turns to violence of racism as well as greater acceptance of war – that then enable profits.

So when we ask about a new narrative we are actually questioning our way of life, and this questioning is becoming increasingly imminent. What is needed is for the narrative to evolve, but has the accumulation gone so far that evolution is not possible? Is there any new narrative in which the 1% can actually fit in?

<– Previous Post “Indigenous activist” Next Post “conditioning narrative” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


Brad Evans

Posted: 04/02/2018 by zandtao in Democracy, Finance, ONE planet, Struggle, War
Tags: ,

Love (respecting dignity), academy for questioning, and answers through history; what more can you want to understand 1%, politics and the way of the world. Find this in Russell Brand and Brad Evans – Under the Skin. Understanding the violence leads to an understanding of the nature of repression – obvious really but never thought of it.

No provisos, no fundamental flaws – just listen to the talk.

I missed at the end discussion of conspiracy theories. Brad’s answer was consider the empirical, examine what is, don’t deal with theories you have no idea about it. Excellent. What does this mean for my continual analysis of class and the 1%? 1% have power and influence, this is observable even though many will not go as far as I do. Is it a conspiracy to blame the 1%? No. Because they control, they control government, they control the number of jobs, they control all the political aspects of our lives. When we see problems concerning racism, feminism etc., these problems are fundamentally created because the 1% have accumulated much of the world’s resources for personal greed. This is observable fact even though we do not have the actual figures. If we call the 1% conspiracy, then we are avoiding the empirical – the observable. If the 1% become obfuscated with all the conspiracy theories so that we do not see their power and influence then we area voiding the truth.

Is the power and influence of the 1% what Brad describes as “visible traces”? I hope so. Use theory as a tool but based on facts. That is fine as well but there is a doubt raised in me as to how far he takes the power and influence of the 1%. That doubt is not based on anything I know he has said, but is based on the fact that he has a job in a academia, and fundamentally academics are restricted by their establishment to tell the truth. But we all have to work, leave that as a question given how much sense there was in the talk.

It is good to see the flag flying in academia, it explains to some extent why Russell is seeking answers there.

<– Previous Post “Slaves now?” Next Post “Way Forward” –>

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.

If I were Bill Gates ….

Posted: 06/01/2018 by zandtao in Finance, ONE planet
Tags: ,

In a recent Mandtao blogpost I discussed the amount of money people like Bill Gates have, and how it is equivalent to the amount of money of countless lives. It is a sickness that these people keep such amounts of money when that wealth is far beyond anything they can purchase. They should be giving back.

But effective giving back is not easy.

There is the Gates’ Foundation, and with good PR this is perceived charity work – giving back. But is it? Foundations have become a way in which the 1% can appear to give back whilst maintaining the system.

Consider the Clinton foundation. For the first time foundations have publicly come under question for all the wrong reasons. The Clinton foundation was questioned by the Trump campaign as a means of undermining trust in Hillary. To my mind Hillary was a typical political in-fighter whose background is murky. But that murky background is no different to the usual in-fighter who manages to get through the party machine. I place her on a par with Blair, neither of whom I trust but both of whom are better than right-wing alternatives – but only marginally. Almost any candidate would have been better than Trump whose nastiness has turned out to be a 1%-Godsend in that he can do whatever he wants to ordinary people and still maintain his electoral base; the people of the US are at the complete mercy of the 1% at present.

The Clinton Foundation is not however any different from any of the other Foundations that have appeared. They pretend they are charitable but in reality propagate the capitalists’ system.

In Aid – Rhetoric and Reality, Teresa Hayter and Catharine Watson discuss the way Aid is manipulated in order to propagate the interests of capitalism. The subject is complex because even with Aid money it is difficult to find ways of doing good. Caring is not enough, it requires intelligent compassion in order to find a way through the various mechanisms that have developed to protect capitalism.

To become successful Bill Gates used Machiavellian practices, has the leopard changed his spots? I don’t think so. I suspect his Foundation is just part of the establishment foundations who propagate the 1%-system whilst appearing to be caring.

However, suppose Bill Gates is genuine and wishes to give back, it would require wise compassion. There would be sufficient money to invest to make a difference but there would have to be intelligence in how it was invested. There is little point in trolling off to Africa with an open wallet expecting the world to change – see Aid Rhetoric and Reality. What is required is discernment. Giving money to a puppet dictator is a waste of time, wandering into a village with handouts would only benefit in the short-term, there has to be long-term benefit to the project. Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and give him a fishing-rod he has a job-for-life is a step in the right direction. But that fishing lesson is still not making a major contribution.

Bill Gates’ money, genuine Foundation money, could make an impact, but the 1% know their biggest danger is those of their own who turn. Gore Vidal turned and was attacked. Al Gore tries to do some good but the system is too powerful. Foster Gamble promotes good, but I am not completely sure about Thrive. Simply having the money and good-will is not enough the 1% has too much control. It requires intelligent compassion.

Bill Gates has been successful in the system, he is probably used to “winning” and “getting his own way”. If he has a change of heart and expects benefaction to produce good results he will be disappointed, caring is not enough, his compassion has to be intelligent.

Whilst they have not had Bill’s money there have been many NGOs (non-governmental organisations) such as Oxfam who have tried to make a difference; in small ways they do. They are allowed to have minimal effect but if they become sufficiently effective that they will affect profits, then government measures at 1%-instigation will curtail their operations.

The issue comes down to personal responsibility. For many people Oxfam fulfils a function. Whilst people need to spend all their time working, many want to give back. They care but they do not have the time to use their intelligence with their caring. To fight the system requires caring but caring is not enough, it requires intelligent compassion and a commitment to that compassion that most people are unable to offer. The 1% know this and manipulate it. As a result caring liberals give money and accept the stereotypes that the rhetoric of the Aid industry offers when the results are minimal. Quite simply these liberals are more committed to their finance, work and lifestyle than to give the commitment to apply their compassion intelligently. Sadly it does require that commitment now because the 1% has such control and influence.

That brings me back to Bill Gates. If his foundation is based on caring it is not enough. He needs to apply intelligent compassion. He needs to work with people who over the years have turned their caring into intelligent compassion. These people would know ways of making a difference on the ground. They would know the people on the ground who have integrity and who genuinely care for their people. They would know the ways in which their caring would be effective. Bill would have to listen to these people and even then it would be hard – far harder than it was to become rich in the first place. That only required Machiavellian single-mindedness, fighting the system takes much more commitment than that. The rewards are greater but not visible.

<– Previous Post “Valor” Next Post “Truth?” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Revisiting Confusion

Posted: 23/12/2017 by zandtao in Finance, Freedom, Insight, Science, Struggle
Tags: ,

In this post I discussed the role of confusion, I would now describe it as the new internal strategy of divide-and-rule colonialism. If we are confused we cannot unite against the 1%, it is that simple.

There is no confusion in Unity against 1% but we have been turned against this Unity. There has always been one-issue campaigning such as anti-racism, feminism, and pro-LBGQT, but this was usually done under a leftist umbrella that was vaguely socialist. But liberals have lost their socialist base and see their campaigns as more important than fighting the 1%, more important than fighting wars-for-profits, more important than fighting wage-slavery. As a result Liberals bought into the neo-liberalism of Obama, laying the grounds for disgruntled white working-class privilege that swung the balance in favour of Trump. I think there are sufficient indicators to say that it is not just a racist backlash against Obama, if these people had jobs they might well not have swung to Trump’s fascist populism.

Once the 1% got beyond Trump’s unpalatable populism, they found that they could gain from his rhetoric leading up to this horrendous tax bill. This article describes measures to promote support for this bill even when it has been passed. I suspect worse in the New Year as the GOP misuses their control until mid-term changes will perhaps alleviate their misuses of power. If such an analysis is correct then it is unlikely that Trump will get to a second term unless the 1% concertedly provide the jobs Trump has promised. In which case there will be further problems. What is worse for me is that the Democrats remain totally neoliberal, so if mid-terms go as predicted money will be put into democrats for Hillary. And she has become such a divisive figure. There needs to be a Bernie-backlash to turn back all the Trump “legislation”, the 1% will not allow that.

Trump has a “deplorable” support base who are becoming more entrenched against the liberal whining in the media. Whilst 1%-MSM fan the deplorable-liberal divide, both entrenched camps don’t get out of their comfort zones of Breitbart and righteous liberalism respectively. No Unity there.

But so far I have not considered the confusion. Fake News has become a popular slogan, and it is a major platform for confusion. It cements the new deplorable-liberal divide as Trump and Breitbart continue to define MSM as Fake News, and liberals accept 1%-MSM as mostly truth. But the strategy of Fake News does far more than cement this divide, the strategy creates a confusion where few know where to stand. Most people stood by an ideology but Fake News has undermined ideological standpoints by creating doubt. And this doubt has been fanned into hate – PCpolice-hate, feminist-hate, Liberal-hate, anti-SJW, Marxist-hate, collectivist-hate.

Concern about political bias in news is of course not new, but there has never been such a concerted strategy to cause such confusion. The BBC is well known on the Genuine Left for its bias as typified by its banning of Liar Liar by Captain Ska; plausible banning but biased. The BBC falls in line with MSM when discussing Occupy or the 1%, but on liberal issues they tend to be OK. “War-for-Profit does not exist and people are not exploited as wage-slaves” BBC The BBC offers liberals a place of employment, and is regularly attacked by anti-liberal sentiment such as the right wing and racists – to whom they give time because they are unbiassed. How long did they take to come to terms with Corbyn? But if you knew what they were about they were reliable. With Fake News everything is questioned. Previously the right accepted the BBC bias that was in their favour, and played the game. Trump has ended that game with the confusion he has caused. The right want the BBC to move to the right, to end the generally-accepted degree of supposed unbiassed BBC reporting, and just support right-wing bias. I am sure the establishment are as dismayed by this confusion as anyone else. Confusion is destroying an accepted fabric of society. Personally I don’t mind the confusion as the liberals will have to question what their whining achieves, and at the same time right-wing intellectuals who have some compassion will have to question why they are in bed with deplorables. But with the prevailing ignorance and lack of understanding of the right-wing and the power of its funders, there are major risks with this confusion. Prevailing social fear reacts to anarchy with military oppression, if the ensuing mass confusion turns to violence then there might well be increased daily military presence. What will happen to right-wing libertarian freedom then? Where will be your revered choice at any price?

As usual in education there is the unquestioning mainstream acceptance of liberal righteousness. Here:-

is a student methodology for examining Fake News. As described in the third and fourth steps news is not fake if it is accepted by consensus. But why not take the opportunity to question the fakeness of education – the degree of conditioning, why not examine our histories to see their bias? However in the current climate I would be a fool to advocate this because 1%-funding of views would just lead to a lurch further right. It is claimed that young users can see fake news in facebook, but do they really? Or can they just see the fake news that liberals see, and ignore the fake biassed infrastructure that I have been aware of all my adult life?

But Fake News is only the tip of the confusion strategy. Sceptics are legitimately questioning science, questioning is a legitimate part of scientific method. But instead of that questioning adding to the scientific process, it has been turned into a destabilising mechanism by finance. With Koch investment, climate deniers have gained a limited amount of credence. Trump supporters have been deluded into thinking Trump’s 1%-position over the Paris Climate Accord is in some way legitimate.

This 1%-undermining of science is a serious problem because instead of science being seen as a bank of knowledge there is now confusion as to any form of scientific verification. Science is now FAKE SCIENCE. But what is worse is that because scientific verity has been undermined ignorant pipsqueaks who have seen a youtube clip think they are equipped to discuss science. Whatever indoctrination occurs at university the level of academic knowledge that makes up a degree does compare somewhat favourably with a youtube clip.

Unfortunately science has already been hijacked by the 1%. Medicine was hijacked by Rockefeller and Carnegie towards the end of the nineteenth century (culminating with the Flexner Report) so that natural medicine was eschewed in favour of profit-oriented patented medicine as part of any medical degree. As a consequence of the confusion vaccines have been questioned, and right-wing intellectuals offering people the choice over vaccines is very dangerous to global health. Science should be questioned and resolved in-house amongst qualified scientists applying scientific method rather than entering the populist arena of profit. Scientific method is sound and needs to be respected. People need to return to accepting sound scientific judgement.

Unfortunately science has equally allowed itself to be hijacked by finance. Scientists wanting jobs are directing their research towards what will be funded, and as most funding comes from the 1% through technology for defence or gadget-profiteering, BigFood, BigPharma there is little genuine science-for-science’s sake. Knowledge per se has no value in the 1%-system.

Quantitative method has been extended to qualitative method especially in social science. Case study methodology is being promoted and whilst there are checks and balances desire for funding status or simply job-retention can leave issues of integrity behind. A case study draws inferences from what a few people say, is it science to draw inferences from what Trump says, from what Breitbart says? Is it science to accept a funded professorial watchlist such as Turning Point?

And then we have the absurdity of science-based medicine’s rejection of acupuncture because the research is too compelling and potentially unsound because it is non-western.

Confusion is now being blamed on the Russians by the right-wing. Obviously I have no personal knowledge of so-called Russian meddling, I am not sure what they will gain. I suspect it is just a tactic for the 1% to remove Trump when they choose. There is a rule of thumb in social analysis. Look at who it benefits. Confusion is benefitting the 1% and their main current stooge Trump. Confusion is lurching the world to the right, and again the 1% benefits – more war, more wage-slavery.

To end this confusion good people have to stand together with their only common value – compassion. End ideologies, just stand for compassion. Why do compassionate people hate liberals? Because they perceive ideology before compassion. Let’s end this divisive support for ideals that divide – be compassionate. If we are compassionate we are not compromised by ideals that put us in the same camp as deplorables. If we are compassionate we do not fight wars-for-profit, if we are compassionate we do not view fellow humans as wage-slaves.

End confusion, be compassionate.

<– Previous Post “Class War Lost!!” Next Post “Wise Compassion” –>

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.

Yesterday I spent a long time considering the “Truth about Cancer” even though I only used half of one of the videos. There is a very clear conclusion – confusion. Why?

There is a well-known left-wing adage – divide-and-rule colonialism. Typically the hegemony would find an existing division usually religious or tribal, and favour one group – protestants in Ireland, land deals in Zimbabwe, Obote’s minority rule in Uganda.

Since Occupy in 2011 the ruling 1% have been concerned about a different Unity – the 99%. So they have been funding the internet to prevent Unity of the 99%. And the purpose of that funding is confusion that allows the status quo to remain – the status quo which accumulates profits for the 1%.

So let us examine the cancer issue through this confusion paradigm. There are two issues about which there are sound questions:-

Do the established treatments work?
Do the alternative treatments work?

When you begin to examine these questions with genuine scepticism you are unable to get an answer because the only people who can give you proper answers are independently-funded medical research scientists. The methodology of this research would have to be agreed by all parties so that conclusions could be generally accepted. This cannot happen because the major player, BigPharma, will not work with the other players, alternative treatments. Why? Because it would expose weakness in their established treatments – the cut/burn and poison of operation, radiation and chemotherapy. Without scientific evidence there is sufficient doubt for the established regimen of treatments to continue to be used. The people who now benefit from the established treatments, BigPharma and BigFinance, continue to do so.

What became very clear to me yesterday is that there is sufficient scientifically-verified data to warrant genuine scientific enquiry about both the above questions. Oncologists are apologists for their treatments, but they do not control research. It would require the whole of the cancer profession to stand up and demand appropriate research on these established treatments but there are too many vested interests for this to happen. So the confusion and status quo remains.

I did not investigate any of the alternative treatments yesterday but I have previously. There are strong cases that merit consideration. I am no expert, I do not believe there is a “cure”, but if I had cancer and I had money I would go Gerson. As I don’t have money I would improve the quality of my diet – it is good anyway, I would go to acupuncture as often as I could and do Chi Gung daily, exercise, try to find medical cannabis and meditate. I would listen to but not trust the advice of oncologists, and would never trust chemo unless I could be assured it would be part of the 2.1% successes in 5 years. But that is me and I am no expert so my recommendation means nothing.

And there again is the confusion. There could be clarity. If sufficient mainstream research were done I believe Gerson could be scientifically proven to work, and could then be funded by medical insurance or the NHS. But this is not scientifically known, and in my view will never be scientifically knowable because BigPharma will never allow it. Confusion. The same might also apply to other alternative treatments.

Whilst we live in a 1%-system there will always be confusion, whilst the profits of BigPharma, BigFinance and BigFood are all dependent on the status quo it will never change from confusion. Treatments will remain the same. Ordinary people will be subjected to cut, burn and poison perhaps unnecessarily. There will be some benefits so that there will be some reason to accept the establishment. Some people will go to alternative treatments, and there will be talk of cures as can be found widely on the net. But nothing will be resolved, there will be confusion and that suits the 1% of BigPharma.

This issue of confusion also explains the funding for alternatives. Mainstream science will continue to produce some studies about the established treatments, studies questioning the status quo will never be universally accepted. There will be funding for some of the alternative treatments because individuals benefit – the rich need to know where to go. There will be funding for sceptics who decry the mainstream as well as for those who decry alternatives. Why? Because it all creates confusion and that confusion benefits the 1%.

And then there is the laughable position of the supposed scientists at SBM discussing acupuncture. “This is important to the understanding of the acupuncture literature, as many of the positive studies are coming out of China. The unrealistically high percentage of positive studies makes the Chinese body of clinical literature very suspect.” Even when there is no doubt they appeal to racism, infer the Chinese scientists “liars”, and create confusion.

If you have cancer what do you do? Don’t trust anyone – including me. Don’t trust the oncologists but try to determine what the state of scientific research is with regards to your cancer, treatment and the longevity of the treatment. Change your lifestyle. Eat healthy organic food, watch what you drink and drink healthily. Do aerobic exercise. Find some form of exercise that promotes the chi, Chi Gung, Tai Chi or others, and good breathing – prana. And meditate. With all of this you will probably fill your days!!! . These are recommendations, changing lifestyle is not necessarily a cure but there is nothing there that can hurt – all these lifestyle choices are beneficial.

I refer back to Occupy and the 99%. At that time there was no confusion, apathy but no confusion. The message was growing that the 1% were the source of all the problems. Since then the 1% have increasingly funded the power of confusion.

Brexit cannot be resolved – confusion. Huge money was invested in Brexit and is still invested so there is no resolution as evidenced by Tories fighting amongst each other. There will be at least 4 years of this confusion whilst the 1% exploit behind the scenes.

Trump is just about division and confusion. Try to define what he is about, and you only come up with a political and power-hungry ego. He decries the 1% yet he is one of them. He talks about helping white people but gives tax breaks to the superrich. Everything he says, the way he tweets is just to cause confusion, and whilst there is confusion his special people can work behind the scenes for the 1%.

The new Divide-and-Rule colonialism is 1%-confusion.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, 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.

Brexit and Trump have also brought home to me another important issue – what is truth? Speaking the truth is part of the 8-Fold Path, Magga (4 Noble Truths), and never has it been more important to recognise the truth when the representatives of the powerful are lying so much.

The first thing I learned about the truth as an adult was when I started on the Path and began to develop insight. At that time seeing people or knowing stuff was so important. Basically it was a reaction to all the lies that education and upbringing had given me. Developing insight is the most important tool for understanding the truth, and very few people discuss this. Insight is definitely not taught in schools!!! At the same time, in the search for truth recognising insight in others became an important aspect of discerning truth. It is not possible for one person to know the truth in all things. So a pre-requisite for truth is insight and the recognition of insight. One key aspect of recognising insight is that of sila – moral integrity. Recognising moral integrity is almost as difficult as recognising insight but there is an obvious corollary to this:-

If a person does not have moral integrity, then they certainly do not have insight and would not see truth as important.

Having moral integrity and talking about morals is definitely not the same thing. There are many people who use morality within religious institutions as a means of control, and yet they themselves do not have morality. In other words religion and morality are not the same although within the religious institutions there are people with insight and moral integrity.

Compassion is the most important fundamental concerning truth. Compassion means the freedom from suffering for all, and in this I include Gaia. So in seeking the truth the person must show compassion. Therefore a person speaking the truth will be working towards compassion, and therefore someone who is sexist, racist, or does not support LBGT rights is not compassionate, and is therefore not speaking the truth. So there are yardsticks, how compassionate is the person and how much insight do they have?

Of course these yardsticks are absolutes, and applying these absolutes in everyday situations especially in something as criminal as politics is very difficult.

But trying to use these yardsticks let’s examine the political situation but not as yet in terms of party politics. What politically exhibits the least compassion? Quite obviously the first political yardstick is war. Who benefits from war? People don’t but corporations do, the global MIC, Military Industrial Complex does. So we have a political question to ask as a benchmark concerning support for the MIC and the corporations – I will use the vernacular the 1%. The most heinous weapon of war is the drone, these are hugely expensive to make and generate huge profits, a definite plus for the MIC. The immigration crisis is blowback, a huge consequence of interfering wars and the heinous use of drones.

These corporations work hand-in-hand with global finance institutions such as banking and insurance. So for me the 1% of MIC, banking and finance are those that control global politics, and politicians who stand against the 1% are those who I support. I have not mentioned BigFood and BigPharma but these corporations have similar interests as the other corporations of the 1%.

For me Occupy stood against the 1%, so I support the Occupy movement. It is my understanding that the Occupy movement stood behind Bernie in the US and Corbyn in the UK. Whether this is true or not what Bernie and Corbyn say stands against the 1%.

But is what they say what they mean, are they telling the truth? Or is it just rhetoric?

In Corbyn’s case I have sufficient personal knowledge of the man to know that he is genuine although I haven’t always agreed with his tactics. In the UK in London from 1985 through to 1992 I was a political activist, and this brought me into contact with Corbyn’s sphere of influence – he was an MP and community activist in North London then. For me there was no doubt about his moral integrity and compassion, but at the time I was active I felt his tactics were mistaken. Now I support him, times change.

I support Bernie. His rhetoric is good, and I have a general feeling that he is moving in the right direction. But because of the lack of personal connection I cannot be so definitive. My intuition makes me feel he merits support, but I would not go beyond that because of my lack of personal contact.

What is most interesting about these two political candidates is that they are both struggling with their party hierarchies. There is a movie I often recall called Lifting the Veil. Whilst the movie does attack both the Labour party and the Democrats, it is more concerned with attacking the system. It is my understanding that the movie claims that the electoral system has been manipulated by the 1% as a media circus, and that there is never any intention of genuine democracy – government by the people for the people. This is in line with the approach of neoliberalism as most notably discussed by Noam Chomsky (for me).

Given that I accept that the political system of neoliberalism is the problem, the question then is how it is to be defeated and what is it to be replaced with? For me compassion means that I am seeking a system that treats people as equals without regards to “race creed or colour”; I would also now add gender preference. This is fundamentally the rights of all people over the few, the 99% compared to the 1%. At present we have governments directed by the 1% against the interests of the 99% who they want to exploit as their workforce. So the question is how do we organise for a government by the 99% (or 100% where the government treats all people as equal)? In determining veracity I would be investigating whether the politician is genuinely interested in a government of and by 100% of the people.

So far I have avoided political terminology in describing truth. And this is because of problems with the media and education. It is my view that western societies (and probably global societies) are inundated with propaganda that is directed by the 1% for their benefit. The terms 1% and 99% are very similar to the Marxist terminology of bourgeois and proletariat, and there has been continued propaganda against Marxists, socialists or any who subscribe to Marx’s theories. There is much to be learnt from Marx’s dialectical approach. But the main point of Marxism is that all the people need to work together against the self-interests of the 1%. In my adult years I have never seen people more divided, and I think propaganda and obfuscation by the 1%-media are the main causes. Typically I have seen mainstream media organisations described as left-wing when I have always described them as right-wing. In terms of compassion this site might well have the same objectives – healthy people, but in terms of the media our descriptions could not be further apart. In this the 1% have been so successful in dividing us.

There is another reason I have not promoted myself as socialist, I believe that sticking to ideas or an ideology is a mistake. While ideas can guide, holding to an ideal restricts the mind. Adhering to dogma stagnates an institution whether it is religious or political, people also become restricting if others are expected to fit in with ideals. So another point of truth is enquiry. Does the truth hold up to inspection of the enquiring mind? For many years dogma has been thrown at me either from the left wing or in religious circles, but none of this dogma alone produces clarification. It is only with insight that dogma moves beyond the idea. Examining a situation in the light of compassion and through enquiry examining the dogma and situation is a process to determine the truth. Does what is said fit a set of rules is not truth-determining?

I often draw parallels between US and UK politics, typically Republicans vs Democrats and Conservatives vs Labour. In the UK historically the conservatives have supported the 1% with token liberal rhetoric for the welfare of the people and nationalist populism in the interests of the white population, and whilst historically Labour grew out of the working-class its representatives are now simply opportunists. In the UK a nationalist populist, Nigel Farage, has arrived on the scene promoting racism, and this populism has recently been accepted by many people – a significant factor in Brexit; his party UKIP primarily attracts disillusioned working-class Labour voters.

The I in UKIP stands for Independence, and I think this term independent is significant. In UKIP’s case it maybe means independent from the EU – Brexit. But in character UKIP supposedly represents an alternative to the conservatives and labour (the neoliberal system). At the same time it discusses the people’s interests over that of an elite – again appealing to an understanding of those against neoliberalism, but its appeal to the British electorate is because it is white nationalist. In my view UKIP is an appeal to white popular racism, and although sadly they are increasing in popularity their only impact so far has been their contribution to Brexit which also included majority conservative influence. In the UK this populism has divided the 99%, and in the UK I believe that is why UKIP has been funded and given more coverage in mainstream media than is warranted for a small party.

In the US the situation is slightly different but the impact of nationalist populism combined with the conservative interests has led to the election of Donald Trump. Because of my compassion I cannot support either UKIP or Trump because of their racism – and in Trump’s case overt sexism. (I suspect also LGBT issues but I am not certain of that). Initially I said that if a person does not have moral integrity I cannot believe that they will tell the truth, that applies particularly for Trump although I also distrust Farage.

In the US many people rue the election because Hillary was not elected. However in the neoliberal system Hillary represented the 1%-system elite of the Democrat party, and so she lost the populist vote. For the same reason support from Occupy was not strong because of the same neoliberalism, and because of the way the Democrat party cut out Bernie.

In terms of truth it is worth examining how events have panned out in terms of the way they have benefitted the 1%. Particularly in the US nationalist populism has benefitted the 1% by splitting the 99%. The populists have however elected a member of the 1% to deliver an anti-1% platform, can that ever happen? We will have to wait and see. Is Trump a political “whistleblower”?

In terms of truth this splitting is very important because it explains much that goes on with populism. Within the framework of blaming the elite the primary purpose of the populism is division. When you examine much of the analysis in both camps it places the source of the problem with the 1%. Two important platforms of US populism were “draining the swamp” and “against Wall Street”, both of which any left-winger would be happy to support. But then comes the division because the most important attack politically is to blame the left. And here is the inconsistency, the swamp and Wall Street are not the Left.

When considering the populism we have to examine emphasis. The 1% have no problem with being blamed if their strategy of dividing the 99% works so the rise of this nationalist populism just benefits them. For me the main political truth is that the 1% cause our problems, and that we should all fight against the influence of the 1%. In blaming the 1% I seek unity against the 1%, and seek strategies that negate their financial power and influence. This strategy unites all working people, it unites small business owners who are trying to balance their books, but it works against people who manipulate financial laws for their own profit. Such small business owners do not go bankrupt and start up again. Such people pay taxes however unfair the tax system might be because those taxes provide education and infrastructure for ordinary working people. The 99% have all this in common, and if we all worked together then the 1% cannot exploit us.

However divided we become manipulable so it is in the interest of the 99% to divide the left and right. The internet has succeeded in doing this. By investing in the internet the 1% have developed websites that present their divisive populism.

At the same time populism has inconsistencies because the strategy is division and not the interests of the people themselves. The government is described as left-wing and yet a major popular platform is the swamp – the revolving door of the 1% that controls the government. How can the government be left-wing and 1%-controlled? And Trump himself is a major inconsistency, how can a member of the 1% be interested in fighting 1%-control? However these inconsistencies don’t matter if the purpose is division, that division is a consistent purpose:-

Consistency – division
Inconsistency – drain the swamp
– Against Wall Street
– Attack the left
– 1% government is left

Such inconsistency is for me a good measure of the truth.

Where next do I go in terms of the truth? Over the years I have developed mechanisms for determining the truth. These are based primarily on the arena of politics that I know – what has been called the “left”. I know these people, and have developed some insight into their degree of truth-telling. Over the years I have seen how important the truth is to the left wing, if there are any doubts in the veracity of a left-wing statement there is a huge mainstream backlash. More responsible left-wing people are very careful with the truth, but that is not all left-wingers for sure with some of the more vociferous getting carried away with rhetoric; so there has to be truth-discernment from within. Based on my experience and insight I would use certain left-wing evidence and avoid the rhetoric. This can only be a personal approach to truth.

Political correctness is also worth discussing when examining the truth. PC developed throughout my lifetime, and in my view it developed because language was a significant part of racism and sexism. Demanding that people were not racist or sexist in the language they used was a good position when trying to remove the embedded racism and sexism in society. As a result racists and sexists were expected to improve their use of language. This gave an illusion that people were less racist or sexist but in the UK Brexit showed that people had not truly changed. At the same time there has been a backlash against the “PC police”, people who have too vehemently reinforced the change of language without helping people change their attitudes. With UKIP and Trump those people who have been straitjacketed by the PC police have been allowed to express their racism and sexism. Because there was a repression there has been a backlash against PC in general, and as a result truth has suffered because much truth came out of the research those people did.

At the same time it is populist to reject what PC people have said because populism attacks the left wing. As I have said, this is a change that I find hard to understand as the government has always been a puppet of the 1% so for populism to claim government is left wing is difficult for me to grasp. Again this is an indication as to the ability of the 1% to influence. Look at what has happened. The 1% continue to dominate and their profits continue to increase despite the crash of 2008. Governments have applied austerity measures as a consequence, awarded bankers bonuses, and yet populism has divided the 99% so that there is an obfuscation concerning the left wing. The power of money is amazing.

So to conclude how I determine truth:-

1) Overlying everything else is compassion
2) Coming with compassion we need to develop insight and discern those who are insightful
3) Enquiry with compassion beyond received positions (idealisms)
4) Recognition of 1%-interest and the divisions they cause
5) Determine sources that I usually consider truthful and enquire from there.

Finally since this has been mainly concerning truth in politics, I ask that we recognise a political delusion that has been perpetrated. Most people vote for economic reasons ie vote in a way that they think will give them most money. Vote for greed. When greed is voted for we get manipulated by the greedy. Why not change the way we vote to that of compassion, vote for people who genuinely talk about caring for others and the environment. This would change the political arena.

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

Blogs:- Zandtao, Matriellez.

Trump summary

Posted: 22/12/2016 by zandtao in Democracy, Finance, Freedom, Struggle

Trump upset me – quite depressed, and led me to a rethink. Am I sufficiently up-to-date and in touch if I didn’t see it coming? This is a summary of my blogs to give a context.

In Trumped I guess at the impact. In Left supports Trump I attack a Jewish activist who is very knowledgeable but is missing an understanding of neocolonialism – the Veil and elections. Blame the liberals takes a similar tack about the Veil – neocolonialism.

Shame of White People begins to look at the real problem – the racism of white people, why aren’t these people ashamed to vote for a DEPLORABLE like Trump? 53% of white women voted for a blatant sexist and exploiter of women, how can they? Growing up afraid starts to look at my background community – the white people who voted for Brexit and who are typical of the silent Trump supporters. In Brexit is racist I make it clear that I see Brexit as a racist vote, and point to the problem that is not the deplorables but “nice” white people. In “nice” white people I detail a description of the demographic of the silent foolish racist white people who have supported Brexit and Trump. In Rising Fascism I point out the fascism that these “nice” racist fools have been tricked into creating. And finally I look at what the left needs to do to consolidate.

To what avail? These “nice” white people will be bought off and matters will get worse. At least I know not to listen when people tell me racism is better now, and millennials are you any different to the mentalities of the hippies and so on I grew up with whose materialism changed them to Brexit? Millennials when you are invested in the economy will you also be fooled into this “nice” white racist position – especially when the rising fascism will mean that good understanding through controlled media will not be as easily accessible?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.