Archive for the ‘Freedom’ Category

Love and Wage-Slavery

Posted: 22/01/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Struggle

I fear for love.

Love is deep, powerful and the greatest force for good on the planet. This is not love as procreation, sexual fulfilment but love – deep meaningful love. Once found love is never lost even if the relationship where the love was found fails. Love persists in and beyond the relationship, it is as if the relationship kickstarts a dormant loving.

Finding love is never easy; it was never easy for me maybe for others it is different. My search for love began when I was a child at university where “love” was not love but passion and infatuation. Soon after leaving uni I broke through my systemic conditioning and once following the path was free to experience love. From that point at 22 I wore my heart on my sleeve as I searched for love. Two factors at that time prevented me from finding love, the first was an unusual level of personal immaturity despite following the path, and the second was the barriers in women that I met. These were women who put up barriers to love either because they had been hurt in love or were afraid of being hurt in love. These barriers saddened me then, they sadden me now, and it saddens me that these barriers will be increased however well justified.

When I did find love it turned out to be catastrophic, and at the end of the relationship in which I loved I was drained. After a few years I managed to grow through my pain and eventually eschew the pain body, and it was only recently that I accepted how important that love was. The love that I sought to express through one person has eventually become a love I can share with all. A love that I now know is so important and that I fear for.

For many people love is sought in the workplace but this is not a good place to seek love because the workplace is the place of wage-slavery. The workplace is a place of servitude. It is a place where employers feel they own the employees – servitude – rather than a place where labour is purchased. Within the workplace employees also feel that the workplace is for servitude, and therefore are willing to accept impositions.

Following the revelations that Harvey Weinstein used this servitude for his own sexual gratification, harassing the wage-slaves in the process, #metoo has seen a rallying cry for women not to accept harassment, for men to change their attitudes to what is harassment, and for all to change the climate that enables this harassment.

But this changing climate is perceived as the silence that enables such exploitation. It is perceived as a problem of the collective psyche where people do not stand up to the powerful exploiting for fear of their own situation.

But the efforts are only token. The harassers are not perceived as criminals and are going unpunished, much hot air is being expended but other than discomfort there appears nothing that is happening is bringing change.

The source of the problem is the wage-slavery, the level of servitude that means the harassment comes with the territory, and the fear that complaining will lead to loss of work – we are slaves and we have no choice about being that way.

If we are not wage-slaves then in the workplace we are colleagues together, and there is no pent-up frustration that leads to hierarchical position wanting to exploit.

So where do we find love? The work-place is a place of servitude, choice is not free there. At the disco there is limited human contact, so where do we find love? In this world of wage-slavery we are not free to find love. Understand the servitude that we live in, work against that servitude together, and search for love despite the impositions wage-slavery puts on us.

<– Previous Post “Accidental Anarchist” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.


Accidental Anarchist

Posted: 22/01/2018 by zandtao in Corbyn, Democracy, Freedom, Struggle

This man is interesting, Carne Ross – TED talk.

But part of what he talks about is flawed. He calls himself the accidental anarchist, and it is worth listening as to how he reached that conclusion.

I have no issues with his conclusion. He supports cooperative collectives such as Mondragon and Porte Alegre (World Bank report – I have not read this). In the end he defines himself as the accidental anarchist because he supports such workers’ collectives, and he believes that government cannot work.

Firstly he feels it cannot work because of his first-hand empirical observations, and discusses complexity theory to justify how life is just too complicated for governance to work. Now I dispute this, not because of his empirical observations, but quite simply because at the moment government is working. Carne is making a fundamental error in his analysis, an error that I understand because he chose to work in government out of a sense of belief. But the fundamental error is that government is intended to be run for the benefit of the people, this is simply not true. Historically in the UK government has always been for the powerful. Government began as monarchy, and then under Cromwell became a government for the rich elite. British government has never been democratic. Carne’s empirical observation of the business backdoor is useful to know, however it is not a description of a failing government but a successful government. Now in the UK the government is working for the 1%, and Carne has described this; this first-hand empirical observation is useful to know. But it is not a description of a failing government because the government was never intended to be for the people. Iraq was his crisis of conscience but the Iraq wars were always wars for profits. He observed failing democracy but he did not observe failing government because government is not for the people but for the 1%.

I do not however support an electoral democracy where the voted party will supposedly act beneficially for the people. There are too many forces working against that. People have to take their power back through ownership of the means of production – workers’ cooperatives. And it is possible that there will need to be an umbrella government organisation driven from below by these cooperatives, Carne accepts this.

In the interim it is necessary to dismantle the state that is controlled by the 1%. This can be done by voting for forces who are working positively in this direction, such as Corbyn. If Corbyn were to be working to enable workers’ cooperatives then that would be most beneficial for the people of the UK. However he might be into socialist government, and despite good intentions that is probably disenfranchising.

But I still hope for Corbyn, and would want all to support him including Russell Brand who might well have a cult following and has asked people not to vote. Russell had an excellent interview with Carne Ross that I watched first – but it is longer.

But anarchy has risks. First of all there are forces of anarchy at work now, primarily in the US but also in the UK, and these forces are right-wing. Their purpose is to create confusion, and with in the state of confusion the 1% are able to exploit more. Here Chomsky, an anarchist himself, describes how these forces with Trump as distraction are controlling government and enabling 1% exploitation through deregulation of the beneficial such as environmental protection. The article talks about deep state but it is 1%, why not use 1% or bourgeoisie. Because the forces that are causing the confusion are the 1%, and they don’t want to be exposed; deep state is a diversion the 1% are in control. Libertarians in the US are a particular problem because they seek freedom, freedom from government, freedom from regulation, but because they have no control of the 1% they are simply creating the conditions for the 1% to increase exploitation. An interim government would be needed to hold back the forces of the 1% who currently control the market and are privatising the military under their control. A properly-directed government, a democratic government, not just electorally-democratic but genuinely-democratic, is needed to fight off the 1%, it is the manipulations of the 1% that create the complexities that Carne studied.

So whilst I support Carne and his workers’ cooperatives some of his developmental reasoning had flaws. Our governments are not for the people.

<– Previous Post “Data confuses me” Next Post “Love and Wage-Slavery” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Data confuses me

Posted: 21/01/2018 by mandtao in Big Fashion, Big Food, Big Pharma, Freedom, Insight

I watched this interesting talk with Russell Brand and Jacques Peretti, and am totally confused by the reference to data as being the corporate currency.

The issue is advertising as far as I understand. It has always been my practice to ignore advertising; I know it is not everyone’s practice – I often heard schoolkids singing jingles. In the talk Russell and jacques were discussing that the new big corporations are the tech giants who know your data. With this data they can tailor-make the ads that appear when you are online. I never look at ads, use ad-blockers and edit the hosts file primarily to stop their use of my bandwidth by opening new windows. I make it a rule never to click on an ad.

I understand that I might be unusual in doing this but this type of mindful consuming ought to be a common-place act of “resistance”. The corporations need our consuming but if we choose how we consume then we have some control. So I am confused.

For me the issue is mindful consuming. Firstly my mindful consuming is limited because it is not easy to buy organic food. But I have two sources and if I make the effort my veg can be organic. I cannot find “organic” meat, that is a worry. But I try to avoid factory products because of additives and preservatives. I have my car and my computer stuff but I rarely buy more than I need. Mindful consuming is sustainable, and in this world resistance needs to be sustainable. I therefore am confused.

In fact data makes them vulnerable. If they rely on controlling us through advertising yet we are consuming mindfully then they are vulnerable to a movement of mindful consuming.

I don’t live a life of consumerism but of course I do consume. But it is my money, my labour, my savings, my pension. As Russell likes to use the word “revolution”, then isn’t mindful consuming revolutionary?

I do remember getting angry when last I lived in the UK and I was forced to use Direct Debit so that they could take my money effectively from salary. I was not used to this as I used to go and pay my bills. Now I go and pay my bills. So it requires some time and effort to do this but I have some control.

This issue of data confuses me, but these people would not use it if there was no profit. But if there is mindful consuming they don’t have control. If directing our consumerism through data and advertising is the future, then organising mindful-consuming is the answer.

Look at how Israel is frightened of BDS, is this not mindful consuming? Back in the day some people did not buy South African produce, this seems common sense to me. So I am confused.

Mindful consuming is “easy”. Avoid BigFood, BigPharma, BigFashion. Consume mindfully. Organise mindful consuming. For committed comrades/revolutionaries data is something we can take advantage of through sustainable and mindful consuming.

What am I missing???

<– Previous Post “1% want Trump?” Next Post “Accidental Anarchist” –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Do the 1% want Trump?

Posted: 13/01/2018 by zandtao in Freedom, Science
Tags: , ,

Again I have enjoyed the clarity of a Black Agenda Report article, as far as I know (being British and living far away in Thailand) this gives a clear analysis of Democrats, neoliberalism and the need for change.

However there was one statement that jumped out at me:-

“The ruling class desperately want to replace Trump for fear that his rise to the Oval Office marks the beginning of the end of the two-party arrangement in Washington.”

Initially I felt the 1% were not supporting Trump during his campaign for presidency. Once nominated he became Republican and not Trump so the 1% supported him begrudgingly. Once he got in I think they were jittery. The 1%-profits come from their manipulation of trade, his deplorable approach might have had impact on the way business is conducted. I now feel the 1% are behind Trump because he is delivering more profits – increasing wars-for-profits for example. For the 1% racism is just a tool for promoting division and thus ensuring the continuation of profits. It seems to me that Trump policies don’t matter to the 1%, his rhetoric increases antagonism between deplorables and liberals, and the 1% can exploit that situation.

That antagonism is symbolised in the two-party system of neoliberalism, and that arrangement is something that the 1% control and can exploit. I agree with that. And the “better the system they know” might apply to this 1%-control. But the 1% did not invent the two-party neoliberal parlour game, historically one party has always grown out of struggle and then with 1%-backing taken over by opportunists and become part of the 2-party neoliberalism and under 1%-control.

What if Trump-fascism does end 2-party neoliberalism? How would this impact on the 1%-profits? I don’t know but I think fascism would enable total control of the profit-making. Over his presidency I think I have perceived an increasing alignment between Trump and the 1% – how would I know? Trump is an excellent vehicle for the 1%. He is obnoxious, hated by the majority, and a complete maverick. The 1% however appear to keep their distance. If he loses, he can be ditched by the 1%, blamed for being in collusion with the Russians, blamed for being a racist, and blamed for being crazy. If Trump became too oppressive it would be so easy for the 1% to finance a new liberalism, and recreate the two-party neoliberalism that functions so well for them at the moment.

Trump is a perfect 1%-scapegoat, and I think they will milk him for as long as possible so long as they benefit.

Of course with a Trump-extreme world the 1% might become divided??

<– Previous Post “Oriental” Next Post –>

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Trump Support – Racist or Winnable?

Posted: 13/01/2018 by zandtao in Democracy, Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

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

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

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

Article 23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a pipedream because of 1%-control.

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

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.

Class War Lost!!

Posted: 10/12/2017 by zandtao in Freedom, Struggle
Tags: ,

Boy, have we lost the class war!!!

The 1% are having a field day in the US, look at the tax bill. That is such a big win. And barely a Liberal whimper, just the usual ongoing Liberal bleating.

When did they realise that promoting Liberalism would be so effective?

Post war death of the youth had led to a necessary leftwards move in the UK, becoming the hegemony would have to have great trickle down benefits in the US. But all my adult life I have just seen a worsening of the situation as wealth increasingly accrued to the bourgeois. When I left the UK at the beginning of 93 I lost a continuity with the UK struggle as travel became a way of life. In the UK from 93 the Labour party Blaired and there was the rise of liberalism in the UK, wiki describes it as moving the party to the centre but really it was the rise of liberalism in Labour – new Labour. Until the crash in 2008 and the move to austerity under the Tories.

There was no internet then so I was much less conscious of the US struggle – albeit recognising the hegemony. The presidencies oscillated through to Obama where there was the major rise of US Liberalism. In the US the crash produced the great hope of my lifetime – Occupy, but rather than cementing a change in the worsening situation it fueled a powerful right-wing backlash as the 1% became fearful of being the target of Occupy. Funding of right-wing organisations on the internet proved to be such a powerful move as we can now see globally the impact of this funding with the rise in right-wing organisations and their populist filth.

The key overt characteristic of the Liberal power under Blair and then Obama was the failure to deal with the jobs situation amongst the traditional working-class. Whilst the Republican and Tory homeowners (middle and upper-class voters) tend to ally themselves with the 1% because they think the 1% will have their back, a significant proportion of voters amongst the working-class moved away from the Liberals.

When these working-class people claim the Liberals have taken their jobs there is an element of truth, ostensibly there has been a move from manufacturing and cloth-cap jobs to Liberal employment. The nature of the workforce is changing because of automation where more profit is made in the first world by using machines than expensive human labour. The increase in employment of the Liberal bureaucracies became the target of this working-class anger rather than the source of the problem – the 1%, who throughout my lifetime have vastly increased their wealth. America’s economy has for a long time been based on cheap migrant labour so racism has always been a factor but with the loss of working-class jobs that has also produced a racist backlash.

In the US that focus turned on Obama but the problem with Obama was not the colour of his skin but the failure of his two administrations to address the issue of the loss of white working-class jobs. The failure lay with his promotion of Liberal values whilst ignoring the two issues Liberals always ignore – war and wage-slavery, the two essential platforms of the 1%. Whilst Liberals now bleat about the good times under Obama, the reality is that his time of continuing neoliberalism promoted war and did not address the issue of the changing nature of jobs. And we are paying for it now.

Trump’s populism promotes the racial angle because of his voter-base but his rolling-back of Obama liberal policies is not because of personal racial animosity (that he does have) but because of their limiting the profits of the 1%. Everything he does promotes that interest but the Liberals bleat away. So there is the tortuous public display of Trump’s deplorable behaviour that appeals to his fanbase – the deplorables. And the MAWPs buy into the 1%-lies, lies funded on the internet.

When Trump came to power there seemed a hope that the 1% would not back him because of the instability he causes; they were wary. But the confusion Trump causes enables the 1% to move in and grab. Defunding of liberal agencies and watchdog committees, the tax bill and moves against net neutrality and deregulating Wall Street are in the pipeline.

Meanwhile there is the Trump-orchestrated bleating that is deafening in its silence about the real issue – the increase in 1%-accumulation caused by Trump’s supposed anti-Liberal policies.

A deafening silence about the 1%. Especially just 6 years after Occupy such a deafening silence.

There is no power in Liberalism just the chimeras of intellectual ideals. When the 1% wanted to wipe out Occupy it just happened overnight – no power. Where is the power? In collectivism. But Liberals are not collective animals, they stand up for individual rights or human rights – again ideals. They do not understand or believe in the power of the mass movement – the only threat to the 1%. So in my lifetime with the rise in liberalism there has been a decrease in the only power that has a chance of working against the 1%.

Why am I writing about losing the class war now? There were issues that triggered this understanding. The main one was the tax bill, and the manner in which it was passed – before the vote did we know what was in it? The second is the increase in the acceptance of immorality as characterised by Roy Moore’s upcoming election. And for me the control of free-thinking at universities through Turning Point was frightening. It is clear to me that there has been a coalescing of right-wing forces using Trump as a figure-head since the beginning of his presidency. What began as a voting alliance has now turned into a united right-wing platform. The 1% has seen the confusion caused by Trump, it has not affected their profits especially now with the tax benefits so they can go with it. In the past it was accepted that stability was needed – Theresa May’s sound and stable mantra, but confusion is not affecting their profits so they have allied with Trump.

Why am I also talking about losing the war now? Amongst his supporters are the deplorables, Republicans voting against Liberals, and balance-voters – good people such as MAWPs and some of the “53% white women“, they have got to be thinking of change. Since his election good people have got to be having regrets, however Liberal bleating is maintaining their voting position; there has to be doubts. And overcoming these doubts would be so easy now – the 1% giving jobs. After the gains the 1% have made I have no doubts in the final year of 4 there will be a notable increase in jobs – despite what Trump has said there has not been an increase so far.

So it comes down to brinkmanship, how far can things go before they will stop allying with Trump? Look at the NRA. To maintain their profits they will stop at nothing. The almost unique characteristic of US mass shootings don’t lead to a change in gun laws and control, so the death of Americans does not matter to them – only the death of their own; school shootings do not occur in private schools, they are not politically-motivated. 1%-money funded both sides of the war that grew out of promoting fascism in Germany. Such a war I think is beyond the brink. Civil war in America would be beyond the brink but shooting black people by police is not. Wars in the Middle East are fine by 1%-standards so alienating favoured Muslims by promoting the zionism of Israel through Jerusalem as US capital is also not beyond the brink. Further Middle East war is not beyond the brink; Iran?

Where do we go from here? The traditional understanding of “our idealism is better than yours” is a failure, it is just division. I think the answer lies with compassion and morality. This comes from the deep understanding that we are all one together underneath, and that oneness is compassion. But we are a long way from that compassion. At present the compassionate are divided by their ideologies, and compassion uses ideologies to divide. For example I am a committed socialist as a series of ideals but within socialism there are people who put the ideology first before compassion resulting in the 1917 Soviet revolution. What it produced was better than the Tsar but how much? Communism has at its root compassion but not how it is applied? Capitalism putting profits before people does not have compassion at its root, neither does accumulation to the 1%. With adequate funding it is always possible to find fault and focus on that fault.

Compassion is difficult at times. How do we consider compassion when science tells you that a baby cannot feel until 22 weeks yet US law now says sperm at conception has life. I have compassion for life. Farmers can be compassionate people but actions such as mercy-killing appear without compassion. The issue for me about abortion is the rich (right-wing) telling people what to do, they are not taking responsibility for their actions (as well as the young woman). If a young woman in difficult times cannot look after a child and wants to lose it, then the rich could pay. But forcing the woman to have the child and for it to then become a burden on a burdensome life lacks compassion. The decision-making has to be compassionate, ideology has no solution.

Nothing publicly that is happening now is compassionate. Trump shouts anti-liberal rants, he has power, Liberals bleat back; it is just confrontation – intentionally. Meanwhile 1% are raking it in, and we will pay later. None of this has compassion.


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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

In this model I have described a process of accumulating selves into the modular mind:-

sense experiences, behaviour, memories, perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
</a emotion
</a desire
</a clinging
accumulating to the modular mind.

There is a similar model where we repeat a routine way of thinking:-

sense experiences, behaviour, memories, perceptions, thoughts and ideas.
remember a way of thinking
attach to a way of thinking
cling to a way of thinking
accumulating to the modular mind.

In this way we accumulate selves in our modular minds whether these selves are based on emotions such as racism or more diverse ways of thinking such as applying scientific method appropriately or not.

This process is natural or instinctive, it is the way we learn from birth.

Consider the sex instinct, then the first model clearly applies when we consider sexual attraction. The first attraction in a teenager, there is an emotion which leads to desire, and we learn there is sexual attraction. As a memory we recall the pleasantness of such attractions as in the second model, and this becomes the basis of future sexual interactions. What about mother’s milk, the first model could apply to that but no baby is going to tell us. It would be pedantic to describe such stages but the instinct to feed off the mother could easily fit the model. Then the second model could be considered as the next time the baby feeds – instinct then memory. A baby’s instinct does not contradict the model.

Through these models we internalise a self that becomes the basis of who we are and how we instinctively interact. This process is natural conditioning building up this self.

All our lives we can build up this self in which we accept this instinctive conditioning process. But what happens if we start to question this process? What if we choose to interrupt this instinctive conditioning? As described here the conditioning moment is before we become emotional or here where the moment is before we accept the routine. At some point we recognise that we can step outside the conditioning process, that is the beginning of maturity. At that point in which you recognise the choice of not being conditioned is the point at which a mature life is started to be led.

For this choice to be made, we first have to start to look internally. We have to be able to observe this conditioning process happening, and then with maturity choose when to intercede within the conditioning process.

As we become more mature we control the selves that are accumulated, and then we begin to question those selves that have already accumulated through previous conditioning. We begin to remove the conditioning.

During childhood we accumulate selves through conditioning and as the process develops we begin to develop pattern of selves that becomes who we are. I am the self that is the accumulation of all these selves.

During maturity we begin to unravel all the selves from the I, so we have to ask how do we live if I is just an accumulation of selves. And that is sunnata. When we are born we begin an instinctive conditioning process that is natural. As a result we accumulate these selves that we begin to recognise as I. But when we start to be mature we question the formation of selves, the selves that have already been formed until we remove old conditioning and do not create new conditioning. Then we are in the natural mature state without conditioning in which the guiding hand is sunnata, who we are meant to be. From natural instinct and conditioning to mature anatta:-

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.

Helping the Conditioned

Posted: 04/12/2017 by zandtao in Freedom, ONE planet

When looking to helping the conditioned there are two aspects, first making people aware of their conditioning and second explaining the tools Gaia has given them for dealing with conditioning. Much of my rant was because in all the weeks of discussion neither of these came up because the people weren’t interested – one out of complacency and one who has given up.

There is no doubt that I should not allow myself to get frustrated with people but there is so much to be gained by being free from conditioning and in these weeks of frustration we never got near any of it. A conditioned mind is like a prison, I have no right to say that as I have never been in prison, but when the mind is empty it is free, it is open, it can look outwards, but when it is conditioned it is trapped into responding with knee-jerk reactions such as calling liar on verifiable facts because those facts are uncomfortable.

This first port of call in removing conditioning is looking inwards. If we say there is brainwashing this is not looking inwards, it is an observation. Looking inwards is concerned with grasping the notion of brainwashing, unravelling and letting go of the brainwashing. Without looking in there is still brainwashing, saying there is brainwashing is just a litany – it has no meaning until the mind is applied to unravel and let go. Once that happens there is the elation that is freedom of mind as mind loses all it is impediments, its imprisoning. and opens up to the wonder that comes with being free and open to emptiness.

The removal of conditioning never stops because the conditioning process is always happening unless we become adept at stopping conditioning. Allowing myself to become frustrated was a conditioned response. Being free from conditioning allows the mind to touch the joy that is emptiness.

Being free from conditioning allows the mind to experience compassion, compassion that is at the basis of all caring. It is this compassion that brings with it the understanding of unity, the understanding that we are all together as one, and to see the ludicrousness of our politics that just continues to divide, divide through greed, divide through ideals, divide through the lack of inner journey, divide through apathy and complacency, divide through conditioning.

If this compassion has a downside it is the perpetual duty to help the conditioned when the situation arises. It is not possible for me to stop, and I end up frustrated when the help is rejected. Hence the rant. I know there must be frustration, I accept that. Writing is better. It can be explained, I can pretend there is reading, listening and understanding. I can pretend the conditioned are being helped, are becoming aware of the conditioning that they help themselves.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Mandtao, Matriellez.