Archive for the ‘Freedom’ Category

A Good Experience

Posted: 18/08/2017 in Buddhadasa, Freedom, Meditation
Tags:


I was drowsy last night – in and out of dozing so went to bed early. As to be expected there wasn’t sleep, and I began thinking about detachment from the 5 khandas. This has followed from this Santikaro talk on Ajaan Buddhadasa that, simplified, talks of 4 systems:-

Body
Psyche
Self
Emptiness

At the crux of the first 3 systems are the 5 khandas – discussed in part here. I want to look more at the Psyche and Self systems, and I want to bear in mind the visualisation talked of in the same blogpost. It is most interesting to me why Buddhadasa wanted to choose the word psyche as opposed to mind, and again for me it has an implication that mind is more than psyche.

Before I go on I consider myself Buddhist but much of this is personal. OK I am bouncing off a talk about Ajaan Buddhadasa, a key Buddhist in Thailand – if not mainstream, but I have no suttas or related dogma to back this up. If I thought I was wrong I would not be writing this but it is not mainstream Buddhism – I think.

Let me return to the term “psyche”. I believe Buddhadasa chose the term psyche because it is concerned with the 3 khandas, vedana – feeling, sanna – perception, and sankhara – formations and proliferations. But it is also concerned with that part of consciousness – vinnana (the 5th khanda) which enables us to experience the 4 other khandas of rupa – body, vedana – feeling, sanna – perception, and sankhara – formations and proliferations. But there is a part of vinnana that is more than just consciousness of the other khandas, a part of mind that is more than psyche.

Now how does this relate to self? Anatta, no-self, is a Buddhist tenet, but how can there be no ego, no self? This is where the khandas come in. When you examine the function of ego or self and compare it to the 5 khandas there is no difference, there is no functioning of I that is not a function of the khandas. A human functions as the 5 khandas. So where does I come in? As part of vinnana. There is that part of vinnana which enables the 4 other khandas to experience but through our conditioning we say that I experienced – I felt, I perceived, I thought. But it goes further than this – I become attached to the feeling, I become attached to the perception, and I become attached to the thoughts. These attachments start to build up the I, then through desire we indulge the feelings, through desire we remember and focus on the perceptions, and through desire we concoct proliferations and theories and reasons and theories and reasons and theories and reasons and theories and reasons and theories and reasons and theories and reasons and theories and reasons ….. And this becomes the I that is our ego – our self.

But if we detach from the desire, detach from the excesses, let the feelings, perceptions and thoughts happen without attachment we have the normal functioning of the khandas – and no self.

Let me recap simply the visualisation. In this I was trying to detach from conditioning – detach from the khandas, and once detached there was a part of mind that enabled me to relate to sunnata.

So this brings me to last night. I eventually slept trying to detach from the 5 khandas. I woke up early, and began thinking of vinnana. It was vinnana that transcends, it is a part of vinnana that transcends – that is meant to transcend. By transcending I mean beyond conditioning, that it is part of vinnana that detaches from the conditioning, detaches from the khandas, detaches from the self, and moves to relate to sunnata.

At this point consciousness started to lift from the base of my stomach and move up the body and towards the top of my head – crown chakra. It was a great feeling as this heaviness in my stomach became lighter and lighter as it moved towards the crown. With it came a great sense of freedom. I enjoyed it for a while, consolidated thoughts on vinnana and slept again- too much!

Fascinating – a good experience!!

I need the 5 Gateways people to do some effusion for me! And to counter my framework crit of 5 Gateways Ascension theory, I could be just fitting the experience to the theory – a Buddhadasa 4-system moment. Of course there is no answer to such except .

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Charlottesville – the end?

Posted: 16/08/2017 in Freedom, Struggle
Tags:

This was the most public face of white supremacy since the Trump administration, and in it a protester was murdered. This was a flashpoint that was intentionally uncontrolled, where were the police and military to manage such an obvious clash? For Trump it gave him an opportunity to publicly support white supremacy.

The question with regards to Trump has always been “when will the good people stop supporting him?” When will the white working people who have lost their jobs stop supporting him?

His appeal to these people was that

a) He was against the 1%
b) He would drain the swamp
c) He was against war
d) He would bring back jobs
e) He would make America great again
f) He would make some racism respectable
g) He was anti-Liberal.
h) He was not Hillary.

It appears that d) is working and he has some jobs, this cannot be minimalised. If he gives people jobs, all else could well be forgiven.

But are these people with jobs so selfish they can accept the public spectacle of Charlottesville?

His appointments have meant that the 1% of Wall Street are able through the Goldman Sachs picks to cement their revolving door policies.

His attitude to war has only cemented white supremacy. Bombing Syria, decimating Yemen, MOAB in Afghanistan, confronting North Korea, and creating war in Venezuela. This is an escalation of war – not against war. In the eyes of white supremacy his posturing has made America great again, in the eyes of most people America has just become bellicose.

The good people voting for Trump are just voting to legitimise white supremacy, Charlottesville has just made this apparent. Charlottesville is no accident, it was predictable – it was only a matter of where and when.

I have discussed with a deluded Trump supporter. His attitude was give Trump time. He did not know the Republicans were blocking changes in health care, he did not see the war escalation as mattering. Will Charlottesville matter to him? I doubt it, he is too arrogant and white, and he has been so indoctrinated in his choice of media that he does not know what is happening. He is still a Trump fool.

He is a good man. He will help his neighbours, he is civil to people of colour. But he is a deluded Trump fool, and his arrogance makes him unwilling to change – failure to admit he is wrong??

Following the Trump election radical politics had to question itself. In my own case I produced the Unity Platform, and I learnt about animosity to Liberals – PC police, and how my left-wing radicalism had been lost in the myriad right-wing propaganda – merged with these Liberals. With all that the 1% is doing behind the scenes, this blogpost echoed by Michael Moore, work needs to be done now to remove Trump but this can only happen when the deluded fools see they are promoting white supremacy – and hopefully that matters to them. I know I have worked to understand the changing land but in this recent discussion (mentioned above) my changes were simply met with entrenched position and ignorance – and an arrogance that they were right all along. Left-wing radicalism has to be 99% but it is these fools who have to change. Left-wing radicals can reject the PC-Liberals but there is no room for war and white supremacy. Right-wing populism has to distance itself from the deplorables before there can be 99%, this is not an unreasonable demand.

Unfortunately the deluded fools are unwilling to do that.

And the Democrat party has done nothing but promote Trump. Hillary has not been rejected. Identity politics continues to promote her when for example promoting a woman per se promoted Thatcher. Nothing from the Democrats since the election could signal that white people would be able to find work.

And the Liberal bleating in the media makes me sick because all it is is confrontation and mockery – divisive. To them there is a 99% if we all go to Liberal wine and cheese parties or have brunch. They just carry on bleating that they are correct, and continue the alienation of Trump supporters. They bleat but offer no change. Their bleating is still supporting Hillary. Their bleating is not about war, it is not about wage slavery. It is bleating about a lifestyle that they want, where they have their money and houses, where they can attack Trump and his white supremacists. But their bleating is not about the source of the problem because they benefit from the source – the source is allowing the Liberals their lifestyle. Their ineptitude and reformist greed also contributed to Charlottesville.

What is to be done?

We are the 99% but that cannot mean white supremacy, cowtowing to right-wing intellectuals to oust Trump is self-defeating. Unfortunately we have to live with the consequences, and they could be dire.

They future is bleak whilst good Trump supporters remain arrogant – and whilst Liberals continue to posture.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

This is my 3rd blog on 5 Gateways movie.

It is strange how things happen. I got into discussion with an ex-student – communication friend, and amongst the first things I discussed was what I consider my awakening – nothing as arrogant as an awakening as a Buddha but an awakening. At one point I was sent a fascinating Anonymous clip much of which I agree with, and all I could see was a lack of joy. How could this Anonymous guy say all this without joy?

That took me to the 5 Gateways movie where there is joy, and this elicited tears from someone watching it. I have watched (and slept) with this film a number of times, and feel good about it (proviso (s)).

I have to react to the following. Here are the movie’s initiation stages:- Awakening, Realignment, Transfiguration, Enlightenment, Resurrection. Given all of this what does it mean to me?

Whenever I start questioning myself, it usually means I have been complacent, and complacency usually means less meditation. This is true. My first reaction is to offer my ageing body as an excuse, but whilst it requires more time it is not an excuse – except occasionally.

I am at peace. Whilst I continue to offer my limited dhamma online there is little feedback – perhaps I have been too willing to accept this. This last year writing has blossomed with there being 2 Wai Zandtao books completed and a third half way through. Same issue as my online Dhamma – it is not being read. I am willing to accept this too. I would like to see ever y thing distributed, but am unwilling to pay the publishers’ price for doing that – if I were ever to seek one interested. I have done enough work, and am at peace. But having said that, I have some interest in seeing if there are benefits in helping distribution.

In the movie I love all the effusion about nature, I don’t do effusion. Maybe I should. But nature and I are close now with the house and the sea and the walking – and the birds that want my bananas but run from me. And my tokey friends. Close without effusion.

It is only now that I thought of Ascension as western and I amended the framework blog accordingly. That east-west dilemma has been something I have never been comfortable with, maybe it is just east and west together that we should think about. Eastern religion regularly sends emissaries because they see what is missing. To me what is missing in the West is tradition, the strength that tradition gives you, countering the risks of ego that exist without tradition around you. But the eastern institution can bury the rapture especially if the institutional “experts” have not experienced the rapture.

There is a need to detach from rapture but being detached does not mean not evaluating the rapture for the importance of what it is. And when people ask the dogma which of the jhanas is happening, do the institutions have the answer? Maybe they do, that is for them to answer, but per se an institution does not as an institution does not have experience. Buddhism has the tradition and there are individuals within the tradition to help. It is up to you how you go and look. A question just struck me, can a person be a true Buddhist without having experienced the rapture?

The most important thing about the Buddhism is its focus, it has taught me to focus on what people can control and not to try to get into areas where humans can only speculate. This is the danger of rapture (piti) – trying to control it. Is rapture a goal? I do have to say that at times when I was writing I did try to experience both sides of the muse – the writing and the presence that accompanied it; but it was never presence alone. Never a goal.

Ajaan Buddhadasa’s 4 systems do not seek rapture (see this talk):-

Body
Psyche
Self
Emptiness

Link these systems with the teachings concerning khandas (aggregates). The body and psyche systems are primarily concerned with khandas. We have to have an appropriate relationship with the 5 khandas – not attaching to them. If we don’t attach to them then effectively we have removed the “I and mine from the 5 khandas” (another Buddhadasa phrase), and there is an appropriate lack of ego (or self system) that enables us to relate to sunnata. I am not able to define this but this relationship with sunnata is what connects us to piti but the objective is not piti but sunnata. But we cannot experience sunnata we can experience piti, and we can only experience piti if we have established the conditions of the first three systems. And ironically those conditions are lack of conditioning. In the West that conditioning is oppressive and leads to rapturous experiences as discussed in 5 Gateways. I believe Hindus discuss such rapture as well (see Jim Carrey), but I don’t know Hindu except what is in Buddhism but am not sure of the distinction.

But the conditioning discussed in Buddhism is the same but different – what an appalling sentence. In the West conditioning tends to be discussed as social conditioning – almost indoctrination. It is almost seen as the outer imposing on the inner, and these external factors are considered as education, parents, community, society etc. Whereas the conditioning discussed in Buddhism comes from how we experience the 5 khandas through dependent co-arising, much more of an inner focus.

I often talk of “moving beyond” conditioning but this is not something we control. What we control is removing conditioning, by removing conditioning we open ourselves up to being the emptiness system – open ourselves up to a relationship with sunnata. This phraseology is so dangerous. What is sunnata – emptiness? It is the emptiness that is full, what does that mean? We cannot explain it, yet there is an emptiness system and a meaningful relationship with that system but one that cannot be explained. I said once that during meditation I breathe in emptiness, what does that mean? But doing it helped. Relationship with emptiness or an emptiness system is so fraught with danger.

Is the approach to conditioning helpful in considering rapture? I expand on this without answering. Does western conditioning with its type of oppressive approach encourage rapture when breaking out of the conditioning?

In meditation I worked on a visualisation that might help. To use this visualisation we must first know the 5 khandas:- rupa(body), vedana (feeling), sanna (perceptions/memory), sankhara (mental formations/concocting or proliferations), vinnana (consciousness). Basically Buddhadasa’s first three systems are concerned with understanding the khandas. He uses the word psyche as covering the 4 mental khandas of vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana, and it is my understanding that there is an aspect of mind that is more than these as can be seen by the visualisation.

The first 3 systems are basically covered by the Buddhadasa purpose of Buddhism:- “To remove the I and mine from the 5 Khandas”. The visualisation is based on the seeking of harmony of the first three systems enabling the freed mind to relate to the emptiness system.

The body has to function. It requires healthy food – ideally organic plant-based, any necessary medicine – hopefully natural/herbal, and it requires exercise both physical and energetic, and if done harmoniously rupa is a happy system ready for sunnata. Lack of harmony can be caused by indulging in unhealthy food for taste’s sake, partaking of drugs, and indulging in excessive exercise perhaps for reasons of “body beautiful” etc.

The 4 mental khandas are concerned with harmony of the mind, this perhaps is better understood as non-attachment. The easiest to explain in this way is sankhara. In this world the mind has certain functioning such as reasoning, the mind must apprehend theories in order to understand them (and reject them?). This is a sankhara function. But if we attach to theories, concoct theories, let the mind proliferate here there and everywhere, this is the ego attaching to sankhara and is evidenced in academia (Buddhist and otherwise). Why does academia not have a functioning approach to mind when all people have to do is look inside? Because of sankhara. There is a harmonious relationship with sankhara where the ego is not attached. Similarly there is a harmonious approach to the other three khandas whose functions are harmonious if the ego is not attached to them.

If there is harmony and non-attachment to the 5 khandas, then the body and psyche systems are ready. And of these systems are ready the self system is also likely to be in harmony. In Buddhism there is anatta – no self. There is no function of I and mine that is not covered by the 5 khandas. I grows out of the 5 khandas. If we attach to emotions, memories and theories saying this is who we are, we are attaching to the 5 khandas. Over time this attachment becomes our personalities – I. Letting go of attachment to I, to the 5 khandas, leaves the mind free. Letting go of conditioning leaves the mind free.

And here is where the visualisation comes in. With the 5 khandas in harmony, the body’s food and exercise having been dealt with, the psyche functioning also being in harmony with no attachment to the khandas, no attachment to I, the mind (the rest of the mind that is not psyche) is free. Visualise the mind being free from the khandas, free from I, and that min can expand and soar. That mind can be open to breathing in sunnata, that mind can soar into Unity, that mind can feel unconditional love. It is this freed mind that experiences rapture once mind as a whole is free from conditioning, free from khandas, free from I.

I contend that it is this mind freed from conditioning that experienced during the 5 Gateways, and it is the soul that “ascended”. Mind free from conditioning can experience.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trust the compassionate not the system.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.


This started as a possible response to a letter, hence the quote but moved way beyond that, so it is a blog. Note – Chris McCandless was the young man (in the film “Into the Wild” based on reality) who rejected his upbringing, an interesting film about a young man finding his path.

It is interesting to make contact with people. We (letter?) might well be far apart but what you say still creates sparks within. I reacted to this sentence, and now realise I was reacting to a misread “Chris McCandless could easily have turned to drugs or drink as a way of coping if he stayed in the family constellation whilst simultaneously rejecting it.”. I thought what was said was that Chris McCandless could well have resorted to drugs or drink once on his journey but the misread was that I didn’t remember the family constellation part. I completely agree with that sentence as written. For me once Chris was living in nature on the road hiding in drugs and drink would be the last thing on his mind. So I began asking how did I let it happen, it kind of makes a mockery of the Path that I claimed to be on the Path and yet I became a drunk.

This is well worth analysis, and much of it coincides with the period in my life we have been discussing – my time at Dick Sheppard and before (up to 35). I have always been different from what appears to be “normal” people, but then no-one can know what it is like to be a “normal” person as we can only truly know our own experience. I consider my life until “hitting bottom” as lying dormant inside a body that was running automatically. My adolescent experiences were not something I was involved in; I feel it was self-protection, nature not allowing me to be exposed. My family life was just hiding (for all of us) – television, occasional family trips and sport. It was almost like my father had decided this is what a family should be, and he moulded us into it. I can’t say I felt it as repression but I recall walking for hours around the streets of Sale and around the banks of the Mersey. When I think back to how far I walked it was staggering. Walking was an unconscious escape. If I had been forced to confront the forces, it would have been an almighty conflict. As it is the family all accepted the mould for different reasons, my brother still calls the family dysfunctional but his experience and assessment of it are very different to mine. For a number of years I blamed my upbringing for the depths I sank to at “hitting bottom”, but that was ignorant. How do you blame parents and school for failing to do something that they don’t understand? There were legitimate complaints of a more “traditional” variety but giving me the upbringing to help me develop onto the Path should not be one.

I had the occasional adolescent drink but drink started for me at university. I was there a year early and was young for my age. I was a laughing stock. In the sixth form I had moved towards hippy rejection – no drugs but there was a friend with whom I talked through the night. That must have been sprouting awareness but I recall no content. University drowned all that with booze. People of character drank, those who didn’t drink were boffs – so I drank. I had no friends but hung around with a crowd of drinkers, and they eventually moulded me into a sports (low ability) drunk. I don’t recall any conversations about being drunks, it was what all people of character did. Unlike me however they controlled their behavior when drunk, I drank to get drunk and behave badly. By my postgrad year part of the true me had emerged, and there were long conversations through the night – I was not so often drunk that year, still drank heavily.

After I started work I sought experience through the drink. All the people of character at Scicon (my first job was as a computer analyst/porogrammer) drank, and as it was an office in the West End there was a sense of being where it was at. I blew the work side with a lack of discipline but I showed sufficient ability to my bosses that they hoped I might still be able to contribute. Most significant to the true me was the artist Wendy who took me under her wing (she was working as a typist and ran the in-house magazine) – although at the time I did not see her as important. I was very fortunate to have been at that firm, I still think of them as people of character – not something I would normally say of people in the rat race. I do remember Wendy introducing me to some of her art friends, and I remember an attractive artist telling me I was hiding in my suit. She was right but I am not sure she knew how much.

When the annual salary review showed me that the firm had given up on me, I moved on to a rat race firm that had no character. It was in Sevenoaks, and I was misguidedly persuaded to go there by a Scicon friend. In terms of a job it was the pits, in terms of my development it was the business as I cracked up and hit bottom.

I was at this firm 3 months. I remember the only highlights being to go up West and drink with erstwhile colleagues, and I slowly sank into the crack-up. I was incredibly vulnerable at this time – a month before I cracked up until a month afterwards. I was neither of the “normal” world – making no attempt to conform to the rat race, yet I had not developed the conviction of the Path to be independent of “normality”. I consider that at that time I was extremely vulnerable and might well have been termed “insane”. I rejected normality, could not hold down a job, was a drunk, and had no idea what I was doing. I would not have had the sense not to commit a criminal or insane act. If I had then come across someone in the system assessing me through a lens that did not see what was happening as emerging soul, I could well have had my development completely stunted – even institutionalised. For at least a year after hitting bottom I considered issues of my own sanity and normality, and how I would be accepted, and realised that I had sufficient strength to see myself as sane, and to have a sufficient façade that could fit into “normality”. Because I had the arts people around me accepting soul, I was not isolated, without them enabling me to reject normality it would have been so much harder to grow and develop.

It still frightens me that the system does not have the ability to recognise an “emerging soul”, and I would hope that people in the system with the responsibility for assessing emerging souls would have the integrity to refer such souls to those who accept soul’s existence. “One flew over the cuckoo’s nest” was a movie that rang true to me at the time.

To return to consideration of alcohol, on further reflection I understand better how the alcoholism developed. Unlike Chris McCandless I always sought compromise with the system as my Path ie finding a way of following the Path within the system. And that way is compassion. I understand all the closeness to nature because I felt that, but my compassion drove me to find a way in the system, whilst also finding ways of getting back to nature.

Compassion made me want to relate to people, something which at the time of rejecting society was not always easy. And where had I previously done this? Through the drink. As soon as I got back to London and found a job and somewhere to live I looked for the companionship of a bar. At that time it was just an occasional drink but there was the supposed “friends” that alcohol brought. No doubts at all, for the next year alcohol was concerned with companionship – not drunkenness.

Working in a care home there was a drink culture, and I started to slip into it, this continued through teacher-training year, and by then I avoided examining the incongruity of being on the Path and drinking. Because there were no people on the Path around me (as with the Arts Centre) to encourage me to reject this errant behaviour.

Many teachers used alcohol to control the stress, so starting at Dick Sheppard it was common place to wait until 5.30 to start drinking. Whilst many teachers needed a drink few let it control their lives the way I did. Of course I never saw that because teaching was my Path. And because London was an interesting place for young people, it was often through drink I met them. I even had a year out of drinking when I got spiritual one time – theosophy, but quickly slipped back into the drink when I got disillusioned with them.

When I resigned from DS in 1985 I was actually resigning from teaching, I had become disillusioned with it. DS was a time of teacher development for me. My compassion took me to teaching, and at DS I was trying to rationalise my compassion with what went on there, this compromise being significant in reinforcing my drinking. By 1985 I had decided that any goodwill my compassion created paled into comparison with the lack of education that was happening. I resigned to give up teaching. The Youth Centre magazine then became my life until I fell in love and circumstances took me to Brighton. I then returned to teaching to earn money, and became politically active when the relationship failed until I left for Africa where, in Botswana, I found my vocation again.

I stopped drinking in 1988. Once my relationship took me into teaching again, the relationship and teaching took me to drink, the dominant cause of the drink at the time was the relationship stress. My life then settled just into political activism for a couple of years but I still drank. Stopping was relatively easy and this I attribute to the Path. Stress drinking had become a habit, but the time constraints of the political activism limited the consumption. But teaching, activism and drinking were straining my 36-year-old body. Migraines became more frequent, I went to acupuncture which helped, and then over the week I drowned the help. My acupuncturist said to stop drinking or stop coming. I thought I’d give it a go, I suppose I was embarrassed to be given such an ultimatum. I suffered withdrawal – mainly on Friday nights. After 6 months not drinking was part of my life. However there was no great resurgence of the Path, I dove into politics until semi-exhausted I reduced the politics. There was one novel at the time. And events took me to Africa.

You cannot live in this world with the level of exuberance shown by Chris McCandless. It can be experienced for a while, and then it becomes people trying to recreate the experience. Once over the initial bells and banjoes people on the Path are forced to adopt lives with a certain level of “normalcy” often as teachers of the Path, creatives or recluses.

My back to nature was walking, and my norm was walking holidays or in Brighton out onto the South Downs. Once walking I would regularly evaluate my life in terms of the Path. I remember regular walking during the turmoil of the relationship, and being unable to connect the relationship to the Path; drinking never came up.

I have reached a point in which evaluation is difficult, but I should face it. I have been fortunate to have had a life on the Path, and what have I done with it? Very little. What could I have done? I don’t know. This is a good point to have reached because I am blocked. Have I been complacent? The Path is so wonderful, my achievement is minimal. It just feels like failure.

I remember nothing of the month of emerging from “hitting bottom” except looking into a pub near Xmas and thinking I would like to be having that fun except that it was not real and I didn’t want it – couldn’t have it. But I was up there maybe a month. Where was I?

I do remember the decision. I wanted to work in an office where people were together having fun, that was a decision? London had more going on. I walked into a temp agency, and they forced me into cobol. I had no place to go – just a job interview. And then a Hounslow bnb. Then the job cubicle, the loft room, Chiswick High Street. My first meditation highs. And somehow a reconnection to Wendy.

These are vague memories – not evaluation. Have I been true to my Path? That is not a question because if I was on the Path then I was true. But I was a drunk. And at the end of being a drunk I just taught. When I think about it I haven’t helped Gaia much.

“I have lived and am writing now” comes up, is that enough? No. One of my rationales when drinking was that I needed to get drunk Monday because I had too much energy. Crazy.

You see, I couldn’t answer the question. I went to bed early, sometimes I can just lie there and try to focus (a vague form of meditation), and the answer comes. I fell asleep, and woke after two hours with the weirdest dream, I love dreams like that. I was amongst aliens in human form, and was telling them what earth was like. “I’ll show you how we reproduce.” I took aside one of the sexy aliens and lifted up her skirt, and there was this huge penis draped over where her vagina would have been, with tendrils attaching it all the way up her body. I woke up.

And then came the thought “the Path was a mechanism”. Fascinating. So I thought about my history with the Path. The last time I consciously remember thinking about the Path was out on the South Downs when I was trying to come to terms with the relationship mess I was in. After the relationship I became political – not a spiritual time. It was very important for me to have spent that political time, I learnt a great deal. There is a general spiritual weakness – the failure to integrate the outer. Without that 3 or 4 years of concentrated activism I would not have understood that. Then to Africa where I learnt freedom, was guided to the mid-life review, studying education, then international schools – a step towards the finance of retirement, conversion to Buddhism, and meditation where my guide had meditation to enable control.

So last night my inner guide was telling me “The path was a mechanism”. Fascinating.

How attentive have I been to my guide? That’s not the question. Here is the answer to whatever the question is. I have been so fortunate to have experienced hitting bottom so early with such minimal pain. Having all the potential that finding myself can have, I wasted it with the drink. Once over the drink youthful vitality had gone. I was still learning about life but the youthful energy was gone. My life was mapped out – teaching, a good enough life, but nowhere near spiritual enough given the way the 1%-system controls education. I retired early, and my writing has developed as has my Buddhism. But I have no youthful energy to promote the writing so there is a deep frustration. In truth I only have a desire to write, social involvement has been used up.

So the real answer to the unwritten question is deep frustration at my lack of social impact given my understanding – whatever level that is. But I am now happy writing. Old people write to give back, it’s up to the young to learn from it. That is the way of Nature, do I have anything to offer?

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

click for clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

I am having my car fixed and have three hours to kill.

I continue to be angered by pc attitudes. I have 3 stories, one that happened to me, one that happened near me, and one that I read about, all illustrate self-righteousness, but not only self-righteousness but the right these people feel they have to impose their beliefs on others.

When I was young an ex-friend called me a “right fucker”. It was not meant in a pleasant way, it was meant that I always had to be right. I don’t object to that description although it was not meant as a compliment. I talk about many things in this blog but I always try to tell the truth – be right. This is especially difficult because in this covert political world we live in it is hard to discern the truth. I like to think that where I cannot discern the truth I don’t try to claim that what I say is the truth. I am pretty confident that Assad did not drop the chemical bombs. How would he benefit? Trump wanted to promote jingoism, it would not surprise me if he, or hos strategists – directly or indirectly, instigated the chemical bombing but I would never be able to prove it. So this is not truth but it not intentional lying.

I work hard to varying degrees at truth and in Buddhism truth is predicated on morality. Through meditation I have developed a certain level of insight which has given me a conviction about what I do, about what I say is the truth. I would recommend the practices and moral code associated with the 4 Noble Truths – I would recommend as strongly as I possibly could BUT I would never force anyone to follow them. Even if I was government I would never try to force anyone to do something. The pcbullies feel they have the right to set rules governing all the people at their universities because they have been voted for. OK the voting gives them some rights but demanding such minutiae of social behaviour in my view is censorship and dictatorship. I would argue that their moral code is not as strong as mine because they are so young; they do not have the experience to judge. yet they still feel they can impose.

To the 3 stories. I was in Oman, and parking at a supermarket. I found a space, moved past it, turned the car, and stopped preparing to reverse into the place. It was my view that I had begun the parking manoeuvre. I saw a motor-bike whip past me from the left (I was in a left-hand drive), and cussed the stupidity of these idiots who drive near the knuckle. But he hadn’t driven past, he had nipped into my parking space. I was driving a Pajero and there was no way I could see that he had gone in, having started the manoeuvre it should not have been necessary. Suddenly there was a bang on the back of the 4by4, my truck had hit his bike. Why didn’t he stop me before I hit him?

A policeman came over, and I was explaining that the problem was caused by the reckless driving of the motorbike and that I had started the manoeuvre. But here is the liberal involvement. A white woman came over. I am assuming, I don’t know, that she saw a tall angry white man with an Arab police officer picking on an Asian man. She said that the bike was in the parking place, and that I reversed into him. Whilst he was parked before I hit him, the fact is that he had been “slick” and drove into the parking space after I had started the manoeuvre.

By this time my self-righteousness had completely lost it and I was literally hopping mad with frustration because I had started the manoeuvre and yet this woman said I was at fault. The police officer took a back seat in all this, and effectively allowed the woman to fight the battle. From within my own anger I watched her become entrenched, at the same time I saw fear as I was so angry. Typical liberal attitude – entrenched fear. She came over, interfered when it was not her business, and then gets upset because I was angry with her.

The policeman should have resolved the issue but he stood back and watched white people arguing. In the end when I calmed down the police officer saw my side, I think – nothing said, but asked me if I would pay 20 rials – just over £30 for the damage done to the bike (more than the damage cost). I did so as I didn’t want to get all liberal and righteous in courts etc – with all that expense.

My assessment as to why this was liberalism. In my view the woman had not understood that I had started the manoeuvre, had come over because I was a white male who was angry (and could therefore be an MCP); she wanted to defend the “underdog” Asian – Indian on the motorbike. Did she drive? I did not have the presence of mind to ask. In Oman these motor-bike drivers nipping in and out of traffic were a menace on the roads, I now question whether she did in fact drive. Why didn’t she understand about the manoeuvre, or was she simply too entrenched to listen?

The second incident that I observed was on an overnight bus travelling from London to Manchester – maybe 40 years ago when smoking was not so universally condemned. A person started smoking, and a liberal man stood up and shirtily started to complain about the smoking and grabbed the cigarette out of the smoker’s mouth – he was quite obnoxious about it. A black man in front of me soon after started smoking, and the liberal stood up presumably to act in a similar way. The black man simply said to just try it. I didn’t want the black guy to smoke but I almost cheered the way he put this obnoxious self-righteous man down. Cowardly liberalism again.

Finally a story where the consequences of interfering liberalism mattered – in the above instances the liberalism was only irritating. It happened somewhere in Scotland, maybe 20 years ago. A man’s young daughter, maybe 8 years old, had been having trouble with her teeth for days, had been complaining so the father eventually took her to the dentist. When she got to the surgery she refused to go in; eventually he spanked her and she went in. I am not condoning the father’s actions but he was her father and it was his right to resolve the situation as he saw fit; so I accept what he did – I would not have interfered. However the dental receptionist liberal did not, she phoned the police and reported an assault. Because the matter had been reported the police by their code of practice (again a liberal imposition) were forced to respond, came to the surgery and arrested the father. He was imprisoned overnight.

Part of the reason the father had taken the girl to the dentist was because it was Xmas Eve and he didn’t want his daughter moaning all through Xmas – spoiling Xmas everyone. Because of the liberal receptionist – who takes no further part in the impact of her interfering actions, a family was divided over Xmas because the father was in prison overnight.

It turns out the father was a teacher and because he was involved in a case of child abuse the headteacher could not risk the father being in the classroom – in case of liberal parents complaining, so he was not allowed to teach. He was pushed into being the school librarian – and I have a feeling his livelihood was further threatened but I cannot remember the details. The following June the case appeared in court, and because the father had assaulted the daughter he was found guilty and the judge fined him a £1. What devastation was caused in that family because of the interference of the liberal receptionist.

The characteristic of all this liberalism was that they wish to interfere and impose their values on others. I personally have not met any liberals who are clear-minded and who have thought through the implications of their thinking – their liberal thinking stops at emotionally accepting a human right. But then I disagree with them so I wouldn’t think they were clear-minded. I have no doubts that they are community-minded, and for that reason should be commended. But being community-minded is not the same as interfering and imposing their values on others without responsibility or consequence. Such liberals are not famous for standing up in court as witnesses against violent criminals. I have done that and it is not pleasant, and it affects your life. In my view this type of liberal walks away from such. They will impose when they are in charge, in other words they are bullies – liberal or PC bullies, the violence of the state forces supporting them.

Does that make them any better than other forms of bullies? Such as racists or sexists. Well it does to some extent. Abuse against women or children (not parental punishment) is worse than liberal interference. But such interference has consequences as in the case of the father at the dentist, and the liberal did not face any of that with her interference. It reminds me of the abortion argument. Rich US right-wing Christians demand that poor people give birth into a life of poverty and sometimes ill health when they have the money to prevent both, but they feel they have the right to interfere.

We have to respect the rights of individuals and not impose liberal values (ill thought out in my view) on other people.

It is this self-righteousness that the MIC manipulates to cause war and therefore profit. Liberals have been condemning Donald Trump especially since he became president. But then he drops bombs and the liberals support that, where is the compassion in the dropping of bombs? Liberal mainstream media (such as Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, John Oliver) has been condemning Donald Trump for lies – or alternative truths, yet they don’t question whether the chemical attacks are from Assad – an assumption that has no logical basis. How much do these liberals know about Syria? Are they informed enough to make a valid conclusion? I am not. What about the “mother of all bombs”? Are they informed about that? And North Korea? They say Trump lies but when it comes to war he doesn’t?

For me this is typical of ill-thought-out liberal thinking. There is an element of emotional compassion but it is superficial – poor babies. Their fear dominates their thought processes. The establishment pronounces there is a threat from radical Islam. Afghanistan, North Korea, and instead of questioning and the demanding of accountability as to the validity of such actions the fear of these liberals allows for unwarranted acts of war (in my view). As usual the MIC gets its profits, and in this case some say Trump has personally profited – I don’t know but I assess it would be possible of such a man.

And with all of this so many people have now been convinced that such people are left-wing!!

This is always worth watching, it is about Occupy – “Rise like Lions”:-



How have we gone from this position of collective unity to a world of authoritarianism and rising fascism under Trump (and Brexit)? Here is a Unity Platform as one possible way forward. We must seek Unity not division – we are the 99%.

If I am seeking Unity why do I make such a scathing attack on liberalism, surely I want also to unite with these Liberals. The problem is they are so divisive. Firstly their self-righteousness is arrogant. On an individual and global level they interfere because of this arrogance. Secondly they are not analytical. Whilst their approach has a superficial basis in compassion – anti-racist, anti-sexist and pro-LBGT as well as human rights – their fear does not allow them to progress beyond this superficial emotionality. In terms of feminism Bell Hooks described two types of feminism – reformist and revolutionary (non-violent hopefully). Reformism means working within the system, and in general this system known as neoliberalism has proven not to work. The 1% are not going to relinquish their power easily, and a touch of arrogant self-righteousness is not going to produce the change. The fear of these liberals turns a blind eye on the systemic problems such as the profligate wars for profits as evidenced by the support for Donald Trump’s acts of war. So whilst there is Unity with the ideals of these people the arrogant self-righteousness is divisive. This can be evidenced by the stance of US liberal media (Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and John Oliver) who throughout the election attacked Donald Trump, and now continue to attack him on party lines – they could be seen as humorous party political broadcasts. Yet quite clearly there is support against the Liberals as evidenced by the presidential vote. These satirical programmes which were once of a flavour that was left-wing and progressive are now a pillar of the mainstream media, and as such are causing division because they are not part of a movement against the 1%.

My personal aggression towards these liberals is based on personal experience, and also because their superficial approach has enabled the right to attack left-wing principle by identifying liberalism with the left-wing. Historically on the left genuine socialists have worked within the mass movement such as Labour in the UK and Democrats in the US but now the character of these mass movement parties has changed. They have become Liberal establishment rather than moving towards genuine socialism. Whilst movements such as Momentum surrounding Corbyn and Our Revolution around Sanders are movements that genuine socialism can unite behind, the character of these movements has to be firmly based in anti-1% positions with their wars for profit and this character has to eschew the liberalism that alienates the genuine working-class perspective. How can a working-class perspective ignore the legitimate claims of white working people who have lost their jobs? How can these white people be ignored because they may or may not be racist or sexist? Yet these Liberals did, and continue to do so if Liberal media is anything to go by. Liberal positions might sound acceptable with their compassionate rhetoric but the Liberal fear concerning their materialism and way of life prevents them from targeting the 1% who use their Liberal fear.

Liberalism is divisive, and as such it needs to be attacked for what it is – effective 1%-support. These Liberals need to identify themselves with the 99% and stop allowing their fear to be manipulated by the 1% to divide the 99%.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

Trevor Phillips

Posted: 11/03/2017 in Freedom, ONE planet, Struggle

Once I saw Trevor Phillips “Has Politically Correctness gone mad?”, I watched more. There were flags, and then …. In the intro to political correctness he spoke of losing out on 3 extremists, Brexit May and Corbyn; that was a flag he saw Corbyn as extremist. He spoke often of being the liberal that people like Farage are against so “being liberal” was a flag. When I watched “Things about race etc”, I was pleased to see him raising issues that Liberals don’t usually discuss. Things were going well.

I did however note his discussion of Jews, and he brazenly put up J ……

Yes some Jews do have too much power because some Jews are very rich and powerful. But at the same time some Jews are not rich and powerful, and attack their own “rich and powerful”. He did say they were richer on average but that still does not mean all Jews are the same. Trevor criticised people who said “All blacks are the same”, further discussed diversity training as suggesting erroneously “All whites are the same”, yet he is saying all Jews are the same – rich and powerful. I learnt from black people how not to be racist, because black people should be treated differently and I should not accept media stereotypes. I learnt from Jews through the 6 tenets how not to be anti-semitic, Trevor needs to examine himself in terms of these 6 tenets.

It is not usual for me to describe black people as racist. I subscribe to the maxim that Power + Prejudice = Racism, but in the world of the liberal elite Trevor Phillips has power so he has the potential for misuse of power. In describing the Jews in this way he is being racist, because he has the power to influence. This was a bad flag. When you talk about “all” in terms of race then you take a risk because all black people are not the same nor are whites nor are Jews. I understand this position on Jews, it is common amongst liberals and the left because some Jews are powerful – are 1%. I have to recognise ego in this.

I was also disappointed that he did not confront some black issues. When he addressed the violence of black youth he was extremely careful not to offend black people. This negates the whole point of his programme – to expose the racism that is propagated by liberals avoiding causing offence. At first he used police figures to say that Colombians controlled violent street crime in South London. In the 80s word said it was the Jews in Camberwell who were controlling the street crime because they were supposed to have bought the stolen goods. Then when he discussed the actual figures of violent street crime, Trevor used the sentencing figures rather than stating that black youth were carrying out violent street crime. This was liberal avoidance. There are many institutional issues involved with the criminalising of black youth but how much is there a propensity for black British to be involved in street crime? I cannot answer this as I don’t live there now. In the 80s all the arguments concerning the criminalising of black youth by institutional racism, police racism and the general racism in society were true, but some of the black youth themselves still choose to participate in street violence. In my view Trevor is completely correct in confronting the liberal avoidance embodied in political correctness but in doing this his approach has to be almost perfect – above criticism; again in my view on these two issues his approach has to be questioned.

But the above is nothing compared to what he came out with concerning Muslims – “What British Muslims really think”, I was horrified. After seeing so much good stuff about exposing PC bullies it was a surprise. But in the context of the above flags it is not a surprise, a black person can show prejudice. In my view he also showed typical liberal weaknesses. He criticised violence yet ignored the violence perpetrated on Muslim countries. He focussed on criticisms of homosexuality – a liberal issue, he concentrated on Muslim minority views, and he also criticised the Muslims because of a small percentage of violent views.

He began by quoting Cameron talking about British values, this is well-established code for racists who insist that others adopt a British way of life – whatever that is. It is not an appeal for what non-whites should do but trying to appease white people with having non-whites in the country. Gina Yashere in a comedy routine talks of the anger of her Nigerian mother at immigrants coming taking her jobs. Rather than being an advert for diversity Trevor appears to be adopting Gina’s comic caricature.

To me there is a good deal of inconsistency in his position. I mentioned already that Trevor was “around” when I was learning about racism in the mid-to-late 70s. I am now going to make a comparison between black activists in the 70s and Trevor’s criticism of Muslims. This is a subjective comparison. As this is not an academic blog I offer no proof, and I am making assumptions that the position of black activists I am putting forward is the same position Trevor held at the time – I have no right to do this but I don’t believe I am wrong. My point is this. I believe that many of the criticisms that Trevor has of Muslims parallel criticism of 70s and 80s attitudes towards black people. I assess that he and many people consider that black people have sufficiently integrated now, so by drawing the comparison I am saying “give it time”.

I first want to begin with the issue of terrorism. Evidently there are some British Muslims involved in what the world calls terrorism – as defined by the West in their War on Terror. In the 70s and 80s black people were supporting violence. This would be the violence in which black people were overthrowing the British (or European) colonialists, this would also be the violence of the slaves in terms of their suffrage. There would also be many black people who would be supporting struggles against the neocolonial puppets who were in charge throughout Africa, freedom movements or freedom struggles would be common descriptions.

In Trevor’s programme on “What British Muslims really think?”, he based his criticisms on a Channel 4 survey. The survey asked whether Muslims supported violence, and the answer was 4% did. In the 70s and 80s if black people had been asked if they supported violence, I would suspect far more than 4% supported violence; and many more would have said they understand the use of violence – such as the criminalising of black youth.

In the 70s and 80s the recent history of black people had been affected by the violence of colonialism, and their response at the time would have been to accept that violence could be a legitimate response. The degree of violence that Muslim people have been subjected to since 9/11 is comparable to the violence that black people suffered – I use the word comparable loosely because measuring the violence that black people suffered through slavery as well as colonialism as compared with wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Somalia and Yemen are horrendous events to try to “compare”. But the violent attacks on these predominantly Muslim parts of the world are “recent”, and therefore feelings amongst Muslims would also be “recent” – comparable with the acceptance of violence by British black communities in the 70s and 80s.

But Trevor did not attack support for violence, the survey discussed the acceptance of violence but Trevor jumped to interpreting the survey’s acceptance of violence as accepting terrorism. This is a big jump. British governments might well have described the freedom struggles of the African peoples as terrorist, history now sees such struggles as legitimate, and because of white control of media little mention is given of the true nature of colonialism and neocolonialism.

If Muslims feel that violence is a possible response to dictatorship in the Middle East, or if Muslims feel violence is a possible response to wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, or if Muslims believe that violence is a possible response to the drone strikes on Yemen and Somalia, this would be totally consistent with history’s support of freedom struggles in Africa – totally consistent with any black support of violence in their freedom struggles.

But support of freedom struggles is not support of terrorist acts. If the survey had asked “do you support acts of terrorism such as 7/7 or the other bombs within the countries of the NATO hegemony?”, I very much doubt whether the figure would have been as high as 4%. When NATO troops invade Muslim countries for whatever reason, isn’t violence a legitimate response to invasion?

To me Trevor appears to have forgotten his history.

Over the years I suggest that British black attitude to violence has become aligned with the “general” population, and there is no reason to think that British Muslims would not also align themselves as they become distanced from their recent history of experiencing violence.

On homosexuality there is an interesting article in the Guardian on its practise in Muslim countries. When I worked in the Middle East (Muslim Arab countries) I had the feeling – no more than that – that homosexuality was tolerated in those Muslim countries. However there are other Muslim countries where the attitude to homosexuality is so different. I surmise that the attitude of the Taliban towards homosexuality would be very different to that of more tolerant Muslims in the Middle East. Traditionally black communities have not been tolerant of homosexuality, and some African countries to this day show intolerance – Uganda and others. However over the years this intolerance by black people in Britain has liberalised, and has aligned more to that of white people. It would not be unreasonable to expect British Muslims also to align themselves with the more liberal attitudes that are accepted “generally” in the wider population.

On segregation Trevor is again fanning flames. When I grew up white middle-class lived separately from white working-class, and held different values. In the middle-class community of my youth it was not written but understood that these classes were separate, and bringing home a working-class girl was almost as bad as a black woman. Separation is not a problem, and is normal for British life. How many people have been invited to the home of a lord?

This is also inflammatory. If this was going to be used as an indicator of Muslims creating problems through segregation, it would have been an appropriate comparison to ask now how many white people have been in black homes. Back in the 70s and 80s it was just as rare for black and white to meet outside work – sunset segregation. Equally it was rare for Indians and whites to meet outside work. Again my point is that it is not Muslims creating this issue.

How many white people invite Muslims into their homes? If such an invite occurs, how many Muslims have not reciprocated? I have only known Arab Muslims, and not in Britain, they were hospitable but I was never invited into their parents’ home because I was a lowly teacher. Back in the 70s and 80s I was in and out of black peoples’ homes but that was because my personal life involved black people but I doubt very much whether there was anything other than sunset segregation for most of the teachers. I also think it significant that white culture accepts drinking, but on drinking Muslim culture is better (not dependent on drugs) as it is expected that people abstain. Much sunset socialising is done in pubs after work, I don’t know whether Muslims would join in – I know how uncomfortable I feel when I watch friends deliberately moronicise themselves when drinking.

Separate schools for Muslims is always considered a segregation issue yet back in the 70s and 80s British black people advocated supplementary schools. If black people are now considered integrated such an advocacy hasn’t hurt.

In the late 70s and early 80s I taught in Brixton, and also taught part-time at Gresham. This was a black only school, and it was a tradition that came over from the Caribbean where black children were additionally taught in supplementary schools. These supplementary schools were especially important for black students because teacher expectation in mainstream schools, amongst other factors, was lowering their achievement. Bernard Coard’s book “How the West Indian child is made educationally sub-normal in the British school system” was typical of black viewpoints at the time. It was written in the early 70s, and is discussed here in the Guardian 10 years ago, and here.

This separate schooling was part of a Caribbean tradition of “Saturday schools” (supplementary schools) to promote their cultural interests, and to avoid the institutional racism that existed in schools.

What is wrong with Muslims wanting separate schooling now? In fact it could be considered that the issue is worse for Muslims because of the War on Terror which has been turned into a powerful Islamophobic movement across the world. This probably means that the anti-Muslim racism is far worse in schools; when I taught in the UK in 2003/2004 there was a serious tension regarding Islamic students. It must be worse when teachers are expected to report on potential “student-terrorists”.

In general Trevor confronts liberal weaknesses, this is positive. I have observed certain characteristics, this is not all liberals but these characteristics can be seen. Some Liberals I have known have not overcome their own racism, they do not have a deep commitment to equal rights and tolerance. There is a level at which their commitment turns to fear. Typically Liberals welcome black people who subscribe to their same Liberal views, would welcome black people in their parties etc., but they are still afraid of meeting a black man on the street. This is not all Liberals, and it might be a bit dated as a scenario but it illustrates liberalism. There is not a commitment to black culture – whatever that is, there is not a deep tolerance but if black people want to behave the same liberal way (Cameron’s British values) they will be welcomed. This liberal fear is significant because such liberals are afraid to face themselves, they don’t want the depth of their commitment to be questioned. It is similar to the difference between intellect and insight, there is intellectual acceptance when there is agreement but there is not the insight that is committed to accepting difference. In this Trevor is the same because he cannot accept the illiberality of Muslim dogma.

What is this iliberality? The usual traditional Muslim bugbears – anti-gay, women walking behind men, etc. Let me be clear I dislike those attitudes, as a compassionate man I cannot accept such. But I completely accept the right for communities within any country to have such values, and so long as they comply with the laws of the country there is no conflict. There are conflicts that arise with such communities within a liberal country. When traditional Muslim children attend Liberal schools such conflicts are exposed. Liberal education would expose such traditions, but so long as such conflicts are resolved within the community there is no issue. In many ways there is a requirement of such communities to live separately in order to maintain their Muslim identity, no problem with this.

As a leading Liberal I would have hoped Trevor would have stood up against Islamophobia but his programme propagated it disgracefully. My Google search showed only the right wing press commenting on his efforts, did he achieve his objective in questioning liberal attitudes? Perhaps not if he was fostering Islamophobia and antisemitism. Confronting liberal prejudice is a noble aim but is no excuse for prejudice – overall disappointment.

To consider Trevor Phillips’ contribution it is useful to consider the old maxim

Prejudice + Power = Racism

Back in the 70s/80s many black people would use the word “honky” to speak derogatorily of white people. As a result white people would say black people were racist. But there was a big difference, these people dishing out this insult had no power. White people controlled jobs, housing – basically the money black people could receive, so when white people applied their prejudice it had an effect; being called a honky qualifies under “sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me”. What I want to get at here is that because Trevor is black does not mean that he is free from prejudice. With regards to Jews and Muslims Trevor has shown prejudice, but worse because he has some power his poor attitude has impact. I welcome Trevor’s opening up of liberal weakness – weakness that means issues are not faced. In my view it is this weakness that has created PC madness, and the resulting alienation of so many white people. But because Trevor has shown his own prejudice, such questioning will have had its impact lessened.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.

In my desire to understand Trump and the right I came across this libertarian piece. Now I have a lot of time for libertarians because I consider them genuine people who hold freedom with high regard. I too hold freedom with high regard but I hold compassion higher. The main area in which I therefore have disagreement is deregulation, there are regulations in place to benefit the less fortunate – I want those. There were financial regulations in place that when removed led to repossession of homes, I wanted those regulations. Because of the nature of the world today libertarians working for freedom enable the 1% because they remove restrictions that hold back the 1%. But of course most regulation benefits the 1%, and I understand where libertarians come from.

There is an interesting libertarian article on individualism vs collectivism. Now I believe in collectivism and it is a very frustrating principle to hold. Because of this acceptance of collectivism I wanted to counter some of the arguments made by this libertarian because as I see it what he is describing as collectivism is his libertarian view of collectivism.

My history with collectivism has been involved with democratic meetings on the left where a policy is decided through putting forward a motion which is then debated and a collective policy agreed. Quite often attendees at such meetings are representatives and such policies have wider implications. In such debates positions are put forward, and a compromise position is agreed and there was some intention that all those involved in such a process (including those represented) would enact the policy.

This form of democracy has been accepted on the Left, and is the basis of government for many western-style electoral democracies. But it is full of holes and has been manipulated by the 1% to the detriment of ordinary people. Occupy exposed one such hole, that of manipulating the representatives. Occupy said “fix the system”. The system asked “what do you want fixed?”, and Occupy said “the system”. Previously a set of objectives might have been setup, the system would have offered token measures, both sides could pretend victory and the system would remain broken. The system did nothing for Occupy because the 1%-system is not broken – it is working for the 1%; only it is broken for the 99%. Occupy never allowed themselves to be manipulated by having representatives who then became vulnerable to intimidation or bribery. They said discuss with us all, and this never happened. Having been a representative I represented many, and in negotiations with management I was often in meetings as a minority of one. A manipulated system.

In Occupy they never had voting either, what is the point of a policy voted in by 51%? How can that work? Look at everyone fighting Trump yet under the rules of the election he won. Is he still representing a majority? Occupy wanted a consensus for what it did. Under Occupy’s approach we would not accept “wars for profits” as there would never be a consensus. But such wars happen now because sufficient representatives are bought off.

The manipulation that occurred on the left happened because of intellectual egotism. Various intellectuals (Marxist of a form) would disrupt collective decision-making by repeatedly demanding that a particular position be discussed and voted in. There was no desire on the part of these intellectuals to reach a consensus of what the collective wanted, it was always what they wanted. They did not wish to compromise with what the mass movement wanted, they just wanted to drag the mass movement to their position. The Russian revolution would never have happened if the revolutionaries had waited for the mass movement so the left wing accepted a minority group, the Bolsheviks, because the left wing desired a revolution. This flaw dogged the whole revolution and the communist government (who accepted minority representation who then told people what to do) until it eventually fell.

What has become clear to me is that all the desires that I had for mass movement were so dominated by the ideal that the practise was completely flawed. The notion that the mass movement can be persuaded to accept a genuine democracy is never going to happen because of the power of the 1% to create division. As such there has to be a compromise. Equally I would say to those people who are genuine and compassionate on the right – such as libertarians, they also cannot make a dent in the 1% on their own; there has to be unity (see Unity Platform).

Until the rise of the populist right, as evidenced by Trump and Brexit, I had dismissed the intellectuals of the right as just being egotists. However that position was myopic – a convenient dismissal to avoid headbanging discussion. There could never be a united 99% until all 99% are working together – and that includes some kind of unity that would involve the left and right.

Before I deal with individualism and collectivism it is important to understand a huge stumbling block. This stumbling block I met on the left and on the right – and I am guilty of it myself – egotism. I am right, what I am saying is right¸ my ideas are the ones everyone should follow. Even if those ideas have some strength in numbers such as Marxism or Libertarianism, they are still just sets of ideas put forward by individuals. These individuals become invested in the ideas, and there becomes this idea set or ism that everyone has to squeeze into. Libertarians demand that all seek individual freedom, however free this sounds it is still an idea set that others must squeeze into – in other words, not free and not individual. Egotism has always been a problem on the left and it is a problem on the right. And the problem with such egotism is that it is so easy to buy off. The internet is full of individuals who are sponsored by the 1% to promote their egos and ideas. And what is the result – deep division of the 99%. These egos need to understand how deeply they are the problem because of their leadership, and learn to take a backseat. But the collective instead of following leaders needs to respect their own creativity and understanding, and come to their own conclusions based on understanding provided by leaders. Following per se needs to be discouraged because it creates two problems – ignorance of the followers and egotism in the leaders. Individuals need to be discerning and work within collectives, and the collective needs to be more active in their understanding and respect the individual; this is the yin-yang.

Now I want to look at this libertarian’s view of individualism and collectivity. And to do that I want to set two provisos:-

The priority is compassion and not freedom. I contend compassion is natural (ask the Buddha) whereas freedom to do what you want is not natural – not when it infringes on the natural. Freedom per se risks egotism. Freedom at a deep level is only compassion but more superficially desire diverts freedom to egotism, and needs discipline – personal or otherwise.

The second proviso is to recognise that government and collectivism is not now the same. Originally government “might” have been for the people and by the people, but it is now not that – it is 1%-by-proxy. The voting systems and other checks and balances have established a government that often pretends to be for the people but in fact benefits the 1%. If the individual contrast with government that is not the individual contrasting with collectivism as government is now not for the people. If the individual is contrasting with collectivism then that individualism might be putting the individual before compassion and as such is contradicting the first proviso and is exhibiting egotism.

So now to the article.

Free trade as a principle is not a problem, but how it is practised today is there to benefit the 1%. If trade is considered as barter or using money to represent value, there are no issues. But our economic system with a tenet of free trade does not happen in this way. Our economy is dominated by the 1% whose raison d’etre is to accumulate – increase their personal wealth. This accumulation is carried out by controlling trade through cartels, imposing tariffs to the benefit of the 1%, manipulating currency and finance to increase their accumulation. None of this trade is free, so although it is called free trade it is protectionism and protectionism is the dominant mode of business in the western world – because it is the 1%-system. Deregulation is one of the libertarian platforms. It sounds good in that it sounds as if it is supporting freedom. Because the power lies with protectionism, that is the system that would continue when there is some partial financial and trade deregulations; this will only benefit the 1%. Hence some deregulatory measures or partial deregulation lack compassion. Free trade as in an equivalent barter system is a compassionate trading system but that will not occur when there are corporations and protectionism.

Western societies have benefitted from exploiting the third world initially through European (mainly British) colonisations that then became neocolonial exploitation through a US hegemony. This is historical fact, and needs to be recognised for a proper contemporary economic understanding. Education needs to change to be telling this historical truth. But this is not the same as “imposing” diversity training. For there to be compassion in the US or other places there needs to be recognition of equality for all its peoples including whites – compassion. Privilege wherever it occurs needs to be discouraged as it is encouraging benefits for people who do not deserve them. Within a proper historical understanding some might choose “reparations”, this happens in Australia to some extent because of expropriation of aboriginal lands unfairly; is this not justice? Would it not be justice for Native Americans? Should there be justice for people whose ancestors were enslaved? These are difficult questions, and there should not be a carte blanche solution. Should a wealthy black business owner get reparations? Should there be gratuities paid to black gangs to further their criminal activity? Compassion and justice should deal with these questions but it is my view that if there were a wider sense of justice in society such claims for reparations might well disappear. When there is little compassion and justice unreasonable demands can emerge. “I can see how the leftist race activists have created such an environment of hostility and even violence toward white people, based on collectivism and ignorance,” This is just emotive. I have no understanding as to how awareness of history or issues of justice concerning black people can possibly be ignorance, and what has it to do with collectivism? The writer himself was not afraid of minority white America, why was such a statement necessary except as an appeal to populism?

Health care is a compassionate right for all. When a requirement for health care is insurance then insurance should include finance for “pre-existing conditions”. But a compassionate society that is working for all would provide health care rather than seeing health care as a business. The US health and insurance system needs to be radically reconsidered in the light of showing compassion to its people. Defending insurance practices is not defending the compassionate interests of the health of the people. Supporting insurance companies against the interests of the people whose freedom is being limited by health issues and corporate interests (insurance) does not sound like a freedom principle. Maternity leave – do we return to the days when a woman forcibly loses her job because she has a child? Do we return to the days where women were not employed because they might have to leave and have children? Obviously there lacks compassion in this position. Having children is natural, should a woman’s freedom be restricted in not employing her? This is not collectivist, this is compassion and respect for nature.

Trade agreements are part and parcel of the “free trade” practise that is protectionism. To adopt a position that says hands-off some protectionist practises whilst leaving others in place plays into the hands of the 1% who would benefit from such apparent “free trade” practises. The current economic practise benefits the 1% in corporations and lacks compassion. Once trading is compassionate, when protectionism at all levels has disappeared regulations need not occur. Setting deregulation as an objective without putting compassion at the forefront is a dangerous policy. Disband cartels, remove market mechanisms, remove the money manipulators, then you have free trade. But the 1% will not allow that. The free trade they want is trading without restrictive regulation maintaining existing cartel mechanisms, because they have accumulated money and will control the economy further to the detriment of ordinary people – no compassion. Eminent domain needs to be considered on an individual level based on compassion, the pipelines are disastrous ecologically and should not be allowed.

Taxation has to be considered historically. Taxation was introduced by the British in Africa because they couldn’t get anyone to work for them as the people were trading through barter. Once the people were taxed they got the workers, built the infrastructure that enabled the businesses to make profits. Will businesses accept infrastructure costs, environmental costs as part of production costs? Should a compassionate society not care for those who are unable to care for themselves? Should a compassionate society not educate poorer people? Complaining about taxes as a principle is a compassionless act. Examining taxation expenditure is common sense. Why do our taxes pay military businesses huge amounts of taxation money for wars that increase their profits, do not defend democracy, kill people and damage the ecology? Yikes, no taxes as a position lacks compassion, and puts principle before people.

When he talks of human rights and presumption of innocence he is talking compassionately and I have no issues. However he seems to associate disagreement with him on these human rights issues as collectivism. It is compassion, it might be called collective compassion – compassion for all. Individual human rights have to be respected; at the same time compassion for others has to be respected. There can be no principle here, if there is a conflict the matter has to be resolved through communication and justice.

Two paragraphs on immigration. Firstly criminal acts should be punished whoever you are – rich or poor. Small business people being arrested because they employ illegal immigrants is more difficult. If a principle is established that immigration is illegal then business people who benefit from illegality need to be punished, the immigrants come because they are looking for work. Because of the policies of the US hegemony as a whole, the US is rich and becomes a place where immigrants want to work. A more equal world means there is no such problem. People should be protected from inequities in the law. Of course these business people should be paying equal wages, do they? If they were I would want to defend them. Most pay exploitative wages taking advantage of the people whose poverty has turned them into criminals, I have far less sympathy with them because there is no compassion. Again principles other than compassion present a problem, people should not be free to exploit.

Why is blocking people entering the US collectivist? It is certainly against the freedom of an individual but why collectivism? It is protectionist, it is protecting the indigenous people (by this I mean the people of the US) by preventing people from entering and possibly competing on the job market. It is not compassionate, and if “blocking” is collectivism then it is against compassion, and I don’t support such “blocking”. But this is not in the interest of the mass movement although I must admit that in my years working with trade unions their policies were interested in such protectionist measures – something I fought against. I can understand this as a collective measure against the interests of the individual (the immigrants). But for me this was a small part of what mass movement politics was about, but I have to accept it was a weakness in many trade unions . My mass movement is the 99%, and I fight the interests of the 1%. Such protectionism is part of 1% divide-and-rule tactics, and is not part of any Unity of the 99%. To apply the sophistry of US territory as a property is just another form of protectionism.

“Collectivism is a bad thing” seems to me to be “inventing” an enemy leading to “the individual against the collective”. Applying such a paradigm tends to make compassion confusing, because there is collective compassion and individual compassion. It is the very paradigm, and the clinging to that paradigm that causes libertarians to be in conflict with what is happening. It is not the heart of these people who I believe think that the application of their paradigm would benefit all humanity. In the meanwhile compassion suffers as in the interim people will suffer.

The same benchmark of compassion can be applied to socialism and the paradigm that creates. When you have a dogma and apply that dogma, people suffer. Was the Soviet revolution acceptable when so many suffered even though theoretically in the long-term Marxism could benefit all? You cannot put theory before compassion so any libertarian measures in my view need to be placed in a pragmatic compassionate framework. What are the results of the actions? Not do the actions because they have a sound theoretical basis – freedom. This is a 1%-world, and freedom in such a world cannot be attained when 1%-governments are applying it. To describe the problem as collectivism, the individual against the collective, is a diversion against compassion.

But if we accept a Unity platform against the 1%, morally and compassionately all people should be included if they can leave personal egos behind.

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

Blogs:- Ginsukapaapdee, Matriellez.